What? No government shutdown threads?

[fskimospy]

TH's links seem more substantial than yours and are reflected more accurately in how the constitution was eventually penned...

I can't possibly see how. He is providing quotes that say that the founders wanted to limit the powers of the government in some ways, which in no way means they didn't want a strong central government. A strong government does not mean an unlimited government and he is attempting to conflate the two.

Go read the letters of Madison. Go read the Federalist Papers. Go read the letters of Hamilton. It is blindingly obvious that they wanted a vastly stronger central government than what we had previously, one that had, in Madison's words "positive and complete authority in all areas that require uniformity". Weak government, my ass.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

They won't hold a vote on a clean CR because House Republicans are afraid it will pass. They can't allow the legislation to be voted on or they lose.

They aren't afraid it will pass, they KNOW it will pass. And Bonehead would then be at the mercy of his teaparty masters whip's

 

[dank69]

Honest framing of issues? Like airing ads showing Republicans pushing Grandma over a cliff? Is that what you mean? That ad set the bar for Democrats and illustrated just how low they're willing to go when it comes to such matters as honest framing of the issues. Get real.

Haha, the best you got is a simple metaphor for something the Republicans actually want to do? Oh wow, they don't want to push grandma over a cliff, they are just content to tell her to go fuck herself when she has no moiney for healthcare. And fuck her SS payments, too. Gotta cut those "entitlements!"

Meanwhile, Republicans destroy bullshit meters on a daily basis.

 

[Texashiker]

lol. Go crack open a history book, guy.

History is one of my favorite subjects.

There, I've disputed your quotes.

You have disputed nothing.

Benjamin Franklin - "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power."

Thomas Jefferson - "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."

The founding fathers wanted a limited, weak and chained federal government, and I have provided sources and quotes to back my statement up.

Madison's words "positive and complete authority in all areas that require uniformity". Weak government, my ass.

He said that while exchanging ideas with Washington, so what? Do you have anything besides a single quote you keep repeating?

 

[Lithium381]

lol. Go crack open a history book, guy. Saying something is confined to specific objects itself says nothing about its strength. There, I've disputed your quotes. None of them count.

This is getting far too stupid for even me to indulge in. Yes, the writers of the Constitution wanted a strong central government. There were certain factions such as the Jeffersonian faction (and Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, btw) who wanted a much weaker one.

They lost.

Then why did we break away from Britain? Why didn't we retain that model of government?

 

[fskimospy]

History is one of my favorite subjects.

You have disputed nothing.

Benjamin Franklin - "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power."

Thomas Jefferson - "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."

You are continuing to dishonestly conflate strong government with unlimited government.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why did we break away from Britain? Why didn't we retain that model of government?

Surely you can admit that you can have a strong central government that is not a monarchy in which you are subject to laws but lack any input into those laws.

 

[TerryMathews]

Interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/democrats-go-nuclear-on-john-boehner/280156/

It looks like that despite Boehner attempting to force congressional staff to lose their health care in the House's most recent bill he had been lobbying in secret for them to keep it for months.

So sad. It seems like Boehner might, if left to his own devices, act in a reasonably sane manner. Looks like he has been completely subsumed by the crazies.

If this is true, and I have no reason to think it isn't, he deserves to be run out of Congress on a rail. His constituents, of which I am one, don't want Congress being exempt from what we have to deal with.

 

[Lithium381]

You are continuing to dishonestly conflate strong government with unlimited government.

Not sure it's dishonest.

In context, they did want a strong central government compared to the AoC. . . which is why we have a Federal government and not a National one. .

Not strong like the monarchy which they escaped.

In context, they did want to limit government SUBSTANTIALLY by placing restrictions on it.

 

[fskimospy]

If this is true, and I have no reason to think it isn't, he deserves to be run out of Congress on a rail. His constituents, of which I am one, don't want Congress being exempt from what we have to deal with.

But how was congress being exempted from what you had to deal with? Congress (and their staff) were subject to an extra aspect that no one else had to deal with and they were trying to remove it. That was a good thing.

My point with it was that he is trying to add back in the very thing he already knows was a bad idea just to score political points.

 

[dank69]

If this is true, and I have no reason to think it isn't, he deserves to be run out of Congress on a rail. His constituents, of which I am one, don't want Congress being exempt from what we have to deal with.

Except that they aren't exempt from what we have to deal with. They are exempt from a poison provision that places greater restriction on them than on anyone else.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure it's dishonest.

In context, they did want a strong central government compared to the AoC. . . which is why we have a Federal government and not a National one. .

Not strong like the monarchy which they escaped.

In context, they did want to limit government SUBSTANTIALLY by placing restrictions on it.

Is strong government equal to unlimited government? No.

Therefore saying that someone opposed strong government by providing quotes that say they oppose unlimited government is dishonest. I will grant you that it could also be a failure to understand what you are quoting, but regardless it is false.

 

[Lithium381]

Surely you can admit that you can have a strong central government that is not a monarchy in which you are subject to laws but lack any input into those laws.

Of course.

I think we're having two different discussions here...

 

[Texashiker]

You are continuing to dishonestly conflate strong government with unlimited government.

James Madison yet again - "We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."

The phrases chained, limited, and confined keep reappearing over and over.

If something is confined, chained and limited, it can not be strong.

It seems you are trying to move the goalpost.

 

[Lithium381]

Is strong government equal to unlimited government? No.

Therefore saying that someone opposed strong government by providing quotes that say they oppose unlimited government is dishonest. I will grant you that it could also be a failure to understand what you are quoting, but regardless it is false.

Then in the end it sounds like they wanted a strong, but limited central government.

 

[fskimospy]

James Madison yet again - "We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."

The phrases chained, limited, and confined keep reappearing over and over.

If something is confined, chained and limited, it can not be strong.

This is a basic failure to use the English language. To be strong does not mean to be without confines or to be unlimited. History cannot possibly be your hobby (at least not early American history) or else you could not be this ignorant about it.

 

[kia75]

TH's links seem more substantial than yours and are reflected more accurately in how the constitution was eventually penned...

TH's links reflect the anti-federalists thoughts at the time, a group who wanted limited Federal government. He's forgetting to quote the Federalist's, who wanted a stronger federalist government. They wrote something called the Federalist papers, which most teenagers are required to read in High school. Which goes to show why looking at the "Founding Father's Original Intent" is so stupid. You can find people on both sides of the aisle on any major issue. In the end the Constitution was a compromise between both thoughts.

Also, a quick look at TH's quotes shows him taking specific quotes out of context.


The fact that you can show that Federalists wanted an expanded federal government while Anti-Federalists wanted a less-powerful Federal government shows that the founding fathers were divided on the issue, and "Original Intent" of any specific law depends on picking someone who's "original intent" most closely mirrors your own. The truth is that the Articles of Confederation provided a weak federal government and were a failure, so the constitution was designed to have a stronger federal government then the Articles of Confederation. How much stronger, and just how powerful a federal government is an argument that we continue to have 200+ years later.

 

[fskimospy]

Then in the end it sounds like they wanted a strong, but limited central government.

I agree! They wanted to vastly increase federal powers, but did not think it was wise or practical to create a single uniform entity that would sweep away the states. Therefore they made a strong central body but put limits on that power.

In some ways it is semantics, but the idea that people set out to write the Constitution (whose whole purpose was to strengthen centralized power) in order to make central power weak is just a non sequitur.

 

[Texashiker]

History cannot possibly be your hobby (at least not early American history) or else you could not be this ignorant about it.

Didn't dr. pizza just post a warning about insults?

I agree! They wanted to vastly increase federal powers,

You are wrong, and I have posted a dozen links over the past two pages to prove it.

Benjamin Franklin - "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power."

Thomas Jefferson - "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."

If there was one thing the founding fathers feared it was a government with unlimited powers.

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't dr. pizza just post a warning about insults?

If he has a problem with my posts I'm sure he will let me know.

 

[werepossum]

James Madison believed in a strong federal government so strongly that during the drafting of the Constitution he wanted to strip the states of their sovereignty in its entirety, saying that sovereign states were incompatible with national sovereignty. Additionally, he wanted to grant the central government the ability to veto state legislature laws that it deemed improper.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s6.html

He became more moderate later in life, but remember we're just supposed to look at the Constitution as it was drafted, right?

From your link:

Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.
SNIP
I would propose next that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports & imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c &c.

Bolding is mine.

Your link does not say what you claim it to say. What Madison advocated here is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers ended up creating, a nation where the individual states have sovereignty but that sovereignty is subordinate to the Republic's sovereignty in all cases which require uniformity. As Madison himself indicates, this is the minimum required for a republic to function. Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety". Nor did he say that sovereign states were incompatible with national sovereignty. Nor did he want to grant the central government the ability to veto state legislature laws that it deemed improper. Only in specific areas, in all cases which require uniformity, was Madison advocating the federal government overriding the states' laws. In those cases, yes, an absolute federal power must exist, else each state would be free to enact legislation nullifying federal legislation and policy, and there can be no republic. We would have remained a loose confederation of states as often at odds with each other as with other nations. But Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety", but rather stripping away just enough state sovereignty to make the republic function.

Some of you need to dial back the personal insults a bit. A few of these are a bit over the top, even by P&N standards.

Thank you
-Admin DrPizza

Thank you for that intervention. I was about to commit to virtual paper a scathing insult which would have served no purpose beyond calling out someone's blatant dishonesty - on the Internet no less.

This is why we have mods, to remind us that it's just the Internet and there's no point in getting all pissy about it.

 

[dank69]

From your link:

Bolding is mine.

Your link does not say what you claim it to say. What Madison advocated here is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers ended up creating, a nation where the individual states have sovereignty but that sovereignty is subordinate to the Republic's sovereignty in all cases which require uniformity. As Madison himself indicates, this is the minimum required for a republic to function. Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety". Nor did he say that sovereign states were incompatible with national sovereignty. Nor did he want to grant the central government the ability to veto state legislature laws that it deemed improper. Only in specific areas, in all cases which require uniformity, was Madison advocating the federal government overriding the states' laws. In those cases, yes, an absolute federal power must exist, else each state would be free to enact legislation nullifying federal legislation and policy, and there can be no republic. We would have remained a loose confederation of states as often at odds with each other as with other nations. But Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety", but rather stripping away just enough state sovereignty to make the republic function.


Thank you for that intervention. I was about to commit to virtual paper a scathing insult which would have served no purpose beyond calling out someone's blatant dishonesty - on the Internet no less.

This is why we have mods, to remind us that it's just the Internet and there's no point in getting all pissy about it.

I saw the good Doctor's post and went looking for some good insults. Didn't see any on that page. Don't have time to go back further. Hate it when I miss some good fireworks. :\

 

[TerryMathews]

But how was congress being exempted from what you had to deal with? Congress (and their staff) were subject to an extra aspect that no one else had to deal with and they were trying to remove it. That was a good thing.

My point with it was that he is trying to add back in the very thing he already knows was a bad idea just to score political points.

I'm starting to think you argue just to argue.

I'm sitting here saying he should be put out of office. I never dreamed you'd disagree with me on it. Didn't know you were such a Boehner fan.

 

[Texashiker]

I agree! They wanted to vastly increase federal powers,

Jefferson yet again - "The purpose of a written constitution is to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws,"

Uh yea, increase federal powers all you want, just as long as it does not get past its bindings and chains.

Allow Madison to explain for you,

[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.

The government cannot extend its jurisdiction.

But for some reason you claim the founding fathers wanted to greatly increase the governments power?

 

[fskimospy]

From your link:

Bolding is mine.

Your link does not say what you claim it to say. What Madison advocated here is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers ended up creating, a nation where the individual states have sovereignty but that sovereignty is subordinate to the Republic's sovereignty in all cases which require uniformity. As Madison himself indicates, this is the minimum required for a republic to function. Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety". Nor did he say that sovereign states were incompatible with national sovereignty. Nor did he want to grant the central government the ability to veto state legislature laws that it deemed improper. Only in specific areas, in all cases which require uniformity, was Madison advocating the federal government overriding the states' laws. In those cases, yes, an absolute federal power must exist, else each state would be free to enact legislation nullifying federal legislation and policy, and there can be no republic. We would have remained a loose confederation of states as often at odds with each other as with other nations. But Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety", but rather stripping away just enough state sovereignty to make the republic function.

You have utterly failed to read my link then. I will grant that you may not have understood some of the language as well, but that's on you to get better with before you start attacking someone else or calling them dishonest.

State sovereignty (ironically the same bit you quoted)

He is saying that sovereign states are incompatible with a sovereign unified nation. Not sure how much clearer he can be.

Federal veto:

Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions.

A "negative" in legal terms is the equivalent of a presidential veto.

EDIT: I guess you're just countering what I presume you thought was my 'blatant dishonesty' with your 'blatant inability to understand what you're reading'.