• 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

cabse5 said:
...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.
Click to expand...

as I said, as soon as Jefferson and Madison noticed a tiny tiny bit of activism they started the Second American Revolution (Republican party) to destroy Hamilton, Washington, Adams and the Federalists. They were never heard from again until the Marxist inspired New Deal. Now do you get it?
 
cabse5 said:
...agreeing with the heading of the thread that the founders, with implementation of The Constitution, wanted a more activist government.
Click to expand...

maybe more but very very very tiny compared to today. In fact, the govt they created and presided over was 1% the size of todays on a inflation adjusted per capita basis. Now do you understand?
 
James972 said:
maybe more but very very very tiny compared to today. In fact, the govt they created and presided over was 1% the size of todays on a inflation adjusted per capita basis. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...
So you've added a qualifier to the heading of this thread? The founder's activist government (is more or less activist evidenced by these patriots)?.. You've conceded the founder's government was activist, then?

Thomas Jefferson, for example, was an early activist in American government. For one, he was a fan of France and not because France's navy won the Revolutionary War. He was a fan of the French Revolution. He was a fan of socialism if it had existed back then. He was considered 'the great leveler' in his day. Later when he was elected to those two terms, he was, IMO, again a fan of France. He was a fan of France's dictator Napoleon. Jefferson tried to have John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court, impeached. He 'stole' all that land from Spain in the Louisiana Purchase. His SCOTUS 'bastardized' the religion part of the First Amendment into the separation of church and state doctrine. James Madison, the one most responsible for the relationship of church and state in The Constitution, definitely disagreed with him on this subject. Madison thought no one religion should be the government religion. Jefferson (and his SCOTUS) forced the USA to become atheist...because he didn't believe in gods.
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
as I said, as soon as Jefferson and Madison noticed a tiny tiny bit of activism they started the Second American Revolution (Republican party) to destroy Hamilton, Washington, Adams and the Federalists. They were never heard from again until the Marxist inspired New Deal. Now do you get it?
Click to expand...

John Marshall was not 'destroyed' by Jefferson.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
John Marshall was not 'destroyed' by Jefferson.
Click to expand...

The point is the Hamilton Plan was soundly defeated at the Convention and then the Federalists were defeated because they tiny tiny govt they helped create and presided over was too big for Jefferson and Madison even then. Imagine how appalled Jefferson and Madison would be by todays mob rule gimme welfare liberal democracy?
 
cabse5 said:
So you've added a qualifier to the heading of this thread? The founder's activist government (is more or less activist evidenced by these patriots)?.. You've conceded the founder's government was activist, then?
Click to expand...

dear, the most extreme libertarians and conservatives would love to death a govt as activist as the one in 1800!!

Thomas Jefferson:
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Welcome to your first lesson in American History!!
 
cabse5 said:
Thomas Jefferson, for example, was an early activist in American government. For one, he was a fan of France.
Click to expand...

dear, OMG!!Being a fan of France did not make him an activist. He was a fan because they were overthrowing a liberal monarchy just like we had done in our Revolution to establish a very very limited conservative libertarian govt. Welcome to your first lesson in American History
 
cabse5 said:
He was a fan of socialism if it had existed back then.
Click to expand...

Sorry but thats 100% stupid. There are no words for how ignorant that is!!

Again, welcome to your first lesson in American History!

Thomas Jefferson:

-27)Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-28)Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

-20)History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-21)I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.


-30)I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious



13)That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

13)"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."
 
cabse5 said:
...agreeing with the heading of the thread that the founders, with implementation of The Constitution, wanted a more activist government.
Click to expand...

History 101 for you. The Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention led to the Constitutional Convention. All three were primarily about creating an activist govt to impose free trade on the states. The Virginia Compact for example was about trade between Virginia and MD.
So yes the more libertarian conservative activism the better so long as the activism imposes capitalism and freedom from liberal govt interference.

Now do you understand?
 
James972 said:
History 101 for you. The Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention led to the Constitutional Convention. All three were primarily about creating an activist govt to impose free trade on the states. The Virginia Compact for example was about trade between Virginia and MD.
So yes the more libertarian conservative activism the better so long as the activism imposes capitalism and freedom from liberal govt interference.

