Posted on 10/14/2009 7:36:34 AM PDT by Huck
I still think the 16th and 17th amendments were the beginning of the end. After those, a falling away from God and it is game over for America.
Unlimited amount of taxing authority, State governments cut out of the controlling the Senate, and a populace that no longer follows God. I like the cancerous parts need to be cut away and the healthy parts go back to the beginning and start over.
But it can still be overturned by amendment, which IMHO is a better option than "starting over".
The Founders’ Constitution, magnificent as it was, was wrecked by the Civil War. Madison and his colleagues cannot fairly be blamed for that or for the radical expansion of federal power in the 20th Century.
I argue that they can be blamed, for it is they who CREATED the federal power, no, the NATIONAL power.
As if George W Bush has any depth of understanding of the Constitution. lol. His lip service to the Constitution was the same thing as putting on a cowboy hat and clearing brush—a shallow sales pitch, a pose.
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
So the question is---did their plan work? The answer is a resounding NO.
Thank you for posting this. Your posts in the “red states should secede” piqued my interest.
BGAH: I thought this might be of interest to you concerning your study of 2A. :)
The French for coming to the support of the American Revolution. Philadelphia for providing a meeting place for the Constitutional Convention. The parents of Chief Justice John Marshall. John Brown for helping trigger the Civil War. General Grant for winning it. Watt for inventing the modern steam engine that enabled the expansion of commerce between the states. How to chose though among the many culprits that history offers?
Historians look to fine details and the proximate causes of events and processes. Careful reflection suggests that they are correct to do so even if the price is the abandonment of singular, sweeping judgments to assess blame for what we dislike.
Because they created it. Further, in Madison's own words what they created was not, strictly speaking, federal. It was a mixture of federal and national. It acted on the states (federal) and directly on the people (national).
There was no national government before the Constitution, and they were not asked to create one. They were merely asked to fix some weaknesses in the confederation.
It's like this--if Frankenstein goes on a killing rampage, who do you blame, Frankenstein, or his creator? The monster is just doing what monsters do. But why create a monster when there is no need, and so much danger?
that was utterly beyond their anticipation
This is completely false. Why do you think Patrick Henry, George Mason et al opposed the Constitution? Why do you think only 9 of the 13 states voted to ratify? Read George Clinton's anti-federalist papers. Read the Virginia ratification debates. All of the problems we face were most definitely anticipated and published. The Federalist Papers were an attempt to counter those arguments and convince NY to ratify.
BFL
That looks like more than a 2/3rds majority to the untrained eye.
As long as we can fix the problems that besiege us the answer is a resounding YES.
That’s right. One third of the states rejected it. It’s a pity Virginia went the wrong way. It was a very close vote. Funny how pivotal VA was, both to the ratification, and to the ensuing Civil War.
I’m extremely dubious that any amount of election cycles will be able to root out the engrained power structure in DC, the regulatory agencies, the centralized power, etc,
and put this gov’t back in the cage.
I seriously think we’re going to have to hit the reset button.
Without re-writing the Constitution, and obliterating two centuries of federal jurisprudence, there is no way to fix the problems.
It would have to truly be a reset, not just a do-over of the same flawed system. You ever see the Confederate Constitution? It’s laughable. It’s basically cribbed from the US Constitution. They didn’t even change the preamble to say “We the States”. Unless you do away with the national system, do away with the myriad errors inherent in the Constitution, you don’t stand a chance of anything but the same end result.
I don’t see a way around the necessity for a general government to “provide for the common defense” and coin money, etc - those things listed in Article I, Section 8.
I’m not sure, though, that any language, no matter how strong, like
“THE GENERAL GOVERMENT HAS _NO_ POWERS OUTSIDE OF THOSE LISTED HERE”
will overcome the basic tendency of some to seek power over others, or for some to think this is a desirable condition for some to have power over all.
This tendency stems from a basic error in the understanding of the human condition.
Elections are the tool to do it, but the will must be changed first. We cannot hit a "reset" button if the populace doesn't want to change.
A general government in the form of a confederation, yes. A national gubmint with virtually unlimited power? no.
What percentage of the population was in favor of a reset in 1776?
IIRC, it was about 1/3.
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.