1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Indeed. In fact, no one is. That is why limited government is so important.
No one ever said the Founding Fathers were infallible. .
Some, like Woodrow Wilson, would argue that the Civil War proves that Federalism does not work and the need for a strong Federal government. However, what if the South had won? Would it have been OK to have a strong Federal government institute slavergy? During the time of slavery the nation was divided on the issue, much like the nation is divided today on other issues.
With an approval rating of around 9% in Congress, I would venture to say that the Federal system is broke. These entrinched politicians do not and cannot represent the people as well as local folks in state legislatures.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat concrete measures do you propose and how would they increase the approval rating of Congress?
Indeed. In fact, no one is. That is why limited government is so important.
Some, like Woodrow Wilson, would argue that the Civil War proves that Federalism does not work and the need for a strong Federal government. However, what if the South had won? Would it have been OK to have a strong Federal government institute slavergy? During the time of sla ...[text shortened]... politicians do not and cannot represent the people as well as local folks in state legislatures.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's your opinion. You're welcome to it, but I disagree. The whole point of the Constitution was to avoid a monarchy, so lacking term limits for president has the potential to create a de facto monarchy. (Yes, I know that some powerful people wanted to make Washington king.)
It was a bad idea to put in term limits for the President (the Framers didn't).
Originally posted by sasquatch672Yet somehow we avoided a monarchy for 160 years without term limits.
That's your opinion. You're welcome to it, but I disagree. The whole point of the Constitution was to avoid a monarchy, so lacking term limits for president has the potential to create a de facto monarchy. (Yes, I know that some powerful people wanted to make Washington king.)
The people should decide who is going to lead them without artificial impediments made to limit their choice.
Originally posted by vivifyThe biggest fallacy surrounding the "founding fathers" is the assumption that they spoke as a unified body. They did not. It's impossible to say that the "founding fathers" had a certain position on any issue. Collectively they held a variety of viewpoints. The Hamiltonian viewpoint and the Jeffersonian viewpoint, for example, were frequently at loggerheads.
The argument that "This is what the Founder Fathers wanted, thus keep it that way" is tiring. Yes, they're a good guide line to understanding our laws, and should be considered; but the beliefs of people who lived in a vastly different phase of human history, shouldn't govern the people of today.
http://sublimeburst.com/2012/02/the-founding-fathers-dont ...[text shortened]... ou who aren't aware of that America's patriarchs are far from the gold-standard of models.
Originally posted by rwingettDo you think that any of them believed in today's Nanny States?
The biggest fallacy surrounding the "founding fathers" is the assumption that they spoke as a unified body. They did not. It's impossible to say that the "founding fathers" had a certain position on any issue. Collectively they held a variety of viewpoints. The Hamiltonian viewpoint and the Jeffersonian viewpoint, for example, were frequently at loggerheads.
Originally posted by rwingettSure, but by and large the Hamiltonian position prevailed as in the Bank of the United States controversy and the adoption of Hamilton's economic program.
The biggest fallacy surrounding the "founding fathers" is the assumption that they spoke as a unified body. They did not. It's impossible to say that the "founding fathers" had a certain position on any issue. Collectively they held a variety of viewpoints. The Hamiltonian viewpoint and the Jeffersonian viewpoint, for example, were frequently at loggerheads.
Originally posted by EladarI find it impossible to believe that the majority of the Framers would not have aggressively responded to the economic crises of the Great Depression by measures similar to FDR's. In fact, the Constitution itself is an great increase in central government power in response to an economic crises.
Do you think that any of them believed in today's Nanny States?
Originally posted by no1marauderPoliticians have greatly increased their power when there has been economic crisis. Sounds pretty natural in the evolution of governments with too much power.
I find it impossible to believe that the majority of the Framers would not have aggressively responded to the economic crises of the Great Depression by measures similar to FDR's. In fact, the Constitution itself is an great increase in central government power in response to an economic crises.
Originally posted by whodeyI have no "allegiance" to any poliltical party. I was a big Ron Paul fan until Romney got the nomination, and would've voted for him over Obama. Romney is a dishonest panderer who can't be trusted in office, so I'm going with Obama.
Son, don't get so hysterical on me. I'm not advocating anarchy, I merely question the wisdom of passing over 80.000 regulations and laws a year. I also question your allegiance to a group of men who would deficate on the Constitution by enacting the NDAA......or do you agree with detaining American citizens indefinately without due process?
My point isn't that the Founders should be ignored; it's that the Founders should be used a guideline, not held as religious figures.