• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When did the United States stop following the path of the founding fathers?

When did the United States change stop following the founding fathers vision

  • 1790-1860

    Votes: 7 24.1%

  • 1860-1900

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • 1900-1932

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • 1932-1945

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 10 34.5%
  • Total voters
    29
Unitedwestand13 said:
This should provide an interesting discussion.

The question is this: can you estimate the time period where the united state stopped following the founding fathers exact vision of how the government should operate, as detailed in the federalist papers, U.S constitution, and other founding documents?

The time periods under scrutiny are as follows:

1. 1790-1860s. The first time frame covers the administrations of the founding fathers and goes up to the start of the civil war. This time frame assumes that the founding fathers did not adhere to a static interpration of the constitution and found it necessary to fill in the blanks with regards to practical governance.

2.the second time frame starts in 1860 and concludes around 1900.

3. Time frame three is set around 1900 and lasts until 1932.

4. The fourth choice of time frame is from 1932 to 1945.

If these options seem limited, make your own theory as a fifth option.
Click to expand...

By the end of the first year after ratification would be my guess. I read somewhere or another that Thomas Jefferson so despised Congress when he was president that he wished they had set it up for the supreme court to oversee the Congress in all matters.
 
Depends on what you mean by that.

The way some people talk about them, they never "followed the path of the Founding Fathers."

If you were to look at the issues they faced, their electoral politics, and the positions they started taking I would say the 1820s and 1830s marked many important divisional points.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't see anything that indicated that mandated we avoid becoming a federal nation?

Also, why is hamilton's viewpoint considered repugnant? I thought that hamilton was just as big an influence in the development of this country as Maddison and Jefferson?
Click to expand...

Hamilton and his wing of Federalists were instrumental in the development of the nation. Small government types just attempt to convince themselves otherwise. I'm glad my ancestor (2nd Sec of Treasury) stuck with the Bank and Hamilton.
 
Fiddytree said:
Hamilton and his wing of Federalists were instrumental in the development of the nation. Small government types just attempt to convince themselves otherwise. I'm glad my ancestor (2nd Sec of Treasury) stuck with the Bank and Hamilton.
Click to expand...

Some people like to pretend Hamilton didn't exist. I've actually been told here that "you liberals love Hamilton," like he's been disowned by "real" Americans.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
This power does not extend to the point of violating other provisions in the Constitution. Our government does not, for example, have the authority to deprive us of our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and so on.
Click to expand...

That is correct which is why I said as much in post #45 including referencing, Reid v Covert, the relevant SCOTUS case.

At the federal level, our government does not have the authority to claim any powers that the Constitution does not explicitly delegate thereto.
Click to expand...

once again the constitution gives the federal govt the power to make treaties that become the supreme law of the land

It is not rational to suppose that the authors of the Constitution intended to allow the possibility that our government might use a treaty with a foreign nation as a way to circumvent the limitations and protections that the Constitution is clearly intended to assert. Our government, cannot, for example, enter into a treaty with Iran that requires all citizens of the U.S. to convert to Islam.
Click to expand...

Once again correct and I have already said as much once again I point you to Reid v Covert

However there is nothing in the constitution which creates a right to do drugs so a treaty can ban those and note that the treaty doesnt even override the 10th amendment as local entities are allowed to legalize drugs.

Our government does not have the authority to cede to any foreign interest, any power over us, that our government does not, itself have the legitimate authority to exercise over us; and nothing in the portion of the Constitution which you cites—nor anywhere else in the Constitution—can rationally be construed as claiming otherwise.
Click to expand...

No one is ceding authority to your mythical "foreign interest" we freely agree to treaties and we can pull our support from them at any time
 
Paschendale said:
And this has to do with liberty and self-governance for anyone besides wealthy landed white men being completely different from the founders' ideas... how? I get the knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of the United States' history, but it's not even on topic.
Click to expand...

It directly answers the points invoked in the post I quoted as responding to.
 
rocket88 said:
The beauty of it was the trick involved. They made it necessary to "get a license," but refused to sell said licenses. So they essentially banned it through the backdoor.
Click to expand...

They were still heating the water to boiling at that point and recognized they didn't have the power to ban it federally. So they played this game, the same one they play now with education funding and a few other things. Eventually they used it as precedence to allow them an outright ban. Game of inches.
 
Fiddytree said:
Hamilton and his wing of Federalists were instrumental in the development of the nation. Small government types just attempt to convince themselves otherwise. I'm glad my ancestor (2nd Sec of Treasury) stuck with the Bank and Hamilton.
Click to expand...

I also see Hamilton as the creator of the corruption in our economic system that extends into modern times. He was tied into the first, second and maybe third crashes of our stock market and his buddies, the cause, were gladhanded.
 
since we have to go on a time frame...with the most damage done....1880 - 1945

destruction of Republican form of government, income tax, government expansion into the worlds affairs, federal reserve takeover of our money, the federal government steeping into the personal life's of the people.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
This should provide an interesting discussion.

The question is this: can you estimate the time period where the united state stopped following the founding fathers exact vision of how the government should operate, as detailed in the federalist papers, U.S constitution, and other founding documents?

The time periods under scrutiny are as follows:

1. 1790-1860s. The first time frame covers the administrations of the founding fathers and goes up to the start of the civil war. This time frame assumes that the founding fathers did not adhere to a static interpration of the constitution and found it necessary to fill in the blanks with regards to practical governance.

2.the second time frame starts in 1860 and concludes around 1900.

3. Time frame three is set around 1900 and lasts until 1932.

4. The fourth choice of time frame is from 1932 to 1945.

If these options seem limited, make your own theory as a fifth option.
Click to expand...

The first is just an unavoidable necessity when you have a document that's inconsistent and full of holes.

The second is where things truly shift into a different form of existence in which - if certain choices hadn't been made - the world would be very different right now.
 
ernst barkmann said:
since we have to go on a time frame...with the most damage done....1880 - 1945

destruction of Republican form of government,
Click to expand...

Stop right there. We have a republican form of government.
 
Crovax said:
That is correct which is why I said as much in post #45 including referencing, Reid v Covert, the relevant SCOTUS case.



once again the constitution gives the federal govt the power to make treaties that become the supreme law of the land
Click to expand...

The Constitution remains the most supreme law of the land, and nothing can override it. Foreign treaties certainly cannot legitimately be used to circumvent it, as you are suggesting and advocating.



Crovax said:
Once again correct and I have already said as much once again I point you to Reid v Covert

However there is nothing in the constitution which creates a right to do drugs so a treaty can ban those and note that the treaty doesnt [sic] even override the 10th amendment as local entities are allowed to legalize drugs.



No one is ceding authority to your mythical "foreign interest" we freely agree to treaties and we can pull our support from them at any time
Click to expand...

If the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to prohibit drug abuse (which, per the Tenth Amendment, it certainly does not have), then it cannot, by treaty, cede this authority to a foreign interest. The federal government cannot give away by treaty that which is not its own to give.

The point of the Tenth Amendment is that any power not explicitly delegated to the federal government belongs to lower (state) levels of government, or to the people themselves—to authorities more localized and directly accountable. To suppose that the federal government can, by treaty, give these powers to foreign interests that are more distant, more removed from the people, and less accountable thereto, is about as opposite as you can possibly get to the clear intent of the Tenth Amendment.
 
haymarket said:
Stop right there. We have a republican form of government.
Click to expand...

thats debatable, since the senate is no longer in the hands of the states......america is no longer a republic based on that the founders created ..the roman republic.

states are no longer republican which have referendums and initiatives....because that is democratic government...direct democracy.
 
ernst barkmann said:
thats debatable, since the senate is no longer in the hands of the states......america is no longer a republic based on that the founders created ..the roman republic.

states are no longer republican which have referendums and initiatives....because that is democratic government...direct democracy.
Click to expand...

It's still a republic, but the amount of republican orientation has decreased the increased democracy of the past century.
 
The Civil War was the first major turning point, replacing state's rights with those of a totalitarian state.

FDR and his many socialist programs was the next shift away from the Founder's vision.

LBJ and his disasterous Great Society Programs sealed the fate of a free republic.
 
Fiddytree said:
It's still a republic, but the amount of republican orientation has decreased the increased democracy of the past century.
Click to expand...

true.

but its more a republic based on the modern version of the word "republic".

the founders republic is based on the roman republic, in the time of the founders there is no such thing as a democratic republic.

the founders hate democrat forms of government, the american republic employs only and 1 element of democracy.....the house...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom