Posted on 11/28/2013 2:52:40 PM PST by Kaslin
The principles America was founded on have paved the way for the freedoms and privileges each citizen is thankful for today. At the heart of conservatism, is the recognition that many of these founding ideals are worth fighting to preserve.
In the words of John Quincy Adams: "Posterity--you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
So in the spirit of preserving today’s blessings for tomorrow’s Americans, let’s take a look at ten things the Founding Fathers would be fighting against in the 21st century.
1. President Obama’s Power Grabs
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” - Thomas Jefferson
2. Increased Taxation
The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. — James Madison
3. Adult Children
Congratulations, 26-year-olds today can now stay on their parents health insurance and prolong adolescence. By the age of 26, George Washington had already worked as an official surveyor for Virginia, fought in the French and Indian War and climbed to the rank of Colonel.
4. Breakdown of the Family
Marriage is an institution, which may properly be deemed to arise from the law of nature.…It distributes the whole of society into families, and creates a permanent union of interests, and a mutual guardianship of the same. It binds children by indissoluble ties, and adds new securities to the good order of society, by connecting the happiness of the whole family with the good behavior of all. It furnishes additional motives for honest industry and economy in private life, and for a deeper love of the country of our birth. - Joseph Story
5. Foreign Involvement
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.” -George Washington
6. Chicago’s Gun Laws
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason
7. Religious Intolerance
“The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.” -James Madison
8. Direct Election of Senators
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." U.S. Constitution Article I, section 3.
9. The National Debt
“No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of the time more valuable.” -George Washington
10. The Federal Reserve
"Paper is poverty...it is only the ghost of money, and not money.” -Thomas Jefferson
Happy Thanksgiving!
There would have been no USA if the Founders had insisted on an immediate end to slavery.
The House of delegates is solidly red in Va. Also Va has severe term limits on the Governor. Having said that speed limits will come down and taxes up in the short term. In the long term I think things will be fine. I think the railroading of Cuch by the GOPe and the DEMORAT smear machine in VA is the “high water” mark of Obama Socialism and when the ACA disaster kicks in what happened in VA will be considered a fluke.
For possible penetration: The Senate was designed to represent the state not the individual. Some people like centralized power(you) and some people believe in the original republic.
The 17th amendment is codified in the USC. Why you feel it necessary to pollute the thread of patriots trying to fix a broken Constitution is beyond me. Your side(progressives) won this battle a long time ago. We are just discussing going back to the original intent and for some reason YOU CANNOT LET IT GO. In this matter you are a thug. It is you who is the childish one.
Just for laughs, I’ll see “number of governments” and raise you the last three Speakers of the House of Representatives in Massachusetts, all of them convicted felons.
Not “charged,” convicted.
The question remains would they do any worse than Massholes who elected Elizabeth “Liawatha” Warren to the senate? Or the same Massholes who sent Dead Ted back over and over after he murdered a woman in a drunken stupor?
That looks like a “heads I win; tails you lose” situation.
Some institutions, like the courts and bureaucracy have managed to resist democratic pressures, survive and thrive as unelected centers of power, but given the mood of the day, indirect election of senators was probably a lost cause, so Senators traded indirect election for a continued veto on legislation. Some would find that a wise rear-guard action.
Once direct election went through senators, who'd rarely been anybody's first choice as Presidential candidates, quickly began to think of themselves as potential presidents. Only a handful of politicians have gone directly from the Senate to the White House (Harding, Kennedy, Obama), but dozens or scores have made the attempt (with something like a dozen becoming Vice President).
Both before and after the 17th Amendment there has been a tendency for fat cats to become Senators. The improvement is that now voters can throw them out if they don't perform. Nowadays senators can't just sit in armchairs and smoke cigars all day. They have to at least pretend to address popular concerns.
The downside is that now senators have become publicity hounds and nuisances, itching to "get things done" so that they can get reelected. Too many of them also assume that they're fit for higher office, and spend their time running for president. It's not an ideal situation, but in an imperfect world it's not the worst possible trade-off, I guess.
Or with the federal income tax -- the 16th, rather than the 17th amendment. Combine that with the world wars that required and (in most people's minds) justifiec higher federal taxes, and you see a reversal of the situation under the Articles of Confederation.
Right after the Revolution, the federal government had to beg for money from the states. With the Constitution it got its own limited right of direct taxation. With the federal income tax, Washington DC eventually became the great source of funds for state projects. Combine the tax with the federal governments greater ability to borrow funds and incur debt and its control of the monetary system and it amounted to a major shift in the relation of the federal and state government.
The founders obviously didn't intend that, but I think maybe they were of two minds. They were creating a federal government that would draw the states closer together into a national union. They built a capital that would act as a magnet for politically ambitious people, drawing them away from state and local politics.
But they still thought of the states as in some way distinct cultures: Massachusetts and Virginia, New York and Maryland, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. As the country grew closer together, as new states were added that didn't have long traditions, as political talent concentrated in Washington, it was going to become harder and harder to maintain the older model.
Jackie, weren’t you the one that said that Lindsey Graham would be “forced” to be a better Senator with the repeal of the 17th ?
As to the claim that had the 17th never been enacted that all the big gubmint initiatives of the 20th century would never have passed the Senate, that is ludicrous speculation of the completely unsubstantiated sort. The Democrats would’ve had hyper-majorities in that body (indeed, in the ‘30s, it’s quite likely the Republicans would’ve had 10 seats out of 96) and FDR would’ve had carte blanche to do his worst. Same goes for the 1960s. After the 1930 midterms, the GOP was largely a non-entity for control of state legislatures nationwide (and even in states with Democrat control where you might’ve had a Conservative contingent, there would’ve been enormous pressure to send fiscal liberals — such as in MS that sent Theodore Bilbo, a bigtime New Dealer and rabid racist).
You make all these assumptions and presumptions and do so without a close study of the ACTUAL political dynamics. That is dangerously ignorant. You’ve already had your myth debunked repeatedly on these points, yet you keep pounding the dead horse like a drum. The kind of people that you believe would get elected under your ideal has no beating to what would be elected in the reality. Therein lies your central problems with this ill-advised initiative on behalf of yourself and your fellow Levinists.
Except that you’re not going to get 1/3rd of Senators behaving like the statesmen of yore. You couldn’t even get Ted Cruz elected in Texas under that system. If even Texas would send useless RINOs like David Dewhurst and Karl Rove (why Rove ? Because it would’ve been pushed by Dubya for a reward for his service to him — and if TX elects Dewhurst, it would easily elect Rove, another establishment liberal), how many other states would send a Constitutional Conservative ? I guarantee you, sir, the number would be near to zero.
I put zero faith in our legislators to choose good people, when it’s all about the pork and the power. A dangerous combination.
Nope, no propaganda. Sheer reality. I suggest you research what happened in Delaware at the beginning of the 1900s when the state went for a few years without ANY Senators. Between incidents like that and the bribery of state legislators, the body had become a joke.
You’re right. But here we have people arguing for the “immense wisdom” (to the point of claiming infallibility) of the Founders when they saddled generations with that madness that would end with a Civil War and a century more of 2nd class citizenship for the racial group in question. The Founders were right about some things, wrong about others, and the rest had to unfold to determine right or wrong. The 17th remedied a problem to something that just hadn’t worked out.
No, sir. I don’t like exclusive centralized power. The situation in DC is an obscene exercise in madness. The states themselves, also, aren’t immune to centralizing power with their own armies of bureaucrats (take a look at virtually every county that holds a state capital and you will notice they are uniformally Democrat in virtually every state, many having been Republican until the late ‘80s). For you to insist that a state would be forcing their Senators in DC to have smaller government is ludicrous when they themselves can’t seem to (or simply won’t) shrink it.
Sir, it’s called stepping in and keeping you from slamming your hand over and over with a hammer. What you arrogantly suggest repeatedly is going to happen with repeal, isn’t. Your side has never been able to make a demonstrable or provable argument with respect to the reality, especially given today’s political dynamics. It is pie in the sky fantasy. We are all patriots here, but unlike you, I do not put my faith and trust in myths or damnable politicians, sir.
You make a superb example of Massachusetts. With repeal of the 17th, the chances of electing Scott Brown go to zero. The state has not had a GOP legislature in 60 years and you would’ve had nothing but Kennedys or Charlie Flahertys, Tom Finnerans, or Salvatore DiMasis (capped with useless garbage like “Marcia”(sic) Coakley). Brown was no prize, but compared to the rest of the garbage from there... and the people did elect him, something impossible if this ill-advised repeal were to take hold. For a Massachusetts Republican (or Conservative) to suggest it is madness.
Good post.
The intent of the founders was that the runner up who receives the second highest number of votes would become Vice President and serve as a "President in training", learning the ropes and being the heir appaerent to succeed the President. This is how it worked during Washington/Adams adminstration. Amending the Constitution so the runner up in electoral votes gets jack squat INSTEAD of the second highest office in government and stays a heartbeat away from the Presidency ISN'T a radical change to you? It's a minor change that Harry Truman became FDR's Vice President instead of Tom Dewey, or that Dick Cheney became George W. Bush's Vice President instead of Al Gore? There was no radical change in history when Lyndon Johnson was JFK's Vice President in 1963 instead of Richard Nixon? Your argument doesn't hold water.
>> 2 I support recall of senators IF they are state appointed. An amendment is required. <<
Recall, in any form, originated during the "progressive era" from 1913-1917. According to anti-17thers, ANYTHING passed during the progressive era is AUTOMATICALLY evil and MUST be purged from American government to "Save our Republic". The mere fact the 17th was passed during that time period is continually used by your side as proof that is more evil than other amendment and ruined America. Yet when it comes to recall, you argue AGAINST your OWN position and are all for using a progressive-era method to remove corrupt federal government officials, rather than the method that the founders intended and established (impeachment). Furthermore, the framers considered the option of allowing recall on the federal level, and specifically rejected it, so by amending the constitution, you claim your plan would work better than theirs, something you chastise people who support the 17th amendment for. Sorry, your arguements don't hold water as long as you break your own rules.
>> 3 You choose to remain ignorant of the history of democratic republics. BTW, the proper word is "rein," not "reign." No, the House was designed to represent the people and should be popularly elected. Consent of the people, as represented in the House is fundamental to republics. Entirely democratic legislatures are certain to lead to tyranny, the face of which is Obama. <<
Wow, a Levin fan admits that America is a DEMOCRATIC Republic, not just "a Republic" where all forms of democracy are pure evil. I'm impressed by your candor. So consent of the people is fundamental in the lower house, but tyranny in the upper house? Tell me, what magical force makes popularly elected people in the lower house function in a better way than popularly elected people in the upper house? You do realize they came up with this method as a compromise because some of the framers wanted an all-elected body and some wanted an all-appointed body, right? If it was the other way around, and the House was appointed by politicians but the Senate elected by the people, would it also mean the death of our Republic?
>> 4 I don't recall when I figured out the framers got it right. <<
Could it be when the all-wise and all-knowing infalliable Consitutional deity Mark Levin informed you of this "fact"?
>> 5 The pre-17th Senate far better secured the un-enumerated powers that remained with the states. That was a stupid question, even for you. <<
Dodging the question completely. I didn't ask about ALL Senators who served from 1789-1912, I asked specifically if the government appointed U.S. Senate as a collective body in 1913, consisted of a body of wise elder statesmen who represented the best interests of their states and understood federalism and upheld the separation of powers. If your answer is "yes", I would reply that every historian on the planet disagrees with you, and I suggest you read a history book to find out how the 1912-1913 Senate class actually governed.
>> Are you a Mark Levin fan?<< >> 6 Yes. <<
Perhaps the lone refreshingly honest answer from you, aside from admitting America is a Democratic Republic and not simply a "Republic".
Hey, you prove my point with every post. You will not allow any out of the box thinking. Thug.
I’m not going to sink to your level of mindless attacks. You are no gentleman, sir.
BOOM! You got it.
But understand that AM talk radio is imagination-land.
In it anything could happen if only Americans would do what they will never do. What has 1/8 of 1% of US population heard this idea?
Yep, back 20 years ago when I was much younger I could get excited about these fantasy ideas. I read a book that convinced me that congressional term limits would fix everything.
Well 20 years later congress hasn't term limited itself and never will.
Recall being a kid endlessly debating hypothetical.
Talk radio is fantasy Island. Anything discussed there would be possible if only it were possible.
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.