Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

[bripat9643]

Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Madison as well as Hamilton believed the nation needed a strong and more powerful central government than had previously existed. Federalist papers?

So why are people who are hostile to regulation like the Federalist Society always claiming to be the heirs of the traditions and ideals of Madison and Hamilton as well as claiming them as their inspiration and role models?

I understand the clueless, ill-educated here and elsewhere on the web making such ridiculous and absurd errors, but...

Like it's news here, you are a total dunce. "Well regulated" does not mean larded over with government regulations.
/Fail.

Dayum..Rabbi. It's like you've never read the whole thing!

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I've posted the meaning of the term "commerce" as it was used in the 18th century. It does not mean "all economic activity."

102RP6

The U.S. Supreme Court, in recent cases, has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce" in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense. In every appearance where the context suggests a specific usage, the narrow meaning is always employed. Moreover, originalist evidence of the meaning of "among the several States" and "To regulate" also supports a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause. "Among the several States" meant between persons of one state and another; and "To regulate" generally meant "to make regular"--that is, to specify how an activity may be transacted--when applied to domestic commerce, but when applied to foreign trade also included the power to make "prohibitory regulations." In sum, according to the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.​

 

[bripat9643]

The term well regulated does not necessarily mean government controlled.

It can also mean efficient, in good working order.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Indeed. It did not mean regulated by the federal government at all.

For you and every other conservative.

U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Do yourselves a favor.

Take an hour or two.

And read it.

Why would we read left-wing propaganda about the Constitution?

Read this:

102RP6

 

[bripat9643]

We discovered that taxation with representation is worse than the kind we had before.

 

[bripat9643]

Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Madison as well as Hamilton believed the nation needed a strong and more powerful central government than had previously existed. Federalist papers?

So why are people who are hostile to regulation like the Federalist Society always claiming to be the heirs of the traditions and ideals of Madison and Hamilton as well as claiming them as their inspiration and role models?

I understand the clueless, ill-educated here and elsewhere on the web making such ridiculous and absurd errors, but...

Like it's news here, you are a total dunce. "Well regulated" does not mean larded over with government regulations.
/Fail.

Regulation is regulation. Free Marketeers would have us go with no regulation.'


Others, no regulation all while claiming Madison and Hamilton as authority

The meaning of words changes over time, numskull. That's what you're pretending not to understand.

 

[bripat9643]

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION] [MENTION=33194]PredFan[/MENTION]

Funny. The Founding Fathers believed in limited government, acknowledging that some regulations are required. The extreme left quotes them for their tyrannical ends, and the extreme right quotes them for their selfish ends. Libertarians are in the middle with the founders. I don't expect a hack idiot like Dante to agree but hey, I can't FORCE him to be right.

Limited? All the founding fathers? Or only some?

define limited? Did they all agree?

You can find the definitions in the constitution.... But you would have to read it.

Also the guy you like, Hamilton, he believed only rich people should vote... Go figure that's the guy you support.

OPS!~

He also wanted to make George Washington the king of America.

 

[bripat9643]

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION] [MENTION=33194]PredFan[/MENTION]

Limited? All the founding fathers? Or only some?

define limited? Did they all agree?

You can find the definitions in the constitution.... But you would have to read it.

Also the guy you like, Hamilton, he believed only rich people should vote... Go figure that's the guy you support.

OPS!~

Back in those days people defended slavery too.

go figure

and the framers compromised Human beings: slaves = 3/5

So, are you using the Constitution to support your argument or to shoot it down?

 

[bripat9643]

Certainly all disinterested colonists believed in sensible regulation. Unfortunately common sense fell out of fashion during the 20th Century.

"The first Thing I remember of this kind, was a general discourse in Boston when I was a Boy, of a Complaint from North Carolina against New England Rum, that it poison'd their People, giving them the Dry Bellyach, with a Loss of the Use of their Limbs. The Distilleries being examin'd on the Occasion, it was found that several of them used leaden Still-heads and Worms, and the Physicians were of the Opinion that the Mischief was occasion'd by that Use of Lead. The Legislature of the Massachusetts thereupon pass'd an Act prohibiting under severe Penalties the Use of such Still-heads & Worms thereafter"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Benjamin Vaughan (July 31, 1786)

There you have support for states to regulate, not the federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. The OP is NOT about the 2nd amendment

It is about the nutty notion that America's founders were against regulation

And libertarians being supportive of the regulations that the constitution clearly outlines as powers means we understand regulations... You keep ma,king up new ones, at a 40k or so a year.

Fighting all regulation on principle (before honestly evaluating) is nutty and it is what nutty libertarians do

It's not only not "nutty," it's the ultimate in logic.

 

[bripat9643]

Dayum Rabbi..are you even an American?



You know so little about the Constitution, I really am having doubts that you live here.

Are you posting from North Korea or something?

Attention, Dumbass: that has diddly squat to do with well regulated militia.
Attention, Brainfart: Because the constitution allows federal regulation in some areas does not empower it to regulate in all areas.

I realize you're dumb as shit and have to compensate somehow. But can you at least refrain from talking about stuff you don't know? I realize that would include everything outside of scrubbing floors but if I ever need an expert opinoon I'll ask you.

It's written in English.

Seriously.

English.

Do you want the Russian translation? Comrade?

English isn't written in stone, dipstick. The meaning of words changes over time. Take the word "gay" for instance, and the word "fag." Both these words had entirely different meanings 50 years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

[MENTION=30190]M.D. Rawlings[/MENTION] [MENTION=45418]Spiderman[/MENTION]

Indeed. It did not mean regulated by the federal government at all.

A national government in charge of the militia would presuppose national regulation. Of course the states have a role.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

READ THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!

READ THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!

More importantly, read is case law; the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Those on the right won’t like it or agree with it – but conservatives shouldn’t make the mistake of being ignorant of it.

The Constitution is an actual physical document that anyone can go read for himself in the National Archives. The claim that it "exists only in the context of case law" is pure delusion.

 

[bripat9643]

Monarchists? Like George Washington who backed Hamilton?

Washington may not have been a Federalist on paper, but certainly allied with them.

Yes and if it wasn't for the people like Hamilton we would have never been ready for the industrial revolution. If little Tommie Jefferson had his way we would have been a backwards agricultural utopia like Russia

What did Hamilton every do that facilitated the industrial revolution?

 

[RandomVariable]

No.

"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. "

-James Madison speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788

Constitution of the United States - A History

The determined Madison had for several years insatiably studied history and political theory searching for a solution to the political and economic dilemmas he saw plaguing America. The Virginian's labors convinced him of the futility and weakness of confederacies of independent states. America's own government under the Articles of Confederation, Madison was convinced, had to be replaced. In force since 1781, established as a "league of friendship" and a constitution for the 13 sovereign and independent states after the Revolution, the articles seemed to Madison woefully inadequate. With the states retaining considerable power, the central government, he believed, had insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was generally impotent in setting commercial policy It could not effectively support a war effort. It had little power to settle quarrels between states. Saddled with this weak government, the states were on the brink of economic disaster. The evidence was overwhelming. Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; paper money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation--a pound of tea in some areas could be purchased for a tidy $100; and the depressed condition of business was taking its toll on many small farmers. Some of them were being thrown in jail for debt, and numerous farms were being confiscated and sold for taxes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=43147]Wildman[/MENTION]

Message to Libertarians and others: The founding fathers believed in regulation

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Madison as well as Hamilton believed the nation needed a strong and more powerful central government than had previously existed. Federalist papers?

So why are people who are hostile to regulation like the Federalist Society always claiming to be the heirs of the traditions and ideals of Madison and Hamilton as well as claiming them as their inspiration and role models?

I understand the clueless, ill-educated here and elsewhere on the web making such ridiculous and absurd errors, but...

I understand you are the clueless !

why is it that you people have such a hard time grasping onto the FACT that the word "REGULATED" has meanings, descriptions and definitions that liberal gun hating slopeheads fail to grasp onto.

