Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wait, what?
Hamilton was very big a centralized power..so much so he would have been okay with Washington being made a kind of King..
Irrelevant. He correctly articulated an objection to a Bill of Rights by asserting that the Federal government did not have the friggen power "to control the press" and if he put a restriction on the power of the feds to do something that they can not do, then it would be employed as a pretext to to assert that the feds have a power which they do not have. It is for this reason we have the 10th amendment.
Federalist 84... a more complete quote:
Totally incorrect. Madison articulated a view that any attempt to enumerate all the rights in a Bill of Rights would be impossible and that people would assume by not listing those rights the governemnt would be able to violate those unenumerated rights. That is why we have a 9th amend.
You guys would be dangerrous around the Constitution, LOL... You seem to think the framers meant exactly the oppossite of what they actually meant.
Um what?
Again, Hamilton was big on centralized power. It's not "irrelevant" that he would have been comfortable with Washington as King. And in reading Hamilton's comment, it's more of a "don't worry, we've got it covered thing". That's not been the case. Where the Constitution has been vague..or at least subject to interpretation, many times that "interpretation" far different than original intent. Like privacy, which for quite some time, was thought to be implicit in the constitution..until it wasn't.
And Madison was doing exactly what I posted.
If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.
Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And if you take that with a grain of salt..as the intent of the Federalist papers was to convince New York to sign on to the Constitution, Madison's goal was exactly what I posted.
Broaden the powers and make them easier..and more flexible to administer.
The Founders did not envision a government based on kaz's libertarian model.
End of discussion. Let's move on.
And the Federalists were nothing like libertarians.
Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.
Our Constitution was not set ups as a Cook Book telling future generations what recepies they are allowed to make and what ingredients to use
If you read it, the Constitution establishes a kitchen comprised of The President, Congress and the Courts which decides what to make to eat
Well put Sallow, Although I think if one looks a bit more deeply at Alexander Hamilton one finds a man at odds with himself, yes he was "big on centralized power" as you put it but only at times at other times he seems to come close to Jeffersonian view (whom he was almost constantly at odds with). My theory is that Hamilton was a man wrestling with his own pride & ego to the point where he became contrary just for the sake of being contrary much (most?) of the time, add to this mix his admiration for the British System of Government and you get quite a colorful character.Again, Hamilton was big on centralized power. It's not "irrelevant" that he would have been comfortable with Washington as King. And in reading Hamilton's comment, it's more of a "don't worry, we've got it covered thing". That's not been the case. Where the Constitution has been vague..or at least subject to interpretation, many times that "interpretation" far different than original intent. Like privacy, which for quite some time, was thought to be implicit in the constitution..until it wasn't.
LOL at your idea of an Anarchist...what a fool..
I would agree with this, among the anarchists that I've listened to/read the idea was essentially that even starting with a small government history shows that it inevitably leads to large, powerful and intrusive government.Anarchists They dont like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government.
Thoughtful anarchists are anything but simple minded and naive, since to challenge the status quo in such a profound way and formulate rational arguments supporting anarchy (and they are out there if one looks and listens with an open mind) takes quite a bit of intellect and reason. Secondly asking an Anarchist to provide "solutions" to societal questions is antithetical to what the Anarchist believes, since the very core of their belief system is against collective "solutions". When you believe that the initiation of force is inherently and at all times wrong then it would be hypocritical to then start dictating "solutions" to problems outside your own sphere of influence.Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and dont really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.
Our Constitution was not set ups as a Cook Book telling future generations what recepies they are allowed to make and what ingredients to use
If you read it, the Constitution establishes a kitchen comprised of The President, Congress and the Courts which decides what to make to eat
Wrong again, they provided Article 5 in the event future generations felt the recipes needed to be changed. If they failed to use it then you have to eat the same old stuff. It not culinary science.
Our Constitution was not set ups as a Cook Book telling future generations what recepies they are allowed to make and what ingredients to use
If you read it, the Constitution establishes a kitchen comprised of The President, Congress and the Courts which decides what to make to eat
Wrong again, they provided Article 5 in the event future generations felt the recipes needed to be changed. If they failed to use it then you have to eat the same old stuff. It not culinary science.
They provided Article 1 to empower Congress to do what We the People require without having to evoke Article 5
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.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner
Did I get it right that time?
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..
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, heres how todays 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 hadnt said things like the General Welfare, which is just opening the door to those who dont care what it means, even though it doesnt 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 dont 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 isnt 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 isnt 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 isnt 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 isnt the priority.
