Did we pick the right founding fathers?

Great Debates
1

The People should not allow a government to be founded by people that do not believe in government
The men who founded America did not believe in government,
.
.
.
This is my belief. I am prepared to defend it.
If I am proven wrong, I will admit it.
I am willing to accept SingleDad’s judgement on this. If he is willing.

[DISCLAIMER]
I purposly do not capitalize the term “founding fathers”. Please feel free to do so. If you use the abbr. “FF”, I will understnd to whom you refer. But I will read this abbr. in the same way that Esprix might. Be warned.

2

They founded the goverment… therefore they believe in it :slight_smile:

3

2sense, forgive me, but could you please elaborate?

Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat

4

Larry Borgia:

Well, if you insist. You see Esprix is gay. I know, hard to believe isn’t it. And sometimes gay men like to…
Oh! You didn’t mean THAT.

I would prefer not to. I hope I learned my lesson from the last time I did this(Burn the Constitution). I am much better at picking apart someone else’s arguments. I did not want to give out too much ammunition.
But since you asked so nicely.

Many of the problems of today do not stem from improper application of the constitution. Rather they stem from the document itself.
The founding fathers deliberatly made the central government as toothless as possible.
Why does government not work? Because it is designed not to work.

My example:
Campain finance reform. There is some question about it’s constitutionality. Even though it would be good for Americans, it must pass through a maze of legal chalanges. Well-funded legal chalanges. Even though the undue influence of Big Money is what the reform is trying to eliminate. This is, of course, after the people who take the bribes now are convinced to vote against taking them in the future.

So the question is not; is this good for America?
Instead the question is; is this allowed?

5

Asmodean:

Thank you for your post. I welcome your input in my thread.

My contention is that the FF feared government. They did not believe that government should be the way to best serve the interests of The People. So they deliberatly hamstrung the government so as to force people to find other means of solving problems. I am saying that this has caused many problems to remain unsolved.

Please reply to my answer.

Peace

6

I can’t rely reply because there isn’t anything really specific that I could reply to.

Can you give me some examples of specific ways that they “hamstrung the government so as to force people to find other means of solving problems”?

So far the only example you’ve given is campaign finance reform, which was already enacted in the form of 1974’s Federal Election Campaign Act. The current problems we’re having with soft-money contributions can be traced to a loophole in the Supreme Courts 1996 decision regarding contributions to political parties, and dispersment of those same contributions.

Closing the loophole is fairly easy and currently there are two different bi-partisan bills that seek to do just that making their way through the legislature.

7

Hmm. I am starting to realise 1 of the reasons why everyone here seems so intelligent. Why did I take so long to learn this leason?

8

Why is it taking me so long to learn to spell?

OK off to bed. Probably won’t be back until late tomorrow.

See Ya

9

Do you have any specific examples?

I have seen a workable, consitutional campaign finance reform proposal.

No limits. Full immediate disclosure. No vote, no donations. (excludes pacs, unions, corporations, etc…)
There is a concept here that you seem to miss. Individual responsibility is almost ALWAYS better than the government. In those instances where things are so clearly the responsibility of the government, then they tend to get done.

War would be a good instance of this.

Here is a short little list of ways I have seen the Constituion short circuted:

Tobacco and Gun lawsuits by the Federal government.

Education Department.

ATF.

The Waco cover-up.

The IRS.

Enviromental laws that unfairly remove land rights.

Land grabs.

etc…
etc…

10

“My contention is that the FF feared government. They did not believe that government should be the way to best serve the interests of The People. So they deliberatly hamstrung the government so as to force people to find other means of solving problems. I am saying that this has caused many problems to remain unsolved.”

The first two sentences are basically correct, but must be taken in the context of the times that the ff’s were living. Governments then thought that “the People” existed to serve the interests of the government, not the other way around. The ff’s were influenced by Enlightenment political theorists who proposed the new idea that governments existed to serve the people. But “serving the people” didn’t mean “solving their problems” then, nor does it mean that now.

11

Article III, Sec 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority . . .to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Article I, sec 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[quote]
Originally posted by Freedom

Article I, sec X, No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Last I’ve heard, there is a civil suit scheduled for June where the attorneys for the Branch Davidians will be arguing that the government was directly responsible for the deaths of the 80+ members inside their compound at the time. The Justice Department has been very cooperative with the courts, and recently a British consulting firm staged a reenactment which, depending on who you believe, strengthens the plaintiff’s case, the government’s case, or neither. I guess all I’m asking is: What cover up?

Amendment XVI, The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I don’t understand the other two points in your post, could you please clarify and I will see what I can find. Thanks.

12

Freedom:

Thank you for your reply. My selfish reason for starting this debate is to improve my critical thinking skills.

My best example is the Dred Scott decision. The Supreme Court made the legally correct interpetation. However, this interpetation is unarguably anti-freedom. How is this possible? Because courts are not concerned with right and wrong. They are concerned with legal or illegal. For this reason I do not believe that courts are quallified to protect our civil liberties. Any forum which does not allow arguments about what is best for The People, should not have the power to make decisions that effect The People.

