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

Unitedwestand13 said:

Please explain what you learned about this issue that allows you to draw that conclusion.

You sound like you are arguing for is a strict constructionist interpration of the constitution, similar to what Jefferson believed in.

You seem to oppose the Hamiltonian concept of government so vehemently that it appears to loose all validity.

But didn't mcculloch v Maryland strike down Jeffersons ideals in favor of hamaltons? Or was mucculloch v Maryland an example of the tortured logic that Jefferson hated Hamilton for?

Click to expand...

I studied poli-sci in college among many other things. The tenth is a specific prohibition on powers not granted to the federal, to my knowledge that has not been replaced by a legitimate amendment as of now. The tenth specifically and with clear verbiage states that the states retain all powers not granted the federal. MvM was a direct power grab by SCOTUS, they asserted a power not granted that branch by the constitution.

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...

Obviously the Constitution is repugnant to anyone with socialist beliefs.

Fearandloathing said:

And a lot of over lay and misinterpretation.

I do not believe the founding fathers were all seeing, nor heroes either, but men with a vision, who were well compensated for their time, they saw to that, beginning a long standing tradition of pocket lining.

The first to digress from the plan, was the architect himself, Thomas Jefferson who broke the intended tradition of one party, two candidates, second place gets a useless but highly paid job. He formed a second party and campaigned for four years after having been snookered in the first "stolen election" which he had not foreseen.

I do not believe they foresaw how deeply would the courts become law makers, and never foresaw the on-going concentration of power in the presidency.

So in answer to the question of when the departure started...right at the beginning when Mr. Adams conspired with Mr. Washington to create dynasties.

Click to expand...

i have a lot of respect for them, though i agree more with some than with others. Washington, especially, who warned against political parties and foreign entanglements.

Van Basten said:

I don't think we really ever did, we've just refined their vision and methods towards that vision. We've grown a tad wiser since then, we're far more fair now. It's a process.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." — Thomas Jefferson

I think they knew there'd be some changes along the way. Doesn't mean it's meant to crap on the founders' ideals and thoughts about this nation's future. The constitution is still sacred, it's just not all of us view it so rigidly.

And yea like others have said, starting from John Adams and onwards, people have pulled some risky business with the government for a while now.

Click to expand...

Changes along the way, via constitutional amendment, are all well and good; changes along the way, via ignoring the actual words in (meaning of?) the constitution, are dangerous precedents to establish.

When the simple power to "tax income from all sources" (16th amendment) is interpreted to mean that federal taxation may be based upon how one chose not to spend their personal income then we are in serious trouble. If you do not spend your money exactly as federally mandated then you owe a tax (a penalty with no due process involved?) for making that (previously free) choice.

LaMidRighter said:

I studied poli-sci in college among many other things. The tenth is a specific prohibition on powers not granted to the federal, to my knowledge that has not been replaced by a legitimate amendment as of now. The tenth specifically and with clear verbiage states that the states retain all powers not granted the federal. MvM was a direct power grab by SCOTUS, they asserted a power not granted that branch by the constitution.

Click to expand...

That leaves out an important 10A "detail":

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That (bolded above) clause is very important but seems to have no meaning now unless one gets the SCOTUS to say that the 14th amendment also applies to rights (rather than powers). That is the basis for most gun control ("reasonable" restrictions at the state level) not being found to violate the 2A "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Do individual constitutional rights really change when you cross state/local borders within the US?

ttwtt78640 said:

That leaves out an important 10A "detail":

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That (bolded above) clause is very important but seems to have no meaning now unless one gets the SCOTUS to say that the 14th amendment also applies to rights (rather than powers). That is the basis for most gun control ("reasonable" restrictions at the state level) not being found to violate the 2A "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Click to expand...

You are correct, I didn't include it in my second post. I think I did that because state/local are going to be the smallest governing bodies and I was thinking law rather than free exercise of will. The people ultimately hold the bulk of the power, however legislation comes from elected bodies and that is where my focus was.

ttwtt78640 said:

I noticed that a lot of folks seem to see constitutional amendments (e.g. ending slavery, giving women the vote and taxing personal income) as when we stopped following the "founders" visions. I see constitutional amendment as completely OK because the "founders" thought far enough ahead to make such action possible. I chose 1937, with the "marijuana tax act"' as a critical point when the federal government decided that things could simply be banned (and unlike alcohol, without need of constituional amendment) simply becuase they were not popular with certain key players.

Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

That didnt ban marijuana only tax it.

I know this isn't the answer wanted, but this is my opinion.

The first nation was from 1789-1860. This was a weak nation in which the states held sway, and slavery was allowed. During this time, not even one state could be added without another state being added so as to preserve the balance of power between states in which slavery was permitted and those in which it was not. In essence, see the War of 1812 and the Missouri Compromise to show what the deal really was. By the 1850s this system was breaking down. This "First Republic" lasted about 70 years

In 1860, some states tried to leave and a new Republic was founded with greater Federal control. The idea that states could leave was thrown out, as was the idea that slavery could be permitted. The power of this Republic grew and we were finally able to assert ourselves on the world stage, culminating in WWI. However, a new power had risen that was equal in power to the slaveholders, this being the trusts and monopolies. In 1929 that came crashing down far more suddenly, and by 1932 it was clear that it wasn't working. This "Second Republic" lasted about 70 years as well.

