Posted on 10/14/2009 7:36:34 AM PDT by Huck
Everyone should read the Federalist Papers, so that they can see how wrong the Framers were. Then they should read the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the Virginia Ratification debates, where Patrick Henry and George Mason took up the anti-federalist cause in point by point debate against Madison himself. Then they should look at our history and decide for themselves.
The anti-federalists were not correct in every prediction, but they got most of it right. And it didn't take long for the abuses...Chief Justice Marshall got the ball rolling as early as 1803.
PRINT for later reading
What I find most ironic is that those who most loudly call for a “strict Constitutional form of government” are those who celebrate Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution at every turn.
If you don’t think the Constitution is a good platform for government, fine. However, at that point it cannot be used as a basis for your arguments for or against what the Federal government is doing.
People like to quote Henry's famous call to arms speech. I'm not sure they are as familiar with his position on the Constitution. The conservative movement constantly praises the Federalist papers, with nary a mention of the other side of those arguments.
If you don’t think the Constitution is a good platform for government, fine. However, at that point it cannot be used as a basis for your arguments for or against what the Federal government is doing.
My point is that you have to judge the Constitution on what has happened, not on what coulda-woulda-shoulda happened. The mere existance of the Federalist-Antifederalist debates demonstrates that the risks involved were well-known at the time. It's silly to say that if only people did this or didn't do that, it would work fine. It has to be judged based on what DID happen. It was an experiment, after all.
I have reached the point where I think "they need to follow the Constitution" arguments are in fact a silly waste of time. I mean, they are useful insofar as any successful means of restraining the feds to whatever extent possible should be tried. It's a fine tactic if you can use it to curb abuse by some small degree, but intellectually, it's pointless.
From the first Supreme Court on, from the First Congress on, the Pandora's box has been open. To try to "return to the Constitution" is a fool's errand. There is nothing to return to except the same flawed, overly powerful, overly centralized system that got us here in the first place.
One other point. One has to deal with what is. As I stated above, I think it makes perfect tactical sense to use whatever aspects of the Constitution are at your disposal to try to restrain Fedzilla, and preserve what freedoms we still possess. The anti-feds opposed the Constitution, then they served in the First Congress and amended it with the Bill of Rights. You have to work within the system to get the best available outcome, even if you would rather see the system abolished.
Both sides were genius. And their passions led to the compromise that became our constitution. That if followed, would be the best form of government ever conceived and executed.
Are you proposing a new Constitution? If so, how will a people that is so used to nanny-statism react to the argument of self reliance and personal responsibility that you will probably (just guessing)propose? Are you saying that all is lost?
But both sides were not correct. 2+2 cannot equal 4 and 5 simultaneously.
Both sides were genius. And their passions led to the compromise that became our constitution.
That's not correct. The antifeds were simply outnumbered, and lost the vote. It wasn't compromise--it was political defeat.
That if followed,
There's that "if only" again. If only I were more handsome, I'd be more successful. If only I had superpowers, I could fly to the moon. If only.
Those are good points, but there are some others to consider as well.
The Constitution has never been the handcuffs on the Federal government that many would like. As you point out with the 1803 mention, Jay and the Supreme Court overstepped what many would consider the boundries of the Court a mere 14 years after ratification.
But Washington, Adams, and Jefferson each stretched the powers of the Executive branch in their own ways well before that.
The real issue has always been Congress and it’s power of the purse. If Congress won’t fund it, nothing the President or the Court can do has any teeth. Congress has been getting progressively worse, but it was never “pure” even 150 years ago. And it isn’t just the fault of the “Washington insiders”. People, particularly on this site, like to quote Crockett’s speech about the fiscal responsibility of Congress, but many fail to realize that Crockett’s stand on that issue was so unpopular with his constituency that he lost re-election.
America has never been a “small government” people as a whole. The leadership of America has always had to make a devil’s deal to get things done while trying to not give too much power to the next guy who came along.
Just as the 1950’s are an idyllic mirage in the collective minds of many in America, so were the 1790’s to many “Constitutionalists” on this site.
But for all the predictions of the anti-federalists that have come true, the overall result is the most free, most prosperous, and most powerful nation on earth. And the fact that you and I can post our arguments for the world it see is a testament to that.
Not today. I have to peel myself away and go run errands, then to work :-)
I am proposing that our problems stem FROM the Constitution, and that any true progress towards real liberty won't occur until that is realized by enough people to make a change to something better.
If so, how will a people that is so used to nanny-statism react to the argument of self reliance and personal responsibility that you will probably (just guessing)propose? Are you saying that all is lost?
It's difficult to draw final, all-ecompassing conclusions. Generally, my thinking at this time is that the Constitution was a monumental error. That one has to imagine what other possibilities might have occurred instead---a stronger confederation that is yet far less powerful than the national government.
I do believe that the founding period was an extremely rare opportunity. And no, I don't believe the people are capable of devising or living under a truly free system. I believe that our population has been devolving for decades or more, and fails almost every test of a free people--adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. (that list is from the Virginia Declaration of Rights. )
I believe that until the freedom loving Americans see the Constitution as a failure, we'll be playing around at the margins, applying the brakes, while the country continues to move headlong in one and only one direction. The wrong one.
And what if those who favor liberty are outnumbered by obnoxious forces who accept and promote abuses of federal power?
This has already happened time and time again throughout history. The power gets overthrown. I believe, right now the seeds are being planted in this country for a return to a harnessed government. The pols in power are taking precarious steps towards tyranny and unemployment is rising. Discontent, like a snowball, starts small and gets bigger going down hill.
It's fine to say we're in good shape compared to the rest of the world (although Switzerland seems pretty good if you have the money!). It is interesting, at least, to imagine how we could be better under a different system. But that's water under the bridge. We couldn't be a "superpower" unless we had a strong, central government, and most conservatives would not want to give that up.
I just find the "follow the Constitution" arguments pointless intellectually. A quick study of history demonstrates the futility of the exericise. It's a useful tactic for applying the brakes, but nothing more. It's nostalgia for what never was, as you inferred.
In my opinion, no. I say the 10th amendment is as toothless as a meth addict. Ultimately, it would take FORCE, not mere declarations. We could possibly see another nullification crisis, I suppose. But Madison's prediction was that ALL states would be united against FEDZILLA. Instead we have a small handful of states making noise, I believe for political purposes only. Let's see them back it up with force. Then I'll believe.
And even if they did, there is too much to undo. If you want to really get depressed, study the landmark Supreme Court cases going all the way back to the beginning. You might as well start over. It'd be easier.
And isn't the Tea Party movement and the past "Summer of disenchantment of the Party in power" an indication that Madison's belief a proof of his argument?
Not in my opinion.
God has been stripped from our society and has resulted in a moral relativism which at the political level has created a destructive environment of partisanism. Career politicians are bought, sold and outrageous behavior is defended because the people wink and nod because they are getting there's. What do they know? There has been a failure of seeking the Truth and an outright movement to keep the populace fat, dumb and happy.
I believe the people of this great nation need to be reformed, not the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
It's not either/or. I believe both need reformation. The former would probably need to occur in order for the latter to be possible.
Your posting “Federalist #10: Debated Point by Point” begins by debating a quote which is actually from Federalist #46. The quote from #46 runs together two paragraphs without any indication you are doing so. You might wish to avoid tossing around criticisms so casually.
You have to understand that Madison’s (and the rest of the founders’) viewpoints were based on a “moral and religious people” with a foundation in the Judeo-Christian value system.
Remove that basis, and all bets are off.
The expansion of the centralized government is just a symptom of humans worshipping other humans based on their perceived elitism.
If the original Constitution has mandated this simple method of affirming the constitutionality of all legislation, we would have been spared a lot of our current trouble.
It's gotta start somewhere. It isn't going to start with everyone in lockstep. It never happens that way.
And even if they did, there is too much to undo. If you want to really get depressed, study the landmark Supreme Court cases going all the way back to the beginning. You might as well start over. It'd be easier.
You are falling into your own trap. Be like Andrew Jackson and don't listen to the Men in Black. Let them enforce the ridiculous rulings.
I agree with you on one point - We complain about the Cubans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, etc... on "why they just don't rise up and fight." Well, we need to look at ourselves and stop listening to smarmy music on our iPods and realize we are hypocrites when we make such arguments.
Amen.
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.