The fact that the Supreme Court does have this power is a result of the checks and balances concept. I think this concept is misguided. If the legislative branch had the power to legislate, then this would be the place to decide on our civil liberties. (The legislature is also a much more democratic body. Although, not completely so.)

As for your reform proposal; I would not call any proposal, which does not outlaw buying TV ad time, comprehensive. This is the most dangerous tool of Big Money.

As to your list of short circuted items, I think we would disagree on at least some of them. My point here is that our disagreement should take the form of a debate on what is best for everyone. Instead of what the constitution will allow.

JDeMobray:

The “beneficial vs not beneficial” as opposed to the “legal vs illegal” was the point I was getting at earlier.

So, do any of the current Reform bills propose to end buying TV ad time? If so, I think you will find that their passage will be anything but “fairly easy”. And the legal challenges will be even more protracted.
I thank you people for your time and your views.

Peace

13

Hmm, well, it’s kinda too late to change our minds now, isn’t it?
Anyway, I’d say that we did. Nobody’s perfect, you’ve got to realize that. Nor is any nation. America, however, is not bad at all. Sure, we have dishonest statesmen. Sure, we have government corruption. Sure, students are not doing as well as they could be. But-the government has not killed 30% of the population (Cambodia, previous regime.)We know we’re a capitalist economy, we don’t try to say we’re something else (China.) This is a civil society; honorable people aren’t laughed at, or shot, or imprissoned (China, Russia.) Everyone who is using this board has a personal computer, internet access, his own indoor living place, and, presumelby, decent heat, food, and water population. All of those put you at a higher “standard of living” than perhaps 5 billion people- not bad, eh?
So, the FFs might not have been perfect, but I’d say they’ve done some pretty damn good stuff, considering they all died a good 150 years ago, at the latest. Did we pick the right ones? I have no idea. Does it matter? You decide :wink:

~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”

14

Beneficial to whom? In most of the cases that Freedom brought up (with the notable exception of Waco) I feel that the government is doing it’s best to help rather than hinder the “people.”

Let me ask you a question in response to your example: In what forum, given the time and context of the Dred Scott case, do you think the outcome would have been any different? Do you think that a different verdict would have been any less divisive?

Finally, with regards to your question on campaignn finance: yes, most of them have limits placed on buying TV ad time. Although to be fair Shays-Meehan only bars TV ads within 60 days of the elections. And you are correct that the passage of these bills is an uphill struggle, thanks in no small part to Rep. Tom Delay (R-TEX) who attached a really nasty rider to the bill.

15

2sense, the reason for a system of checks and balances is so that the legislature can’t pass “anti-freedom” laws just because a majority wants them. You mentioned Dred Scott; are you saying that slavery should be left to legislators to decide? If it were, we might still have it in some states. You seem to presume that whatever a majority of people want, and elect their legislators to do, must be the “right” thing. The ff’s knew their history lessons and were careful to set up the government to check the majority against its power over the minority.

16

Id definately not want judges deciding whats right and wrong.

The only goverment where id want someone deciding what is right and wrong is when i am supreme emperor.

17

I’d just like to say that when a country starts saying things on the order of “we’re pretty good because we’re better than China or Cambodia”, then that should start someone thinking. Call me back when the US compares favourably in all areas with, say, Denmark.

18

Gilligan:

In response to your 2 posts.

1st post.

I agree with this entire post, except for the last sentence. The purpose of government is exactly to solve problems that are too large for people to solve individualy. If government does not exist to solve problems, then what is its reason for existing?

2nd post.

Empowering the state governments at the expense of the central government is a part of the checks and balances system.

If this were not done, and the majority of the people in the late 1850’s believed that slavery was immoral(I believe this is true, and anti-slavery sentiment was not limited to Yankees), and the legislature was responsive to The People’s desires, then slavery would have ended then and there. With no War of Southern Rebellion.

I do not believe in the “overbearing majority” argument. Having a government do what the majority thinks is “right” is the basis of democracy. Who should decide what is “right” if not The People?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Salaam

19

Argeable:

I have to agree with matt_mcl on this.
I think America is a great place to live. Although, I have never lived anywhere else. I do not think, however, that this country is perfect.
Humans have learned a lot in the last 150 years. I would like to see some of this reflected in our government. Also, I am concerned about the next 150 years.

Peace

20

JDeMobray:

“Beneficial to whom?”

Beneficial to the people as a whole.

As to your Dred Scott questions.
I hope I have answered your 1st question in my response to Gilligan.

“Do you think that a different verdict would have been any less divisive?”

Since I do not believe that courts are the place to answer this question, I am not sure if I have the standing to answer it. But since I am unsure, I will. Given the situation, I would think not.

Thank you for your response to my Campaign Finance Reform questions. I do not follow the actions of Congress as much as I should. I am aware that Rep. Tom Delay (R-TEX) is a powerbroker among the Elephants. So I would assume that this means trouble. Also, there are still the legal challenges to overcome.

FTR- I am a registered Jackass.

Peace