Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spitzer: Founders would like Obamacare
The Columbian (WV) ^ | May 6, 2012 | by Eliot Spitzer

Posted on 05/06/2012 9:27:44 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

The five conservative justices on the Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy -- cloak themselves in the myth that they are somehow channeling the wisdom and understanding of the Founding Fathers, the original intent that guided the drafting of the Constitution. I believe the premise of their argument is itself suspect: It is not clear how much weight should be given to non-textually based intent that is practically impossible to discern more than 200 years later. Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted.

Those opposing the bill insist that an individual mandate has never been done and the framers would simply not permit such an encroachment on liberty and freedom.

These examples show the fallacy and the false rigidity that the originalists seek to impose on our government. In their effort to cabin and restrain the government they seek to have the benefit of the claim that the founders shared such a limited approach to governing. In fact, the approach to governing that these acts demonstrate is more nuanced and thoughtful.

As with so many of the claims of the originalists, a slight understanding of the true history shows that the originalists’ view is mere ideology being imposed on a false understanding of history.

(Excerpt) Read more at columbian.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: eliotspitzer; failure; obamacare; scotus; scotusobamacare; socialism; spitzer; spitzerprostitutes
Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.
1 posted on 05/06/2012 9:27:53 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Lucky for me I wasn’t drinking my coffee when I read that headline!


2 posted on 05/06/2012 9:29:28 AM PDT by FrdmLvr (culture, language, borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Spitzer needs to stick to hiring hookers. The boy is clueless when it comes to America, freedom and liberty.


3 posted on 05/06/2012 9:30:32 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life. - Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Eliot, why do we have to listen to your drivel?

Why is it that Democrats caught up in scandal become rehabilitated as some sort of “elder statesmen” whom we are supposed to be in awe of??????


4 posted on 05/06/2012 9:30:36 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

These people are so lame-———Politicians are people who think they know more than anybody else about everything there is to know....


5 posted on 05/06/2012 9:31:28 AM PDT by basil (It's time to rid the country of "gun free zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The founders of RUSSIA maybe!!


6 posted on 05/06/2012 9:32:14 AM PDT by mountainlion (I am voting for Sarah after getting screwed again by the DC Thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I get it now. The founding Fathers actually were speaking in a code.

They meant exactly the opposite of what they said.


7 posted on 05/06/2012 9:33:30 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Spitzer, the hooker expert preaching about our founding fathers....

And to think there are some that listen to that demon of humanity.

8 posted on 05/06/2012 9:34:45 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Eliot wold like a date with that one over there ~ bring her to him eh!


9 posted on 05/06/2012 9:35:01 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

But then again, the founders took off their socks while ridin’ dirty.


10 posted on 05/06/2012 9:35:20 AM PDT by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Are we hearing commentaries such as this, because the liberals expect Obamacare to be overturned? Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait for the ruling, then review the reasoning behind the majority opinion?

This guy is pre-emptively calling out five justices by name, and saying that their legal reasoning is suspect.

As we know, the justices have already decided the case. It’s just that the opinions haven’t been written and released to the public yet. But have Democrats gotten a heads-up that this will be overturned, which then in turn prompts Democrat talking points such as this commentary????

Is commentary like than an attempt to “de-legitimize” if that’s a word, the ruling of the court? Then will liberals feel that they can trash the court ruling as unfounded in the constitution?????

Finally, are liberals so enamored of big government, that they can’t understand how there can be any limits on the powers of the federal government? That’s a key issue in this case, as to whether the federal government can compel all of us to do a certain thing, by buying officially approved health insurance policies.


11 posted on 05/06/2012 9:39:52 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted.

Can you believe this f***ing idiot was elected Governor of New York State?

Hey Client #9: Whatever do you think Thomas Jefferson might have meant when he wrote: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."?

Love,
 ML/NJ

12 posted on 05/06/2012 9:42:15 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted"

THIS is how Liberals ALWAYS want to discard the Constitution; by saying it was "not envisioned by The Founders", whenever they want to install their Agenda.

The Founders were forming a LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, with LIMITED POWER, and The States retain all Rights not enunciated in the Constitution.

Freedom from Government interference in personal choice, personal responsibility for one's outcomes, etc., are no change from the Intent. MANDATING AND FORCING Citizens to perform at the whim of the Federal Government is TOTALLY OUTSIDE the Intent.

One of the MAJOR problems in the Country today is the ascension of FOOLS like Spitzer, to Attorney General posions, and to Judgeships, where they try to make Law by contorted/Agenda-driven "Interpretations" that don't pass the Smell Test, nor the Common Sense Test.

13 posted on 05/06/2012 9:52:41 AM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

“posions”=”positions”


14 posted on 05/06/2012 9:54:01 AM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
the founders and the Congress of the time were willing to force all of us to participate in a particular act of commence and were comfortable requiring both the owner of a business and the individual employee to buy insurance in order to assure that health costs would be covered at a societal level.

And yet these are still examples of the use of force that violates the natural rights of an individual, and if allowed to continue,will sooner of later, eventually lead to the destructive consequences of unlimited government scope and power.

15 posted on 05/06/2012 9:54:13 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

At least this guy tried to write a reasonable article (reasonable for the left)
He sites:

In 1790, a Congress including 20 founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.

In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the claim Congress can’t force us to participate in commerce.)

And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Im not a lawyer but I bet that can be picked apart in no time

able bodied men buying guns is the same as the draft .....Does the left really want o compare compulsory healthcare with going to war?

the other 2 examples are about high risk occupations which dont apply across the board to all that breathe


16 posted on 05/06/2012 9:55:16 AM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; LucyT
Shortly after Obamacare was adopted, all of the professors at the University of Washington School of Law stood outside the building as a group and declared that they were unanimous that there was no theory on which the bill could be declared unconstitutional.

A really sad commentary on what was once a great law school--#14 in the Country in the 1960's, it has dropped to the mid thirties the last time I looked. From a group of professors who included some of the leading academics in their field in several cases, they are now a group of has beens almost all of whom are rejects from the local law offices.

The bill does not contain a severance clause (a clause that preserves the bill even if part of the legislation is found unconstitutional). Thus from a technical perspective, any material element of the bill which does not pass Constitutional muster should be fatal to the entire bill. In this case, among other things, it is argued that in rejecting a severance clause, Congress must have intended the bill to fall if material parts of it are not constitutional.

Two of the elements of the bill are clearly unconstitutional: The "tax" clause which purported to levy a tax on non-complaint taxpayers is not a tax on income--Congress has only the Constitutional power to levy non-proportional taxes on "income"; thus the tax provision is generally recognized as unconstitutional.

The bill contains a mandate that requires citizen's to purchase health insurance. In theory, the power to impose the mandate is found in the interstate commerce clause. Problem is that health insurance cannot be sold across state lines in interstate commerce. Sure, there are arguments based on the proposition that health insurance affects other kinds of interstate commerce but any such affect is theoretical and indirect at best, particularly in the context of the waivers and exclusions which are applicable. In my view, there isn't any real credible argument the mandate is constitutional.

In my view, there simply isn't any real argument for either of the two primary legs of the bill. Under normal rules of Constitutional Law, absent a savings clause, this bill is simply not within the power of Congress under the Constitution. If the Court is really going to preserve our system of Constitutional government, it has no choice but to throw the bill out.

17 posted on 05/06/2012 9:58:10 AM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

...Finally, are liberals so enamored of big government, that they can’t understand how there can be any limits on the powers of the federal government?...

Exactly. If there are no limits to federal tyranny, the coming conservative super majority could mandate every citizen purchase a gun. Explain that to a liberal and watch their head explode.


18 posted on 05/06/2012 10:05:00 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Every time I see Eliot Spitzer, all I can hear are the Beatles singing, “Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine ...”


19 posted on 05/06/2012 10:05:00 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Hey Eliot the founding fathers of this country would have had most of you and your ilk hanging from a gallows or shot without rerservation.


20 posted on 05/06/2012 10:25:51 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Hey Eliot the founding fathers of this country would have had most of you and your ilk hanging from a gallows or shot without reservation.


21 posted on 05/06/2012 10:26:09 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Let me guess Client #9. It’s just wishful thinking on your part to keep your costs down with free condoms.

Eliot the Idiot BUMP!


22 posted on 05/06/2012 10:28:30 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

What about the whores Eliot? What do they think?


23 posted on 05/06/2012 10:34:18 AM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie
In 1790, a Congress including 20 founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen.

Did "medical insurance" even exist in 1790?

In that era, medical care consisted pretty-much of amputations, splinting, and "bleeding".

None of which would require "medical insurance".

If anything, he's probably referring to a rule that shipowners would be responsible for the medical care of their "employees".

24 posted on 05/06/2012 10:36:52 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The founders of the Soviet Union would like Obamacare — but not America’s foudners. What a maroon and a man of low repute!


25 posted on 05/06/2012 10:37:52 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Spitzer says: The Supreme Court justices think they’re channelling the founding fathers. But only I can channel the founding fathers.

Someone give this parasite a voucher so he can get laid, please. Everything’s backed up and clogging the arteries to his brain.


26 posted on 05/06/2012 10:41:24 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Anybody who pays 3k for a piece of a$$, can’t be too bright.


