The Founders' Activist Government

Absentglare said:

Governing "the least" is defining the government to be exactly the appropriate size. If it was an argument for an ever-shrinking government, it would be a call for anarchy.

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?? Our genius Founders were obviously not anarchists, but they were for the least govt in human history and it produced the greatest country in human history. Do you understand?

Absentglare said:

The democracy is ceasing to exist because republicans are taking from the public (people who work) and giving to those who don't (the rich) via tax cuts.

Click to expand...

Of course that is insane since
1) the rich work far longer hours than the poor,
2) the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, not 1% so the poor benefit hugely from tax redistribution
3) Most importantly Jefferson was not talking about taxes at all but about taking from those who earn money( the rich) and giving it to those who don't( the poor) and thus discouraging both toward a soviet standard of living. Now do you understand?

James972 said:

obviously because the electorate would throw them out if they didn't!!!Do you understand how democracy works??

Click to expand...

That's hogwash.

James972 said:

patriot act was constitutional on national defense grounds. Do you understand?

Click to expand...

No, it violated due process.

James972 said:

they may pay the same rate or % but the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes, not 1% which would be the fair amount. Now do you understand?

Click to expand...

No, that's not a fair amount. That's just a stupid argument. Every strong economy in the world has progressive income taxes. Further, you're ignoring payroll taxes which are FEDERAL TAXES ON INCOME. Plus, your number is wrong. The top 1% pay more like 45%.

But that's primarily because of how much income they get ... :

"The CBO said that the average federal income tax rate paid by the top 1 percent has also dropped since 1979—falling from 22.7 percent in 1979 to 20.3 percent in 2011."

Now, do YOU understand ?

James972 said:

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?? Our genius Founders were obviously not anarchists, but they were for the least govt in human history and it produced the greatest country in human history. Do you understand?

Click to expand...

No they weren't. They wanted far bigger government than a monarchy. The Articles of Confederation failed, along with the pipe dream of an impotent federal government in a functioning society.

They created three massive branches of government that put one another in check.

Your "least government" is a stupid definitional failure. I want the least government that satisfies what i want the government to do. It's the difference between being like Goldilocks and being an anarchist who denies basic facts about reality.

James972 said:

Of course that is insane since
1) the rich work far longer hours than the poor,
2) the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, not 1% so the poor benefit hugely from tax redistribution
3) Most importantly Jefferson was not talking about taxes at all but about taking from those who earn money( the rich) and giving it to those who don't( the poor) and thus discouraging both toward a soviet standard of living. Now do you understand?

Click to expand...

1) false

2) see my post above

3) no he wasn't.

Absentglare said:

Liberty is not the opposition of government.

Click to expand...

Our genius Founders thought it was. Their entire purpose was to limit govt to make liberty possible. They saw govt as the source of evil in human history! Welcome to you first lesson in American History!! Now you understand the principle of America!!

Absentglare said:

Gradual and silent encroachments are how the rich are stealing wealth from the poor, see above.

Click to expand...

Absurd given the govt is getting bigger not smaller!! Sorry

Also, the rich were of no concern to our founders, govt was the enemy, not the rich. They created a free contry wherein if you think the rich have too much money you are free to not enrich them by not buying their stuff. But, you are not free to hire the govt to steal money from them at the point of a gun on your behalf! Do you understand?

James972 said:

Our genius Founders thought it was. Their entire purpose was to limit govt to make liberty possible. They saw govt as the source of evil in human history! Welcome to you first lesson in American History!! Now you understand the principle of America!!

Click to expand...

No, if you were right, they would have welcomed anarchy because of all the freedom.

Lol!

They saw consolidation of power as evil.

James972 said:

Absurd given the govt is getting bigger not smaller!! Sorry

Also, the rich were of no concern to our founders, govt was the enemy, not the rich. They created a free contry wherein if you think the rich have too much money you are free to not enrich them by not buying their stuff. But, you are not free to hire the govt to steal money from them at the point of a gun on your behalf! Do you understand?

Click to expand...

Government wasn't the enemy. The founders are the ones who founded the government. That's what "founders" means in this context.

Absentglare said:

No, if you were right, they would have welcomed anarchy because of all the freedom.

Click to expand...

actually not one was for anarchy or constant civil war which would have prevented freedom not provided it. Do you understand these basics??

Absentglare said:

Government wasn't the enemy. The founders are the ones who founded the government.

Click to expand...

yes obviously they founded the govt as a necessary evil and so their purpose was to constrain it as much as possible with shared authority with the states, separation of powers, enumerated powers, bill of rights, democracy, etc etc


Here's how James Madision (the father of the Constiotution explained it)

"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT." ---James madison

now you can see why liberals spied for Stalin and love Sanders- right?

James972 said:

actually not one was for anarchy or constant civil war which would have prevented freedom not provided it. Do you understand these basics??

Click to expand...

Good, so you admit you were wrong.

The government can enable freedom if it's given limits.

James972 said:

yes obviously they founded the govt as a necessary evil and so their purpose was to constrain it as much as possible with shared authority with the states, separation of powers, enumerated powers, bill of rights, democracy, etc etc


Here's how James Madision (the father of the Constiotution explained it)

"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT." ---James madison

now you can see why liberals spied for Stalin and love Sanders- right?

Click to expand...

I understand, you left out the part where the government provides for the general welfare.

You left out the part where education is integral to a functioning democracy.

You left out the part where we believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You left out the part where the government gets the power from the people, and not just the super rich.

Absentglare said:

Good, so you admit you were wrong.

The government can enable freedom if it's given limits.

.

Click to expand...

yes extreme limits on govt create liberty. Liberals spied for Stalin and support Sanders because they want always decreasing limits.

Thomas Jefferson:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Absentglare said:

I understand, you left out the part where the government provides for the general welfare.




.

Click to expand...

Again welcome to your first lesson in American History!

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison



Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

66)James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

67)James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

I agree with Madison--General Welfare must remain within the enumerated powers. One of the enumerated powers is the power to write legislation, in accordance with those named powers.

The trouble, of course, is that Congress over all these years has written laws that do not seem to comport with those named powers.

As for the term 'activist government', one must wonder whether a government can stand and remain true to the founding document if its agents do not take an active role?

Thoreau72 said:

I agree with Madison--General Welfare must remain within the enumerated powers. One of the enumerated powers is the power to write legislation, in accordance with those named powers.

The trouble, of course, is that Congress over all these years has written laws that do not seem to comport with those named powers.

As for the term 'activist government', one must wonder whether a government can stand and remain true to the founding document if its agents do not take an active role?

Click to expand...

the problem is what is known has the implied powers, which the court gets from the necessary and proper clause.

many think it means government can create any law which is necessary, .......which is not correct

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

the government is only delegated power to make federal laws from the general powers of article 1 section 8 which are the forgoing powers ,stated in the necessary and proper clause.

ernst barkmann said:

the problem is what is known has the implied powers, which the court gets from the necessary and proper clause.

many think it means government can create any law which is necessary, .......which is not correct

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

the government is only delegated power to make federal laws from the general powers of article 1 section 8 which are the forgoing powers ,stated in the necessary and proper clause.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Do you acknowledge that reality is quite different from theory? That in reality, Congress does all sorts of things it has no legitimate authority to do? And the Executive Branch operates the same way? That most all governments tend to usurp power not granted?

Thoreau72 said:

I completely agree.

Do you acknowledge that reality is quite different from theory? That in reality, Congress does all sorts of things it has no legitimate authority to do? And the Executive Branch operates the same way? That most all governments tend to usurp power not granted?

Click to expand...

"like"

Thoreau72 said:

I completely agree.

Do you acknowledge that reality is quite different from theory? That in reality, Congress does all sorts of things it has no legitimate authority to do? And the Executive Branch operates the same way? That most all governments tend to usurp power not granted?

Click to expand...

yes but most importantly it is especially easy for govt to expand or liberalize when the people elect them to do it.

James972 said:

yes but most importantly it is especially easy for govt to expand or liberalize when the people elect them to do it.

Click to expand...

I see your point, but IMO the average voter (that small part of the population that actually votes) is horribly illiterate about the US Constitution. I don't think he consciously votes for candidates who have advocated usurpation, as to my knowledge, none have.

Joe Steel said:

The establishment of the Bank of the United States is proof the Founders wanted an activist government.

Click to expand...

SIAP.

The making of The Constitution was an indication most founders wanted a more activist government than the state-based government under The Articles of Confederation.

For example, patriots were languishing in debtor's prison for debts accumulated because of the Revolutionary War. The federal government had to issue 'bonds' to fund raise enough money to pay off these debts.
The National Bank of the US was partially established by Hamilton because each state/colony had their own currency. Each state's banks had their own rules for lending, etc., encouraged by the Articles of Confederation.

If you've read any of my posts, you may realize I have a propensity to stir things up: IMO, the ratifying of The Constitution in 1789, what, 7 years after the British left America, was an indication that the founding fathers realized exclusively conservative government (in the guise of The Articles of Confederation) wouldn't work in America.

If one realizes that many 'anti-federalists' didn't like The Constitution because it gave the federal government too much power, one can also realize there was a craving to change from the state-based form of government proposed by The Articles of Confederation much sooner than 7 years after the British left America. It took a few years for The Bill of Rights to be 'ratified' for The Constitution to ultimately be ratified in 1789.

Thoreau72 said:

I see your point, but IMO the average voter (that small part of the population that actually votes) is horribly illiterate about the US Constitution. I don't think he consciously votes for candidates who have advocated usurpation, as to my knowledge, none have.

Click to expand...

1) True, they are ignorant and not qualified to vote any more than they are qualified to do brain surgery.
2) Imagine how qualified they would be and the quality of our democracy if voters had to pass a test
3) true they have not voted for usurpation, but they have voted for all sorts of welfare free lunches which is just as bad

cabse5 said:

If one realizes that many 'anti-federalists' didn't like The Constitution because it gave the federal government too much power, one can also realize there was a craving to change from the state-based form of government proposed by The Articles of Confederation much sooner than 7 years after the British left America. It took a few years for The Bill of Rights to be 'ratified' for The Constitution to ultimately be ratified in 1789.

Click to expand...

and your point is????

Joe Steel said:

The establishment of the Bank of the United States is proof the Founders wanted an activist government.

Click to expand...

Of course that's 100% absurd and stupid since, a) all the founders did not want it, b) a central bank does not mean an activist govt at all, and most importantly, c) when Jefferson and Madison saw signs of an activist govt in 1792 they formed the Republican Party to crush Adams, Hamilton and Wasnington's Federalist Party which was never heard from again.

James972 said:

1) True, they are ignorant and not qualified to vote any more than they are qualified to do brain surgery.
2) Imagine how qualified they would be and the quality of our democracy if voters had to pass a test
3) true they have not voted for usurpation, but they have voted for all sorts of welfare free lunches which is just as bad

Click to expand...

I cannot disagree, but when it comes to wealth redistribution schemes practiced by the government though its lawful taxing power, I would rather the wealth be redistributed to the ordinary taxpayer, the common man, rather than the special interests and corporations which consume so much of the tax dollar today. eace

James972 said:

and your point is????

Click to expand...

...agreeing with the heading of the thread that the founders, with implementation of The Constitution, wanted a more activist government.

Jefferson, et al, didn't want the National Bank of the US but Hamilton and Washington did. To reiterate, The Constitution is evidence the founders wanted a more activist government.