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. :1eye: 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.:dry: 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.

[j2k4]

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.

Oh, then obviously the Founders were Pro-Slavery, through-and-through.

I'll bet the very idea that they were considering doing away with slaves is a concoction of the Bush administration, built upon similar myths propagated during the Reagan years.

I'll just bet.

[Busyman™]

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.

Oh, then obviously the Founders were Pro-Slavery, through-and-through.

I'll bet the very idea that they were considering doing away with slaves is a concoction of the Bush administration, built upon similar myths propagated during the Reagan years.

I'll just bet.
:blink: Then you're obviously an idiot.

[hippychick]

J2K4
Do you read lewrockwell.com?

[Chip Monk]

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.

In short and not fannying about, the continued existence of slavery was not considered enough of an issue to be a deal breaker. That is the foundation on which your United States is built.

[j2k4]

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.

In short and not fannying about, the continued existence of slavery was not considered enough of an issue to be a deal breaker. That is the foundation on which your United States is built.

No, that is precisely backwards.

The Founders weighed one against the other, and decided to opt for creating a nation and abiding slavery for the time being rather than severely compromising the chance for success by making slavery a focal point at that particular time.

If emancipation wasn't an issue, it wouldn't figure so prominently in the historical recollection, would it?

It seems Reese's column doesn't figure too prominently just now, either...:dry:

[vidcc]

A number of the founding fathers were slave owners, but slavery was not introduced by the founders.
That said I can see the thought behind saying that because some were slave owners and that slavery wasn't abolished "at that moment" that they were pro slavery.
It took a federal act to end it and if it were not for federalisation it probably would have continued for many more generations.

As to the founders "intentions" I often feel that there is a deal of personal bias used when that judgement is made. If we can't understand the intentions of todays government without misrepresentation depending on which side they are on, how can we say for sure what the founders intended except when they were specific...eg. two thirds means two thirds.
Of course there is one part in the article missing when it comes to intent - The constitution may be amended - Doesn't this suggest that the founding fathers didn't intend to have their "rules" set in stone and that they intended future generations to change things?

[Busyman™]

"We the people" didn't include those that were considered less than a person.

[Busyman™]

Yes, that is precisely correct.

The Founders weighed one against the other, and decided to opt for creating a nation by it's continued use of slavery for the time being rather than severely compromising the chance for success by making slavery a focal point at that particular time.

If emancipation wasn't an issue eventually, it wouldn't figure so prominently in the historical recollection, would it?
Uh yeah, it's kinda impossible to neglect what happened.

[Skweeky1]

Surely you must understand that, unfortunately enough, slavery was part of that society in that moment in time. Taking it away brutally would have made the country collapse into itself.

I'm not approving of the notion of slavery but maybe it was a necessary evil...

Crude comparison would be to take away cars in todays world without a replacement.

[3RA1N1AC]

[disingenuous pretense to literalism]If The Founders had intended The Constitution to forbid slavery, to guarantee the freedom of visual/musical/electronic expression, or to allow Presidents to wage undeclared wars, they'd have put it in The Constitution. Let's not attribute the contents of diaries or debates to the document as finally written, where an Amendment would more easily & properly suffice.[/disingenuous pretense to literalism]

[j2k4]

J2K4
Do you read lewrockwell.com?

No, never have; I see (having just looked) how you might think that I did-maybe now I shall, if I find time.

[Rat Faced]

J2K4
Did you read Mein Kampf?

:whistling

[j2k4]

J2K4
Did you read Mein Kampf?

:whistling

And your implication would be?

I've read such excerpts as exist to be easily found.

I've often wondered how difficult it would be to find an original translation-what I have read is utter madness, and nonsensical into the bargain.

There was also a sequel that was never published.

I've got lots of Hitler reading under my belt.

[Agrajag]

Let's not attribute the contents of diaries or debates to the document as finally written, where an Amendment would more easily & properly suffice.
In the UK we do precisely the opposite. A daily note of all debates (in parliament) is kept. These are known as the Hansard Notes (or something similar). In order to understand and interpret an Act of Parliament these must also be considered. The logic is, the only way to really understand what the legislators intended (which is the important thing) one must read the debates which led to the finished document and not just the document itself.

[Skweeky1]

Then again, in the UK you have a house of Lords with only lords in it...

Talking about medieval...

[Mr JP Fugley]

Then again, in the UK you have a house of Lords with only lords in it...

Talking about medieval...
I agree and would get rid of it and would replace it with an elected upper house.

However to be entirely clear on it, it's not all hereditary peers. There are Life Peers who sit in the House and the seat does not pass on when they die. This is often former members, selected by their party to sit in the upper house. The Law Lords (the highest Court of appeal in the UK) are also life peers and most strangely Lord Bishops (who are Bishops in the Church of England).

Like I said, I would do away with it as I think it is an anachronism. I would replace it with an elected upper house.

[j2k4]

Let's not attribute the contents of diaries or debates to the document as finally written, where an Amendment would more easily & properly suffice.
In the UK we do precisely the opposite. A daily note of all debates (in parliament) is kept. These are known as the Hansard Notes (or something similar). In order to understand and interpret an Act of Parliament these must also be considered. The logic is, the only way to really understand what the legislators intended (which is the important thing) one must read the debates which led to the finished document and not just the document itself.

This is one of the things which sets Founding Brothers apart from other books; it's content is the result of the author's research, of course, but also the interpersonal and other correspondence of the participants, all of which is considered against the backdrop of such events, perceptions and political pressures as existed during that period in U.S. history, and most definitely not through the prism of any present-day perspective or ideology.

It is quite a book.

BTW-

Hello to you, Skweeky. :)

[Skweeky1]

Hello Kev!

I would post more if I had any clue about current politics. However, I think it's all rather boring so instead of looking like a twat commenting on things I don't know anything about I'll just stick to what I do know
:lol:

[Mr JP Fugley]

In the UK we do precisely the opposite. A daily note of all debates (in parliament) is kept. These are known as the Hansard Notes (or something similar). In order to understand and interpret an Act of Parliament these must also be considered. The logic is, the only way to really understand what the legislators intended (which is the important thing) one must read the debates which led to the finished document and not just the document itself.

This is one of the things which sets Founding Brothers apart from other books; it's content is the result of the author's research, of course, but also the interpersonal and other correspondence of the participants, all of which is considered against the backdrop of such events, perceptions and political pressures as existed during that period in U.S. history, and most definitely not through the prism of any present-day perspective or ideology.

It is quite a book.

BTW-

Hello to you, Skweeky. :)


Surely to look at any document, particularly the one on which your nation is based, outwith it's historical context, is to miss the point. That's also why these things must change, to meet the needs of the time.

As such, to take a wholly modern subject and try to rule on it, based on the original intent is ultimately futile. Indeed it would appear to me that it goes against the original intent, given that the Founding Fathers wrote the original to deal with the issues alive at the time. Militias, standing armies, foreign rulers and so forth.

[j2k4]

This is one of the things which sets Founding Brothers apart from other books; it's content is the result of the author's research, of course, but also the interpersonal and other correspondence of the participants, all of which is considered against the backdrop of such events, perceptions and political pressures as existed during that period in U.S. history, and most definitely not through the prism of any present-day perspective or ideology.

It is quite a book.

BTW-

Hello to you, Skweeky. :)


Surely to look at any document, particularly the one on which your nation is based, outwith it's historical context, is to miss the point. That's also why these things must change, to meet the needs of the time.

As such, to take a wholly modern subject and try to rule on it, based on the original intent is ultimately futile. Indeed it would appear to me that it goes against the original intent, given that the Founding Fathers wrote the original to deal with the issues alive at the time. Militias, standing armies, foreign rulers and so forth.

I was speaking specifically with regard to the issue of slavery.

As to the idea of "original intent", how do you feel about it as it relates to state's rights?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Surely to look at any document, particularly the one on which your nation is based, outwith it's historical context, is to miss the point. That's also why these things must change, to meet the needs of the time.

As such, to take a wholly modern subject and try to rule on it, based on the original intent is ultimately futile. Indeed it would appear to me that it goes against the original intent, given that the Founding Fathers wrote the original to deal with the issues alive at the time. Militias, standing armies, foreign rulers and so forth.

I was speaking specifically with regard to the issue of slavery.


FFS man I was agreeing with you.

[j2k4]

I was speaking specifically with regard to the issue of slavery.


FFS man I was agreeing with you.

FFS, that may be, but my point being emancipation was a genuine issue during the period the Constitution was formulated and written and not mere lip-service or a self-serving version of the evidence that survives, as Busyman seems to believe.

Apparently he is still feeling persecuted...

[vidcc]

Kev-

If you had a time machine would you go back and reword the preamble? :P

[j2k4]

Kev-

If you had a time machine would you go back and reword the preamble? :P

I'm sure you've a reason for asking, but no, I would not.

Other sections, possibly, but, as you know, I strive mightily (and successfully, for the most part) to stifle my inclinations to presumptuousness.

Welcome back, BTW-my step-daughter is due to return today, but a bit later on.

[Mr JP Fugley]

FFS man I was agreeing with you.

FFS, that may be, but my point being emancipation was a genuine issue during the period the Constitution was formulated and written and not mere lip-service or a self-serving version of the evidence that survives, as Busyman seems to believe.

Apparently he is still feeling persecuted...
As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".

[j2k4]

FFS, that may be, but my point being emancipation was a genuine issue during the period the Constitution was formulated and written and not mere lip-service or a self-serving version of the evidence that survives, as Busyman seems to believe.

Apparently he is still feeling persecuted...
As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".

And, to expand on Burke, it is most definitely true that good men doing (ultimately) nothing led to a triumph of the evil of slavery.

[Mr JP Fugley]

As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".

And, to expand on Burke, it is most definitely true that good men doing (ultimately) nothing led to a triumph of the evil of slavery.
Such a shame it took so much longer for any vestige of equal rights to be afforded to the slaves descendants. Perhaps "doing nothing" is not something to be quite so proud of.

What is the other saying "All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing" I paraphrase.

The bottom line is that we disagree on certain things. You are an end justifies the means man. You can accept torture, so long as the right people are tortured for the right reasons. I can't.

(I'm taking it you meant a triumph over the evil of slavery, not a triumph of the evil of slavery)

[Busyman™]

As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".

And, to expand on Burke, it is most definitely true that good men doing (ultimately) nothing led to a triumph of the evil of slavery.
:lol: :lol: :lol: It did for some time.

Wez black folks should thanks themz good menz. :dry:

[Skweeky1]

As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".


Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:

Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?

What bloody age does it play in???

[j2k4]

(I'm taking it you meant a triumph over the evil of slavery, not a triumph of the evil of slavery)

No, I meant what I said, and bemoan the fact of it.

My only intent was to point out that the Founders (as a whole) genuinely wished to end slavery, but perceived their attempt to found a nation would fail if they conditioned it upon emancipation.

Busyman believes this (and the fact many of them had owned slaves) as proof they had no intention of ending slavery.

One might as well ask why a smoker would stop smoking...

[Mr JP Fugley]

(I'm taking it you meant a triumph over the evil of slavery, not a triumph of the evil of slavery)

No, I meant what I said, and bemoan the fact of it.

My only intent was to point out that the Founders (as a whole) genuinely wished to end slavery, but perceived their attempt to found a nation would fail if they conditioned it upon emancipation.


Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.

[Mr JP Fugley]

As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".


Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:

Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?

What bloody age does it play in???
Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Oh and for the sake of form - Bookworld :angry:

[j2k4]

As Thomas Covenant would say "You cannot achieve good things by evil means".


Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:

Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?

What bloody age does it play in???

I myself bypassed Thomas Covenant for reasons of convenience-I simply had other things I wished to read.

In retrospect, I guess I am glad; if I didn't like them, I'd had read them anyway, 'cuz I'd be too stubborn not to.

Knowing JP, he's probably looking down his nose at us right now (peering over the top of something Donaldson wrote). ;)

[j2k4]

No, I meant what I said, and bemoan the fact of it.

My only intent was to point out that the Founders (as a whole) genuinely wished to end slavery, but perceived their attempt to found a nation would fail if they conditioned it upon emancipation.


Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.

I don't accept that characterization, sorry.

I think I'll chalk up this as an ideological difference.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Am I the only person who found those books to weird to get into them?:blink:

Maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3rd one in the series.
Just answer me this?

What bloody age does it play in???

I myself bypassed Thomas Covenant for reasons of convenience-I simply had other things I wished to read.

In retrospect, I guess I am glad; if I didn't like them, I'd had read them anyway, 'cuz I'd be too stubborn not to.

Knowing JP, he's probably looking down his nose at us right now (peering over the top of something Donaldson wrote). ;)


I'm currently reading the third chronicles, as it happens. The chap waited quite some time to write them. Which was a bit shell fish.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Back to what I said before, continued slavery was therefore not a deal breaker. They saw it as an acceptable (if unpallatable) concession. A poor foundation on which to build a nation.

I don't accept that characterization, sorry.

I think I'll chalk this up as an ideological difference.
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.

I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.

[j2k4]

I don't accept that characterization, sorry.

I think I'll chalk this up as an ideological difference.
You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.

I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.

Ah, thanks.

I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...

[Mr JP Fugley]

You don't accept it because you know it's true. However I'm more than happy to use the same chalk.

I've fixed your last sentence btw. No charge.

Ah, thanks.

I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Tell him to feck off, the old Tory cunt.

[j2k4]

Ah, thanks.

I must have been channelling WC again in the moments before I replied...
Tell him to feck off, the old Tory cunt.

Oh, we argue all the time.

He's a grand fellow, though.

You'd like him.

[Skweeky1]

You had to start sounding all bookish:dry:

So don't blame me for continuing along the same lines.
:angry:

Besides, I honestly don't quite understand what age the story plays in:( He's a leper, which points at.. well... a while back anyway but he uses the telephone:unsure:


And no one ever reads Bookworld:(

[j2k4]

You had to start sounding all bookish:dry:

So don't blame me for continuing along the same lines.
:angry:

Besides, I honestly don't quite understand what age the story plays in:( He's a leper, which points at.. well... a while back anyway but he uses the telephone:unsure:


And no one ever reads Bookworld:(

With me, I never got beyond a recommendation of the series by a friend who was a fan.

I'd read some of Donaldson's sci-fi stuff, and I'd found I really didn't care for it (not his stuff specifically, just sci-fi generally), so I wasn't going to dive into a serial.

Hell, I've never even read Tolkien's Trilogy, and the movies put me to sleep.

I guess I'm flawed that way. :)

[Skweeky1]

Yeah... but the movies are nothing compared to the books.
I love the books but never liked watching the movies

[j2k4]

Yeah... but the movies are nothing compared to the books.
I love the books but never liked watching the movies


Hmmm.

Books can put you to sleep, too...

That might be useful.

Maybe I get the books, then keep them by the bed, for emergency use. :huh:

[Mr JP Fugley]

It's set in the time it was written, on Earth. Leprosy is still about and he has it. Time passes at a different speed in The Land.

That is why he is constantly checking himself for any type of wounds. Some of his body's nerve ending have died, therefore it does not know if it is wounded, therefore it does not send anti-bodies to fight infections. So a wound would become badly infected if he does not clean and disinfect it as soon as he discovers the wound.

That is how he lost half of his hand, however if you did not read much into the book then you probably wouldn't get the significance of that.