- Jefferson had a tendency toward THE PROGRESSIVE liberal side of issues and this created many problems for him in his relationships with the factions. IMO he spent to much time in France over his life and what he took from them would not be well received by todays'Constitutional Conservatives. The same goes for Franklin if you read his bio the same progressive re distribution ideas were supported by him.If one read the Founders/Framers/Ratifiers papers it becomes clear that many were what today we would call liberals and felt the State, Count and City governments should have progressive property tax to pay for service. They felt the poor could not pay so the wealthy must pay. Interessting when we view the work products through our current view points.All that being said they realized that the FEDERAL CONSTITUION must protect the States and the people from overreach and dominance - they feared a pwerful king like governement which drove them to the extreme Conservative document and even adding the bill of rights to gain agreement from the anti Federalist. All of the FF warned of the danger if the Congress and the courts usurp; all will be destroyed and freedoms removed one at a time until rebellion is the only correction. IMO we as a society aer not there yet but it is coming of the Congress and the States do not regain the proper balance of power - the Federal must be forced back into the Article I section 8 enumerated powers limitations.SCOTUS will play the first cards in the return to a strict Consituional Republic and the limited powers of the Federal Congress. If they fail all hell could brake lose on the Obamacare issue and the Administrative usurpation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."
John Adams
- Permalink Reply by on
- Wish I had a date but here is where I pulled it from Jon:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_Adams
- Permalink Reply by on
- Try this links for Founders quotes - it is a great link -
- Permalink Reply by on
- That's why we need a systemic approach, the strategy must encompass all arguments and foresee the problems Reagan had when he moved in the direction to restore states rights. I gave this link to lock.At the bottom it gets to problems Ronnie had.
- Permalink Reply by on
- had a good visual and I'm going to reprint it here as a baseline starting point. My thinking is that if we want to overturn an Amendment we have to start with the Constitution itself, and argue either a contravention, or an unintended consequence (mine and your argument against the 14th)Now again, the 16th Amendment:The Sixteenth Amendment seems to be a direct assault on a vital provision in the US Constitution - Art. 1, Sect.9, Clause 4.Rian's words...With the expanding debt, people will say our Constitution and capitalism was a failure, but it's not true! WE CHANGED OUR CONSTITUTION AND THAT WAS THE DEATH SENTENCE.I won't deny you your Heine time so think about it for a while. I think there could be a way to argue this from a Constitutional point of view.BTW if you've never been to this guy's site, you're missing out. He's totally down the rabbit hole on this issue, but he has made some progress and does have some pretty good material. Check it out.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thanks for the link. Many of us here on TPP are very familiar with the site.I concur with your comment. It occurs to me that Reagan did not have the necessary support from the states to affect the change he desired. Lock made an excellent point regarding the fed shifting all the monetary costs to the states but retaining all the authority. Today we have a situation that, if Reagan were President now, his efforts would have a significantly greater impact IMO.My efforts [for yrs] have been at the State level for I believe that if we are going to see any change whatsoever, it's going to be states asserting their 10A rights and constitutionally forcing the fed to relinquish usurped powers.Which leads me to my pessimism about our chances of success. For this approach to truly have good odds it entails taking back control of our education system not to mention the years it would take to influence the civic knowledge of the electorate. It took the left over a century to accomplish. Now, while I firmly believe we could accomplish the task in less time, the question in my mind is: is there enough time?If the Tea Party movement had come along ten to fifteen yrs earlier I might be optimistic about our chances. As things stand now, I think we are in for some very bad times before things even start getting better.I have no doubt that a great Republic will again be reality; it's only a matter of time and a question of how painful it will be.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Now have the behaviors of Hamilton much more mainstream than many have represented. Was he just seeing the FALLACY - or was he a monarch supporter. He took advantage of the weakness of power when he defeated all in the creation of the national bank. Opens up a whole new way of viewing what, why, when, and where the visions of the Founders, Framers and the Ratifiers were focused?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Was he just seeing the FALLACY - or was he a monarch supporter.
In Hamilton's speech at the Convention on June 18th, 1787 (attacking the states’ rights proposal of William Paterson) he upheld the British government as the best model from the world for the colonists to use. He advocated that the best solution lied in an aristocratic, strongly centralized, coercive, but representative union with devices that would give weight to class and property.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If you read enough of his works he was on all sides of many issues. I put together a collection of quotes by Jefferson and Hamilton showing how they moved. I think it was on this thread. Let me know if you can not find it and I will look.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
You and I were mainly the ones who went round and round on this. As I recall we ended up agreeing that all the framers were, at different points in time, on one side or the other.
I base my opinions on the whole, as far as historical figures, but put a major emphasis on actions over statements; historical or present day.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I've seen plenty of material to suggest that Mr. Adams was arrogant and elitist so I would agree. Following that idea with the quote Nathan provided suggests a disregard for “the people” that I’m not certain is accurate.The quote comes from Adam’s Defence Of The Constitutions Op Government Of The United States Of America. Chapter. I Marchamont Nedham. This gentleman was a “royalist” whose ideas on Republicanism apparently didn’t set well with Adam’s. In any case here is a bit more of what Adam’s said.“Marchamont Nedham lays it down as a fundamental principle and an undeniable rule, "that the people, (that is, such as shall be successively chosen to represent the people,) are the best keepers of their: own liberties… First, because they never think of usurping over other men's rights, but mind which way to preserve their own." Our first attention should be turned to the proposition itself, — "The people are the best keepers of their own liberties." But who are the people?If by the people is meant the whole body of a great nation, it should never be forgotten, that they can never act, consult, or reason together, because they cannot march five hundred miles, nor spare the time, nor find a space to meet; and, therefore, the proposition, that they are the best keepers of their own liberties, is not true. They are the worst conceivable; they are no keepers at all. They can neither act, judge? think, or will, as a body politic or corporation…If it is meant by the people, as our author explains himself, a representative assembly, " such as shall be successively chosen to represent the people," still they are not the best keepers of the people's liberties or their own, if you give them all the power, legislative, executive, and judicial. They would invade the liberties of the people, at least the majority of them would invade the liberties of the minority, sooner and oftener than an absolute monarchy…An excellent writer has said, somewhat incautiously, that " a people will never oppress themselves, or invade their own rights." This compliment, if applied to human nature, or to mankind, or to any nation or people in being or in memory, is more than has been merited. If it should be admitted that a people will not unanimously agree to oppress themselves, it is as much as is ever, and more than is always, true. All kinds of experience show, that great numbers of individuals do oppress great numbers of other individuals; that parties often, if not always, oppress other parties; and majorities almost universally minorities. All that this observation can mean then, consistently with any color of fact, is, that the people will never unanimously agree to oppress themselves. There are some few, indeed, whose whole lives and conversations show that, in every thought, word, and action, they conscientiously respect the rights of others. There is a larger body still, who, in the general tenor of their thoughts and actions, discover similar principles and feelings, yet frequently err. If we should extend our candor so far as to own, that the majority of men are generally under the dominion of benevolence and good intentions, yet, it must be confessed, that a vast majority frequency transgress; and, what is more directly to the point, not only a majority, but almost all, confine their benevolence to their families, relations, personal friends, parish, village, city, county, province, and that very few, indeed, extend it impartially to the whole community. Now, grant but this truth, and the question is decided. If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations.It is agreed that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties, and the only keepers who can be always trusted; and, therefore, the people's fair, full, and honest consent, to every law, by their representatives, must be made an essential part of the constitution; but it is denied that they are the best keepers, or any keepers at all, of their own liberties, when they hold collectively, or by representation, the executive and judicial power, or the whole and uncontrolled legislative; on the contrary, the experience of all ages has proved, that they instantly give away their liberties into the hand of grandees, or kings, idols of their own creation. The management of the executive and judicial powers together always corrupts them, and throws the whole power into the hands of the most profligate and abandoned among themselves. The honest men are generally nearly equally divided in sentiment, and, therefore, the vicious and unprincipled, by joining one party, carry the majority; and the vicious and unprincipled always follow the most profligate leader, him who bribes the highest, and sets all decency and shame at defiance. It becomes more profitable, and reputable too, except with a very few, to be a party man than a public-spirited one.”Nathan, sorry about the length but I think this changes the implication of the segment you quoted earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment