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

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Rhythmdvl

Incorporation wasn’t part of the original plan. According to the Framers, the Bill of Rights did not apply to you. You have no Second Amendment protections from the Virginia legislature. They can take away your guns and there was nothing the Federal courts can do about it–there is nothing the Federal courts should do about it.

Of course, if you prefer those horrible activist courts and their willy-nilly interpretation of the Constitution, if you understand that buzzwords like textualist and originalist are inherently empty of meaning, then maybe you can make a case for having *Federal *Second Amendment rights that protect you from encroachments by state laws.

You’re telling me the first amendment establishment clause meant that the federal government couldn’t establish a national religion but each of the states could establish a state religion if they wanted to? Could you give me a cite?

BTW I agree with the rest of your post.

[2sense]

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

The pro-slavery/raw elitism of the Founders is widely known so undoubtedly what would cause the Tea Partiers the most dismay would be their discovery that the Federalists were the party of strong central government. You often see claims along the lines of, “If the Founding Fathers knew what the Commerce Clause was being used for today they would be rolling over in their graves!” Au contraire. The men who signed the Constitution hoped that it would be construed broadly and then got themselves or like-minded men elected to Congress to ensure that it would be. The very purpose in creating the Constitution was to expand federal power. I imagine many in the Tea Party would go to their graves rather than face the ugly truth of that.

Also, please ignore the Salon article linked above.
Whatever his other merits, Michael Lind fails to grasp the basics of the Whiskey Rebellion.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You’re telling me the first amendment establishment clause meant that the federal government couldn’t establish a national religion but each of the states could establish a state religion if they wanted to? Could you give me a cite?

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

The application of the Bill of Rights to State governments is referred to as incorporation.

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

As for a State religion, Connecticut, lovely lovely Connecticut–the Constitution State–had an established church up until 1888.

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Noone who defends the second amendment thinks the second amendment is any more absolute than the right to free speech. There are limits despite the absolute language of the constitution. We recognize that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre and I think most people would draw the line somewhere before explosives.

That’s my point. If there are limits, then the amendment is useless. The 2nd amendment doesn’t exist in other countries, yet many have similar limits to ours. The argument should be about what the appropriate limits are, and not about what the founding fathers really meant. Besides historians, who cares what they meant? They had no idea about what the country and world would look like 230 years later.

[Jas09]

[quote=“gitfiddle, post:31, topic:558226”]

Here is an actual Washington

(http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/peacedoc.htm), from a document called the “Peace Establishment,” on the Army website:

<snip>

Not only does it mention the responsibility of people to serve in what one might call a “well-regulated militia” (including the inspection of the arms by [scary voice]the government) but it also references the necessity of the wealthier among us to give up a part of their “property” for the benefit of the protection of the nation.

Now there’s a very interesting (and sourced!) Washington quote. I think we can probably safely conclude that the Tea Party would not be OK with the government coming in and expecting all of their weapons yearly. Right?

The whole militia concept (and related antipathy towards a standing army) is a bit at-odds with modern reality.