Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

The way to deal with the slippery slope effect is to ignore it entirely. I expect the President to deal with the situation he has to deal with. If the Congress doesn't approve of something, they are free to pass legislation to make it illegal or the courts are free to find it unconstitutional.

Social security may well be the biggest tax, but do you prefer the alternative?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh I see. I was suggesting we have another lens to look through: history. One that can be distorted by agenda, misreading, and lack of information and available sources, but one that is less cloudy than the lens of the present.

I agree. The founding generation had people who understood human nature (specifically Adams and Madison to name the most popular). Mix that in with their enlightened sense of self, where they considered it a virtuous thing to self reflect and criticize, and we have people in a time and place where what was to unfold could have gone any way.

In the early days after ratification the founding generation had an emotional as well as an intellectual and investment in seeing the grand experiment NOT fail. I was surprised to find out how Hamilton, Madison and others less known, but powerful and influential in their day could sway others by appeals to their shared sense of vision, their virtue, and their shared sense of responsibility over appeals to personal gain and influence. At the same time there they knew how to and sometimes did appeal to those with little virtue by using flattery, promises of power and personal gain. But when the later was done it was usually done while holding the nose. I could suggest reading a few small books ... but ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical of and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

Jefferson did not violate the letter of the law. Jefferson can be accused of that as a matter of opinion. If it was true he violated the law he would have been brought up on impeachment charges.

What most every sentient being agrees is that Jefferson violated his own principles and his personal view of the spirit of the law

We are speaking rhetorically here. In his mind he almost certainly was. He did not act without the consent of the Senate to the treaty with France or without the consent of Congress to take possession of the land and obligate the United States for payment for it.
Century of Lawmaking The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline -- 1803-1804

The Louisiana Purchase was not done via executive order and Jefferson was in no way liable for it other than to give his consent and sign the bill into law. And by the time it was signed into law it had broad public support as well. So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people.

Evenso it did not totally remove the act from the slippery slope consequence argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

The way to deal with the slippery slope effect is to ignore it entirely. I expect the President to deal with the situation he has to deal with. If the Congress doesn't approve of something, they are free to pass legislation to make it illegal or the courts are free to find it unconstitutional.

Social security may well be the biggest tax, but do you prefer the alternative?

I do not trust government to act in my best interest or anybody else's best interest. And to ignore cause and effect of breaking the social contract is the same thing to me as abrogating all our rights to the 'king' and accepting whatever dictates 'the king' dictates.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

I posted a variation of this "It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket" not too long ago and now even I forget It's in a book I just got through reading.

Other Presidents may have used the LP as an argument against opposition to their own actions, but many people believed Jefferson had the power to seal the Purchase. What people go after Jefferson for is this:

Citizenship. Automatic naturalization. Why? Slave states.

even one of those popular history web sites has this one:

Meanwhile, the United States was faced with the prospect of its own emerging empire. No provision existed in the Constitution for a territorial acquisition of this scope, and with regard to the administration of the territory, no clear path existed. By provisions of the sale treaty, the residents of Louisiana were to become full citizens of the United States. But if the acquisition of foreign territory was a dubious enterprise, the automatic naturalization of its inhabitants was downright illegal. Such a gross overstepping of federal power not only exceeded Jeffersons own compact theory of union, but even the staunchest Federalists conception of what the Constitution was purported to be.

SparkNotes Thomas Jefferson The Louisiana Purchase

Isn't history wonderful?

​

 

[PratchettFan]

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

The way to deal with the slippery slope effect is to ignore it entirely. I expect the President to deal with the situation he has to deal with. If the Congress doesn't approve of something, they are free to pass legislation to make it illegal or the courts are free to find it unconstitutional.

Social security may well be the biggest tax, but do you prefer the alternative?

I do not trust government to act in my best interest or anybody else's best interest. And to ignore cause and effect of breaking the social contract is the same thing to me as abrogating all our rights to the 'king' and accepting whatever dictates 'the king' dictates.

I don trust anybody... period. Neither did the Founders. Which is why we have checks and balances. That does not change my expectations of the President nor the understanding that a complex society simply cannot operate without a complex government. Like Jefferson, I prefer practicality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Name what? I am my own source on this one.

Name the segment of society you have accused of violating the social contract

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

 

[PratchettFan]

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

I posted a variation of this "It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket" not too long ago and now even I forget It's in a book I just got through reading.

Other Presidents may have used the LP as an argument against opposition to their own actions, but many people believed Jefferson had the power to seal the Purchase. What people go after Jefferson for is this:

Citizenship. Automatic naturalization. Why? Slave states.

even one of those popular history web sites has this one:

Meanwhile, the United States was faced with the prospect of its own emerging empire. No provision existed in the Constitution for a territorial acquisition of this scope, and with regard to the administration of the territory, no clear path existed. By provisions of the sale treaty, the residents of Louisiana were to become full citizens of the United States. But if the acquisition of foreign territory was a dubious enterprise, the automatic naturalization of its inhabitants was downright illegal. Such a gross overstepping of federal power not only exceeded Jeffersons own compact theory of union, but even the staunchest Federalists conception of what the Constitution was purported to be.

SparkNotes Thomas Jefferson The Louisiana Purchase

Isn't history wonderful?

​

If I inadvertently plagiarized, I am sorry. I may have read the same book. But I do agree, history is wonderful.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical of and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

Jefferson did not violate the letter of the law. Jefferson can be accused of that as a matter of opinion. If it was true he violated the law he would have been brought up on impeachment charges.

What most every sentient being agrees is that Jefferson violated his own principles and his personal view of the spirit of the law

We are speaking rhetorically here. In his mind he almost certainly was. He did not act without the consent of the Senate to the treaty with France or without the consent of Congress to take possession of the land and obligate the United States for payment for it.
Century of Lawmaking The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline -- 1803-1804

The Louisiana Purchase was not done via executive order and Jefferson was in no way liable for it other than to give his consent and sign the bill into law. And by the time it was signed into law it had broad public support as well. So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people.

Evenso it did not totally remove the act from the slippery slope consequence argument.

Huh?

The Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved everything. Your own link states this clearly. And it delves into the Slave Issue. Remember? The probable main motivation for Jefferson, The Great Llama of the Little Mountain. going back on his principles, principles he would hold everyone else to.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

The way to deal with the slippery slope effect is to ignore it entirely. I expect the President to deal with the situation he has to deal with. If the Congress doesn't approve of something, they are free to pass legislation to make it illegal or the courts are free to find it unconstitutional.

Social security may well be the biggest tax, but do you prefer the alternative?

I do not trust government to act in my best interest or anybody else's best interest. And to ignore cause and effect of breaking the social contract is the same thing to me as abrogating all our rights to the 'king' and accepting whatever dictates 'the king' dictates.

Of course you do. You've claimed that all along. You claim they act in the best interests of a certain unnamed segment of society

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

The way to deal with the slippery slope effect is to ignore it entirely. I expect the President to deal with the situation he has to deal with. If the Congress doesn't approve of something, they are free to pass legislation to make it illegal or the courts are free to find it unconstitutional.

Social security may well be the biggest tax, but do you prefer the alternative?

I do not trust government to act in my best interest or anybody else's best interest. And to ignore cause and effect of breaking the social contract is the same thing to me as abrogating all our rights to the 'king' and accepting whatever dictates 'the king' dictates.

I don trust anybody... period. Neither did the Founders. Which is why we have checks and balances. That does not change my expectations of the President nor the understanding that a complex society simply cannot operate without a complex government. Like Jefferson, I prefer practicality.

the founders obviously trusted people. What they did not trust was human nature. distinction with a difference. They didn't trust too much power in the hands of any one person or any particular faction. But what they meant by 'faction' is usually not what we moderns think it meant back then

A complex government?

The social contract is premised on trust. Not blind trust, but trust nonetheless.

 

[PratchettFan]

Name the segment of society you have accused of violating the social contract

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

The ACA is law and constitutional per the USSC. The President's immigration policy is not illegal. The President has been issuing executive orders since Washington. Nothing you have said in any way is in opposition to the social contract. That is the government doing what the people send them to Washington to do.

Now is it possible that the Founders, who read by candlelight, did not consider the possibility of government standards for light bulb manufacturing? Probably. But I seriously doubt a single one of them would object to it if they were living in a society where that was an issue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

I posted a variation of this "It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket" not too long ago and now even I forget It's in a book I just got through reading.

Other Presidents may have used the LP as an argument against opposition to their own actions, but many people believed Jefferson had the power to seal the Purchase. What people go after Jefferson for is this:

Citizenship. Automatic naturalization. Why? Slave states.

even one of those popular history web sites has this one:

Meanwhile, the United States was faced with the prospect of its own emerging empire. No provision existed in the Constitution for a territorial acquisition of this scope, and with regard to the administration of the territory, no clear path existed. By provisions of the sale treaty, the residents of Louisiana were to become full citizens of the United States. But if the acquisition of foreign territory was a dubious enterprise, the automatic naturalization of its inhabitants was downright illegal. Such a gross overstepping of federal power not only exceeded Jeffersons own compact theory of union, but even the staunchest Federalists conception of what the Constitution was purported to be.

SparkNotes Thomas Jefferson The Louisiana Purchase

Isn't history wonderful?

​

If I inadvertently plagiarized, I am sorry. I may have read the same book. But I do agree, history is wonderful.

plagiarized? hardly LOL you're ok here

 

[PratchettFan]

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

The way to deal with the slippery slope effect is to ignore it entirely. I expect the President to deal with the situation he has to deal with. If the Congress doesn't approve of something, they are free to pass legislation to make it illegal or the courts are free to find it unconstitutional.

Social security may well be the biggest tax, but do you prefer the alternative?

I do not trust government to act in my best interest or anybody else's best interest. And to ignore cause and effect of breaking the social contract is the same thing to me as abrogating all our rights to the 'king' and accepting whatever dictates 'the king' dictates.

I don trust anybody... period. Neither did the Founders. Which is why we have checks and balances. That does not change my expectations of the President nor the understanding that a complex society simply cannot operate without a complex government. Like Jefferson, I prefer practicality.

the founders obviously trusted people. What they did not trust was human nature. distinction with a difference. They didn't trust too much power in the hands of any one person or any particular faction. But what they meant by 'faction' is usually not what we moderns think it meant back then

A complex government?

The social contract is premised on trust. Not blind trust, but trust nonetheless.

They did not trust people. If they trusted people they would have voted in a king and been done with it. Or left everything to a direct vote of the people. The entire point of representative government divided into three branches is to prevent that very thing from happening.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Name the segment of society you have accused of violating the social contract

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Obamacare was enacted by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Executive, and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

What exactly do you have an issue with here if any?

 

[Foxfyre]

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical of and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

Jefferson did not violate the letter of the law. Jefferson can be accused of that as a matter of opinion. If it was true he violated the law he would have been brought up on impeachment charges.

What most every sentient being agrees is that Jefferson violated his own principles and his personal view of the spirit of the law

We are speaking rhetorically here. In his mind he almost certainly was. He did not act without the consent of the Senate to the treaty with France or without the consent of Congress to take possession of the land and obligate the United States for payment for it.
Century of Lawmaking The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline -- 1803-1804

The Louisiana Purchase was not done via executive order and Jefferson was in no way liable for it other than to give his consent and sign the bill into law. And by the time it was signed into law it had broad public support as well. So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people.

Evenso it did not totally remove the act from the slippery slope consequence argument.

Huh?

The Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved everything. Your own link states this clearly. And it delves into the Slave Issue. Remember? The probable main motivation for Jefferson, The Great Llama of the Little Mountain. going back on his principles, principles he would hold everyone else to.

I don't understand what argument you are making here. I was clear that the Louisiana Purchase was done with the full consent of Congress AND the President and there was no constitutional challenge so we don't know how SCOTUS might have ruled on that.

I am discussing the principle of social contract within all that. The people did not see it as a breach of social contract as most approved of the purchase. But was it within the authority given to government via the Constitution? Technically no. The people should have voted their consent and that didn't happen. And that is what was a breach of social contract.

There is no argument that we are better off because the Congress authorized the Louisiana Purchase. But there is also a valid argument that it would give others license to do something similar.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Name the segment of society you have accused of violating the social contract

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Other than Obamacare, you have strayed into areas of constitutional law, administrative law, and more. YOur post here is all over the map and for practical argument far to generalized. Your post in general is a view of liking nothing about modern American society and government

 

[Foxfyre]

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Obamacare was enacted by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Executive, and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

What exactly do you have an issue with here if any?

The issue that the Constitution as it was intended gives Congress and the President no authority to impose something like that on the people. SCOTUS did not approve Obamacare but only approved Congress's authority to tax people to implement it. In the opinion it was stated that the Constitution's commerce clause would not support a requirement to force people to buy a product or service, but the government has the authority to tax people to provide healthcare. And four of the nine Justices disagreed strongly with that opinion.

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical of and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

Jefferson did not violate the letter of the law. Jefferson can be accused of that as a matter of opinion. If it was true he violated the law he would have been brought up on impeachment charges.

What most every sentient being agrees is that Jefferson violated his own principles and his personal view of the spirit of the law

We are speaking rhetorically here. In his mind he almost certainly was. He did not act without the consent of the Senate to the treaty with France or without the consent of Congress to take possession of the land and obligate the United States for payment for it.
Century of Lawmaking The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline -- 1803-1804

The Louisiana Purchase was not done via executive order and Jefferson was in no way liable for it other than to give his consent and sign the bill into law. And by the time it was signed into law it had broad public support as well. So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people.

Evenso it did not totally remove the act from the slippery slope consequence argument.

Huh?

The Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved everything. Your own link states this clearly. And it delves into the Slave Issue. Remember? The probable main motivation for Jefferson, The Great Llama of the Little Mountain. going back on his principles, principles he would hold everyone else to.

I don't understand what argument you are making here. I was clear that the Louisiana Purchase was done with the full consent of Congress AND the President and there was no constitutional challenge so we don't know how SCOTUS might have ruled on that.

I am discussing the principle of social contract within all that. The people did not see it as a breach of social contract as most approved of the purchase. But was it within the authority given to government via the Constitution? Technically no. The people should have voted their consent and that didn't happen. And that is what was a breach of social contract.

There is no argument that we are better off because the Congress authorized the Louisiana Purchase. But there is also a valid argument that it would give others license to do something similar.

"So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people."

this makes absolutely no sense. The Constitution has no intent. It is a legal contract. There can be argued an intent in the ratifying of the contract/Constitution, but in and of itself is has no intent in the way you are claiming.

The only social contract an elected representative of the people has is to represent what they think is the best interests of the people. From the first days of the Constitutional Convention the representatives did what they saw as their duty. They did not take polls or ask for ballot initiatives to make law. That would be popular democracy.

 

[Foxfyre]

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

The ACA is law and constitutional per the USSC. The President's immigration policy is not illegal. The President has been issuing executive orders since Washington. Nothing you have said in any way is in opposition to the social contract. That is the government doing what the people send them to Washington to do.

Now is it possible that the Founders, who read by candlelight, did not consider the possibility of government standards for light bulb manufacturing? Probably. But I seriously doubt a single one of them would object to it if they were living in a society where that was an issue.

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical of and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

Jefferson did not violate the letter of the law. Jefferson can be accused of that as a matter of opinion. If it was true he violated the law he would have been brought up on impeachment charges.

What most every sentient being agrees is that Jefferson violated his own principles and his personal view of the spirit of the law

We are speaking rhetorically here. In his mind he almost certainly was. He did not act without the consent of the Senate to the treaty with France or without the consent of Congress to take possession of the land and obligate the United States for payment for it.
Century of Lawmaking The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline -- 1803-1804

The Louisiana Purchase was not done via executive order and Jefferson was in no way liable for it other than to give his consent and sign the bill into law. And by the time it was signed into law it had broad public support as well. So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people.

Evenso it did not totally remove the act from the slippery slope consequence argument.

Huh?

The Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved everything. Your own link states this clearly. And it delves into the Slave Issue. Remember? The probable main motivation for Jefferson, The Great Llama of the Little Mountain. going back on his principles, principles he would hold everyone else to.

I don't understand what argument you are making here. I was clear that the Louisiana Purchase was done with the full consent of Congress AND the President and there was no constitutional challenge so we don't know how SCOTUS might have ruled on that.

I am discussing the principle of social contract within all that. The people did not see it as a breach of social contract as most approved of the purchase. But was it within the authority given to government via the Constitution? Technically no. The people should have voted their consent and that didn't happen. And that is what was a breach of social contract.

There is no argument that we are better off because the Congress authorized the Louisiana Purchase. But there is also a valid argument that it would give others license to do something similar.

"So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people."

this makes absolutely no sense. The Constitution has no intent. It is a legal contract. There can be argued an intent in the ratifying of the contract/Constitution, but in and of itself is has no intent in the way you are claiming.

The only social contract an elected representative of the people has is to represent what they think is the best interests of the people. From the first days of the Constitutional Convention the representatives did what they saw as their duty. They did not take polls or ask for ballot initiatives to make law. That would be popular democracy.

Give me a rationale for your statement that the Constitution 'has no intent' please.