The Founding Fathers were wrong

[iowasocialist]

The Founding Fathers were so afraid of what they viewed as tyranny that they created a Constitution that actually prevents the federal government from doing anything!

Add to that, the fact that nothing really progressive will be accomplished until we get Big Money OUT of politics...

[Mythsaje]

1. Hmmm...

:popcorn:

[Gold Metal Flake]

2. The... ff.. they... uh.... Founding Fathers Were POOP!

POOOOOOOOOOOP!

[Odin2005]

3. The Founding Fathers' fears were perfectly justified.

There are a lot of DUers who are OK with dictators as long as they are our dictators, sorry to say.

I agree with you, though, that we need to get money out of politics. Bribery is not Free Speech.

[optimal-tomato]

18. Too true.

Even as I raged about Bush's "if I were the dictator" quote, I still wish Obama (with me advising him of course) could be dictator for a day to cut through the bull-crap and get good legislation through the Congress right now. Then, after that was done, I'd want checks and balances back...

It's not a liberal/conservative thing, people just want their ideas put into action.

Also, ditto Money =/= Free Speech.

[anonymous171]

4. State Tyranny can be just as bad as Private Tyranny. nt

[BOG PERSON]

12. Not really, state "tyranny" can't just pack up and leave when things get hairy

so there's some greater degree of accountability to The People

[anonymous171]

14. You're assuming that the state in question is Democratic. nt

[BOG PERSON]

15. No, even an "un-democratic" state is subject to pressure from the population.

For example, today's incident in China, where the government gave in to pressure from workers not to sell off a publicly-owned factory.

[anonymous171]

16. Private interests are not immune to external pressure either. nt

[Eric68601]

5. I think the founding fathers

had the right idea, and that was to keep a monarchy from forming, I don't think they expected the rule of Corporatism.

[Cresent City Kid]

6. They actually feared it

But as time went on the government became enablers instead of protectors.

[Hugabear]

7. Some of them did. Not all.

I think Alexander Hamilton would love today's corporate culture.

[Cresent City Kid]

9. Right

They weren't all of the same mind.

[Selatius]

10. They already feared corporate power. They didn't like the British East India Company.

That company was given a monopoly in the Thirteen Colonies by an act of Parliament. This caused a lot of disruptions in trade and drove up prices of tea and other imported goods that the company sold. Basically, enforcement of this monopoly was partially paid by the taxes the Colonists paid to Parliament. They didn't like that, probably because they had no representation in Parliament.

When the Revolution was won and a new nation established, corporations chartered only for the sake of profit, which is an open-ended engagement, were rare to non-existent. Corporations back in those days were typically chartered to accomplish a certain task. For instance, a corporation was specifically chartered to build the Eerie Canal. Once the canal was finished, the corporation dissolved. It takes an act of a state legislature to incorporate a corporations, and in those days, few would agree to incorporate one simply for the sake of profit. There would've been a lot of opposition in those days. Nowadays, the procedure for incorporation is really just a formality. Anybody can create a corporation.

It was only really after the Civil War and the now famous US Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) that the notion of corporate personhood was established, the idea that a corporation is entitled to the protections afforded under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which was originally passed with the intent of making black slaves full citizens of the US afforded the same protections that any other American citizen has under the Constitution.

Further enhancement to corporate power came in the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976) where the Supreme Court decided that corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence the outcome of a campaign because it is protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. A corporation now enjoys the same protections as humans under the First Amendment.

[leftstreet]

19. +1

[davepc]

8. Well their whole point was to avoid strong centralized government.

The Articles of Confederation were even more decentralized then the system set up by the Constitution.

I don't know if they were 'wrong' so much as responding to the challenges they saw in their day.

The world has shifted.

[saltpoint]

11. Why don't you draft a proposal to get money out of politics and then

post it? Say, right here on DU? That would be lovely.

And we hate to push the clock, but could we have an entirely perfect system of government by say, Labor Day Weekend?

That would be smashing. Thanks.

[Simeon]

13. Maybe they had a different idea . . .

What they created was a Federal Government that was expressly created for a few roles. Mainly:
- Dealing with foreign powers
- National Defense
- Common currency
- Making sure the states "played nice" together
(The 10th amendment was supposed to clarify these enumerated powers.)
The states were otherwise autonomous.
Actually it was brilliant. The citizens of each state could determine what they needed. (Maine had/has different needs and ideals than California)
If one state got oppressive the people could move to another. If another state had a policy that worked well it could be emulated by others.
By being separate their strengths could combine and the weaknesses would be mitigated. E pluribus unum Out of the many, one.

Tennessee and Alaska have recently passed resolutions reaffirming the 10th amendment and states rights. 20 some others have/had bills to the same effect this past year.

Simeon

[Hugabear]

17. By oppressive, do you mean stuff like universal health care, gay marriage, unemployment benefits?

Because THOSE are the things that rethug governors and freepers are screaming "state rights" about.

[Simeon]

20. At the time ...

... I wrote it I had oppressive taxation in mind.
But, generally, Yes.
If a state allows gay marriage it is not the Fed's position to weigh in either way.
If the people of a state want lax or tight unemployment benefits then they should determine the parameters.
Universal health care already exists in this country. Anyone can go to a county hospital ER and must be treated. Just look at California.
Healthcare costs and insurance are the problem that needs addressed.

Simeon

[Hugabear]

21. Same thing used to be said about slavery and civil rights

"If a state allows XYZ, then it's not the Fed's position to weigh in either way."

Funny how "states rights" are usually used to DENY people something.

[Simeon]

24. Not quite though

The solution to slavery was rooted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
At the beginning there were compromises made to mollify the slave states.
Without those compromises there probably would have been two nations formed instead of one and slavery may have gone on longer.
But, there was a time limit placed on slave trade (I think it was 20 years after the Constitution was signed.)
Being based on the Declaration of Independence and the proclamation that "all men are created equal"; sooner or later the issue would come to a point.

Problems to eliminating slavery were the Federal laws of 1793 and 1850 - the Fugitive Slave laws which forced northern states to return fleeing slaves.
Northern states passed civil liberty laws which were struck down by the Federal Supreme Court in 1842.
And of course the Supreme court declared in 1820 the Missouri Compromise - prohibiting slavery in new territories - was unconstitutional.
And again with Dred Scott vs Sandford in 1857 which said no slaves or their dependents could be US citizens.

The southern states use of slaves is not excusable, but the US Congress and the Supreme Court were guardians (deniers of rights) as well.
Clearly the Federal Government failed to apply the Bill of Rights to southern blacks while using states rights as an excuse and tramping on the rights of northern states at the same time.
It took 500,000 dead to get it settled.


Simeon

[voc]

28. slavery is alive and well,not settled,just took on a new face and name. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

22. I'm not a fan of all the states rights horse crap but certainly understand the burning fear of

monarchy brewing up. Especially, considering the comfort level/desire/Stockholm Syndrome many people had with being ruled from a throne at the time. Most would have been content to have Washington literally rule and literally for life.

You are correct about one thing though, the checks and balances set up prevents much from happening rapidly if there is any sizable dissent. I can live with that, I don't want to be a swing away from some Reich Wing fantasy but I do have problems with how gamed they system we have is. If the game was honest then the will of the people would have steady progress coming online as long as it was not out of line with the Constitution and more than likely we wouldn't have the binary decision tree that throws a wrench in everything.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. FAIL. They created a Constitution that ensured the gubmint existed ONLY because people permitted

it to do so.

The gubmint exists only because WE THE PEOPLE allow it to. And that is as it should be. The power of the government can and should be terminated if and when the greater populace decides it should.

The government is NOT more important than the people it's supposed to govern.

To say otherwise is to prostrate yourself in front of a power greater than you, and makes you no better than those who would demand that you live your life according to a book whose authorship is in question, i.e. The Bible.

The government doesn't confer rights on the individual, the individual confers rights to the government.

The Constitution doesn't PREVENT the government from doing anything, it LIMITS what the government can do.

Thank goodness the Founding Fathers had the foresight to understand that.

Linus, find your blankie somewhere other than government.

[bridgit]

25. You mean The Founding Fuddie Duddies? Ah dude they fully screwed the pooch check it!!

They were all, "Blimey! But we can't see buggering Blackpool from here bloody Dublin's in the way!!" when this wondrously lacquered by fine-sable-hairs, handcrafted, hardwood box: just started like 'whoa!' writing by itself right there pilling up hemp woven 'papers' that our bonnet wearing Donut Dolly Madison scooped up and scurried but the point is is that there it was: 'note de Paris, "The French need more silk, lace, snails, gold filigree and De Sade, STAT!"' so The Founding Fuddie Duddies were all...

"It's good to be the King!"


Constellating the moment in time when the pooch got screwed but you know what? The pooch don't care. Cause when the pooch sees a POTUS-sized bed full of Founding Fuddie Duddies all dreamy eyed smoking cigs and slow-blinking at nothing at all; O'ing smoke rings into the ether after what they thought was the real deal - ? - the pooch goes, "Cha-ching!" cause he bought stock in Nat Sherman back before most people knew, and it has split many times over ;)

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Word.

[ColbertWatcher]

27. If the federal government is so powerless ...

... how did Cheney create his own CIA unit?

Oh, and welcome to DU.