Founders' vision would shock some

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
nothing but contempt for the founders

The celebration of our founders' 1776 revolt against King George III and the English Parliament is over. Let's reflect how the Founders might judge today's Americans and how today's Americans might judge them.

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." He later added, "(T)he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Two hundred years later, at least two-thirds of a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget is spent on charity or "objects of benevolence."

What would the Founders think about our respect for democracy and majority rule? Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." John Adams advised, "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." The Founders envisioned a republican form of government, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

What would the Founders think about the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision where the court sanctioned the taking of private property of one American to hand over to another American? John Adams explained: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Thomas Jefferson counseled us not to worship the U.S. Supreme Court: "(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

How might our Founders have commented about last week's U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding our rights to keep and bear arms? Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, said, "Individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment." The Founders would have responded "Balderdash!" Jefferson said, "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

George Mason explained, "(T)o disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Noah Webster elaborated: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. ... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Contrary to Alito's assertion, the central component of the Second Amendment is to protect ourselves from U.S. Congress, not street thugs.

Today's Americans have contempt for our Founders' vision. I'm sure our Founders would have contempt for ours.
Click to expand...
 
I actually see our nation ending in a corporatist slave camp. neocons and libertarians keep pretending that corporation are individuals. Individuals are held accountable. The corporate veil is basically a license to be irresponsible and criminal.

i'm for trade, but against corporatism.
 
Good post, STY. My only complaint is the Jefferson quote on the Supreme Court, because it had caught him abusing his office when he told Madison not to deliever a signed court appointmentment to Marbury. The reason why Marshall took the opportunity to establish judicial review was because he new the douchebag in chief would defy the court if it ordered Jefferson and Madison to allow Marbury to be granted his lawful post that Adams had appointed him to.

It detracts from the fact that Kelo is the single most tyrannical and inappropriate ruling of the last decade, and of my lifetime for that matter.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I actually see our nation ending in a corporatist slave camp. neocons and libertarians keep pretending that corporation are individuals. Individuals are held accountable. The corporate veil is basically a license to be irresponsible and criminal.

i'm for trade, but against corporatism.
Click to expand...

so are you for guilds? what kind of trade groups do you approve of?
 
Threedee said:
Good post, STY. My only complaint is the Jefferson quote on the Supreme Court, because it had caught him abusing his office when he told Madison not to deliever a signed court appointmentment to Marbury. The reason why Marshall took the opportunity to establish judicial review was because he new the douchebag in chief would defy the court if it ordered Jefferson and Madison to allow Marbury to be granted his lawful post that Adams had appointed him to.
Click to expand...

so very true. it should stand as a warning to all americans, knowing that jefferson felt that way BEFORE he become president.
 
Threedee said:
Good post, STY. My only complaint is the Jefferson quote on the Supreme Court, because it had caught him abusing his office when he told Madison not to deliever a signed court appointmentment to Marbury. The reason why Marshall took the opportunity to establish judicial review was because he new the douchebag in chief would defy the court if it ordered Jefferson and Madison to allow Marbury to be granted his lawful post that Adams had appointed him to.

It detracts from the fact that Kelo is the single most tyrannical and inappropriate ruling of the last decade, and of my lifetime for that matter.
Click to expand...
Also, using the logic of Jefferson, the legislature could pass a law forbidding a certain type of speech and the supreme court could not review its constitutionality? People could be arrested for wearing a patch saying "fuck the draft" and the Supreme Court could not review that matter? The Court is there to ensure that the fleeting passions of a time are not passed into law if they violate the rights of the people. Hell, Jefferson himself said that the Alien and Sedition Act was unconstitutional. But according to him the Court could not have struck that down. The Court is the last check on a tyranical legislature.
 
I think Jefferson viewed the Court as being the final arbiter of civil law and didn't really consider constitutional law. It seems that many men of the time were kind of caught by surprise when the Court got involved in constitutional law, for that matter.
 
Threedee is correct in his latest assessment of the court. Their original primary intent was to handle international matters, not constitutional ones. The constitution was still fresh at the time and it was reasonably assumed that intent was obvious.
 
Which brings to mind the 11th Amendment, that specifically concerns lawsuits brought by foreigners against American citizens. I would be interested to get a short brief from Soc or another lawyer about the 11th Amendment, which has always been kind of mysterious to me...
 
As would I, it is the most mysterious of amendments. That and the 12th (well, at least it was last time I read it).

Also, STY, where is the latest injustice report?
 
Caboose said:
As would I, it is the most mysterious of amendments. That and the 12th (well, at least it was last time I read it).

Also, STY, where is the latest injustice report?
Click to expand...

The only thing I want to know about the 12th is whether the current way we do it (the Pres and Veep candidates run as a package) is legally sound, or whether we should vote on them more separately as per the text. I believe that Electors technically caste separate votes, which is why its considered legitimate...
 
Threedee said:
The only thing I want to know about the 12th is whether the current way we do it (the Pres and Veep candidates run as a package) is legally sound, or whether we should vote on them more separately as per the text. I believe that Electors technically caste separate votes, which is why its considered legitimate...
Click to expand...
That's what I wonder as well.
 
Eleventh Amendment in as small a nutshell as possible.

The Eleventh Amendment is pretty damn obscure and there have been damn few court cases dealing with it. I know very little about it but here it is in a nutshell.

First there was Chisholm v. Georgia2 US (2 Dall.) 419. Robert Farquhar, a resident of South Carolina died. The state of Georgia owed him some money from the Revolutionary War. Article III section 2 of the Constitution said that in suits involving a state and citizens of another state would be handled by federal courts. Chisholm was Robert Farquhar's executor. He sued Georgia on behalf of the estate, Georgia did not show up for the suit, saying they had not consented to be sued ( a requirement under common law). Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Jay and 3 of the other justices (there were only 5 then) said nay nay Georgia. When you ratified the constitution you should have read it more carefully. Article III sec 2 was there and when you ratified you gave up your claim to sovereign immunity and damn well could be summoned to court.

States were none to happy. They didn't see it that way. So two short years later the Eleventh was ratified removing the right of a citizen of South Carolina from suing Georgia, or any such other states and citizens as might be involved. Only NJ and PA voted against ratification.

The only exception to this, that the Supreme Court has carved is that the Federal Government can abrogate sovereign immunity when the issue at hand is discriminatory harm that the 14 amendment prohibits.
 
Okay, so I have two questions, one smart-aleck and one serious to help with my clarification:

1) So, I can't sue Oregon for getting in the way when I want to drive to Cali?
2) If I want to sue Joe Portland for causing me grief/harm, I have to go sue him in Portland because Oregon might block me from suing him in Seattle?
 
Okay, upon reading Wiki, I'm viewing my last post as quite ignorant.

Clearly, the Eleventh Amendment represents a pre-Civil War view, and Chisholm one we are more accustomed to. The Amendment was to keep the Federal Courts out of state's legal affairs with one another, and only with the passage of the 14th has this been partially reversed, as the Courts can step in under the Due Process and Privileges or Immunities clauses. Had Chisholm's intent not been thwarted by the 11th, we might have actually moved much faster away from State's Rights than we did...

One might even view the 11th as a companion or supplement to the 10th in this respect.

Does this all sound right?
 
Threedee said:
I think Jefferson viewed the Court as being the final arbiter of civil law and didn't really consider constitutional law. It seems that many men of the time were kind of caught by surprise when the Court got involved in constitutional law, for that matter.
Click to expand...

They should not have been surprised as the idea of Judicial Review was discussed quite thoroughly in several of the Federalist Papers and anti-Federalist papers, prior to ratification.
 
Yurt said:
so are you for guilds? what kind of trade groups do you approve of?
Click to expand...

All individuals have a right to organize. So I support all of them.

Just like corporations organize against working individuals.

The labor side is to promote solidarity amongst laborers to bargain with managment in a unified manner.

Contrarily, the management side promotes division and treachery, turning brother against brother, to infect minds with hierarchy and abuse, appealing to the worst instinicts of people to control them emotionally with promises of the power to abuse and reenact their inner psychodramas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top