What actions or qualities would Tea Partiers decry in the Founders if they were currently in office?

Great Debates
1

I will start with my usual disclaimer. This is not a post to say that Tea Partiers are all ignorant fascists with absolutely no understanding of American civics or history. Rather, I am asking this question because in my discussions with people who identify as Tea Partiers or in the interviews I see of people representing various Tea Party groups, I am urked by the sense that the heroic, omniscient Founders they speak of aren’t particularly reinforced by the grittier, more nuanced realities of history.

I think the founders were great but imperfect men, worthy of our respect but not our worship. They were not infallible, and they don’t seem to have seen themselves*, nor the Constitution, as perfect.

[ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE ABOVE IS TRUE. I simply want to show where I’m coming from]

So the question is this, imagine the Founders were currently in office (or that the current Tea Partiers could be transported back to the founding), what beliefs, policies, or practices would they be decrying of the founders. I will suggest a few, and I welcome anyone’s suggestions or criticisms:

  • Benjamin Franklin giving money to establish a place [Independence Hall?] which he described as follows:

  • the Jefferson cutting up the Bible

  • Jefferson supporting one of the most liberal revolutions of the era, the French one. I have specifically seen the quote about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots quote at several Tea Party rallies, and if I’m correct, that was a quote in reference to a very un-conservative revolution.

  • The Founding Generations disdain for a standing military

  • John Adam’s defending the British troops in court

  • They put “General Welfare,” arts, and science in the Constitution.

  • John Adams said that we are not a Christian nation in a Treaty to a foreign, Muslim government.

Remember, I’m not trying to disprove the narrative that seems to say that the Founders were beyond reproach. I just want examples that show that the Tea Party’s black-and-white view of history gets murkier when you delve deeper.

*I’m thinking here of one of the quotes on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial. Jefferson certainly must have known he would someday be someone’s “barbarous ancestor.”

2

I preemptively take back the welfare, arts and science one.

3

I don’t think the Tea Partiers would like George Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion.

4

Indeed not . . .

5

I don’t think Tea Partiers believe the Constitution as written by the founders was perfect. They tend to be big believers in the Bill of Rights, after all.

6

Not really. Only 1/2 of the Second Amendment, and they think the First only applies to Christians.

7

There is no such thing as “1/2 of the Second Amendment”.
It is a very short, simple, and well explained freedom.

8

:dubious: Don’t play dumb in this forum.

9

Nope, Shays’ Rebellion.

CMC fnord!
After reading a little about Shays’ Rebellion I can’t help but think that those who most often use that quote don’t have the first clue what Jefferson was talking about.
(I.E. if a group of well intended “patriots” did anything vaguely like what Shays’ folks did today, Jefferson would have no problem with the government using whatever force was necessary to stop them. The tree of liberty must be protected from “patriots” as well as tyrants.)

10

Or the Fourth (no protections for criminals from searches), Fifth (compelled testimony isn’t a bad thing, depending on whose testimony is compelled of course), Sixth (assistance of counsel), and Eighth (cruel and unusual punishment).

The Third is OK though. Teabaggers live in fear of troops being quartered in their trailers.

11

Very true: it contains 27 words, so the two parts would be 13/27 and 14/27 – I think the Tea Partiers believe in the 14/27.

If it’s so simple, how come there have been Supreme Court cases over it?

12

Until Heller, the accepted interpretation was that of the collective right as part of a “well regulated militia”. What Heller did was take a black magic marker and obliterate the first half of the amendment, and that was by a 5-4 vote. It is neither simple nor well explained.

13

Originally Posted by Susanann View Post
There is no such thing as “1/2 of the Second Amendment”.
It is a very short, simple, and well explained freedom.

You can try all you want to make it hard, or try to make it say something it does not say,but the meaning of the Second Amendment was perfectly clear to the Founding Fathers (according to their own words), and it is perfectly clear to me.

You could change the first part to say:
**“In order to make sure everyone has a Merry Christmas”…
…“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed” **
…and it will not make any difference, nor make the right any less clear.

14

With the basic idea of the Tea Party movement supposedly being about limited government, limited taxing and spending, and constitutional authority, it would seem to me that the Lousianna Purchase is a prime example of a violation of those principles. As I understand, Jefferson wasn’t even sure when he did it that it was a power that was authorized by the constitution, so there goes limited government and constitutional authority right out the window, not to mention the money spent.

15

“the people” was written into several places in the Bill of Rights. Nowhere does it mean a collective, nor does the word: people = states.

*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

16

Ya gotta wonder what the teabaggers would think about the Three/Fifths Compromise, and sunset clause on the importation of human slavery.

17

I dont understand your question. The Founding Fathers were obviously, and admittedly, trying to find some way to hold all the states together while at the same time trying to deal with, mitigate, and phase out, the existing British institution of slavery that they left us with. Britain was the one who “gave” slavery to the Americans. The United States did not create slavery, rather, it found slavery already there before the country was born. Not unlike finding out that your mother is a cigarette smoker 10 seconds after you are born. There was no way a “United States” could be formed in any other way than by the compromise that it made. Anything less, and the states would not have ratified the Constitution.

18

I’m not going to continue arguing with you as I know I will not change your mind. But I would be negligent in not stating that I think you’re all wet.

19

I think they’d think it was a reasonable compromise. It’s that autocratic Emancipation Proclaimation thing they’d have a problem with, as well as the utterly tyrannical requirement for former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. (Seriously, read a few of the Regnery Press’ Politically Incorrect Guides. That stuff’s in there.)

Did you mean to put smilies on this, or is this just so poorly thought out that it invites ridicule?

20

Originally Posted by Susanann
You can try all you want to make it hard, or try to make it say something it does not say,but the meaning of the Second Amendment was perfectly clear to the Founding Fathers (according to their own words), and it is perfectly clear to me.

You could change the first part to say:
“In order to make sure everyone has a Merry Christmas”…
…“the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed”

…and it will not make any difference, nor make the right any less clear.

If you are in water, you might think that everyone else is wet, but that is not the case - in factd, only YOU are the wet one.

Everyone else can simply read what it simply says, as well as look back in our history, and realize that EVERYONE knew exactly what the Second Amendment said and meant up until at least the 1930’s.

You will not find any gun laws signed by, nor even proposed by George Washington, Tom Jefferson, nor James Madison.

Think about it. Any honest person thinking objectively, will gotta wonder why ALL!!! of the founding fathers, and ALL!!! of our presidents for the first 150 years never had any doubts at all about the Second Amendment and why they all understood exactly what “The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms” meant.
***Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, *

*[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. *

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference–they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” George Washington.

**