In 1932, another new nation rose from the ashes. This one placed greater emphasis on the individual than either of the previous two. Social welfare systems came into being, and eventually racial segregation came to an end. No longer was a citizen only useful as long as his owner (be it the slaveholder or the trusts) found them useful. This "Third Republic" has just passed its 80th year.

In some ways we're overdue for another redo. It's worth noting that in neither of the previous 2 re-incarnations of the United States have things been completely thrown out, nor did anybody really go away. For years after the beginning of the Second Republic, those not involved in its founding tried to undermine it (see Jim Crow laws), and since the beginning of the Third, those who feel they were not involved are trying to undermine it ("Corporations are People," seeking to undo welfare). Now what we have is the Founders of the Second Republic (the Republican party) and the Founders of the Third (the Democratic party) fighting it out to see where we go now. Clearly the Third Republic has reached it's breaking point, but so far nobody has stepped up with a new vision.

ttwtt78640 said:

Do individual constitutional rights really change when you cross state/local borders within the US?

Click to expand...

The dont change because constitutional rights were only intended to protect a person from the federal govt.

Crovax said:

That didnt ban marijuana only tax it.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

Yes thats true but ttwtt claimed that the govt started simply started unconstitutionally banning things when they have always used constitutional loopholes like that

Crovax said:

The dont change because constitutional rights were only intended to protect a person from the federal govt.

Click to expand...

Really? No need for those Miranda warnings at the state level? No need for any due process at the state level?

ttwtt78640 said:

Really? No need for those Miranda warnings at the state level? No need for any due process at the state level?

Click to expand...

Well obviously there is now with the 14th amendment but the founders as a group didnt think so when the refused to incorporate the bill of rights like Patrick Henry was pushing for.

Side note, I still dont see the point of Miranda warnings you cant protect stupid people against themselves

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.

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...

April 12, 1783.

Crovax said:

Yes thats true but ttwtt claimed that the govt started simply started unconstitutionally banning things when they have always used constitutional loopholes like that

Click to expand...

Really? That "loophole" established a precedent which now allows, basically, anything to be nationally banned as a "controlled substance".

21 U.S. Code § 812 - Schedules of controlled substances | LII / Legal Information Institute

A Schedule I drug or other substance may be banned if:
(A) The HANDGUN has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The HANDGUN has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the HANDGUN under medical supervision.

American said:

Obviously the Constitution is repugnant to anyone with socialist beliefs.

Click to expand...

And the socialism reference gives me a right wing sound bite bingo!

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...

This is a fantastic poll question!

Periodically we have wavered off and wandered back (example: Wilson --> Coolidge). Since the Hoover Administration, however, we have wavered but not "wandered back" so much as we have "veered back towards, only to curve away again". I choose the 1932, as it is the closest option.

Freeing the slaves, allowing women to vote, and civil / equal rights in general veered pretty far off from the "path of the founding fathers". I have never understood the blatant worship of the founders. They started the nation, thank God we have improved upon it a lot since then.

ttwtt78640 said:

Really? That "loophole" established a precedent which now allows, basically, anything to be nationally banned as a "controlled substance".

21 U.S. Code § 812 - Schedules of controlled substances | LII / Legal Information Institute

A Schedule I drug or other substance may be banned if:
(A) The HANDGUN has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The HANDGUN has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the HANDGUN under medical supervision.

Click to expand...

Now you are just making stuff up. The controlled substances act is authorized by article 6 of the constitution and that power couldnt be used to ban guns as stated in Reid v Covert

Redress said:

April 12, 1783.

Click to expand...

That was actually pre-Constitution.

The longest lasting and most serious violations of the constitution took place during the New Deal

cpwill said:

This is a fantastic poll question!

Periodically we have wavered off and wandered back (example: Wilson --> Coolidge). Since the Hoover Administration, however, we have wavered but not "wandered back" so much as we have "veered back towards, only to curve away again". I choose the 1932, as it is the closest option.

Click to expand...

Like I said. You, as a Republican want to go back to the Second Republic, founded by your party. Which still isn't the original.

I'm ambivalent about the original anyway, but I wouldn't want to go back to the era of Robber Barons either.

rocket88 said:

That was actually pre-Constitution.

Click to expand...

Correct. It was something of a facetious answer to a silly question. It also has more accuracy than any of the potential poll choices.

To highlight how painfully silly the poll question is, answer this question: which founding father?

Redress said:

Correct. It was something of a facetious answer to a silly question. It also has more accuracy than any of the potential poll choices.

To highlight how painfully silly the poll question is, answer this question: which founding father?

Click to expand...

I agree. Even they had different ideas. Adams and Jefferson could hardly stand each other.

I'm going to go with the Burr/Hamilton duel, when one Founding Father shot and killed another one because they couldn't agree.