PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Founding Fathers


irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 01:52 PM
Why is it that the Founding Fathers are being referred to a lot more recently?

I ask not because I don't understand the movements intentions but because I'm confused on a pretty significant point. That is, how can someone always refer back to the Founding Fathers yet know so little about them.

The biggest example would be them being Deists not Christians. That's a slight difference. And by slight: a gaping canyon with a string thrown across as a bridge (the concept of god).

Another example would be the unfamiliarity of the FF's documents. Both their letters outside the official government business and the actual founding documents. While perhaps not true on this board, a good majority of the people constantly referring to the FFs and Constitution seem consistently confused between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (See life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)

A lot on this board are even confused as to what the Constitution actually says and the powers it gives. (For example, taxation.) Yet, many of these same people are the ones constantly trying to get us back to the "glory days of America" with just the Constitution and not the interpretations and baggage since. (Of course, this overlooks many of the issues the FFs simply ignored, like slavery.)

Another facet of this is a Catholic approach to the Founding Fathers. In this approach, only some of the founding fathers are worth listening to; only some of their documents worth heeding.

Finally, it seems like a good portion of this movement views the founders as the only people who "knew what they were doing". That is, any ideas that run contrary to the Founding Father's views or, more strictly, their writings, are automatically bad ideas and should be discarded. With 200 years, why aren't some ideas today equally as valid even if they run contrary to their very limited views. (Limited in that they couldn't foresee globalization, term limits, etc etc)

I'm not sure I can blame the educational system for all of this, though it does have its fair share of blame.

Thoughts?

wild1
02-16-2010, 01:53 PM
They wrote this thing called the Constitution, which defines the (limited) role of government. This limited role of government is becoming quite inconvenient in today's political climate.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 01:58 PM
A lot on this board are even confused as to what the Constitution actually says and the powers it gives. (For example, taxation.)

This is a good point. Perhaps though you need to send this to the Dems in Congress??? The ability to tax is provided in the Constitution. However, that does not give them the Right to "mandate" things such as mandating people purchase health care insurance.

I mean, if you want to pick it apart, lets pick it apart.

The only way they can legally do that is provide insurance for all tax payers and "tax" them accordingly. They cannot mandate that someone purchase anything.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 01:59 PM
They wrote this thing called the Constitution, which defines the (limited) role of government. This limited role of government is becoming quite inconvenient in today's political climate.

It's as if you stopped reading after the first sentence, which is a mistake.

Garcia Bronco
02-16-2010, 02:00 PM
They wrote this thing called the Constitution, which defines the (limited) role of government. This limited role of government is becoming quite inconvenient in today's political climate.

James Madison actually wrote the Consitution. Not a group of Fore Father.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. The DoI has no real legal meaning in the US.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:00 PM
This is a good point. Perhaps though you need to send this to the Dems in Congress??? The ability to tax is provided in the Constitution. However, that does not give them the Right to "mandate" things such as mandating people purchase health care insurance.

I mean, if you want to pick it apart, lets pick it apart.

The only way they can legally do that is provide insurance for all tax payers and "tax" them accordingly. They cannot mandate that someone purchase anything.

That has nothing to do with the thread, really. It's a partisan sideshow. I'm interested in the disconnect here.

As you mention though, the Constitution has given Congress the ability to tax. Yet, there are people who think taxation itself is theft.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:01 PM
James Madison actually wrote the Consitution. Not a group of Fore Father.

Good point.

NewChief
02-16-2010, 02:02 PM
Two words:

Glen Beck.

I asked something similar a few months back.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:03 PM
That has nothing to do with the thread, really. It's a partisan sideshow. I'm interested in the disconnect here.

As you mention though, the Constitution has given Congress the ability to tax. Yet, there are people who think taxation itself is theft.

The disconnect? I agree, some on here think the Fed Gov has a Right to mandate the purchase of health care.

Excessive taxation can be viewed as theft when one analyzes how said tax dollars are being spent. And I am not talking about SS or Medicare. I am talking about political perks, junkets around the world, private plane trips with fully stocked bars for the family and friends of elected representatives, etc., etc.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:05 PM
I really wish there was a power given to thread starters to temp ban someone from their thread. In this case, pete, because he's turned a discussion on the FOUNDING FATHERS and the revival of their IDEAS and the disconnect between the two into mandating health care, which this thread is NOT about.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:06 PM
To further add to the Tax issue, Taxation withour Representation does exist when said elected Representatives ignore the will of their constituency. It is nigh impossible to claim one is being "represented" when the representer is ignoring what it is the voters wish him\her to represent.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:07 PM
I really wish there was a power given to thread starters to temp ban someone from their thread. In this case, pete, because he's turned a discussion on the FOUNDING FATHERS and the revival of their IDEAS and the disconnect between the two into mandating health care, which this thread is NOT about.

I was just addressing a point you noted in your OP and further elaborated on. Don't get pissed at me. I didn't make you say it. And are you saying the concept of Taxation without Representation was void in the thoughts of the FF's?

Garcia Bronco
02-16-2010, 02:08 PM
Good point.

I think your points in the OP are very good. The only thing I would say about todays ideas for policy is they usually violate the Constitution in some way.

Fine...change the rules...but by God follow the rules.

mlyonsd
02-16-2010, 02:08 PM
I really wish there was a power given to thread starters to temp ban someone from their thread. In this case, pete, because he's turned a discussion on the FOUNDING FATHERS and the revival of their IDEAS and the disconnect between the two into mandating health care, which this thread is NOT about.

I guess I don't understand why you don't see that as part of the disconnect.

FF discussions have always been current events and what they would have thought and acted on them.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:09 PM
To further add to the Tax issue, Taxation withour Representation does exist when said elected Representatives ignore the will of their constituency. It is nigh impossible to claim one is being "represented" when the representer is ignoring what it is the voters wish him\her to represent.

In theory that argument might hold water but not in practicality. If you don't think he's living up to his constituency, you can run against him. You can get a friend to run against him. You can get a group to vote him out of office. You can do many different things.

Now, this does bring up the point of the Founding Fathers building in a compromise: 2 representatives from each state for the Senate (to equal the playing field of small states) and a population proportional segment (to make larger states heard for their bigger impact). And, yet, the number of Representatives in the House hasn't changed since, IIRC, 1924.

banyon
02-16-2010, 02:11 PM
They're always referred to collectively too, like they were a uni-mind or something. Founding fathers that say things that don't work for the narrative don't count, or even the same founding fathers being used, if they say something different at a different time, that doesn't count either.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:11 PM
I guess I don't understand why you don't see that as part of the disconnect.

FF discussions have always been current events and what they would have thought and acted on them.

Except that a lack of understanding about the FFs and their writings seem to bring people to the wrong conclusions about "what they would have thought".

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:12 PM
In theory that argument might hold water but not in practicality. If you don't think he's living up to his constituency, you can run against him. You can get a friend to run against him. You can get a group to vote him out of office. You can do many different things.

Now, this does bring up the point of the Founding Fathers building in a compromise: 2 representatives from each state for the Senate (to equal the playing field of small states) and a population proportional segment (to make larger states heard for their bigger impact). And, yet, the number of Representatives in the House hasn't changed since, IIRC, 1924.

Well, I beg to differ. In all practicality we vote out one Noble only to replace them with another. The concept is still sound. The application of the concept is what has become impractical.

wild1
02-16-2010, 02:12 PM
It's as if you stopped reading after the first sentence, which is a mistake.

I was merely using past performance as an indicator of future results.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:12 PM
They're always referred to collectively too, like they were a uni-mind or something. Founding fathers that say things that don't work for the narrative don't count, or even the same founding fathers being used, if they say something different at a different time, that doesn't count either.

This too.

So what do we attribute these things to?

Education? Willful ignorance? Group-think? (Glen Beck? :p )

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:13 PM
Well, I beg to differ. In all practicality we vote out one Noble only to replace them with another. The concept is still sound. The application of the concept is what has become impractical.

You mean you think that the minute your new representative steps into office you are not represented anymore and thus no change in guard will ever represent you?

NewChief
02-16-2010, 02:15 PM
This thread (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=218460&highlight=republic&page=2)from about post 23 forward covers some of the same ground and my feelings on the trend.

mlyonsd
02-16-2010, 02:16 PM
Except that a lack of understanding about the FFs and their writings seem to bring people to the wrong conclusions about "what they would have thought".

I won't argue that. Heck, you can tell by their writings that if they could see now what a progressive tax has done to their republic they'd have gone back and re-written the part about taxation.

;) (that was for you and banyon)

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:18 PM
You mean you think that the minute your new representative steps into office you are not represented anymore and thus no change in guard will ever represent you?

I think the pattern is the political system dominated by the Nobles tends to override such a concept. I won't go as far to say that no change in guard, but I will say those who control the guard are not the People anymore.

Garcia Bronco
02-16-2010, 02:18 PM
Another thing you'll see is seperation of church and state attributed as a pillar of our government and written into our contract, the US Constitution. It is not and never has been. What the relgious establishment portion of the first amendment was meant to convey was that religion was not a requirement to participate in government or hold political office. That government could not deny you because of your faith. It makes no mention of prayer in school or any other crap people like to spout just because of beliefs. In fact if you do have faith anymore...you almost have to keep it to yourself entirely. People will accuse you of being intolerant..by... LOL...intolerant people

The first amendment has it's root in a Virginia Law basically stating the same. It's about the freedom to choose and being tolerant in order to form a more perfect union.

Separation of Church and State...the phrase itself is based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. It has no legal merit what-so-ever

So what do we have today: LOL

You have to be religious to hold the highest office in the land and it must be christian. Yuk yuk and talking about a Christian God in a public school or court house will get you fired or expelled or jailed. Maybe not jailed...but you get the picture.

mlyonsd
02-16-2010, 02:20 PM
This too.

So what do we attribute these things to?

Education? Willful ignorance? Group-think? (Glen Beck? :p )

Lack of education. Individual FF's thoughts and writing are not taught in our lower levels of education to any large degree.

They are rarely talked about independently except for Washington, Jefferson, etc. When the constitution is brought up the FF's are talked about as a collective group. IMO.

Garcia Bronco
02-16-2010, 02:23 PM
They're always referred to collectively too, like they were a uni-mind or something. Founding fathers that say things that don't work for the narrative don't count, or even the same founding fathers being used, if they say something different at a different time, that doesn't count either.

They were just a group of leaders from a different time. that often disagreed like we do today. Barely anything has changed.

Anyone know who said? "Taxation without representation is tyranny."

He was a congressmen in the Virginia Legislature. People quote him all the time and you can sop at his mall near Portsmouth, Va. and he was firmly against the US Constitutions ratification by Virginia. He's a forefather though. How could he be against the US Constitution?

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:24 PM
Another thing you'll see is seperation of church and state attributed as a pillar of our government and written into our contract, the US Constitution. It is not and never has been. What the relgious establishment portion of the first amendment was meant to convey was that religion was not a requirement to participate in government or hold political office. That government could not deny you because of your faith. It makes no mention of prayer in school or any other crap people like to spout just because of beliefs. In fact if you do have faith anymore...you almost have to keep it to yourself entirely. People will accuse you of being intolerant..by... LOL...intolerant people

The first amendment has it's root in a Virginia Law basically stating the same. It's about the freedom to choose and being tolerant in order to form a more perfect union.

Separation of Church and State...the phrase itself is based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. It has no legal merit what-so-ever

So what do we have today: LOL

You have to be religious to hold the highest office in the land and it must be christian. Yuk yuk and talking about a Christian God in a public school or court house will get you fired or expelled or jailed. Maybe not jailed...but you get the picture.

Just to further clarify your point...

The only mention of religion in the Constitution comes from exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:26 PM
Lack of education. Individual FF's thoughts and writing are not taught in our lower levels of education to any large degree.

They are rarely talked about independently except for Washington, Jefferson, etc. When the constitution is brought up the FF's are talked about as a collective group. IMO.

Can it lay entirely at education's feet?

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:26 PM
They were just a group of leaders from a different time. that often disagreed like we do today. Barely anything has changed.

Anyone know who said? "Taxation without representation is tyranny."

He was a congressmen in the Virginia Legislature. People quote him all the time and you can sop at his mall near Portsmouth, Va. and he was firmly against the US Constitutions ratification by Virginia. He's a forefather though. How could he be against the US Constitution?

Actully there is debate on that. It seems to fall to 3 people:

1. Rev. Jonathan Mayhew
2. James Otis
3. Patrick Henry

Garcia Bronco
02-16-2010, 02:29 PM
Actully there is debate on that. It seems to fall to 3 people:

1. Rev. Jonathan Mayhew
2. James Otis
3. Patrick Henry

Number 3 is one the credited with the quote, but I feel confident a number of people said something simular when you had the mercantile bullshit going on like they did in the 1700's.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:29 PM
Another gross misconception of our FF's is their basis in Christianity.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan.htm

orange
02-16-2010, 02:29 PM
Anyone know who said? "Taxation without representation is tyranny."

James Otis? Bostonian? Who basically pre-dated the Revolution, let alone the Constitution.




He was a congressmen in the Virginia Legislature. People quote him all the time and you can sop at his mall near Portsmouth, Va. and he was firmly against the US Constitutions ratification by Virginia. He's a forefather though. How could he be against the US Constitution?

I have no idea who you're talking about here. Maybe you should elaborate.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:29 PM
Number 3 is one the credited with the quote, but I feel confident a number of people said something simular when you had the mercantile bullshit going on like they did in the 1700's.

Supposedly Rev. Mayhew said it first during a sermon. But I agree Henry generaly gets the credit for it.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:31 PM
James Otis? Bostonian? Who basically pre-dated the Revolution, let alone the Constitution.



James Otis, Jr. (February 5, 1725 – May 23, 1783) was a lawyer in colonial Massachusetts, a member of the Massachusetts Legislature, and an early advocate of the political views that led to the American Revolution. The phrase "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny" is usually attributed to him.

Garcia Bronco
02-16-2010, 02:48 PM
Whether you credit Otis, Mayhew, or Henry with the quote, the point is the founding fathers did not agree, certainly weren't religious, and ultimately were interested in improving their lives by getting away from English rule. Hell..htye were slave owners that wanted to be free. Maybe their station is over-used.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 02:51 PM
Hell..htye were slave owners that wanted to be free.

:LOL:

Chief Henry
02-16-2010, 04:33 PM
MSNBC TV host Michelle Brezshinski(sp) on MSNBC two weeks ago called Abe Lincoln one of the founding fathers !!! She said that infront of her father. One of his proud moments indeed.

mlyonsd
02-16-2010, 05:58 PM
Can it lay entirely at education's feet?

No idea. That's just my impression of how it was taught to me at least. From what I've seen from my kid's curriculum through the years I don't think it's changed much.

FF philosophy might be taught later in college but I never took any classes like that.

In reality the world of today and what the FF's would have thought of it is pure speculation IMO.

That won't stop me from random "Our FF's would be rolling over in their graves" comments though. :harumph:

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 06:08 PM
The only way they can legally do that is provide insurance for all tax payers and "tax" them accordingly. They cannot mandate that someone purchase anything.

Well, they weren't supposed to do that either but they did it.

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 06:12 PM
Well, they weren't supposed to do that either but they did it.

You ever going to respond to patteeu's thread?

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 06:18 PM
irishjayhawk discussing the Founders and the Constitution? LMAO LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 06:21 PM
James Madison actually wrote the Consitution. Not a group of Fore Father.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. The DoI has no real legal meaning in the US.

Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution for this reason but he basically took notes from the Convention debates, the compromises of them all and crafted the final document.

They may not have agreed on every detail but they did on the basics. Of course there was a serpent in the room with them too.;)

|Zach|
02-16-2010, 06:35 PM
irishjayhawk discussing the Founders and the Constitution? LMAO LMAO

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 07:07 PM
irishjayhawk discussing the Founders and the Constitution? LMAO LMAO

I missed the funny.

HolyHandgernade
02-17-2010, 09:47 AM
Another thing you'll see is seperation of church and state attributed as a pillar of our government and written into our contract, the US Constitution. It is not and never has been. What the relgious establishment portion of the first amendment was meant to convey was that religion was not a requirement to participate in government or hold political office. That government could not deny you because of your faith.

I don't mean to imply your whole post was incorrect, but it struck me funny because the thread was about disconnect and not knowing the Constitution. While the first amendment was not in the original portion of the Constitution, the portion you describe was:

Art VI Sec. 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

HolyHandgernade
02-17-2010, 09:51 AM
Just to further clarify your point...

The only mention of religion in the Constitution comes from exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


You kinda butchered two different aspects of the clause. You left out the "free exercise" portion of the first amendment. The First Amendment is about freedom of opinion, which is why it is grouped with the other clauses it is.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 10:11 AM
The religion hater is here.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 10:16 AM
James Madison actually wrote the Consitution. Not a group of Fore Father.

Really? All by himself? With no one else helping and no revisions. Wow.

Meanwhile, I note that the when lawyers write contracts, what THEY think it means isn't necessarily what the courts will determine it means.

Being a draftsman gives you some added weight, but it doesn't make you the final arbiter...

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 10:17 AM
To further add to the Tax issue, Taxation withour Representation does exist when said elected Representatives ignore the will of their constituency. It is nigh impossible to claim one is being "represented" when the representer is ignoring what it is the voters wish him\her to represent.

You don't seem to understand what representative government means.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 10:21 AM
You ever going to respond to patteeu's thread?


Did you say something? [/BEP]

patteeu
02-17-2010, 11:28 AM
Except that a lack of understanding about the FFs and their writings seem to bring people to the wrong conclusions about "what they would have thought".

I'd bet large that the founding fathers (and the people who ratified the 14th amendment) were of one mind on the issue of gay marriage and the role of the federal government in that issue.

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2010, 11:35 AM
Really? All by himself? With no one else helping and no........

Stop right there, ace. He actually penned the thing. That's all I said. This is the problem with all yall lawyer types...you apply shit that isn't there.

Garcia Bronco
02-17-2010, 11:37 AM
Being a draftsman gives you some added weight, but it doesn't make you the final arbiter...

Being the final arbiter is an abstract thing, but the reality is the guy that penned it is a damn expert on it.

Now...what kind of President was Madison? The answer is a terrible one.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 11:43 AM
Being the final arbiter is an abstract thing, but the reality is the guy that penned it is a damn expert on it.


I agree with you on this. Yet, he was also a key contributer in debating too. He was also one of the writers of the Federalist Papers.

The final document is the compromise of all the issues much of which was the entire topic of how much govt should be necessary to accomplish their objectives without destroying freedom. I say they reached a historical and new form of govt om trying to set boundaries for a central govt. It may not have been perfect but it was a revolutionary idea that is now being drowned in ideas of the Ancien Régime, but covered up with new words.

|Zach|
02-17-2010, 11:45 AM
I agree with you on this. Yet, he was also a key contributer in debating too. He was also one of the writers of the Federalist Papers.

The final document is the compromise of all the issues much of which was the entire topic of how much govt should be necessary to accomplish their objectives without destroying freedom. I say they reached a historical and new form of govt om trying to set boundaries for a central govt. It may not have been perfect but it was a revolutionary idea that is now being drowned in ideas of the Ancien Régime, but covered up with new words.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334

NewChief
02-17-2010, 12:06 PM
As usual, Chiefsplanet is in touch with the prevailing political dialogue:


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/02/17/mount_vernon_statement/print.html


Puzzling new conservative manifesto
Right-wing activists release new statement of principles that's all about historical fantasy
Gabriel Winant

Feb. 17, 2010 |

Today's conservatives are obsessed with the Founding Fathers. You hear it from Glenn Beck reliably on a daily basis, and almost as often from his allies and acolytes: The central problem in American life and politics is that we’ve strayed too far from the principles of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and the rest of the gang. As Beck likes to put it, with characteristic subtlety, our choices are 1776 and 1984. (Note also Newt Gingrich's bizarre Revolutionary War fantasy earlier this year, in which he "live-tweeted" Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, obviously imagining himself as the hero of the Revolution.)

In keeping with this kind of rhetoric, a group of over 80 prominent conservative activists are gathering today near Mount Vernon, Washington’s old Virginia estate. With characters like anti-tax organizer Grover Norquist, National Review editor Kathryn Jean Lopez and former Attorney General Ed Meese in attendance, the group will release the "Mount Vernon Statement." Modeled on a manifesto produced by the circle around William F. Buckley in 1960, today’s statement will seek to reunite conservatives around fundamental principles.

An excerpt:

IWe recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

The conservative movement has always been made up of fractious elements, and managed to come together in the rough form of the Republican Party thanks to what’s often described as "fusionism": The alliance of the small-government, economic-growth types with the social and religious conservatives. Historically, unfettered capitalism has often threatened the traditional moral and economic vision of many Americans, and begotten a conservative populist backlash, straining the bonds that hold together the American right wing. This tendency is arguably visible today in the Tea Parties' wariness of the political elites, including Republicans, and their coziness with Wall Street and corporate interests.

The emphasis on a glorious past replete with ancient, inherited truths is the obvious strand connecting these two groups. Libertarian types like Norquist can fondly recall a time before the income tax or Medicare, and social conservatives get to be all wistful about their imagined good old days. All the disconcerting changes of the present become the property of the scary left in this kind of nostalgic rhetoric. That's why it features so centrally in such a self-conscious conservative mission statement as this one.

Of course, if you were actually hoping to find out what’s meant by returning to "the self-evident truths of 1776," prepare for disappointment. Brent Bozell told the Washington Post that the statement is "a compass for every single issue, whether it's social, economic or national defense conservatives. It's meant to guide you." Speaking with Politico, he got more specific. "Where in the Constitution is health care a mandate? The answer is nowhere -- it's nowhere in the Constitution [that] is health care a right."

It seems notable here that the group at Mount Vernon, quite consciously, includes no actual politicians. The statement is being pitched as a warning against the temptation of centrism. But however many insults can be lobbed at elected Republicans, it's hard not to take their side here. Elected officials do actually have to deal with the obligations of gaining and holding office. This is the reason that many are viewed by the GOP's activist base as sellouts: Because they're somewhat responsive to the actual demands of the electorate, and more broadly, the imperatives and strains placed on the government by modern life. A prime example of this is how the Republicans in Congress have rallied to the defense of Medicare in recent months. Medicare is classic big-government socialism as far as the conservative base is concerned, but it's also popular and basically necessary.

The GOP activists can get away with wishing it was 1776 because they don’t actually have to go home and face angry electorates after acting out an anachronistic fantasy. Cngressional leaders like Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., can’t afford to play pretend all the time. Back in 1776, nobody needed Medicare, because the average lifespan was around 35. In 2010, just citing "self-evident" truths ain’t going to cut it.

-- Gabriel Winant

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 12:07 PM
I agree with you on this. Yet, he was also a key contributer in debating too. He was also one of the writers of the Federalist Papers.

So was your AntiChrist....

The final document is the compromise of all the issues much of which was the entire topic of how much govt should be necessary to accomplish their objectives without destroying freedom. I say they reached a historical and new form of govt om trying to set boundaries for a central govt. It may not have been perfect but it was a revolutionary idea that is now being drowned in ideas of the Ancien Régime, but covered up with new words.

I thought it was unenforceable because it was never legally adopted...?

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 12:19 PM
The GOP activists can get away with wishing it was 1776 because they don’t actually have to go home and face angry electorates after acting out an anachronistic fantasy.

If they think that's why the voters are angry then they are just as out of touch with the electorate like the GOP.
We're broke! Both govt and country. It's the left and right as well as its pundits that refuse to face reality—the welfare/warfare state has destroyed America financially.
You ain't seen nothing yet as to what is coming next!

orange
02-17-2010, 02:09 PM
I'd bet large that the founding fathers (and the people who ratified the 14th amendment) were of one mind on the issue of gay marriage and the role of the federal government in that issue.

Women's suffrage, too.

NewChief
02-17-2010, 02:18 PM
Women's suffrage, too.

Interracial marriage (not to mention the black vote) as well.

orange
02-17-2010, 02:20 PM
. With characters like anti-tax organizer Grover Norquist, National Review editor Kathryn Jean Lopez and former Attorney General Ed Meese in attendance, the group will release the "Mount Vernon Statement." Modeled on a manifesto produced by the circle around William F. Buckley in 1960, today’s statement will seek to reunite conservatives around fundamental principles.


Grover Norquist, Kathryn Jean Lopez and Ed Meese mimicking William F. Buckley.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h6FO6VLwHcM/SwnDMDZ25iI/AAAAAAAAABU/yglwDBZRK8s/s320/Terror+of+Tiny+Town.jpg

RJ
02-17-2010, 02:34 PM
Was there such a thing as illegal immigration in 1776?

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 02:38 PM
Interracial marriage (not to mention the black vote) as well.

The list is endless.

The lack of need for standing armies.

The general principle that only white male property owners should be able to vote (the property owners part was already being phased out, and was altogether eliminated by 1850)

The existence and legality of slavery -- though this was certainly contested by some, it's noteworthy that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson -- five of our first seven Presidents, were slave owners.

How to deal with the Indian issue (eliminate them), which was an uphill fight that can honestly be called George Washington's only defeat.

Thomas Jefferson was fairly well convinced that anyone who wasn't a "gentleman farmer" wasn't a true American and was more likely than not just a betrayer of American principles, etc. Of course, this was based largely on the fact that Southern slaveholders had absolutely no concept whatsoever of economics -- indeed prided themselves on not knowing about such things. In Jefferson's case, he died utterly bankrupt as a result. Madison was nearly bankrupt as well upon his death.

NewChief
02-17-2010, 02:41 PM
Of course, this was based largely on the fact that Southern slaveholders had absolutely no concept whatsoever of economics -- indeed prided themselves on not knowing about such things. In Jefferson's case, he died utterly bankrupt as a result. Madison was nearly bankrupt as well upon his death.

If only they'd had social security. ROFL

orange
02-17-2010, 02:46 PM
How to deal with the Indian issue (eliminate them), which was an uphill fight that can honestly be called George Washington's only defeat.



I'm not sure what you mean here. He definitely won the Northwest Indian War.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 02:52 PM
I'm not sure what you mean here. He definitely won the Northwest Indian War.

The battlefield he lost on -- about his only loss anytime, ever (excluding many short term set-backs -- i.e. battles not wars) -- was in the halls of Congress and in the hearts and minds of the American populace. He and Secretary Knox very much wanted a solution to relations with Indians, knowing full well that, like slavery, it could and would be a permanent stain on the reputation on the Founding Fathers.

They were utterly unsuccessful in their efforts. Demographics ruled all.

SNR
02-17-2010, 02:56 PM
Women's suffrage, too.This is off-topic, but I had a kickass US history teacher in high school who said, "We gave women the right to vote and what did they give us? Warren G. Harding."

banyon
02-17-2010, 03:01 PM
The battlefield he lost on -- about his only loss anytime, ever (excluding many short term set-backs -- i.e. battles not wars) -- was in the halls of Congress and in the hearts and minds of the American populace. He and Secretary Knox very much wanted a solution to relations with Indians, knowing full well that, like slavery, it could and would be a permanent stain on the reputation on the Founding Fathers.

They were utterly unsuccessful in their efforts. Demographics ruled all.

I had not read about that. Was that in the McCoullough book?

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 03:09 PM
Was there such a thing as illegal immigration in 1776?

All of the white people came here illegally. But then the Indians didn't have any paperwork to prove it.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 03:33 PM
I had not read about that. Was that in the McCoullough book?


Hrmm....damn good question. Off the top of my head, I'm not certain, but I'd bet it was in this one:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Creation-Triumphs-Tragedies-Founding/dp/030726369X



I'll double check and confirm for you. I thought it was a good, quick, informative read. I thought in some areas he was overly critical and not as forgiving of needing to deal with political realities at the time, but really ANY criticism of the Founding Fathers can be a welcome respite from the ordinary hero worship.

RJ
02-17-2010, 04:01 PM
All of the white people came here illegally. But then the Indians didn't have any paperwork to prove it.


Looking back on it, they probably wish they had built a wall.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 05:04 PM
Women's suffrage, too.

Probably. I wouldn't be as confident on that one, but I'm sure there was a strong majority against it at least. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 05:32 PM
Looking back on it, they probably wish they had built a wall.

They didn't know how to make concrete. So it would have had to be like that big giant wooden fence like in the movie King Kong!:D

Direckshun
02-17-2010, 05:47 PM
For the same reason people wrap themselves in the Constitution as if it's the Bible, while still maintaining unconstitutional practices like poll taxes.

They don't actually care about the FF, or the Constitution. They care about themselves. They'd sell handsoap as sour cream if it got them ahead.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 05:58 PM
For the same reason people wrap themselves in the Constitution as if it's the Bible, while still maintaining unconstitutional practices like poll taxes.

They don't actually care about the FF, or the Constitution. They care about themselves. They'd sell handsoap as sour cream if it got them ahead.

Or alternatively,

For the same reason people wrap themselves in the Constitution as if it's the Bible, while still maintaining that the constitution requires gay marriage as a matter of equal protection.

They don't actually care about the FF, or the Constitution. They care about themselves. They'd sell handsoap as sour cream if it got them ahead.

irishjayhawk
02-17-2010, 06:59 PM
Or alternatively,

For the same reason people wrap themselves in the Constitution as if it's the Bible, while still maintaining that the constitution requires gay marriage as a matter of equal protection.

They don't actually care about the FF, or the Constitution. They care about themselves. They'd sell handsoap as sour cream if it got them ahead.

It's sad when equality must boil down to a document written 200 years ago and not simply human decency and common sense.

mlyonsd
02-17-2010, 08:03 PM
It's sad when equality must boil down to a document written 200 years ago and not simply human decency and common sense.

Depends on who you're looking to for common sense.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 07:39 AM
It's sad when equality must boil down to a document written 200 years ago and not simply human decency and common sense.

It's sad that ugly girls can't get jobs at Hooters too. At least it's sad for the ugly girls.

stevieray
02-18-2010, 08:41 AM
It's sad when equality must boil down to a document written 200 years ago and not simply human decency and common sense.

irony. thick.

HonestChieffan
02-18-2010, 09:00 AM
It's sad that ugly girls can't get jobs at Hooters too. At least it's sad for the ugly girls.

They can. Just not working around customers.