Despite all their stated reverence of the Constitution of the United States, Republicans (regressives) are really in love with the Articles of Confederation and wish the Constitution would disappear.
It has been apparent from the beginning that most of the Tea Party people, who now have control of the Republican Party, never really understood the Constitution (assuming they had read it), and certainly not the context in which it was written.
Republicans, encouraged by revisionist historians like the disgraced Newt Gingrich, seem to believe that we won the revolutionary war and then, presto, organized ourselves under the Constitution that breathed the vapors of the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a key Member of Congress -- e.g., Speaker John Boehner -- to quote the Declaration as the preamble to the Constitution.
What actually happened between the revolutionary war and the Constitutional convention in 1787 was a government organized under the Articles of Confederation (the "Articles"). The Articles did, indeed, breathe the vapors of the Declaration in that it created a very, very weak central government and left most powers with the states.
But the Articles produced what we would call today a "failed state".
In 1787 the Founders convened in Philadelphia not to write a new Constitution, but to amend the Articles. They soon realized, however, that they had to start with a clean slate, a tabula rasa. They discarded the Articles and created the Constitution.
By that time a decade had passed from the time of the Declaration. The Founders realized that their fear of a powerful central government arose from their experience with an absolute monarch, and that that fear had resulted in a failed state.
The Constitution, therefore, created a strong central state, by design. Although many of the people were the same as the signers of the Declaration, the Founders now had the experience of a failed state. That strong central government would be kept from being too powerful by the separation of powers -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- and by the Bill of Rights.
Just three examples should illustrate what the Founders did in Philadelphia. They told us in the preamble that the Constitution was designed to establish justice and promote the general welfare, as well as preserving liberty and providing national security. They gave Congress the power to enact "all laws necessary and proper" to carry out their broad enumerated powers that included the general welfare. In the 10th Amendment, they deliberately omitted the word "expressly" from the reservation of residual powers to people and the states, because "expressly" had been in the Articles and had weakened the central government.
Republicans (Regressives) harken back to the Articles of Confederation and convince their followers that this is really fealty to the Constitution.
The difference between them and the Founders is that their paymasters really want a failed state.
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Robert Reich: The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax
Peter Dreier: Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party
Jimmy Williams: Let's Get Money Out And Give America Its Government Back
We have developed a mechanism of change. Tim and Beretta may not like it, but it is the consensus. People argue about it, and, as tim's deluge indicates, they have since before the ink began to dry, but there is a system. It may not even look like what it seems was intended when they wrote the constitution, but that's not really relevant. Today, one cannot look at the constitution without the whole of amendments and precedence, whether you like them or not.
If the constitution were forced back to this gnostic libertarian ideal it would be finished. It is, in itself, entirely inadequate to structure a 21st century society, stripping away the things that have adapted it and kept it relevant and functional is like trying to be a christian and insisting that Christ will come again in the Apostles lifetime.
While it is true that most people of all affiliation have little deep understanding of the Constitution it is the "liberals" that absolutely refuse to accept temporal context and demand that it be read using modern definitions (created BY "liberals", of course) and absolutely reject context when it is brought up, as well as written statements by the people that wrote it that contradict them.
"Republicans, encouraged by revisionist historians like the disgraced Newt Gingrich, seem to believe that we won the revolutionary war and then, presto, organized ourselves under the Constitution that breathed the vapors of the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a key Member of Congress -- e.g., Speaker John Boehner -- to quote the Declaration as the preamble to the Constitution."
Does the writer use the term "disgraced" when referring to Bill Clinton? I thought not. Please cite the "revisionist" part of Newt Gingrich's analysis. Revisionist would be claiming that "among" means "within", "regulation" means "legislation", "commerce" means "all business activity", "general welfare" means "specific economic welfare", that "United States" means "people", etc, etc.
The amusing thing is that "liberals" revere Lincoln, but he was exactly like Bush, but killed far more Americans and freed a whole lot fewer people, all the while tossing American citizens in jail just on his own personal suspicion.
Maybe what a "liberal" would call a failed state. The state simply needed finetuning
"By that time a decade had passed from the time of the Declaration. The Founders realized that their fear of a powerful central government arose from their experience with an absolute monarch, and that that fear had resulted in a failed state."
Please cite a Founding Father stating that "gee, our fears of big government were unfounded". Hamilton was about the only one and his proposals were soundly rejected. Further, the 10th Amendment was specifically written to calm massive and VERY FOUNDED fears that the federal government would take the Constitution to grant virtually endless power.
"The Constitution, therefore, created a strong central state, by design. Although many of the people were the same as the signers of the Declaration, the Founders now had the experience of a failed state. That strong central government would be kept from being too powerful by the separation of powers -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- and by the Bill of Rights."
No, it was written to create a LESS WEAK federal government, still federal, still non-redundant, still with gigantic limits. Not "central" at all. A "central" government has virtually all powers in one place, this clearly was not the case with the Constitution. The actual limit on the government is NOT separation of powers, that clearly hasn't worked. They support each other to support big government.
By "broad", you mean "limited", "enumerated" or "delegated", because THOSE are the words the Framers used, not "broad", so unless you have a citation......... They omitted the word "expressly" because it conflicted with "Necessary and Proper" and because it could be used to question ANY law, even that which was clearly fell within the delegated powers.
"Republicans (Regressives) harken back to the Articles of Confederation and convince their followers that this is really fealty to the Constitution."
Please cite this. Anything at all.
"The difference between them and the Founders is that their paymasters really want a failed state."
Incorrect. We want to provent a failed state, which is where "liberals" clearly have us headed. Just like the big centralized state of the USSR.
Now we need to cut everything and fast.
Quote from Federalist 41:
"Had no other enumeration of the powers of Congess been found than the general expressions cited" (provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare), "the objection might have some color. But what color can the objection have when a specification immediately follows?"
Abbreviated to stay under the word limit.
Congress has only those powers listed following the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8, and the power to tax which is granted in that fist paragaph.
I could write a novella on recent violations of the Constitution of the United States.
Harry Reid most recently by originating an appropriations bill in the Senate.
BHO by going to war in Lybia without congressional authorization.
BHO by using bureaucracy to usurp congressional authority.
TSA performing searches without a warrant.
The IRS deciding which religions are legitimate.
The seizure of property without due process.
etc.
But it is interesting that Hamilton, while not being happy with the "weaknesses" of the Constitution, did everything he could to get it signed and only AFTERWARDS tried to figure out how to get around its limitations.
So while people point to his half-baked arguments, the fact is, he pushed for the signing of it with the existing language, never questioned Madison's instrumental portrayal of it and signed it fully understanding what those words meant. THEN he started trying to get around it when it stood in his way.
Hamilton was the original Progressive, trying to find ways around an inconvenient document. Which is why Aaron Burr deserves more credit than traitor. I am surprised you didn't notice I mispelled his name. Weak keyboard skills.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
"I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me."
Semper fi
"A proper regulation of commerce requires much informatioÂn, as has been elsewhere remarked; but as far as this informatioÂn relates to the laws and local situation of each individual State, a very few representaÂtives would be very sufficient vehicles of it to the federal councils. Taxation will consist, in a great measure, of duties which will be involved in the regulation of commerce..Â..Besides this source of informatioÂn, the laws of the State, framed by representaÂtives from every part of it, will be almost of themselves a sufficient guide. In every State there have been made, and must continue to be made, regulationÂs on this subject which will, in many cases, leave little more to be done by the federal legislaturÂe, than to review the different laws, and reduce them in one general act. A skillful individual in his closet with all the local codes before him, might compile a law on some subjects of taxation for the whole union, without any aid from oral informatioÂn, and it may be expected that whenever internal taxes may be necessary, and particularÂly in cases requiring uniformity throughout the States, the more simple objects will be preferred "
And it was used for exactly that before FDR's court changed the actual words.
""To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independen t power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumeratio ns of power completely useless.
It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of institutin g a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States."
James Madison
"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color [validity] for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."