The Supreme Court's fear

Many years ago, I took an undergraduate course on the Supreme Court. Reading several dozen decisions convinced me of two things. First, I had zero aptitude for the law

Since the population was not as educated then as it is today the likelihood of the majority of the people understanding it is not great. Mythology to the contrary. Even Jefferson appeared not to understand it and he was a lawyer.

Care to support that claim? My history books say that America was much more literate if not more educated. There is a difference, and it is much better to be literate than educated, especially when most education takes the form of socialist indoctrination.

The reason legal text is so specific today is that most lawyers have absolutely nothing in the way of ethics. Clinton is the epitome of the modern lawyer, and to that sort of person the plain language of the Constitution is an invitation to parse it into exactly the opposite meaning it was intended to have.

For all their fine machinations, people who do this are just liars.

Most of the Slaveocracy would have remained under the Crown had the choice been between their slaves and independence.

There were a few federalists in the South but the democrats were totally unreliable on almost every issue and never stopped their legislative sabotage during the 1790s. Madison's activities in Congress were despicable; Jefferson worked against the administrations he was a part of; Monroe was sent to Paris to negoitiate but sold out the country at every opportunity. Disgraceful all. And the voters were stupid and ignorant enough to vote the democrats in in 1800. Fricking amazing.

Madison's activities in Congress were despicable

I single this out, as it pertains to my afformentioned and acknowledged weakness. Could you cite a notable example of two? Not to make the case to me, but simply as a lead for me to use on my next trip to the library. I am currently reading The Jacksonian Era by Glyndon G. Van Duesen. It is part of Harper Row's "The New American Nation" series. Some of them go back a few years. This one is from 1959. But they are very well written and edited, and they supply piles of references. I recommend them. By the way, how are you on John Quincy Adams? I think I might like that guy. Maybe I can go "on the rebound" with him after my illusions of Madison are shattered :-)

One fairly recent book is "The Age of Federalism" anything by Forrest MacDonald is good too, American Sphinx is useful though it is about Jefferson. Actually, you can read just about any serious book about Madison and by reading between the lines and knowing the code words can figure out what he was up to. Essentially the problem was that he and Jefferson had an obsession with England which blinded them to reality.

I don't know too much about JQA but any federalist wasn't too bad. His father was a strange duck but he wasn't a backstabbing hypocrite though he hated my guy, Alexander the Great.

What history book is that you are reading? American Mythology. Illiteracy was widespread particularly in the frontier regions. You have to also recall that we were accepting immigrants from all over many of whom were not educated. It was not uncommon to have teachers who had not even completed high school much less college. Universal literacy was not achieved until after the public schools were established.

In areas totally controlled by rich landowners the widespread poverty of the mass of the people left them with no means for an education. They were too poor to pay for it so only the rich were educated or those fortunate enough to interest someone with the means to pay for his education.

One estimate is that in the 1700s over 50% of males were literate perhaps 80% in New England much lower in the South of course. But it is important to define literacy and for some authorities that is merely the ability to sign your name. Reading anything as complicated as the Constitution was probably only possible for maybe 50% of the north and 25% of the South.

As far as your opinion re. the curriculum and what is taught today. Never fear we have always had a load of bilge taught us and it has generally had little effect on the students who always strive to forget whatever they are supposed to learn.

Unfortunately Jefferson would not follow his own advice. BTW what he was referring to was his inability to appoint Justices who saw things his way. He kept trying and Marshall's powers of reasoning would convince them everytime to vote his way. This drove Jefferson nuts.

Had the constitution not been adopted the nation would have fallen apart and split into two regions hostile to each other and aligned with different European powers.

Federalist administrations made the government and nation strong enough to withstand the democrats which followed though it was touch and go.

This is a complete fantasy. The centralization and empowerment of the federal government was barely sufficient to allow the survival of the nation. You and those who extrapolate backwards ignore the power realities of those days.

We had the two superpowers of the day to contend with and had so little power as a nation that they could essentially ignore us in their foreign policy calculations. They insulted our ambassadors (particularly France) captured hundreds of our ships thereby costing our nation millions. This continent was occupied by other powers and our survival was in doubt.

A weaker government or an initial Jeffersonian president would have led the nation into disaster and it would have never survived as a union.

The constititution of the United Statees is the most perfect founding document in the history of mankind. Those who would have it replaced by a phantasmogora or wishes and wants are not serious political theorists merely silly spoilsports. Why not complain about the signing of the Magna Carta after all it could have been better? At least according to Mo down at the bar. And other experts and losers.

The growth of the federal government has occurred primarily because of war first the civil war then the second world war. It was inevitable and quite likely irreversable given the hostile nature of the world around us.

What is fantasy about it? The Anti-Federalists were simply calling certain portions of the Constitution into question, not the whole document.

If the "general welfare" clause, which caused much of the consternation and debate, were changed, what would have prevented the country from surviving? If stronger measures had been put in to prevent an overreaching government from infringing on individual rights, what would have changed?

Stronger language that would have prevented laws such as the Aliens and Sedition act early and even worse later on, more restrictive language regarding taxation, tighter wording in other places, and a specific section detailing that the Constitution is a list of things the government are allowed to do, and it is not allowed to do anything else would have prevented much the infringements of the people's rights, and would not have kept the country from surviving.

The Bill of Rights were added only after the Anti-Federalists insisted. They wanted it because they felt that the language in the main body did not restrict government enough. That stronger language would not have prevented the country from surviving.

Now, how would those kinds of changes prevented the country from surviving?

As I said, the Anti-Federalists were not against a constitution, they were just against the one that was presented in the form it was presented due to specific problems that were pointed out in the Anti-Federalist Papers. And they were right.

Sounds as though you believe that the Anti-Federalists achieved most of what they wished in modifying the constitution so that it controlled the Federal government more to their liking. I don't have a problem with that. Nor with the broad reading of the general welfare clause since the listed objects of spending control the expenditures and there is such a thing as the "general welfare."

You should read a little more about the Alien and Sedition laws while there are parts of them which would have likely been ruled unconstitutional they were really a tempest in a teapot and never had any negative impact.

In fact, their greatest damage was in giving the Jeffersonians a campaign issue that through democratic media hysteria helped elect Jefferson who promptly began to unravel the strength of the government and make the country militarily vulnerable.

No, I don't think the Anti-Federalists got a single thing changed that made a difference, with the possible exception that they got the Bill of Rights amendments passed.

The general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause have been been the portions of the Constitution cited most often to pass laws in contradicion to the principles behind the Constitution. The main principle of the Constitution is limited federal powers. The Anti-Federalists warned about it, and the Federalists said it was nothing to worry about.

Welfare, WIC, AFDC, food stamps, Title 8 housing, free medical care, and many other programs, along with ever increasing taxes to support those programs have been the result. Interstate commerce...well even guns are regulated in complete contradiction to the 2nd Amendment due to the interstate commerce clause, along with a host of other programs, again, in total contradiction of the principles behind the Constitution.

The general welfare clause was only intended to say that the general welfare of the country, not individuals, would benefit if congress could only pass laws that conformed to the following 17 powers granted by the Constitution. Not that they were able to take care of the general welfare by passing what ever laws they thought necessary using it as a power. That was most evident by reading the debates surrounding that clause in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. The Federalists were trying to assure the Anti-Federalists that it was not a general power, only a general statement of the following powers.

The Anti-Federalists were correct that it would be interpreted as such, and we have suffered the consequences of it.

Remember, limited federal powers. They were trying to put the federal government in a box so that it might not become abusive to its citizens. In almost ever instance in the Constitution, they succeded. The general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause were the notable failures in that regard. Just a little rewording and/or elimination of those words or phrases would have gone far in stopping most of those abuses.

The consistent march of freedom has not been impeded by an expanded interpretation of the general welfare clause. It is almost impossible to conceive of the nation developing the strength to secure the freedom of individuals without a concern for the Nation. The anti-Nationalists i.e. the anti-Federalists would have slowed down and prevented the strengthening of the nation's economy and weakened the ability of the federal govenment to protect it.

Most of the things you have complained of came to the federal government's interest only after the States had begun to develop laws in that area. When the economy collapsed during the thirties many of these programs had their genesis in order to prevent worse things from happening as it did in Russia and Germany. Our general welfare required that mass unemployment, starvation, and communist insurrection be prevented. These were national security issues and had to be dealt with. There was no other choice.

The expansion of these programs later under Johnson is another matter but had something not been done in the thirties the nation would have changed significantly and not for the better.

The consistent march of freedom has not been impeded by an expanded interpretation of the general welfare clause.

And you called my post above fantasy. March to freedom? It's freedom when nearly 50% of my paycheck goes towards taxes? The cost of government is well above that, closer to 60%. We have armored, black suited ninjas carrying German made machine guns knocking down doors in order to keep people from possessing a plant, for crying out loud. They use laws and methods to find out who possesses that plant that are contradictory to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Those same machine guns are not available to the general public. I have to get permission from the federal government even to buy a gun. I have to get permission from my state before I can carry one concealed. We pay rent on land we puportedly own, and have to ask permission to build anything on it, or even modify a structure in most any way, shape or form. And God help us if we want to develop it.

I could go on here, but is it really necessary? Consistant march to freedom? Hah!

Everyone of FDR's programs in the 30s were totally unnecessary. The depression would have never happened if a strict interpretation of the Constitution would have been adhered to, and even after that, the depression was well on its way to recovery but for other government programs that were wholly unconstitutional, and just plain stupid to boot.

All of FDR's programs were pure socialism. Many of those programs were right off the 1932 Socialist party platform. He campaigned on freedom and then saw the depression as a reason to reveal his true colors.

And you have the gall to sit there and tell us that the broad interpretation of the general welfare clause is an aid to freedom. You need to do some studying on American history (not the revisionist pap they sell in schools, but real history) since 1912.

Freedom is costly there is no doubt about that. And there are laws which are enacted and enforced which I do not approve of and which, in my opinion, reduce freedom but there is no doubt that the average person of today is far more free than ever in human history. In the past it was not uncommon for a person to work 16 hours a day for six days a week. Women had almost no freedom except the freedom to die in childbirth at young ages. Blacks did not even have freedom of movement or person nor were Indians free to live as they had been accustomed to or even live at all when the settlers decided their lands were desirable.

So it is true that the slaveowners have less freedom; those who wished to kill Indians and steal their land are less free; States which wish to deprive its citizens of full rights have less freedom to do so.

We are essentially free from epidemics of preventable disease which national health codes prevent.

Most of the Communists in the thirties hated Roosevelt because they recognized that his programs reduced their power. Involvement of the federal govenment in the economy is not the same thing as Socialism so you must use a more accurate term to describe them. However, the fact remains that given the tenor of the times Roosevelt's difficulty was that we had a country on the verge of social revolution which had to be dealt with. He acted and the People liked his actions well enough to vote him back into office until he died. As for as the origin of the depression if you think you can blame it on the Federal Reserve you are wrong and it is constitutional anyway. Read Hamilton's argument for the constitutionality of a central bank. It destroyed all the ludicrous arguments of Jefferson and Madison.

If you care to learn something about the depression it is fairly simple to come to the conclusion that not only was it not ending, FDR's programs were not reviving the economy as hoped. The only thing that ended the depression was world war.

Based on this and your last post, I have come to the conclusion that we have such a fundamental disagreement over what freedom is that we have no common frame of reference in which to debate freedom.

FDR's programs, and Wilson's before him, were straight out of the socialist party platforms for those years. If you take the labor from those who can and will produce and give it to those who are unable, or unwilling, by force of a gun, that, my friend, is socialism plain and simple. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Right out of Marx. Color it how you wish, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it smells like a duck, it looks like a duck...it's a duck.

Limited federal power. That was what they were trying to accomplish, and they failed. The Anti-Federalists warned about it, and it came to pass.

Your concept of freedom is quite limited apparently meaning freedom to not pay taxes. When states have the right to impose a religion on its citizens (as was the case in early America) then those rights are removed freedom is increased. When communities and or states have the right to punish you because you commit adultery and that right is removed freedom is increased. When one group of people is free to enslave, breed, beat, rape and sell another group and that freedom is removed freedom is increased. When one group of people can invade and kill another group and dispossess them of their lands and lives and that freedom is removed freedom is increased. When we have access to more of the world's intellectual and cultural life freedom has increased. When our federal government is strong enough to weave together a nation's economic life and our range of choices and opportunities are vastly increased freedom has increased. When children of the poor are able to become educated and vastly increase their earning capability and the wealth of the society as a whole, freedom is increased. In your delusion you probably believe that it was better when only the wealthy planters and slaveowners in the South could afford to educate their children than after the War when education became available to the children of the slaves who provided the resources for the planters' sons. This new freedom allowed the children of the vast majority of the whites (hitherto ignored by the Slaveocrats when not used as dupes by the planters) could become educated as well.

If you believe yourself freer in early nineteenth century America you are welcome to persist in that delusion. But very few of those living then (who did not own other humans) would agree with you. I will take modern America, work to maintain its freedoms and expand them and not be satisfied to look at the past through rose-colored glasses and ignore the massive assaults and deprevations of freedom actually there.

A hundred years ago my neighborhood was woods and farmland today it is almost all houses and streets and businesses. Was a guy living own his homestead raising crops freer than me who is dependent upon many thousands of people for almost everything I use? Not by a long shot unless freedom is associated with ignorance and isolation. Silly nostalgia is generally not useful in political action.

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.