Dante isn't anti-gun ownership

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

@Quantum Windbag

Message to Dante

They also believed in monopolies. You can't argue for the regulation they believed in unless you also argue for the markets they believed in.

certain monopolies are cool. monopolies are regulated

the markets today do not resemble the markets of hundreds of years ago and only a fool would speak as you do

Let me explain a fact of life to you, monopolies are always bad.

Monopolies are NOT always bad. Competition in the area of necessities? Race to the bottom and profit? Jesus, you're a douche

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jefferson did have his way. He undid much of what the Federalists did. After his administration, the only exposure most Americans had to the federal government was mail delivery. The succeeding Republican administrations carried that mantle. In the end, Hamilton proved ineffective.

Take a few history classes.

Jefferson was a pragmatist and hypocrite. He used a Hamiltonian tool to purchase Louie and grow America. Every time we got into trouble a Hamiltonian solution got us out of it ( History of central banking in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Jefferson let the charter for the First Bank of the United States expire (from your link). He undid Hamilton's work.

Madison carried the Republican mantle, as I said, and vetoed a bill chartering a second bank. He reluctantly changed his mind because the war with Britain was so expensive.

And I think I called Hamilton a Secretary of State earlier. I meant to say Secretary of Treasury. He was a central bank sort of fellow, after all. Before this post, I posted without researching, so I may have confused some details here and there. My apologies

I don't know where you get this "pragmatist and hypocrite" nonsense. Obviously, Jefferson grew America. But he shrank America's government, even the military.

One of my favorite historians:

page 1 | 2
The First Hundred Years
by Jeffrey Rosen
The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Court History | PBS

For much of the Supreme Court's first century, its fiercest battles concerned the conflict between national power and states' rights. The battle was embodied by the clash of ideas and personalities between the Federalists, led by President John Adams and Chief Justice John Marshall, and the Jeffersonian Republicans, led by President Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists supported a strong federal government to preserve the union, feared unchecked majority rule, and hoped that independent courts would check democratic excesses.

look at the list above. Jefferson lost the biggest battles and thank gawd, because we ended up ready to embrace and own the American industrial revolution

 

[bripat9643]

@Quantum Windbag

certain monopolies are cool. monopolies are regulated

the markets today do not resemble the markets of hundreds of years ago and only a fool would speak as you do

Let me explain a fact of life to you, monopolies are always bad.

Monopolies are NOT always bad. Competition in the area of necessities? Race to the bottom and profit? Jesus, you're a douche

Wrong. Monopolies are always bad. The government enforced type are the worse. In fact, they are the only kind.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let me explain a fact of life to you, monopolies are always bad.

Monopolies are NOT always bad. Competition in the area of necessities? Race to the bottom and profit? Jesus, you're a douche

Wrong. Monopolies are always bad. The government enforced type are the worse. In fact, they are the only kind.

a primer: A History Of U.S. Monopolies

one correction in the linked article: "The break up of AT&T by Reagan in the 1980s gave birth to the "baby bells"." what happened under Reagan was the culmination of a break up that was almost two decades in the making

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"Well regulated" has been defined and interepreted by the Courts to mean the exact same thing it meant when it was ratified: Disciplined and orderly (and well equipped), like the term "Well-regulated clock."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Well regulated" has been defined and interepreted by the Courts to mean the exact same thing it meant when it was ratified: Disciplined and orderly (and well equipped), like the term "Well-regulated clock."

"The Constitution was not written by Ayn Rand, but instead by James Madison and other practical politicians." - Economic Regulation in the United States: The Constitutional Framework » University of Richmond Law Review

 

[bripat9643]

Monopolies are NOT always bad. Competition in the area of necessities? Race to the bottom and profit? Jesus, you're a douche

Wrong. Monopolies are always bad. The government enforced type are the worse. In fact, they are the only kind.

a primer: A History Of U.S. Monopolies

one correction in the linked article: "The break up of AT&T by Reagan in the 1980s gave birth to the "baby bells"." what happened under Reagan was the culmination of a break up that was almost two decades in the making

AT&T was a government enforce monopoly, dunce.