- Conservatives were not uniformly opposed to the presidency or to all of Wilson’s actions after he defeated Taft in 1912, but they criticized his continued aggrandizement of the presidency as an elaboration of the statist trend that threatened constitutional government. Of course, many also were dissatisfied with the Treaty of Versailles, created through Wilson’s personal negotiation without Senate input, and then his insistence that it be ratified without change to include America in the League of Nations.Henry Cabot Lodge, David Jayne Hill, and James M. Beck saw Wilson’s actions as typical of his consistent disregard for constitutional norms and his attempt to accrue power in the executive. Lodge disliked Wilson intensely, but he acted on constitutional principle in the League fight.[82] Nor should such rectitude be denied to Hill, who judged that Wilson’s thought and action marked him as “a convert to the idea of the omnipotent administrative State and the uncontrolled predominance of its head.”[83]Beck made the same point in an occasionally hilarious short play that mocked Wilson’s constitutional ideas, foreign policy, and imperious character. (For example: “Wilson: The solution was very simple. I converted a Newtonian form into a Darwinian, and, in the struggle for existence between the different branches of the Government, proved myself the fittest to survive.”)[84] Sarcasm aside, Beck, Hill, and others were genuinely concerned that Wilson advanced “a seemingly irresistible tendency toward one-man power” apparent in mass democracy, centralized bureaucracy, and the cult of efficiency.[85]If the drift of modernity was toward “Napoleonic” democracy and rule “not by discussion and deliberation, but by plebiscite,” Hill asked, why not follow Wilson’s apparent inclination and “place all power in the hands of the president? Of course, we could not call him ‘emperor,’ but we should in that case have a law-maker who could be held ‘responsible to the people.’”[86] All that was necessary was to accept Wilson’s claim that the supposedly Newtonian Constitution had been superseded by a Darwinian one. But just as Darwinism had not repealed Newton’s discovery of the law of gravity to which all things were subject, evolve as they might, “in like manner, we shall be compelled to return to the great principles of human justice underlying the Constitution for a defensible theory of the state.”[87]ConclusionAmid the Progressive challenge, conservatives returned to first principles to explain, preserve, and adapt American constitutionalism in response to centralization of authority in the federal government, attacks on the judiciary, and increased presidential power. When the New Deal rapidly invigorated these trends, constitutional conservatives saw more of a continuation than a revolution. An embattled and dwindling group fought on, but after the Supreme Court began regularly upholding the New Deal in 1937, the Court’s new version of constitutional law overcame those who remained.It is, however, highly significant for the idea of constitutional conservatism that the New Dealers themselves experienced a “failure of nerve” in their project to overturn the Constitution. They claimed to have restored rather than abandoned constitutional orthodoxy—a claim often repeated by later scholars.[88] This assertion manifested the same imperative for maintenance or preservation that appears to be integral to the American understanding of what it means to be a constitutional regime.Just what preservation—or restoration—of American constitutionalism might entail in the era of the modern state, with its adjuncts in new forms of political science and law, would remain an important concern for the rest of the 20th century. It became increasingly clear that the Burkean, Southern Agrarian, and libertarian elements in American conservatism, despite their pre–New Deal stances, would have to establish a firmer connection to American constitutionalism or else consign themselves to permanent irrelevance as an irreconcilable remnant devoted to the principles of some other regime.After a generation in exile following the New Deal, most conservatives have come to see more clearly that they must stand for the Constitution. Today, popular attention to the Constitution is keener than it has been in decades, as is awareness of the battering it has taken from the modern liberals who elaborated Progressivism. This circumstance makes it an opportune time for conservatives to return yet again to defense of the Constitution, and with it the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as the basis of their politics.—Johnathan O’Neill is Associate Professor of History at Georgia Southern University and the author ofOriginalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).
- Permalink Reply by on
Historical Introduction-Insist It Means..What It Says It Means
- Permalink Reply by on
- We are completing the final edits of historical background on the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments. Please look for them on site very soon and allow them to introduce you to the mind set and understanding of the events of the time when these amendments were adopted. The information is very enlightening....it is thoughtful to consider their relevance to the conditions of our Nation today and how they directly impact current events....
History it seems is always destined to repeat itself...or conditions to re-establish...it is our response to the events that will be recorded and determine the future...
- Permalink Reply by
- Many will try to define the Constitution in the terms of a 120 year long Revisionist History word and modernization program of a LIVING CONSTITUTION of course they can provide zero language in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION that authorizes the drifting changes of time and place. As Jefferson said - Bind them down with the heavy chains of the CONSTITUTION.
- Permalink Reply by
- NEW YORK TIMES OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY AND THE FOUNDERS - PROGRESSIVE VIEWS OF US NORMAL AMERICANS.
Advertise on NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Contributor
The Founding Fathers Versus the Tea Party
Alex Nabaum
By RON CHERNOW
Published: September 23, 2010
LIKE many popular insurgencies in American history, the Tea Party movement has attempted to enlist the founding fathers as fervent adherents to its cause. The very name invokes those disguised patriots who clambered aboard ships in Boston Harbor in December 1773 and dumped chests of tea into the water rather than submit to the hated tea tax. At Tea Party rallies, marchers brandish flags emblazoned with the Revolutionary slogan “Don’t Tread on Me” while George Washington impersonators and other folks in colonial garb mingle with the crowds.
Many Tea Party candidates and activists have tried to seize the moral high ground by explicitly identifying with the founders. Sharron Angle, who is mounting a spirited run against Harry Reid for a Senate seat from Nevada with Tea Party support, bristled at Mr. Reid’s contention that she is overly conservative. “I’m sure that they probably said that about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Benjamin Franklin,” she protested. “And, truly, when you look at the Constitution and our founding fathers and their writings ... you might draw those conclusions: That they were conservative. They were fiscally conservative and socially conservative.”
The Tea Party movement has further sought to spruce up its historical bona fides by laying claim to the United States Constitution. Many Tea Party members subscribe to a literal reading of the national charter as a way of bolstering their opposition to deficit spending, bank bailouts and President Obama’s health care plan. A Tea Party manifesto, called the Contract From America, even contains a rigid provision stipulating that all legislation passed by Congress should specify the precise clause in the Constitution giving Congress the power to pass such a law — an idea touted Thursday by the House Republican leadership.
But any movement that regularly summons the ghosts of the founders as a like-minded group of theorists ends up promoting an uncomfortably one-sided reading of history.
The truth is that the disputatious founders — who were revolutionaries, not choir boys — seldom agreed about anything. Never has the country produced a more brilliantly argumentative, individualistic or opinionated group of politicians. Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day. Right along with the rest of America, the Tea Party has inherited these open-ended feuds, which are profoundly embedded in our political culture.
As a general rule, the founders favored limited government, reserving a special wariness for executive power, but they clashed sharply over those limits.
The Constitution’s framers dedicated Article I to the legislature in the hope that, as the branch nearest the people, it would prove pre-eminent. But Washington, as our first president, quickly despaired of a large, diffuse Congress ever exercising coherent leadership. The first time he visited the Senate to heed its “advice and consent,” about a treaty with the Creek Indians, he was appalled by the disorder. “This defeats every purpose of my coming here,” he grumbled, then departed with what one senator branded an air of “sullen dignity.” Washington went back one more time before dispensing with the Senate’s advice altogether, henceforth seeking only its consent.
President Washington’s Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, wasted no time in testing constitutional limits as he launched a burst of government activism. In December 1790, he issued a state paper calling for the first central bank in the country’s history, the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System.
Because the Constitution didn’t include a syllable about such an institution, Hamilton, with his agile legal mind, pounced on Article I, Section 8, which endowed Congress with all powers “necessary and proper” to perform tasks assigned to it in the national charter. Because the Constitution empowered the government to collect taxes and borrow money, Hamilton argued, a central bank might usefully discharge such functions. In this way, he devised a legal doctrine of powers “implied” as well as enumerated in the Constitution.
Aghast at the bank bill, James Madison, then a congressman from Virginia, pored over the Constitution and could not “discover in it the power to incorporate a bank.” Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was no less horrified by Hamilton’s legal legerdemain. He thought that only measures indispensable to the discharge of enumerated powers should be allowed, not merely those that might prove convenient. He spied how many programs the assertive Hamilton was prepared to drive through the glaring loophole of the “necessary and proper” clause. And he prophesied that for the federal government “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power.”
After reviewing cogent legal arguments presented by Hamilton and Jefferson, President Washington came down squarely on Hamilton’s side, approving the first central bank.
John Marshall, the famed chief justice, traced the rise of the two-party system to that blistering episode, and American politics soon took on a nastily partisan tone. That the outstanding figures of the two main factions, Hamilton and Jefferson, both belonged to Washington’s cabinet attests to the fundamental disagreements within the country. Hamilton and his Federalist Party espoused a strong federal government, led by a powerful executive branch, and endorsed a liberal reading of the Constitution; although he resisted the label at first, Washington clearly belonged to this camp.
Jefferson and his Republicans (not related to today’s Republicans) advocated states’ rights, a weak federal government and strict construction of the Constitution. The Tea Party can claim legitimate descent from Jefferson and Madison, even though they founded what became the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Washington and Hamilton — founders of no mean stature — embraced an expansive view of the Constitution. That would scarcely sit well with Tea Party advocates, many of whom adhere to the judicial doctrine of originalism — i.e., that any interpretation of the Constitution must abide by the intent of those founders who crafted it.
Of course, had it really been the case that those who wrote the charter could best fathom its true meaning, one would have expected considerable agreement about constitutional matters among those former delegates in Philadelphia who participated in the first federal government. But Hamilton and Madison, the principal co-authors of “The Federalist,” sparred savagely over the Constitution’s provisions for years. Much in the manner of Republicans and Democrats today, Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians battled over exorbitant government debt, customs duties and excise taxes, and the federal aid to business recommended by Hamilton.
No single group should ever presume to claim special ownership of the founding fathers or the Constitution they wrought with such skill and ingenuity. Those lofty figures, along with the seminal document they brought forth, form a sacred part of our common heritage as Americans. They should be used for the richness and diversity of their arguments, not tampered with for partisan purposes. The Dutch historian Pieter Geyl once famously asserted that history was an argument without an end. Our contentious founders, who could agree on little else, would certainly have agreed on that.
Ron Chernow is the author of “Alexander Hamilton” and the forthcoming “Washington: A Life.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on September 24, 2010, on page A29 of the New York edition.
- Permalink Reply by on
- great example of a progressive reconstruction of history and the quick/switch argument...don't debate the document...debate the imperfection of the people or politicians of the day...and a perfect example of our present day situation...the problem is the politician interpreting and implementing the policy...not the validity of the policy itself as it qualifies under the Constitution...
don't be side-tracked...this argument is for the weeds...we are not establishing the merits of-- the Founders as men, we are setting as foundation/restoring the ideal that the Constitution is an inspired document that stands above/in spite of/and to establish the government of imperfect men and women.
- Permalink Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is in my opinion that this particular site should only be used for positive input in our ideas. Not that critiques should be void from here altogether, just not as we do in the forum section. I am working on a new Manifesto, and this would be a good place to start reforming - by forming.My first thought was to reform the electoral , so to rid the country of the urbanization pox which dominates the political climate. It skews the representative per population scheme beyond words.All of my ideas will be large and to some ntimidating, but we can't think small anymore. The left has made too much progress. Though I do not feel comfortable with the Art. V amendment actions being done, I do not have confidence in the people. They are the same idiots who voted their representation into office, and the national climate, with the exception of governorships looks bleak. Pepper our local representatives with calls for this action is the only way we can help. It only takes one State to get the ball rolling. The second issue in this endeavor concerns who gets to write the amendment, as it hs to be ver batum in all 38 States voting yes for this to be valid. The diversity today compared to 1787 is lightyears apart, and this may be the hardest part of the .I personally disagree with the content of the current proposal as written. I hve pushed for a new amendment, rewriting the 10th, for two years, without any responce. At least this last effort appears to be getting some notice. The 10th, or soon to be 28th, alone could include deactivating the three amendments on the docket now in one swipe. The only sure thing is we will get nothing from D.C. Going this route is the only way possible.I will be adding content to this manifesto as time goes on, and I hope others will as well.
- Permalink Reply by on
- John have you even read the Article V proposed Amendment - it is the same as was used to repeal the 18th amendment so it has a proven ability to get he done . . no rewrite of anything just repeal the three offensive amendments. The people are voting for this it is their proxies [fiduciaries] in the State legislatures and it takes 50% + one vote in each house or the legislatures of 38 State. So, it is not that far off if enough push the States during this time of financial strife being thrust upon every State with ACA, EPA, Species Act and more unfunded mandates.Patriots need to take action for time and opportunity is here and now - if this window is missed the Progressives might have gone so far down the road that only the Jefferson solution will be left.
- Permalink Reply by
- I rest my case ! You can only repeal an Amendment by rewriting another, as the 21st does the 18th. Notice the 18th is still there, in black and white, it is repealed by the 21st. It is not a referendum vote, and the final copy of it has to be passed ver batum, right down to the last period in 38 States for it to be valid. This is the entire reason why I think the wording in the final amendment is going to be the sticking point. The first part is simple, just get a general proposal passed in 34 States. The entire legislature, House and Senate in each State has to vote. What are the odds of getting one, let alone three Amendments rewritten ? My thughts only meant to say it will be easier to do this once comprehensively.
- Permalink Reply by
- Hi John,I am so glad you brought up some of these ideas. There is much work to be done right now! As I stated the Article V project is a long term project while this Re-Formers group will work on current issues!Yes I agree- I have never liked nor understood the reasoning of the Electoral college -nonsense! and so many other immediate issues! We are at a point where we should call them at every corner! Zero Tolerance for monkey business!After speaking with you I am looking forward to your "manifesto" and yes I agree it is a good title for your ideas!LOL!We are gearing up for our Launch on Article V hopefully Jan 10th (as I have some surgery schedules for the 14th) so I need to meet that deadline to have the kinks out before I go in.Then we have a lot of work- writing the actual amendment and working on states, Getting folks to make contact- maybe one of my petitions? hhmm thinking out loud.Well old friend, the website is once again at the place where we were growing rapidly - before we had any people problems- it is exciting to see! It is about equal 1/2 come for Re-forming Republican party 1/2 for Article V!!! Mangus has been working very hard Tweeting and spreading the word! He even got the attention of some big boys a financial newscaster @JonathanHoenigSo we are really growing and my paying for the SEO work has helped tremendously - I will have to learn how to do it myself someday!LOL!Anyway All is very positive outlook for New Year!Toodles...Suzie
- Permalink Reply by
- Suzie and John the proposed amendment has been written here it is . . . if you have issues please come to the proper forum of AV group and we will address same.Thank you for your time to read the proposed amendment so we can discuss reality not emotions.
- Permalink Reply by
- I'm sorry Mangus... see how far behind I am! Geeze that is awful- I had no idea that the Amendment had been written other then the general idea of what we want- I am sorry about that- guess I better try to catch up on my reading soon as I get those pages finished!!
- Permalink Reply by
- You guys are so far ahead of me on this and here I am in Florida with limited time to read and learn from you knowledge insights.Allow me to say how much I do appreciate what you
- Permalink Reply by on
Article V of the Constitution of the United States
- Permalink Reply by on
Article V of the Constitution of the United States
Page Under Please excuse the dust!History, Project Outline and References coming soonPlease check our new Brochure for a quick explanation of the project“ The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”- Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers click here..
- Goldwater Institute Article V videos click here...
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.Amendments may be proposed by either:- two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
- by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.
To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:- the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
- state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.
Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used.Any amendment so ratified becomes a valid part of the Constitution, provided that no state "shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the senate," without its consent.President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address, March 4, 1861 said:" to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself..."
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous to have the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept of refuse."Proposal
Whenever they "shall deem it necessary," two thirds of both houses of Congress may "propose amendments." This means two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress.[1] It was suggested that the two houses first adopt a resolution indicating that they deem an amendment necessary, but this procedure has never been used—the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives instead directly proceed to the of a joint resolution, thereby proposing the amendment with the implication that both bodies "deem" the amendment to be "necessary." Up to now, all amendments have been proposed and implemented as codicils, appended to the main body of the Constitution.If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so request, Congress is required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. This provision, many scholars argue, allows for a check on the power of the Congress to limit potential constitutional amendments.The state legislatures have, in times past, used their power to for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing the desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of U.S. Senators.[citation needed]The President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process. Article One provides, "every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives." As previously stated, the Constitution requires the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the members present of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to a joint resolution which proposes a constitutional amendment. Nonetheless in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to place constitutional amendments before the President for signature and, by the same logic, the President is powerless to veto a proposed constitutional amendment.Hamilton, author of the final language in Article V, wrote in Federalist 85:Join the group here...Join the discussions here...Read Constitutional tutorials and Opinions here...GOP Opposition here...Special Thanks to...
- Permalink Reply by on
ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED
Information
This will divide the parts of the Article V process into parts some supporting some fearing the option.It is the opinion of the Author that Article V is the ONLY method left for the States to stop the tyranny and oppression of our citizens by a all powerful usurping Federal government.Try to stay on the specific link topic so those that come latter can read the subjects without drifting conversations.Thank you and I hope view it as a learning experience.Members: 11
Latest Activity: 16 hours ago
- Permalink Reply by on
ARTICLE V ARGUMENTS AND REASONS FOR THE NEED Discussions (31)
- Permalink Reply by on
Historically Speaking-History Speaks Volumes
As a group, Article V students and our welcomed visitors are seeking knowledge of the history of our government, working to ourselv…Started by CG9WE MUST BUILD A WINNING COALITION
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill http://www.br…Started by CG9Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government
http://www.devvy.com/notax.html Everyone needs to read this article as it is spot on here is just one small sample - But I heard the debt…Started by youARTICLE V WILL STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM VIOLATING THE FIFTH AMENDME...
Pay attention to Madison's words used when describing PROPERTY Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings Back |…Started by youRICHARD A. EPSTEIN - ONE OF AMERICAS GREAT MINDS ON OUR LAWS, CONST...
This series is 58 videos which will explain in some detail why only Article V can restore the Original Constitution and the rights and lib…Started by youTHE PROPOSED AMENDMENT - SIMPLE JUST LIKE THE ONE USED TO REPEAL TH...
Many of the Tea Party groups have Article V study groups - the Tenth Amendment, the Goldwater Institute, the Heritage Institute, Robert Na…Started by youBELIEFS THAT MUST BE CHALLENGED TO STOP THE SUPREME COURT USURPATION.
It is interesting that some people resent any debate about the possible actions to correct usurped powers. On one site I was personally att…Started by youTHOMAS JEFFERSON QUOTES
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ." -- Thomas Jefferson "The dem…Started by youWHAT WOULD THE STATE AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE 14TH, 16TH AND 17TH AM...
Let us start with the 21st amendment which used Article V to repeal the 18th amendment. By the way this was done without any major problems…Started by youHARVARD LAW SCHOOL DEBATE AND SPEECHES ON ARTICLE V
I am posting the entire series of Harvard Law School videos debating the Article V State Amendment process. It is quite good and will assi…Started by you
- Permalink Reply by on
No comments:
Post a Comment