27 posted on 05/06/2012 10:43:31 AM PDT by Nachoman (I HOPE we CHANGE presidents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Spitzer: Founders would like Obamacare

Splitzer is so monumentally stupid, no wonder he had to pay hookers 4K to jump in the sack with him. WADDAPUTZ

28 posted on 05/06/2012 10:44:45 AM PDT by GoldenPup (Comrade "O" has got to GO!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This rag has a circulation of 42,000.


29 posted on 05/06/2012 10:45:05 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
It is amazing how quickly a liberal can be "rehabilitated" to the point of being given TV shows and having their opinions published.

He was given a pass for two federal crimes associated with his procurement of high priced prostitutes.

It has become a new trend for small farms to be prosecuted for bundling payments in an attempt to avoid filling out paperwork. Spitzer bundled payments to avoid scrutiny of what his money was paying for. Additionally he was guilty of transporting women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. That is one of the longest standing human trafficking laws in this country, but remember it is Republicans that are waging a war on women.

30 posted on 05/06/2012 10:48:13 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Spitzer another POS lawyer who should have assumed room temperature years ago.

Whatever university ed-ju-ma-kated this moron must never have covered the Federalist Papers.

If Elliot had EARNED his law degree he should have known of the Owner’s Manual for the Constitution but like most lying liberals they can never admit these documents exist as they would tend to disprove everything these communists try to sneak by us. The university he attended should be investigated for failing to provide a proper education.


31 posted on 05/06/2012 11:39:56 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

HUDDLE UP!

The Place for Conservatives
We have some elections to win!


32 posted on 05/06/2012 11:56:49 AM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Indeed just started reading it and this one line all too common from the loony left stuck me again: “Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted.”

The left seem to have a hard time comprehending the concept that if an issue is not cover in the Federal Constitution then that issue must be addressed by either the people or their states NOT Washington.

The Federal Government is suppose to be a Constitutional government meaning a Government of limited & defined powers and responsibly. That means in no uncertain terms it is not suppose to address any other issues!

You want to add issues to any government your going to dilute your ability to control that government’s control over all existing issues. As individuals people uses to have 100% of the vote over that issue.

Now they just have 1 vote every 2 years which they have to split with not only 300+ million other people but hundredths of other competing “issues”


33 posted on 05/06/2012 12:27:28 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

IF I remember correctly, there was an article about this maybe on FR. Anyways if I recall correctly the law was taken away because of long term care and how long exactly did an employee needed to be taken care of by their respective employers. Any ways the fund ran out of money and it became highly unpopular after that and the law was repealed.

Kind of like how Bummer’s law is going to become highly expensive and run the gov’t out of money. If we don’t redact the current Healthcare law it will be the death of us all including the country.


34 posted on 05/06/2012 12:59:23 PM PDT by zaxtres
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

IF I remember correctly, there was an article about this maybe on FR. Anyways if I recall correctly the law was taken away because of long term care and how long exactly did an employee needed to be taken care of by their respective employers. Any ways the fund ran out of money and it became highly unpopular after that and the law was repealed.

Kind of like how Bummer’s law is going to become highly expensive and run the gov’t out of money. If we don’t redact the current Healthcare law it will be the death of us all including the country.


35 posted on 05/06/2012 1:07:56 PM PDT by zaxtres
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.

That's really a he** of a thing to say about all those nice folks in New York state.

However, this little bit just proves that Client Number 9 can't preach politics any better than he can pick a date.

Stick a fork in him.

He's done.

36 posted on 05/06/2012 1:19:36 PM PDT by Unrepentant VN Vet ((257 and a wakeup) Truth, I know, always resides wherever brave men still have ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“Eliot, why do we have to listen to your drivel?”

I don’t know but we should nonetheless address his examples supposing they exist as he said they did,and they did not.

We will start with the 1792 militia act:

Eliot said: “
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-bodied men buy a firearm. (So much for the claim Congress can’t force us to participate in commerce.)

See the militia Clause Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15.

It was under this clause that congress supposed the power to arm the population it regarded as militia.

Eliot said: “
In 1790, a Congress including 20 founders passed a law requiring that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it into law.

Eliot said: “
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation.

In both theses acts applied only to ship & sailors NOT the general intrastate population. indeed The first 1790 act only applied specifically to ships of 10 person or more going to foreign ports without medicine on board, and constituted an employment compensation requirement for said sailors.

It is worth noting that the 2nd and admittedly more aggressive act was of course passed by the same congress that passed & signed the Alien & sedition acts. It too however was limited only to sailors actually crossing state lines by way of sea in the coarse of their work.

The Individual mandate does not care whether or not you have ever left your state much less are are employees on a commercial maritime vessel leaving your state for anther state in the business of transporting goods to be sold in other states.


37 posted on 05/06/2012 2:19:50 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

If his arguments are so good, why didn’t they voice them before the court? If the laws he cites are so applicable, why not? Whatever happened to these laws? Were they repealed? Did the court strike them down?


38 posted on 05/06/2012 2:27:11 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Read post #37. Theses “laws” were/are not what Spitzer said they were.

They did not apply to the general intrastate population only the militia & sailors & licence seeking ship owners leaving their State to trade with other States.

Among other issues was also the fact that the most agrevise of theses acts the tax upon sailors which in this case given the specific nature of their work is more of an interstate tariff. Was proposed, passed and signed by the same congress who are responsible for the similarly intrusive alien & sedition acts.

The Federalist in congress as time went by gave less and less concern to the rights of the people.


39 posted on 05/06/2012 3:14:08 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The Left is still working to paint the Constitution as Outdated and no longer germane...
Why? because its always in their way


40 posted on 05/06/2012 4:28:40 PM PDT by quagmier (There is no "common good" which minimizes or sacrifices the individual. Walter Scott Hudson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

I am sure the Founders would have approved State Governors having sex with hookers on Government time, and Presidents lying under oath to Grand juries in Civil Rights Cases, (Clinton). I just cannot find it in the Federalist....


41 posted on 05/06/2012 4:28:54 PM PDT by mouell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Eliot only was trying to enhance his Democrap Resume!

How did his wife feel about his hooker activities? To the people of New York, it probably didn't matter.
42 posted on 05/06/2012 6:58:24 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I bet Ashley Dupre is all for ObamaCare.


43 posted on 05/06/2012 7:01:25 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; All
" I believe the premise of their argument is itself suspect: It is not clear how much weight should be given to non-textually based intent that is practically impossible to discern more than 200 years later. Most of the issues over which there is constitutional dispute today could not even have been envisioned when the document was drafted."

America's Founders understood human nature well enough and were wise enough to form a Constitution based on enduring principles for the protection of Creator-endowed individual liberty. It was as Justice Story wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution . . . ,"
"The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

Sadly, Spitzer's comments here reflect his own inadequacy to grasp the long view of history, his apparent lack of study of civilization's struggles to overcome tyranny and the remarkable nature of his own nation's Constitution. Else, how could he make such uninformed remarks about the Constitution and Constitutional interpretation?

Fortunately, a man long recognized as a true American statesman and intellectual held a different view on the manner in which the Constitution should be approached.

In "When Jefferson Dined Alone," Professor Jonathon Gross of DePaul University (Steerforth Press, May 2006) wrote: "At a gathering of 49 Nobel Prize recipients at the White House on April 29, 1962, John F. Kennedy noted that never before had such talent been assembled in one room, except, perhaps, when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Read more about Jefferson.

The point of telling that story is that it was none other than Thomas Jefferson who said:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton

In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:

"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."

Mr. Spitzer, there are volumes of writings from America's first 50-100 years which refute your theory that the Founders could not "even have envisioned" the kinds of "problems," or intrusions on liberty we face today. In their wisdom, they did, in fact envision such things.

44 posted on 05/06/2012 8:57:26 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Poor Eliot. He’s too lazy to actually read the text of the Second Militia Act of 1792 to see what Congress passed and Washington signed.

“...each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,...”

So, first of all it applied to every male of a certain age, not every living being.

“...every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock,...”

So, each male was to “provide himself.” There was no mandate to buy anything. Real brilliant reasoning there Spitz.


45 posted on 05/06/2012 9:58:52 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Spitzer, take your Spitz and find a Honey, you loathsome jerk. No one gives a care what you think or say. Now go away.


46 posted on 05/06/2012 10:08:36 PM PDT by Chgogal (WSJ, Coulter, Kristol, Krauthammer, Rove et al., STFU. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Elliot, no government is going to dictate to me what I am going to buy.

Now STFU.

I have had enough! Big Government is Going Down. Peacefully I hope this November.


47 posted on 05/06/2012 10:12:29 PM PDT by Chgogal (WSJ, Coulter, Kristol, Krauthammer, Rove et al., STFU. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Dear Wh_ _ _ No. 9: Every town in the state was given a format for taking care of the poor and troubled. I have an 1850 book for NYS with all the LOCAL rules.

And our old deeds say "Free and Independent". It's called States Rights.

48 posted on 05/08/2012 7:15:25 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

The government was getting stuck with the tab for their losses. This was the solution. Was it adhered to? Was it outlawed?


49 posted on 05/08/2012 7:21:29 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson