Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1
You are correct that we shall see some of the changes will hold up as Constitutional. Several states are involved in challenges as we "speak" to the Constitutionality of the health care reform bill for just one example.
Just the very fact that states have the understanding of our great republic and separation of powers to challenge something is joyful to me. It shows that the powers held at local levels are still intact. The fact that the federal government challeges states rights makes me tremble.
I don't for a second believe the framers of the US Constitution "would support a revised, more centrist view." That centrist view is exactly what they were escaping.
What we forget when we say "Founders" is that Washington, Adams, Jackson, Clay, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton and others who framed a new government, didn't set sail from Great Britian to come to America to form a new nation.
Most are descendents of the original settlers who came to escape the "centrist views" in far flung lands long before the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution for the colonies. Most of the 1787 delegates were natives of the Thirteen Colonies. Only 9 were born elsewhere.
I think it's important to remember that in order to understand what freedoms and liberties they risked thier lives for and sought and fought for and appreciated. To understand and appreciate this is to understand that the "Founders" would never accept government control and a forced health care system or even social services paid for by forced taxation.
And remember, Jefferson wasn't our only framer of this nation. He was one of many with many different views on what would be a great federalist republic. That is the whole premise to the government we have today. It isn't a democracy where the majority rules.
As to the banks and unions and cooperations and Wall Street, if we had stayed true the course of the Constitution and not veered on the Progressive path, there wouldn't be a discussion of Jefferson railing against these very separate issues you mentioned.
I think the history of the creation of the US Coast Guard (The Revenue Cutter Service) is very important and gives much insight into true American history. Not what we are spoon fed today. Read about John Hancock's slope The Liberty.
Sorry to be so wordy.
|
I sincerely appreciate your polite approach to debate and you never have to apologize for being wordy!
A few comments about your points:
Yes, the states have the constitutional ability to challenge and push action which might end up overturning federal law. I too like that balancing aspect aspect of our government. My contention is that the actions taken by the current administration and Congress will not be overturned. I believe the opposition to these actions and laws will fade rather quickly as time passes and the benefits of these actions become more obvious. I made a list of those actions and would like to hear why you think any one of them is, in total, more negative than positive. I'll exempt the stimulus programs and health care reform legislation for the moment because we probably could each write our fingers the bone advocating our for/against positions. But what makes these actions more negative than positive: consumer credit protection legislation, banking and finance regulations, the Disclose Act, and the $20 billion BP escrow? All are deliberate attempts to check the activities of capitalist institutions. You will NEVER hear me suggesting that we need to replace our form of capitalism. But I think regulatory limits are necessary for the simple reason that capitalists are by definition devoted solely to their own interests, regardless of the 'common good'. They have no accountability to society at large. Government, no matter how big, is legally required to operate in the interests of the people, with theoretically accountable elected representatives. Isn't it interesting how some people would support almost anything which would force politicians to be accountable, and act in the best interests of the electorate, while opposing anything which might regulate the actions of people in the business world?
About Jefferson, whom I selected because he is usually seen as the leading critic of a powerful federal government: I commented about what he would have supported had he known our history as we do. It seems to me you focused exclusively on what motivated Jefferson and others to come to the colonies and how careful they were to protect states rights while forming a federal government. That was the early phase of their personal histories and what they may have brought with them to the Constitutional Convention. But I was referring to the longer view, what Jefferson saw later as the new nation emerged; the need for a unified country and government. His interest and pursuit of the Presidency, and the two farthest reaching actions he took in that office, (advocating the Embargo Act and the Louisiana Purchase), demonstrate his evolving desire to strengthen the national presence and power of the United States. All of his successors who are considered great, or 'near great' did exactly the same. This is not to say that any of these leaders rejected the interests of the ordinary citizen, or of the states. The best of them guided us through our worst crises by exercising strong federal power in enlightened, responsible fashion. This is what I see as the 'centrist' view. Jefferson's actions show he evolved into a more centrist view during his presidency and that he would have continued on that path had he faced the problems of the 19th and 20th centuries.
There is nothing specific in the Constitution designed to prevent the colossal greed and calculated amassing of power which some of our citizens have thrust upon the rest of us. The federal government has addressed related problems almost from the very beginning, occasionally in a workable fashion, often with flaws. The imperfect efforts do not mean that the efforts should be abandoned.
After all, if not the federal government, who is going to give us at least an opportunity to realize life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
The story of the creation of the US Coast Guard is not well known or often cited as a critical piece of US history. Perhaps you might summarize the points you think support your position about the power of the federal government.
Thanks for listening.