Big L Libertarians (the party) They dont like the Constitution because the two parties fight over it, so they associate it with the two parties. Theyre elitist snobs and consider themselves above it regardless of what it says.
Anarchists They dont like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and dont 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 dont 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 doesnt, 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.
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...
This is not fact, it’s fiction, your contrivance, mere opinion, subjective and irrelevant.
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.
LOL at your idea of an Anarchist...what a fool..
Wrong again, they provided Article 5 in the event future generations felt the recipes needed to be changed. If they failed to use it then you have to eat the same old stuff. It not culinary science.
They provided Article 1 to empower Congress to do what We the People require without having to evoke Article 5
Where does the Constitution say that ? As far as I know Article I grants specific and enumerated powers along with some specific enumerated no-no's, I don't ever recall any language including "Congress is empowered to what We the People require without having to evoke Article 5".
Anarchists They dont like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and dont really have any solutions to anything, so they fight all solutions, even the minimal solution.
LOL at your idea of an Anarchist...what a fool..
Actually the fools apparently are the atheists that I've queried. When I ask them about how the government that libertarians do want could work under atheism, police, defense, recognition of property rights, management of limited resources, they just say they don't know, the market will solve it.
I'm a serious capitalist homey. I spent my career in Business and Finance. I love a free market. But without a way to have recognition of property rights, there are none. And none of them can give any answer at all to any of that. They don't know.
So if you have content on that, then criticize them for articulating it so poorly. And if you don't, who gives a rats ass what you're saying anyway.
LOL at your idea of an Anarchist...what a fool..
Actually the fools apparently are the atheists that I've queried. When I ask them about how the government that libertarians do want could work under atheism, police, defense, recognition of property rights, management of limited resources, they just say they don't know, the market will solve it.
I'm a serious capitalist homey. I spent my career in Business and Finance. I love a free market. But without a way to have recognition of property rights, there are none. And none of them can give any answer at all to any of that. They don't know.
So if you have content on that, then criticize them for articulating it so poorly. And if you don't, who gives a rats ass what you're saying anyway.
What does atheism have to do with it? We do have separation of Church and State
Where does the Constitution say that ? Forgive me if I'm not understanding what you are attempting to convey but what it *sounds* like you're trying to say is that Congress can take upon any power it deems necessary to do what "We the People require" instead of Congress only having those powers explicitly delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, which, if that's the case has a number of problems:They provided Article 1 to empower Congress to do what We the People require without having to evoke Article 5
Where does the Constitution say that ? As far as I know Article I grants specific and enumerated powers along with some specific enumerated no-no's, I don't ever recall any language including "Congress is empowered to what We the People require without having to evoke Article 5".
Congress is given broad powers to do what We the People require.
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.
kaz said:As for anarchists, funny: Anarchists They dont like the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted limited government, not no government. Anarchists are simple minded and naïve and dont 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.
Where does the Constitution say that ? Forgive me if I'm not understanding what you are attempting to convey but what it *sounds* like you're trying to say is that Congress can take upon any power it deems necessary to do what "We the People require" instead of Congress only having those powers explicitly delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, which, if that's the case has a number of problems:Where does the Constitution say that ? As far as I know Article I grants specific and enumerated powers along with some specific enumerated no-no's, I don't ever recall any language including "Congress is empowered to what We the People require without having to evoke Article 5".
Congress is given broad powers to do what We the People require.
1. It violates the principle purpose for the existence of the Constitution which is to establish the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.
2. It flies directly in the face of federalism since it would deem Congress as an entity with essentially limitless authority.
3. It runs counter to the generally accepted belief that the principle founders harbored a deep distrust of the dark side of Democracy (the tyranny of the majority)
Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying.
Where does the Constitution say that ? Forgive me if I'm not understanding what you are attempting to convey but what it *sounds* like you're trying to say is that Congress can take upon any power it deems necessary to do what "We the People require" instead of Congress only having those powers explicitly delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, which, if that's the case has a number of problems:Congress is given broad powers to do what We the People require.
1. It violates the principle purpose for the existence of the Constitution which is to establish the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man.
2. It flies directly in the face of federalism since it would deem Congress as an entity with essentially limitless authority.
3. It runs counter to the generally accepted belief that the principle founders harbored a deep distrust of the dark side of Democracy (the tyranny of the majority)
Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying.
Take it up with the Courts my friend
Thats why we have them
The Founders did not envision a government based on kaz's libertarian model.
End of discussion. Let's move on.
And the Federalists were nothing like libertarians.
Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.
Really, this is what Madison had to say on the subject, of course you have to have a level of comprehension thus far not demonstrated by you to understand what he is saying.
