• 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!

The Founders' Activist Government

SmartCat said:
The GOP may be able to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Republican politicians know better than to make a frontal assault on Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, and stuff like that. Republican politicians fearfully refer to those programs as "The Third Rail." Anyone who touches them gets a terrible shock.
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with what i have said?
 
ernst barkmann said:
what does this have to do with what i have said?
Click to expand...

Since 1980 Republicans have won elections with the scam that tax cuts for the rich benefit those who are not rich. They do not. Since 1980 the productivity of the U.S. economy has grown, but wages have not.

Workers’ Pay Hasn’t Always Lagged Productivity Growth | Economic Policy Institute

For years public opinions have indicated majority support for raising taxes on the rich, and little support for cutting middle class entitlements.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++taxes+++rich+++"Social+Security"+++Medicare

If the voters are forced to choose between losing middle class entitlements, and raising taxes on the rich to pay for them, you can bet they choose to restore high top tax rates. The demand for a more progressive tax system will be strong enough that Republican politicians will no longer be able to deflect it with issues like gay marriage and abortion. The electorate is moving to the left on social issues anyway. In 1980 most Americans opposed interracial marriage. Now the vast majority support interracial marriage. A slight majority support gay marriage.

The popularity of Donald Trump should not be seen as a move to the "right," but a class revolt by white blue collar Republicans against Country Club Republicans.

--------

Frum cites a Gallup poll finding that many Republicans — nearly 30 percent — advocate “heavy” taxes on the wealthy. By contrast, only 21 percent endorse cuts in Medicare and fewer still, 17 percent, support reducing Social Security.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...feb51d1d124_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns
 

Attachments

  • prod-wages 9-2012.jpg
    prod-wages 9-2012.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 67
smartcat said:
since 1980 republicans have won elections with the scam that tax cuts for the rich benefit those who are not rich. They do not. Since 1980 the productivity of the u.s. Economy has grown, but wages have not.

workers’ pay hasn’t always lagged productivity growth | economic policy institute

for years public opinions have indicated majority support for raising taxes on the rich, and little support for cutting middle class entitlements.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++taxes+++rich+++"social+security"+++medicare

if the voters are forced to choose between losing middle class entitlements, and raising taxes on the rich to pay for them, you can bet they choose to restore high top tax rates. The demand for a more progressive tax system will be strong enough that republican politicians will no longer be able to deflect it with issues like gay marriage and abortion. The electorate is moving to the left on social issues anyway. In 1980 most americans opposed interracial marriage. Now the vast majority support interracial marriage. A slight majority support gay marriage.

The popularity of donald trump should not be seen as a move to the "right," but a class revolt by white blue collar republicans against country club republicans.

--------

frum cites a gallup poll finding that many republicans — nearly 30 percent — advocate “heavy” taxes on the wealthy. By contrast, only 21 percent endorse cuts in medicare and fewer still, 17 percent, support reducing social security.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...feb51d1d124_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns
Click to expand...


point being made by me, why are you talking about republicans to me, i am a libertarian.
 
SmartCat said:
If it was strictly interpreted the way it was interpreted soon after it was ratified, it would be quickly replaced. We must remember that the United States Constitution was controversial at the time. Many Americans disliked the fact that it did not mention God. Others thought that it gave too much power to the central government. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Thomas Jefferson though it would be replaced after twenty years.
Click to expand...

First, looking for and identifying how the founding era reasonably interpreted and understood the provisions in the U.S. Constitution is the best way to interpret the U.S. Constitution. However, applying such an approach does not lead to any necessity of replacing the U.S. Constitution.

Jefferson did not advocate for replacement of the Constitution every twenty years but rather a constitutional convention was convened by the people to interpret the meaning of the document in a manner consistent with and in accordance to the people of the time and at the time. However, even Jefferson's own remark acknowledges a fixed meaning to the U.S. Constitution.
 
notquiteright said:
The Wiskey rebellion was to fight a tax levied by the federal government on western farmers who had little way to transport bulk grain to market- President Washington rode at the head of the militias sent to put the rebellion down (while a peace commission had been sent ahead of time to negotiate- sneaky Washington)

Now no one said legal or illegal- just said activist vs 'limited' government. This era's government was composed of the very folks who wrote,signed the Constitution- not some alien group. But when it comes to the Alien and Sedition Acts- the Courts never ruled they were unconstitutional (Marbury vs Madison was in 1803)- Jefferson can to power and ended them as not fitting his political philosophy- one act continued til WWII- the Enemies and Aliens Act.

Tariffs were used for much of our earliest days- to help protect local factories from foreign competition. The 1895 ruling exempted SOME forms of income tax, but income tax predates the 1895 ruling without Courts striking it down- it was expanded once the 16th passed, but income tax existed legally in 1861, the ruling you cite is a tax on property.

So I'd say the Founders didn't push for a 'limited' government as modern Conservatives wish to claim. Our Founders used taxes, the military (both internally and on far, distant shores), and an 'unconstitutional' set of un-elected, lawyers in robes, activist officials... the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Well, your claim, expressed in the final paragraph two lines of the prose above in quotes, rests upon an assumption of what is or isn't limited government. The fact is, taxation is permitted by the plain text of the U.S. Constitution, along with use of the military. The founders were utilizing powers explicitly granted to the government. It is unfathomable, indeed irrational, to think the founders using those powers granted to the government is an example of "activist" government. A government using the powers explicitly granted to it by the constitution is not an activist government. A government using only those powers delegated to it, i.e. limiting its use of power and authority to those powers in the constitution, is the very definition of "limited" government. The instances you reference are not examples of something other than "limited" government.

Actually the 1938 case of Wickard vs Filburn CONFIRMED the Congress has the power to regulate commerce inside and outside of states. It GRANTED nothing, the Feds held that power pre-decision and the case was a failed attempt to block that power.
Click to expand...

The italicized language is not entirely accurate. In several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, preceding Wickard v. Filburn, the Court held the regulate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution did not apply to "intrastate" commerce.
 
Joe Steel said:
The establishment of the Bank of the United States is proof the Founders wanted an activist government.
Click to expand...

The so called "Founding Fathers" - some of whom probably fathered children by their more comely female slaves - were less interested in restricting the power of the central government than they were in increasing that power. The Articles of Confederation, which had been in effect since 1777, had been proven to be too weak for the United States.
 
SmartCat said:
The so called "Founding Fathers" - some of whom probably fathered children by their more comely female slaves - were less interested in restricting the power of the central government than they were in increasing that power. The Articles of Confederation, which had been in effect since 1777, had been proven to be too weak for the United States.
Click to expand...

what female slaves had to do with things, who knows, i guess you and trying to make the founders look bad.



incorrect! on limited government
 
ernst barkmann said:
what female slaves had to do with things, who knows, i guess you and trying to make the founders look bad.
Click to expand...

Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

It was common practice for slave owners at the time to force their more attractive female slaves to have sex with them. I am sure that many of these so called "Founding Fathers" were the fathers of mulatto slaves toiling away in the fields.
 
ernst barkmann said:
incorrect! on limited government
Click to expand...

Federalist Paper No, 51, by James Madison, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next oblige it to control itself. A dependence of the people is no doubt the primary control on the government."

This statement breathes of respect for the sovereignty of majority opinion.
 
Joe Steel said:
The establishment of the Bank of the United States is proof the Founders wanted an activist government.
Click to expand...

so it's your argument that the founders wanted an unlimited government eh?... good luck with that.

why not just set up a government with unlimited Powers then?... why concoct a Constitution that is, at it's very core, a limiting document?
 
notquiteright said:
Ahhh love the Conservative slight of hand game you play. SOME of the founders owned slaves, most were wealthy or on their way to being wealthy- just like politicians today no matter their lean- pretty much all were at least publicly unopposed to the economic institution of slavery, many thought blacks were inferior to whites (helps with the slavery issue), their idea of military weapons certainly is outdated....

But to try and make a blanket rejection of an activist frame of mind because modern day Conservatives wish to claim an activist must adhere to the 2 centuries later version is rather weak tea.

For the most part any belief our Founders had in a 'limited' government was more due to finance than philosophy. We were a pauper nation compared to our European contemporaries.

But do remember, we pushed back hard against the British (northwest indian war), the French (Quasi War), First Barbary War, War of 1812, Second Barbary War, all by 1815.

The definition of activist may change over the years but most certainly the early governments, some run by the very Founders many Pubs cite when it suits them, didn't believe in limited government... not PAYING for the government services they wanted is more like it and continues today... :peace
Click to expand...

Stopped reading when you called him a Conservative when his lean explicitly states he is Libertarian.
 
SmartCat said:
Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

It was common practice for slave owners at the time to force their more attractive female slaves to have sex with them. I am sure that many of these so called "Founding Fathers" were the fathers of mulatto slaves toiling away in the fields.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't those 'mulatto slaves' be natural-born citizens?
Just wondering, vis-a-vis presidential eligibility.
 
Grand Mal said:
Wouldn't those 'mulatto slaves' be natural-born citizens?
Just wondering, vis-a-vis presidential eligibility.
Click to expand...

The so called "founding fathers" were agreed that slaves not have citizenship rights.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Stopped reading when you called him a Conservative when his lean explicitly states he is Libertarian.
Click to expand...

If someone uses the term SIX while another uses the term HALF A DOZEN - does that also confuse and befuddle you?
 
SmartCat said:
Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners

It was common practice for slave owners at the time to force their more attractive female slaves to have sex with them. I am sure that many of these so called "Founding Fathers" were the fathers of mulatto slaves toiling away in the fields.
Click to expand...

and the point is?

how is female slaves and limited government in the same conversation, is what i am asking.
 
SmartCat said:
Federalist Paper No, 51, by James Madison, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next oblige it to control itself. A dependence of the people is no doubt the primary control on the government."

This statement breathes of respect for the sovereignty of majority opinion.
Click to expand...



wrong! if you are going to use the federalist papers you need to use them correctly, for example, ....all one to do is look at the title of federalist #51

"The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments"

this does not have anything to do with limited government in the sense you are referring, madison is discussing how to maintain a government, in which power is checked to prevent tyranny.

because " men are not angels" and checks and balances should prevent the concentration of power, which leads to tyranny.

madison goes onto say, the government must be able to control the people in the sense the government control those who would violate the rights of others, and that government also must be forced to control itself.

he states a government which acts in the will of the people is the best control, but experience teaches that other controls on the government are also necessary.

madison states power of congress shall be divided up, and the house by the people, the senate by the states, thus this will prevent majority rule.


Majority rule is collective and the founders wanted to prevent collective law making, by creating a separation of power in congress as madison states in federalist #63 titled "the senate", and what its purpose is.

" The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"
 
SmartCat said:
The so called "founding fathers" were agreed that slaves not have citizenship rights.
Click to expand...

What about sons born to Indian women?
 
SmartCat said:
The so called "founding fathers" were agreed that slaves not have citizenship rights.
Click to expand...

most the founders of the Declaration of dependence, wanted to end slavery however they could not get 3 of the colonies to agree to it, and the founders needed every colony to be on board with independence, because without those 3 there would be NO independence at all.

the founders or the delegates to the convention had no power to make slaves Citizens.

however in the original draft of the constitution it was put in that slavery was a legal institution, however Madison and others stuck it from the constitution while in the committee of style, with madison stating " there is nothing legal about slavery".
 
ernst barkmann said:
most the founders of the Declaration of dependence, wanted to end slavery however they could not get 3 of the colonies to agree to it, and the founders needed every colony to be on board with independence, because without those 3 there would be NO independence at all.

the founders or the delegates to the convention had no power to make slaves Citizens.

however in the original draft of the constitution it was put in that slavery was a legal institution, however Madison and others stuck it from the constitution while in the committee of style, with madison stating " there is nothing legal about slavery".
Click to expand...

Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-Americas-founding-fathers-were-slave-owners
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong! if you are going to use the federalist papers you need to use them correctly, for example, ....all one to do is look at the title of federalist #51

"The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments"

this does not have anything to do with limited government in the sense you are referring, madison is discussing how to maintain a government, in which power is checked to prevent tyranny.

because " men are not angels" and checks and balances should prevent the concentration of power, which leads to tyranny.

madison goes onto say, the government must be able to control the people in the sense the government control those who would violate the rights of others, and that government also must be forced to control itself.

he states a government which acts in the will of the people is the best control, but experience teaches that other controls on the government are also necessary.

madison states power of congress shall be divided up, and the house by the people, the senate by the states, thus this will prevent majority rule.


Majority rule is collective and the founders wanted to prevent collective law making, by creating a separation of power in congress as madison states in federalist #63 titled "the senate", and what its purpose is.

" The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"
Click to expand...

You have not quoted Federalist #51. I did.

The goal of those who wrote and signed the United States Constitution was not to restrict the government, so much as to increase its power. In Federalist #18 James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote, "As a weak government when not at war is ever agitated by internal dissensions, so these never fail to bring on fresh calamities from abroad."

Federalist #51 asserts that the best control on the power of the government is regular elections in which politicians must appeal to the voters.
 
SmartCat said:
You have not quoted Federalist #51. I did.

The goal of those who wrote and signed the United States Constitution was not to restrict the government, so much as to increase its power. In Federalist #18 James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote, "As a weak government when not at war is ever agitated by internal dissensions, so these never fail to bring on fresh calamities from abroad."

Federalist #51 asserts that the best control on the power of the government is regular elections in which politicians must appeal to the voters.
Click to expand...

read the title of #51 "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments"

i suggest you search and read summaries of the federalist 51 because it will not support you.

in federalist 51:

In this essay, Madison's thoughts on factionalism are delineated clearly. As we observed earlier, he assumed that conflicts of interests are inherent in human nature, and he recognized that, as a consequence, people fall into various groups. He wanted to avoid a situation in which any one group controlled the decisions of a society. Free elections and the majority principle protected the country from dictatorship, that is, the tyranny of a minority. However, he was equally concerned about the greater risk of tyranny of the majority. A central institutional issue for him was how to minimize this risk.

The Federalist Papers Essay 51 Summary and Analysis | GradeSaver

again you fail in federalist 18 hamilton is talking about the articles of confederation.....the confederacy

federalist 18:

The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union

you need to learn how to understand the federalist papers
 
Last edited:
Since neither the Founders nor the world they lived in are around any longer and have to been so for two centuries now, why does their opinion matter more than the opinion of Americans alive today who live in a world they never experienced nor knew nothing about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom