U.S. Constitution and Original Intent/Informational

[j2k4]

Another copy & paste; this is a more concise version of what I've tried to get across many times here-offered only for those with a genuine interest...

Original Intent

by Charley Reese


If the Founding Fathers were to come back, I doubt if they would recognize the United States today. Oh, they wouldn't be surprised by its size or its population or its technological progress. They expected that and encouraged it.

What would disturb them is how fond Americans have become of government. They would be disturbed at how we have allowed politicians and judges to turn the Constitution into an excuse instead of a restraint. They would be uneasy about the large standing army we have maintained since the end of World War II. And they would certainly disapprove of our foreign policy, which can only be described as imperialistic.

The Founding Fathers were suspicious of government and wary of it. They recognized that government is always the greatest threat to liberty. George Washington likened government to fire – "a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The whole purpose of the Constitution they devised was to keep the government divided and weak.

First, they expected the sovereign states to act as a brake against any attempt by the federal government to usurp their powers as defined by the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln nullified that concept with brute force. Under their original plan, U.S. senators were selected by the state legislatures and were clearly intended to act as ambassadors from the states. Later generations foolishly eliminated that safeguard by amending the Constitution so that senators are elected by the people.

Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not approve of the modern concept, imposed by federal courts, of one man, one vote. They designed the House to represent the people, but each state, regardless of size, was given two senators. When federal courts eliminated the states' ability to follow the example of the Constitution, they shifted political power from the rural areas to the big cities. It's been more or less downhill ever since.

The Founding Fathers rejected the parliamentary system, in which the executive and the legislative majority are one. They wanted a House and Senate that were elected independently of the president. They intended for Congress to act as a check against attempts by the executive branch to usurp power, and they intended for the president, wielding his veto, to act as a check on Congress.

The modern two-party system has nullified this safeguard. Both Democrats and Republicans act like slaves to the man in the White House if he shares their party label, thus nullifying the most important of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers built into the Constitution. By acting like lap dogs when their man wins the White House, both Democrats and Republicans have imposed a parliamentary system on us.

Americans, in defense of their own liberty, should make sure that whatever party holds the White House does NOT have a majority in Congress. It is to our advantage and was so intended by the Founding Fathers that the president and Congress be at odds on all but the most important issues.

To ensure an independent judiciary, they made those appointments for life, which has turned out to be a mistake, given how reluctant Congress is to impeach a federal judge. My Confederate ancestors recognized this problem, and in their constitution a federal judge could be impeached by the legislature of the state in which he sat. That would cure a lot of abuses committed by the federal judiciary.

A reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the federal government was designed to be an agent of the states and authorized to act only on behalf of all the states in a few, clearly specified areas. None of those includes education, welfare, medical care, foreign aid and domestic pork-barrel projects.

Future historians, when they come to write the obituary of the United States, will note that we started out with the best system ever devised by man and willingly dismantled it for a bowl of federal porridge.

June 3, 2006

[Chip Monk]

Good read that.

However what he seems to be saying is that we (you) should be governed in a way chosen by people many decades ago, rather than a system which has evolved and adapted depending on the changing World.

It just seems to be a pop at a lot of your institutions (not perhaps a bad thing) using the Constitution as it's justification.

[j2k4]

Good read that.

However what he seems to be saying is that we (you) should be governed in a way chosen by people many decades ago, rather than a system which has evolved and adapted depending on the changing World.

It just seems to be a pop at a lot of your institutions (not perhaps a bad thing) using the Constitution as it's justification.

What he's saying is the original intent was the federal government as the apex of an association of states whose right to self-determination was not to be encumbered by that titular body.

Had the states retained their warrant, they would have individually adapted and evolved (as you say) to the changing world, and perhaps created a wider palette of solutions to choose from, all the while maintaining the strength of their association.

It's pretty simple, actually.

[Busyman™]

I like the "were suspicious of government and wary of it" part.

Our country is muchly composed of a buncha brainless flag waving automatons.

I like what one brat newspaper had on it's front page. It was something like, "How Could A Whole Country Be So Stupid?" in reference to the reelection of Bush.

Our founding fathers would be most surprised at the automoblie, the airplane, and black people walking around free.

[j2k4]

Our founding fathers would be most surprised at...black people walking around free.

In this you are quite wrong.


Slavery was an issue which loomed over the entire constitutional process.

If it weren't for the intransigence of Virginia and a few other southern states with relatively large slave populations, slavery would have died the death it deserved at the founding.

What it came down to was, outlaw slavery and the new nation dies aborning, or cede the issue of slavery, gain a concensus, and give the nation a fighting chance against British and French resistance.

Were you aware Napoleon wished to invade and claim the "New Land" for France?

You owe it to yourself to be properly informed, I think.

[Busyman™]

Our founding fathers would be most surprised at...black people walking around free.

In this you are quite wrong.


Slavery was an issue which loomed over the entire constitutional process.

If it weren't for the intransigence of Virginia and a few other southern states with relatively large slave populations, slavery would have died the death it deserved at the founding.

What it came down to was, outlaw slavery and the new nation dies aborning, or cede the issue of slavery, gain a concensus, and give the nation a fighting chance against British and French resistance.

Were you aware Napoleon wished to invade and claim the "New Land" for France?

You owe it to yourself to be properly informed, I think.

Uh yeah, they still would be surprised.

A slave would be surprised. Put down the intransigence and whatnot and think about it.

[j2k4]

In this you are quite wrong.


Slavery was an issue which loomed over the entire constitutional process.

If it weren't for the intransigence of Virginia and a few other southern states with relatively large slave populations, slavery would have died the death it deserved at the founding.

What it came down to was, outlaw slavery and the new nation dies aborning, or cede the issue of slavery, gain a concensus, and give the nation a fighting chance against British and French resistance.

Were you aware Napoleon wished to invade and claim the "New Land" for France?

You owe it to yourself to be properly informed, I think.

Uh yeah, they still would be surprised.

A slave would be surprised. Put down the intransigence and whatnot and think about it.

Why would they be surprised that something they intended finally came to pass?

[Busyman™]

Uh yeah, they still would be surprised.

A slave would be surprised. Put down the intransigence and whatnot and think about it.

Why would they be surprised that something they intended finally came to pass?

It's very simple.

'Cause blacks weren't slaves. I don't believe for one second that all of the founding fathers wanted to end slavery. You're starting to talk shit now.

I don't just think that the ones from the South like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Rutledge were the only ones opposed to ending it. I'm sure many of the others were hypocrites about ending slavery while owning slaves themselves. It was one of those issues where even if they knew something to be right, it didn't mean they followed through, still citing an old culture and financial dependence on it.

[j2k4]

You should read a book called Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis.

Learn something, instead of thinking and posting...shit.

[Busyman™]

You should read a book called Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis.

Learn something, instead of thinking and posting...shit.

I've already read about what you are talking about....a while ago. I know about the organizations that many were involved in that were about ending slavery.

Yet many of those still owned slaves. Figure that.

Then even after slavery was abolished blacks still were treated as fifth-class for decades. Amazing.