Founding Father.

myp · Dec 19, 2009

jfla said:
[/font][/font][/color]
It wasn’t federal spending in the modern sense of the word. It was making state debts incurred in the common cause of achieving independence a common obligation of all of the states.

How can you say one state was obligated to bail out others? Jefferson and Madision felt it was very unfair for just this reason because Virginia had already paid off half of its debt and now its taxpayers would be forced to bail out other states who had not yet paid off significant portions. Eventually the money came from the people in the states anyway as tariffs only reduce foreign competition, which allows domestic firms to keep prices higher relatively. It could have just as easily been done with the states paying off their own debts.

As for the ideas on British mercantilism and Hamilton's tariffs, at the end of the day it was still the market that produced the innovation. Even without the tariffs, those inventions would have been made and eventually spread everywhere so that the industrial revolutions would have taken place. The tariffs may have helped domestic businesses, but it was the consumers who suffered because of it. I would not call that a cause for celebration.

And as for the national debt, Hamilton still took on more, so he still added to it and my point stands. By the way, do you know what the other existing debt was from (just curious as I'm not sure)?

jfla said:
Prove it. Which specific Founding Fathers (limited to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, i.e., the ones that had direct say in deciding how big and powerful the federal government could be) wanted small government and low taxes?

Essentially any of the Jeffersonians- including Thomas Jefferson himself. Of course there were also some who supported Hamilton's ideas as well, but the Constitution clearly supports small government- especially through the forgotten 10th amendment.

jfla said:
Something Hamilton would not have supported because the current debt is unmanageable due to its size.

Maybe, but he set the precedent. Also, I wonder what the debt:gdp ratio was during his time in office.

jfla said:
How so? What exactly has the federal government done? Give some examples.

I can go on forever, but here we go with some: war in Iraq, Patriot Act, TARP, the stimulus, the healthcare bill (if it goes through), Cash for Clunkers, any of the other bailouts, many of the powers that have been given to the Fed... need I go on? The Federal government has long forgotten its role (and especially the bill of rights) and right now a lot of what it is doing is unconstitutional.

David · Dec 19, 2009

myp said:
I can go on forever, but here we go with some: war in Iraq, Patriot Act, TARP, the stimulus, the healthcare bill (if it goes through), Cash for Clunkers, any of the other bailouts, many of the powers that have been given to the Fed... need I go on? The Federal government has long forgotten its role (and especially the bill of rights) and right now a lot of what it is doing is unconstitutional.

The Feds hasn't been a Constitutional entity since that asshole dictator, 'Honest Abe'.

Regardless or our usual opposition, I think it's safe to say we both want our 'gov't' to GTFO. Time to start with a new batch or even from scratch.

jfla · Dec 20, 2009

myp said:
How can you say one state was obligated to bail out others?

It is clear that I am wasting my time trying to talk to you. You obviously do not consider yourself to be an American. You have little understanding of American history and no respect for the American nation or American People.

The original U.S. States declared independence from Britain in a joint effort. They then fought the Revolutionary War in a joint effort and then concluded peace with Great Britain in a joint effort.

And each of the original 13 states had a legal obligation to assist each of the other 12:

U.S. Declaration of Independence :
?We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.?

David · Dec 20, 2009

jfla said:
It is clear that I am wasting my time trying to talk to you. You obviously do not consider yourself to be an American. You have little understanding of American history and no respect for the American nation or American People.

The original U.S. States declared independence from Britain in a joint effort. They then fought the Revolutionary War in a joint effort and then concluded peace with Great Britain in a joint effort.

And each of the original 13 states had a legal obligation to assist each of the other 12:

U.S. Declaration of Independence :
?We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.?

1. They had no choice if they wanted to win, "Join or die."
2.The UK never recognized the USA, it recognized 13 different and independent nation-states.
3. The DoI isn't a legal document.

myp · Dec 20, 2009

jfla said:
[/font][/font][/color]

It is clear that I am wasting my time trying to talk to you. You obviously do not consider yourself to be an American. You have little understanding of American history and no respect for the American nation or American People.

No need for absurd acquisitions in a place for intelligent debate. I consider myself to be very American and I am very proud of that. Please don't tell me what I think of myself. I love this country and I want what is best for it. As for my understanding of history, I think you are just misunderstanding what I am saying here. I have explained below.

jfla said:
The original U.S. States declared independence from Britain in a joint effort. They then fought the Revolutionary War in a joint effort and then concluded peace with Great Britain in a joint effort.

And each of the original 13 states had a legal obligation to assist each of the other 12:

U.S. Declaration of Independence :
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

First of all, as David said the DOI was not a legally-binding document.

Second, there is a difference between being part of one nation and bailing out one another. Even in today's government, the states do not bail each other out. Look at California and their massive debt and then a state like Texas, which is no where near that. Do you see Texas bailing out California?

Third, I don't know if you are aware of this, but both Madison and Jefferson called the pooling of the debt unfair for the Virginian people because they were forced to pay for their debts plus those of some other states since Virginia had already paid off half their debt prior to the pooling. In today's terms that is a bailout. If Virginia wanted to loan money to other states, that would have been fine, but that is not what happened.

Also, you seem to have this opinion that national government is everything. The Constitution clearly places the majority of power with the states. The United States was created to have a relatively weak national government in comparison to the very strong national monarchies of Europe. Under the Constitution, the states were supposed to have a high level of freedom and sovereignty except in a few realms such as declaring war and coining money. Those ideas have long been ignored and you can say whatever you like about a strong national government being American, but in reality the country was made to have a relatively weak national government and stronger smaller governments. In reality, it is the protection of states' rights and people's rights that is American- not the protection of federal government rights.

deanhills · Dec 24, 2009

jfla said:
The original U.S. States declared independence from Britain in a joint effort. They then fought the Revolutionary War in a joint effort and then concluded peace with Great Britain in a joint effort.

That was a miraculous and awesome achievement that came at a great price. The United States earned and deserved its Declaration of Independence. I still find it cheeky of the British to have followed citizens who were trying to get away from its corrupt Government and unfair taxes to the United States and then to start from scratch with levelling taxes on US citizens on US soil. Totally presumptuous, arrogant, pompous, crooked and deserved the beating they received.

Nemo · Dec 31, 2009

I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. Our so-called "founding fathers," when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the liberal reformer we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820). The "times that try men?s souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt?s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.

deanhills · Jan 6, 2010

Nemo said:
I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. Our so-called "founding fathers," when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the liberal reformer we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820). The "times that try men’s souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.

So are you saying then that the Founding Fathers are being overglorified in an attempt to varnish American history? If we shifted our attention away from the "characters" to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution that were written at the time, do you think those represent a good or not so good foundation for the United States Government and Administration of Government?

Nemo · Jan 6, 2010

It is the Constitution (not the Declaration of Independence) that is the foundation of our government. America is a nation of laws and not men.

deanhills · Jan 7, 2010

Nemo said:
It is the Constitution (not the Declaration of Independence) that is the foundation of our government. America is a nation of laws and not men.

So who created the laws then? Surely people are referring to the people of the United States, or the Nation, not to the laws of the United States?

Nemo · Jan 8, 2010

The laws are made by our elected representatives; and so one can say that it is, to quote the Preamble of the Constitution, "We the People" or to quote Lincoln?s Gettysburg Address, "government: of the people, by the people, for the people" - however, it is the law that governs.

deanhills · Jan 8, 2010

Nemo said:
The laws are made by our elected representatives; and so one can say that it is, to quote the Preamble of the Constitution, "We the People" or to quote Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, "government: of the people, by the people, for the people" - however, it is the law that governs.

When the Nebraskan deal was made so that the Dems Senators could get their vote for the Healthcare Reform Legislation, wonder which legislation would have allowed for a deal like that? Surely when the Bill has been voted on by Congress, if the Senate were to fiddle with it to the extent that they had on the Senate level, adding 300 plus pages to the already existing 2000, the Bill should first have been sent back to Congress for approval of the amendments, BEFORE the final vote of the Senate was taken? The Nebraskan deal in particular worries me, as that gives them a deal that represents value that will have to be carried by all of the other States, and those States have not given their permission for that deal. Surely this kind of dealmaking too has to be daylight bribery and corruption, which law decides on those deals? Is a deal like this constitutional?

Nemo · Jan 9, 2010

Under the Constitution, the enactments of Congress are the supreme law of the land, state laws to the contrary notwithstanding. U.S.Const., Art.VI,cl.2. That said, it should come as no surprise to learn that there have been many federal laws enacted by Congress that upon review have not passed constitutional muster. Such review is the principal function of the judicial power, the third, coequal branch of government established under Article III, and why an independent judiciary is essential in the system of checks and balances provided by the Constitution. I do not express any opinion about the "dealmaking" in Congressional caucuses and committees other than to say that it is part and parcel with the give and take of the politics that goes with the mix of representative government. It was the model of Madison, who thought that through such compromise the people would be the better served in the end.

deanhills · Jan 10, 2010

Nemo said:
It was the model of Madison, who thought that through such compromise the people would be the better served in the end.

Compromise I can understand, but deal-making I can't understand. The deal with Nebraska comes at the expense of all of the other States, I don't see compromise in that, but a deal with Nebraska in order to get their vote (buy their vote) as a tie-breaker in getting very strategic legislation passed. If Nebraska had not consented to the deal, the legislation would not have been passed.

Founding Father.

Similar threads