• 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
haymarket said:
can somebody explain the obsession with keeping government in America as it was 225 years ago when we were a tiny backwater coastal strip of 4 million farmers and fisherman pretty much isolated from the rest of the world?

It would be like a 45 year old trying to fit into the outfit he wore for his third birthday.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple, they don't like paying taxes.
 
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...

Each founding father had different ideas about how to run the country. They put them all together to form a document, they all signed said document, but that doesn't even mean they all agreed with everything in it!! So, I'm not really sure how to answer these types of questions. Also the way in which this question is presented makes it seem like you are leaving out huge chunks of history, law, and the formation of our current modern day society. That being said, how else would you expect this society to push forward in the way that it did? Because what you are suggesting cannot and will not be done. What you are suggesting would be an alternative universe. And I quite like how this society has turned out so far ;)
 
anonymous polls suck
 
American said:
Obviously the Constitution is repugnant to anyone with socialist beliefs.
Click to expand...

It's a work in progress. It certainly has a few flaws. At least 17 of them since ratification. Well, 15. Frankly, conservatives don't seem to have much respect for the constitution. Not as it actually is. You only seem to like parts of it and want to ignore the rest. But you like to proclaim that it means whatever you want it to mean pretty constantly. Claiming to be an "originalist" or a "strict constructionist" is just an appeal to authority, pretending that your interpretation is any better than anyone else's, instead of the ones that are actually better supported. But by all means, just take a swipe at my lean. That amounts to... something...
 
Paschendale said:
It's a work in progress. It certainly has a few flaws. At least 17 of them since ratification. Well, 15. Frankly, conservatives don't seem to have much respect for the constitution. Not as it actually is. You only seem to like parts of it and want to ignore the rest. But you like to proclaim that it means whatever you want it to mean pretty constantly. Claiming to be an "originalist" or a "strict constructionist" is just an appeal to authority, pretending that your interpretation is any better than anyone else's, instead of the ones that are actually better supported. But by all means, just take a swipe at my lean. That amounts to... something...
Click to expand...

You don't have an iota worth of proof of anything you just said about conservatives or originalists.
 
Crovax said:
Now you are just making stuff up. The controlled substances act is authorized by article 6 of the constitution and that power couldnt [sic] be used to ban guns as stated in Reid v Covert
Click to expand...

Really?

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

I don't see it. Where is there any support in this text for the federal government to regulate “controlled substances”?

Keep in mind that when there was a movement to ban alcohol at the national level, it was widely and correctly understood that the Constitution did not allow it, and that the only legitimate way to do so was to specifically amend the Constitution in order to establish this power, hence, the Eighteenth Amendment.
 
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 founding father fought as to the vision and path of the Nation even before it's inception...1776.
 
TurtleDude said:
The longest lasting and most serious violations of the constitution took place during the New Deal
Click to expand...

And that established the precedents on which a whole plague of further violations are built. FDR did more to undermine the Constitution and to harm this nation than all other Presidents combined.
 
pbrauer said:
It's quite simple, they don't like paying taxes.
Click to expand...

Good observation. I also think they don't like lots of other things that come with 21st century civilization in the USA as well - the main one being the simple acceptance that there must be a balance between the individual and society so that both can live in harmony.
 
haymarket said:
Good observation. I also think they don't like lots of other things that come with 21st century civilization in the USA as well - the main one being the simple acceptance that there must be a balance between the individual and society so that both can live in harmony.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Would contributing to the cost of civilization in the 21st century be on of those things that allows people to live in harmony, or is it demanding others do so that brings people together?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Really?

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​

I don't see it. Where is there any support in this text for the federal government to regulate “controlled substances”?

Keep in mind that when there was a movement to ban alcohol at the national level, it was widely and correctly understood that the Constitution did not allow it, and that the only legitimate way to do so was to specifically amend the Constitution in order to establish this power, hence, the Eighteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should check out what treaties we are a party to
 
ocean515 said:
Interesting. Would contributing to the cost of civilization in the 21st century be on of those things that allows people to live in harmony, or is it demanding others do so that brings people together?
Click to expand...

It is not an either or situation. All members of society should contribute to the cost of civilization.
 
haymarket said:
It is not an either or situation. All members of society should contribute to the cost of civilization.
Click to expand...

I agree. I wonder when that will happen? It seems there is much effort by the left to avoid movement towards that objective.
 
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...
Around the end of the civil war (which was not about slavery, fyi).
 
Crovax said:
Maybe you should check out what treaties we are a party to
Click to expand...

Nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government, by treaty, to cede to foreign interests any powers which do not belong to the federal government in the first place; nor to allow foreign treaties to be used as a means of circumventing the Constitution.
 
To me, as an outsider the Americans never stopped following the path of the founding fathers, they just followed the times and evolved the path of the founding fathers to be valid and inclusive in accordance with our time/the shifting sands of time.

Sadly, the US dream might have evolved to still be useful in the modern times (as well as the economy etc.), the only thing that has not changed is the political system which is no longer working in a country with 300 million people. But that is my point of view, but as a whole the Americans are still on the path of the founding fathers but have adapted it to a country in the 21st century and the number of people that live in the US.
 
ocean515 said:
I agree. I wonder when that will happen? It seems there is much effort by the left to avoid movement towards that objective.
Click to expand...

People accuse me of being left - and I am on some issues - and I feel very strongly that every person making dollar one in our society should pay taxes. And those who cannot pay taxes should be made to contribute in some other way like community service.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government, by treaty, to cede to foreign interests any powers which do not belong to the federal government in the first place; nor to allow foreign treaties to be used as a means of circumventing the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The power to make treaties which become the supreme law of the land is in the constitution, maybe you should read article 6 again
 
Crovax said:
The power to make treaties which become the supreme law of the land is in the constitution, maybe you should read article 6 again
Click to expand...

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

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
Interesting. Would contributing to the cost of civilization in the 21st century be on of those things that allows people to live in harmony, or is it demanding others do so that brings people together?
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of taxes then? Hand in your conservative credentials immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom