The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

[Darkwind]

In fact, the Founding Fathers decided on a Centralized Government for the purpose of dealing with the rest of the world. They recognized that the various nations of the world would not deal with 13 separate governments trying to act as "America".

To this end, they agreed to replace the Articles of Confederation with a Constitutions. They intentionally set severe limits on the power of the centralized government because they wanted it dealing with the world, not the internal workings of the many states; or the freedoms of the people.

Some of the Founders believed in a more Unitarian Central government, true. They were outvoted and properly shouted down.

In the end, we managed to get a Republic that favored the power of the people, in the States, over the power of the Federal Government. It has only been the last 110 years that a 'progressive' mindset has infected our social fabric and has perpetrated the notion that the collective wealth and power was a good thing.

Would that I had a time machine.

 

[Sallow]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

Libertarians did not write the constitution. The founders were Liberals..not Libertarian.

And the small government they were looking for was one free of Nobles and Royalty.

They were looking for a government that had restrictions on power in terms of what they could and couldn't do.

They were looking for a government that was not an adherent to any particular religion and respected the rights of the minority.

That's what you folks absolutely do not get.

I get it fine, and I addressed your points.

Well no you don't.

Libertarianism is relatively new. And no Libertarians ever started a government. Rather they are johnny come latelys to the whole political arena.

They do an awful lot of complaining with not much to show for it.

A "proof of concept" would be nice..

 

[rightwinger]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

Libertarians did not write the constitution. The founders were Liberals..not Libertarian.

And the small government they were looking for was one free of Nobles and Royalty.

They were looking for a government that had restrictions on power in terms of what they could and couldn't do.

They were looking for a government that was not an adherent to any particular religion and respected the rights of the minority.

That's what you folks absolutely do not get.

Very true

Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually I only said that anarchists do what they do because they are dumb, the rest do it because it's their agenda. I guess you only read the one you cared about and rather than specifying you said "everyone."

Oh, my mistake. "Everybody else is evil or dumb."

Yawn.

Tell us again how much the Constitution is a "solution" when we have 200 years showing that, in fact, it's not.

Please don't put quotes around what I did not say. Quotes means that you are using my words as I wrote them. You are saying your view of what I said, not what I said. You don't quote when you are doing that.

As for anarchists, funny: Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Like the liberals, you're agreeing with my depiction. I did not say you were "dumb" I said you were "simple minded and naive." When you actually ever present an actual argument on anarchism, I may change my mind. You or any other anarchists I've ever discussed it with.

Your ignoring the fact that anarchists have endlessly answered any questions you may have, while always acknowledging that the market is unpredictable and that new innovation causes new ways of thinking about how to do things, isn't the problem of the anarchists.

 

[NightFox]

Alexander Hamilton: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

You bring up an interesting point, do think time has proven Hamilton right or wrong?

Certainly what he pointed out happened, so he was right in that regard. I think the question is what would we have done without the bill of rights. I have a hard time believing that those who wanted government and twisted the Constitution to justify it would have had a harder time if it weren't there. So I think in that sense it's a wash.

Personally I have always tended side with Robert Yates on this particular point of contention primarily due as he pointed out "Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty." (Antifederalist 84) and it seems that time has proven him correct. One also must consider that explicit restrictions on the authority of the Federal Government have never proven to be a negative thing since tyrants will always look to twist words and meanings to dodge implicit restrictions and one would suggest that is at least part of the reasoning to explain why the founders made the amendment process so onerous.

IMHO it remains a worthy debate for study, thanks for bringing it up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Wrong. The founders incorrectly bent over backwards to limit government in the Articles of Confederation,

but later coming to their senses,

they abandoned that 'imbecility', as Alexander Hamilton called it, and wrote a Constitution that established a much more powerful, central government.

They were sure to include STRICT limits on the New Federal Government. Something you think can be ignored.

 

[NightFox]

Libertarianism is relatively new.

Ummm.. No, it's simply a modern take on classical liberal ideas and since the "liberal" moniker had been mutated to mean something completely incompatible with classical liberalism.......

 

[Sallow]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

Libertarians did not write the constitution. The founders were Liberals..not Libertarian.

And the small government they were looking for was one free of Nobles and Royalty.

They were looking for a government that had restrictions on power in terms of what they could and couldn't do.

They were looking for a government that was not an adherent to any particular religion and respected the rights of the minority.

That's what you folks absolutely do not get.

Very true

Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.

Of course.

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.

It was never meant to be "set in stone".

That's very progressive and forward thinking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Founding Fathers did not want no government, they wanted limited government, and they correctly recognized that government is the greatest threat to our liberty, so they bent over backwards to limit it. So, here’s how today’s major parties and ideologies view it.

Pro Constitution

Small “L” libertarians – We love it. They wrote it right, they recognized the real threat is government. We just want what they created. Generally our differences with the Constitution is we wish they hadn’t said things like the “General Welfare,” which is just opening the door to those who don’t care what it means, even though it doesn’t mean what they want.

Small “L” libertarians want a small, fiscally conservative government, the military to be used strictly for the defense of the United States and don’t want morality laws. Exactly what the founding fathers wrote.

Small government conservatives – Small government conservatives mostly overlap with libertarians. The biggest differences are generally military where they are more willing to use the military overseas than libertarians and they are generally more open to policies like fighting drugs. At some point they will hopefully realize the problem isn’t what they want, but that government is the problem and not solution to those objectives as well.

Anti Constitution

Social Conservatives – Social Conservatives are generally fiscally conservative, but fiscal conservatism just isn’t their priority. While they talk about small government and our making our own decisions, they just ignore that there is no Constitutional Authority for morality laws and that government making morality laws isn’t small government.

Neocons – Pretty self explanatory, they are for high military use and big government spending. They are generally less interested in morality laws, but even that just isn’t the priority.

Big “L” Libertarians (the party)– They don’t like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. They’re elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.

Anarchists – They don’t like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and don’t really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.

Liberals – Liberals are intellectual scavengers. They like the Constitution in a sense, but they don’t really know or care what it says. Since it is the law of the land (or was), they just quote it if it seems to serve their purpose, parse words if it doesn’t, get the courts to make law if they can and just say that “times have changed” to justify what they want and say the Founding Fathers would be liberal if they were alive today anyway.

This is not fact, it’s fiction, your contrivance, mere opinion, subjective and irrelevant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Libertarians did not write the constitution. The founders were Liberals..not Libertarian.

And the small government they were looking for was one free of Nobles and Royalty.

They were looking for a government that had restrictions on power in terms of what they could and couldn't do.

They were looking for a government that was not an adherent to any particular religion and respected the rights of the minority.

That's what you folks absolutely do not get.

Very true

Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.

Of course.

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.

It was never meant to be "set in stone".

That's very progressive and forward thinking.

Except it hasn't been changed it has been ignored. Social Security is against the Constitution as is medicare, but ignorant courts have ruled otherwise. The NDAA is unconstitutional but no one is even challenging it.

 

[Sallow]

Libertarianism is relatively new.

Ummm.. No, it's simply a modern take on classical liberal ideas and since the "liberal" moniker had been mutated to mean something completely incompatible with classical liberalism.......

Classical Liberalism is also relatively new and a made up idea.

Liberalism isn't "classic"..it is ever changing.

The whole idea of a "more perfect union" echoes that meme.

You can never achieve perfection, but you never stop trying..

 

[regent]

Alexander Hamilton: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

You bring up an interesting point, do think time has proven Hamilton right or wrong?

With the second Federalist president, Adams, of Hamilton's party, the Federalists passed a bill prohibiting the criticizing of government. People were jailed under this law and when Jefferson became president he freed them and let the law die.

 

[Sallow]

Very true

Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.

Of course.

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.

It was never meant to be "set in stone".

That's very progressive and forward thinking.

Except it hasn't been changed it has been ignored. Social Security is against the Constitution as is medicare, but ignorant courts have ruled otherwise. The NDAA is unconstitutional but no one is even challenging it.

Neither are "against" the Constitution.

Read it.

The Congress legislates.

That's how it works.

 

[Antares]

Our founding fathers wanted a Government that does what needs to be done and does what makes sense

If they didn't, they were a bunch of fucking assholes

No...that would be you...they knew what an unfettered Gov could do to the populace.....they had experienced in first hand.

 

[NightFox]

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.
.

Make changes as needed via the Amendment Process, not make changes via fast & loose interpretation because the contents are inconvenient to whatever political regime happens to be in power. It's a living document in the sense that it can be amended not in the sense that it means whatever the screwballs in charge say it means.

 

[Antares]

Very true

Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.

Of course.

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.

It was never meant to be "set in stone".

That's very progressive and forward thinking.

Except it hasn't been changed it has been ignored. Social Security is against the Constitution as is medicare, but ignorant courts have ruled otherwise. The NDAA is unconstitutional but no one is even challenging it.

No.....they weren't ignorant, FDR forced the Courts to rule in his favor.

 

[NightFox]

Libertarianism is relatively new.

Ummm.. No, it's simply a modern take on classical liberal ideas and since the "liberal" moniker had been mutated to mean something completely incompatible with classical liberalism.......

Classical Liberalism is also relatively new and a made up idea.
.

Sorry incorrect, "classical" is added only to distinguish it from modern since the two are not compatible, John Locke is representative of "classical" liberal thought, Barack Obama is representative of "modern" (American) liberal thought, the two don't have much in common.

Liberalism wasn't born in American, nor was it born in the 20th century.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true

Our founding fathers built a government they could afford. Which at our founding was not much. They never intended to limit future generations from building the government they needed.

Of course.

Add in the founder codified the ability to make changes to the Constitution as needed.

It was never meant to be "set in stone".

That's very progressive and forward thinking.

Except it hasn't been changed it has been ignored. Social Security is against the Constitution as is medicare, but ignorant courts have ruled otherwise. The NDAA is unconstitutional but no one is even challenging it.

Both Social Security and Medicare are Constitutional and have been declared so by the courts

By what source do you declare them unconstitutional?

 

[Mac1958]

.

This seemingly emotional attachment to an ever-increasing central government never ceases to amaze.

It's like the abused wife who continues to forgive her husband for his crimes, no matter what he does.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Ummm.. No, it's simply a modern take on classical liberal ideas and since the "liberal" moniker had been mutated to mean something completely incompatible with classical liberalism.......

Classical Liberalism is also relatively new and a made up idea.
.

Sorry incorrect, "classical" is added only to distinguish it from modern since the two are not compatible, John Locke is representative of "classical" liberal thought, Barack Obama is representative of "modern" (American) liberal thought, the two don't have much in common.

Liberalism wasn't born in American, nor was it born in the 20th century.

Yet Liberalism has evolved to meet the challenges of each succeeding generation as is required of true liberalism