Now do you understand?
Click to expand...
:roll:...
 
ernst barkmann said:
:roll:...
Click to expand...
History 101 for you. The Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention led to the Constitutional Convention. All three were primarily about creating an activist govt to impose free trade on the states. The Virginia Compact for example was about trade between Virginia and MD.
So yes the more libertarian conservative activism the better so long as the activism imposes capitalism and freedom from liberal govt interference.

Now do you understand?
 
James972 said:
History 101 for you. The Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention led to the Constitutional Convention. All three were primarily about creating an activist govt to impose free trade on the states. The Virginia Compact for example was about trade between Virginia and MD.
So yes the more libertarian conservative activism the better so long as the activism imposes capitalism and freedom from liberal govt interference.

Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

the constitution was about creating a new document to correct the problems which came from the articles of confederation.

on the issue of commerce the states were fighting among themselves, and this was causing commerce to come to a stand still in america the constitution granted the congress the power to regulate commerce among the states to keep commerce flowing, the federal government could not regulate inside of a state until the 20th century.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution was about creating a new document to correct the problems which came from the articles of confederation.
Click to expand...

"problems" is the wrong word. The Constitution was created to impose freedom or free trade on the States, not to make govt bigger or more activist or more liberal. Do you understand?
 
James972 said:
"problems" is the wrong word. The Constitution was created to impose freedom or free trade on the States, not to make govt bigger or more activist or more liberal. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

guy, you are lost, the founders of the convention were members of state legislatures, they did not create a constitution to impose things on the very states that sent them to the convention.
 
ernst barkmann said:
guy, you are lost, the founders of the convention were members of state legislatures, they did not create a constitution to impose things on the very states that sent them to the convention.
Click to expand...

dear, the Constitutional Convention grew directly out of the Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention both of which were designed to promote free trade among the states. Now do you understand?
 
ernst barkmann said:
they did not create a constitution to impose things on the very states that sent them to the convention.
Click to expand...
of course that's stupid. the entire purpose was to create a power center that could impose things!! If not there would have been no reason for the Constitution.
 
James972 said:
dear, the Constitutional Convention grew directly out of the Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention both of which were designed to promote free trade among the states. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

you need to read better on history, and stop with the crap, the convention was to fix the articles and the problems it caused
 
ernst barkmann said:
you need to read better on history, and stop with the crap, the convention was to fix the articles and the problems it caused
Click to expand...

dear what about the Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention??? Are you illiterate? you think it is not obvious that you are trying to ignore them and how they led to convention to fix Articles that were weak on free trade among the states??
 
James972 said:
dear what about the Virginia Compact and Annapolis Convention??? Are you illiterate? you think it is not obvious that you are trying to ignore them and how they led to convention to fix Articles that were weak on free trade among the states??
Click to expand...

you know very little, the founders tried to fix the articles before Philly, but it did not work because some states didn't shown up.

madison then knows if he gets g. Washington on board with a convention and be its president it will work so madison writes Washington and lobbies him, on the idea and he continues to write Washington until the convention.

madison on his own writes the foundation of a new constitution 3 months before the convention and writes Jefferson on march 19 1787, that he has already take the liberty to do so.

the articles of confederation had a weak central government which could not tax, defend the nation, states were printing their own money causing inflation, and states were at war [commerce war] with each other over trade.

JEEZ guy! read a book of something on the subject before you speak
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
you know very little, the founders tried to fix the articles before Philly, but it did not work because some states didn't shown up.

madison then knows if he gets g. Washington on board with a convention and be its president it will work so madison writes Washington and lobbies him, on the idea and he continues to write Washington until the convention.

madison on his own writes the foundation of a new constitution 3 months before the convention and writes Jefferson on march 19 1787, that he has already take the liberty to do so.

the articles of confederation had a weak central government which could not tax, defend the nation, states were printing their own money causing inflation, and states were at war [commerce war] with each other over trade.

JEEZ guy! read a book of something on the subject before you speak
Click to expand...

nice try. you think its not obvious that you are trying to change subject after you lost another debate. Do you have any idea what your subject is???
 
ernst barkmann said:
i can only roll my eyes at someone like yourself who has no idea of what he is talking about, even liberals know a lot more then you on the constitution
Click to expand...
oh, so why so afraid to point out your best example?? What do you learn from your fear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom