The Federalist coup of 1787 (article)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[newbitech]

I wasn't seeking to give it traction I was stating a fact.

no you were stating opinion, which like I said, I really appreciate. My family came to America via several ways. I trace my roots threw Ellis Island in the late 1800's and through the Savannah and Augusta/N. Augusta Georgia/S.C. in the mid 1700's.

I too have a strong family tradition which holds up the Constitution as an example of the legal document used preserve the freedom and liberty that the Declaration wrestled away from the Crown.

You seem to think that the Constitution was DOA. What then would you recommend to our forefathers with the benefit of 200 years of hindsight?

I am not saying that it couldn't haven't been better, but clearly it could have and WAS much much worse prior to the acceptance of the Constitution as the legal document that defined our nation.

And look, you came out calling people that do not see the Constitution as "failure" dense and thick headed. So don't go getting all pissed off because I call you pompous and arrogant.

These are my opinions, just as they are your opinions. I challenge this opinion because I think all it does at best is upset people who have a different opinion and at worse it causes rifts between people who may share common roots.

My forefathers successfully argued that outlawing slavery should be taken out of the declaration. Your forefathers apparently agreed. Neither were correct, but that is what it took to make a unified stance against the Crown. Later on, the Constitution eventually corrected this mistake through due process of law and representation that the Declaration of Independence did not provide for, but the Constitution did. That is only one contrasting point that can be made.

Both the Declaration and the Constitution are founding documents. There are many differences between the two. The primary difference is that the Dec was addressed to the tyrants and the Const was and is directed towards the sovereigns of the conquered land.

I choose to embrace the similarities. Such as the Constitution directly addresses the grievances in the Declaration. See the Bill of Rights. Also, the unification spirit of both documents. These documents were written 10 years apart. One at the start of a bloody war, one at the end of a bloody war. One document was written to destroy, the other written to create. The Declaration would not be meaningful without the Constitution, and the Constitution would not be meaningful with out the Declaration.

There will always be valid arguments on both sides of the federalist anti-federalist debate. We will always be trying to find the perfect balance between the two. The challenge is going to be not to swing too far in either direction. The Declaration didn't have enough structure to last beyond a successful revolt. The AoC didn't have enough power to hold the Union together to face the potential of future threats. The Constitution has been overwritten and misinterpreted giving too much power to the central government. All of these issue get corrected over time by a representative population that understands and embraces the root of freedom and liberty for all.

Pitting the Declaration against the Constitution is a sad and ineffective way of attempting to wake up more people if that is the intent of your initial statement. I would be ok if you would say something along the lines of, the Constitution is not being properly applied to address our current problems. Or the Constitution has been misinterpreted and abused and that is why we have an overbearing government.

But calling it a failure out of the box? That is like saying that the people, your forefathers and mine, had no idea what to do after they won their independence. I beg to differ. I think they did the best they could do. Was is good enough for our standards (ha ha) today? Apparently not. But were we adequately warned? Yes. Do we have a road map? Yes. Is the Constitution useful for us today even in the most pessimist view? Yes. If you disagree, then I guess we will have to overlook that to get along. But if you agree, then you'd be contradicting yourself by calling it a representation of failure.

That is my opinion and I would hope that if you are serious about making this movement happen, then you would at the very least keep those contradictions in check while you sort them out. In other words, don't go around telling American's who still believe everything is ok that the Constitution is a failure.

Also will remind you that the early patriots appealed to the British Constitution and law and used that as a defense for their actions. No taxation without representation. The colonist revolted not because they hated being British or being ruled by Britain. The colonist revolted because they WERE British and were standing up for their rights under British law.

Look at the list of grievances again. Had the king, the parliament, and the rulers in general followed their own rules and applied those rules to the free born British citizens residing in the American colonies then the Declaration would have never been written, and the revolution never fought. Well we all know history in that regard, yet the fact remains, the Patriots were fighting for their rights that the British Bill of Rights 1689 protected.

The argument of the colonist was never against the monarchy in and of itself. The argument was always about the monarchy's failure to recognize and protect the rights of the colonists being Free Born British subjects UNDER the crown, common law, and parliament. IN that order. The Constitution of the United States takes it one step further by simply changing the order and restructuring parliament (congress).

We could make the argument that the only law should be common law, but then we go right back to the anarchy debate. It would be difficult to argue that the advances of the various empires the world has know, Roman, British, and now American, would have happened under a simple common law. The complexity of growing populations requires some structure to be designed for adherence to common law.

I digress. Back to the point. Taking these arguments of a failed constitution back 200 years, compels a free thinker to look even further back into the history of societies and governments. By saying that the most successful of the "free and liberated government structures" is a failure is nearly synonymous to saying that the ideas of freedom and liberty are also of failure, and clearly this is not the case in America today, as bad as it is in our own lifetimes.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

no you were stating opinion, which like I said, I really appreciate. My family came to America via several ways. I trace my roots threw Ellis Island in the late 1800's and through the Savannah and Augusta/N. Augusta Georgia/S.C. in the mid 1700's.

I too have a strong family tradition which holds up the Constitution as an example of the legal document used preserve the freedom and liberty that the Declaration wrestled away from the Crown.

You seem to think that the Constitution was DOA. What then would you recommend to our forefathers with the benefit of 200 years of hindsight?

I am not saying that it couldn't haven't been better, but clearly it could have and WAS much much worse prior to the acceptance of the Constitution as the legal document that defined our nation.

And look, you came out calling people that do not see the Constitution as "failure" dense and thick headed. So don't go getting all pissed off because I call you pompous and arrogant.

These are my opinions, just as they are your opinions. I challenge this opinion because I think all it does at best is upset people who have a different opinion and at worse it causes rifts between people who may share common roots.

My forefathers successfully argued that outlawing slavery should be taken out of the declaration. Your forefathers apparently agreed. Neither were correct, but that is what it took to make a unified stance against the Crown. Later on, the Constitution eventually corrected this mistake through due process of law and representation that the Declaration of Independence did not provide for, but the Constitution did. That is only one contrasting point that can be made.

Both the Declaration and the Constitution are founding documents. There are many differences between the two. The primary difference is that the Dec was addressed to the tyrants and the Const was and is directed towards the sovereigns of the conquered land.

I choose to embrace the similarities. Such as the Constitution directly addresses the grievances in the Declaration. See the Bill of Rights. Also, the unification spirit of both documents. These documents were written 10 years apart. One at the start of a bloody war, one at the end of a bloody war. One document was written to destroy, the other written to create. The Declaration would not be meaningful without the Constitution, and the Constitution would not be meaningful with out the Declaration.

There will always be valid arguments on both sides of the federalist anti-federalist debate. We will always be trying to find the perfect balance between the two. The challenge is going to be not to swing too far in either direction. The Declaration didn't have enough structure to last beyond a successful revolt. The AoC didn't have enough power to hold the Union together to face the potential of future threats. The Constitution has been overwritten and misinterpreted giving too much power to the central government. All of these issue get corrected over time by a representative population that understands and embraces the root of freedom and liberty for all.

Pitting the Declaration against the Constitution is a sad and ineffective way of attempting to wake up more people if that is the intent of your initial statement. I would be ok if you would say something along the lines of, the Constitution is not being properly applied to address our current problems. Or the Constitution has been misinterpreted and abused and that is why we have an overbearing government.

But calling it a failure out of the box? That is like saying that the people, your forefathers and mine, had no idea what to do after they won their independence. I beg to differ. I think they did the best they could do. Was is good enough for our standards (ha ha) today? Apparently not. But were we adequately warned? Yes. Do we have a road map? Yes. Is the Constitution useful for us today even in the most pessimist view? Yes. If you disagree, then I guess we will have to overlook that to get along. But if you agree, then you'd be contradicting yourself by calling it a representation of failure.

That is my opinion and I would hope that if you are serious about making this movement happen, then you would at the very least keep those contradictions in check while you sort them out. In other words, don't go around telling American's who still believe everything is ok that the Constitution is a failure.

Also will remind you that the early patriots appealed to the British Constitution and law and used that as a defense for their actions. No taxation without representation. The colonist revolted not because they hated being British or being ruled by Britain. The colonist revolted because they WERE British and were standing up for their rights under British law.

Look at the list of grievances again. Had the king, the parliament, and the rulers in general followed their own rules and applied those rules to the free born British citizens residing in the American colonies then the Declaration would have never been written, and the revolution never fought. Well we all know history in that regard, yet the fact remains, the Patriots were fighting for their rights that the British Bill of Rights 1689 protected.

The argument of the colonist was never against the monarchy in and of itself. The argument was always about the monarchy's failure to recognize and protect the rights of the colonists being Free Born British subjects UNDER the crown, common law, and parliament. IN that order. The Constitution of the United States takes it one step further by simply changing the order and restructuring parliament (congress).

We could make the argument that the only law should be common law, but then we go right back to the anarchy debate. It would be difficult to argue that the advances of the various empires the world has know, Roman, British, and now American, would have happened under a simple common law. The complexity of growing populations requires some structure to be designed for adherence to common law.

I digress. Back to the point. Taking these arguments of a failed constitution back 200 years, compels a free thinker to look even further back into the history of societies and governments. By saying that the most successful of the "free and liberated government structures" is a failure is nearly synonymous to saying that the ideas of freedom and liberty are also of failure, and clearly this is not the case in America today, as bad as it is in our own lifetimes.

great post!

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd like the articles of confederation, but that isn't what heavenlyboy is advocating. <IMHO>

I advocate the AoC as an intermediary step to stateless society, as I've stated numerous times in these threads. (you should know this by now, considering how long you've been here)

 

[tremendoustie]

no you were stating opinion, which like I said, I really appreciate. My family came to America via several ways. I trace my roots threw Ellis Island in the late 1800's and through the Savannah and Augusta/N. Augusta Georgia/S.C. in the mid 1700's.

I too have a strong family tradition which holds up the Constitution as an example of the legal document used preserve the freedom and liberty that the Declaration wrestled away from the Crown.

You seem to think that the Constitution was DOA. What then would you recommend to our forefathers with the benefit of 200 years of hindsight?

I am not saying that it couldn't haven't been better, but clearly it could have and WAS much much worse prior to the acceptance of the Constitution as the legal document that defined our nation.

And look, you came out calling people that do not see the Constitution as "failure" dense and thick headed. So don't go getting all pissed off because I call you pompous and arrogant.

These are my opinions, just as they are your opinions. I challenge this opinion because I think all it does at best is upset people who have a different opinion and at worse it causes rifts between people who may share common roots.

My forefathers successfully argued that outlawing slavery should be taken out of the declaration. Your forefathers apparently agreed. Neither were correct, but that is what it took to make a unified stance against the Crown. Later on, the Constitution eventually corrected this mistake through due process of law and representation that the Declaration of Independence did not provide for, but the Constitution did. That is only one contrasting point that can be made.

Both the Declaration and the Constitution are founding documents. There are many differences between the two. The primary difference is that the Dec was addressed to the tyrants and the Const was and is directed towards the sovereigns of the conquered land.

I choose to embrace the similarities. Such as the Constitution directly addresses the grievances in the Declaration. See the Bill of Rights. Also, the unification spirit of both documents. These documents were written 10 years apart. One at the start of a bloody war, one at the end of a bloody war. One document was written to destroy, the other written to create. The Declaration would not be meaningful without the Constitution, and the Constitution would not be meaningful with out the Declaration.

There will always be valid arguments on both sides of the federalist anti-federalist debate. We will always be trying to find the perfect balance between the two. The challenge is going to be not to swing too far in either direction. The Declaration didn't have enough structure to last beyond a successful revolt. The AoC didn't have enough power to hold the Union together to face the potential of future threats. The Constitution has been overwritten and misinterpreted giving too much power to the central government. All of these issue get corrected over time by a representative population that understands and embraces the root of freedom and liberty for all.

Pitting the Declaration against the Constitution is a sad and ineffective way of attempting to wake up more people if that is the intent of your initial statement. I would be ok if you would say something along the lines of, the Constitution is not being properly applied to address our current problems. Or the Constitution has been misinterpreted and abused and that is why we have an overbearing government.

But calling it a failure out of the box? That is like saying that the people, your forefathers and mine, had no idea what to do after they won their independence. I beg to differ. I think they did the best they could do. Was is good enough for our standards (ha ha) today? Apparently not. But were we adequately warned? Yes. Do we have a road map? Yes. Is the Constitution useful for us today even in the most pessimist view? Yes. If you disagree, then I guess we will have to overlook that to get along. But if you agree, then you'd be contradicting yourself by calling it a representation of failure.

That is my opinion and I would hope that if you are serious about making this movement happen, then you would at the very least keep those contradictions in check while you sort them out. In other words, don't go around telling American's who still believe everything is ok that the Constitution is a failure.

Also will remind you that the early patriots appealed to the British Constitution and law and used that as a defense for their actions. No taxation without representation. The colonist revolted not because they hated being British or being ruled by Britain. The colonist revolted because they WERE British and were standing up for their rights under British law.

Look at the list of grievances again. Had the king, the parliament, and the rulers in general followed their own rules and applied those rules to the free born British citizens residing in the American colonies then the Declaration would have never been written, and the revolution never fought. Well we all know history in that regard, yet the fact remains, the Patriots were fighting for their rights that the British Bill of Rights 1689 protected.

The argument of the colonist was never against the monarchy in and of itself. The argument was always about the monarchy's failure to recognize and protect the rights of the colonists being Free Born British subjects UNDER the crown, common law, and parliament. IN that order. The Constitution of the United States takes it one step further by simply changing the order and restructuring parliament (congress).

We could make the argument that the only law should be common law, but then we go right back to the anarchy debate. It would be difficult to argue that the advances of the various empires the world has know, Roman, British, and now American, would have happened under a simple common law. The complexity of growing populations requires some structure to be designed for adherence to common law.

I digress. Back to the point. Taking these arguments of a failed constitution back 200 years, compels a free thinker to look even further back into the history of societies and governments. By saying that the most successful of the "free and liberated government structures" is a failure is nearly synonymous to saying that the ideas of freedom and liberty are also of failure, and clearly this is not the case in America today, as bad as it is in our own lifetimes.

I think the constitution was better than any founding document or system of government that had come before, in any other nation. I don't think it was better than the AoC, or just the natural law, but I'm not sure the understanding of the people about the ideas of liberty was great enough at that time to sustain a truly free society anyway.

The entire reform, combining the revolution and the Constitution, represented a huge step forward for liberty. Are fluorescent bulbs better than incandescent? Yes. Does that mean I fault Edison for not discovering fluorescent bulbs? No, of course not. In fact, if he had not discovered incandescent bulbs, we would probably not have fluorescents today. To an extent, that's how I feel about the constitution. The constitution is to liberty as incandescent bulbs are to artificial light, and natural rights would be fluorescent, or halogen. Of course, what we've got now is more like a Christmas light buried under a king sized woolen blanket.

I commend you on your post, by the way. A real discussion takes more time and thought, but is far better than blurting "that doesn't sound like the mission statement ... get out!". :o

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think the constitution was better than any founding document or system of government that had come before, in any other nation. I don't think it was better than the AoC, or just the natural law, but I'm not sure the understanding of the people about the ideas of liberty was great enough at that time to sustain a truly free society anyway.

The entire reform, combining the revolution and the Constitution, represented a huge step forward for liberty. Are fluorescent bulbs better than incandescent? Yes. Does that mean I fault Edison for not discovering fluorescent bulbs? No, of course not. In fact, if he had not discovered incandescent bulbs, we would probably not have fluorescents today. To an extent, that's how I feel about the constitution. The constitution is to liberty as incandescent bulbs are to artificial light, and natural rights would be fluorescent, or halogen. Of course, what we've got now is more like a Christmas light buried under a king sized woolen blanket.

I commend you on your post, by the way. A real discussion takes more time and thought, but is far better than blurting "that doesn't sound like the mission statement ... get out!". :o

I wouldn't mind the Constitution so much, if it wasn't a vague piece of paper, that allows unlimited Government growth. Taxes, Credit, etc. Monetary Policy is the heart of a nation. Now, if the Constitution had enumerated secession, then my whole qualms with the ideal would be totally smashed. Even if it was limited to State Secession, not individual. Hey, if people want to live under the Constitution, by all means go for it! Just don't force everyone under that system.

I also agree with you Tremend. The Constitution was a stepping stone, now it's time to take the next step.

PS: I still contend the Declaration of Independance is the most beautiful piece of documentation ever conjured. It is simply exquisite. Thomas Jefferson, you are one for the eons.

 

[federalistnp]

The problem of big government now is not the failure of the Constitution, but in stead the abuse of it by power hungry ideologues. The constitution can not if followed allow despotism or a military autocracy.

Show me a case where this has happened and we will most likely be facing a breach of constitutional law.

Hamilton was not the only author or only Federalist but I do think he is deserving of respect and I am not glad for his death. We also have James Madison and John Adams who was a Federalist and very different from Hamilton.

 

[tremendoustie]

The problem of big government now is not the failure of the Constitution, but in stead the abuse of it by power hungry ideologues. The constitution can not if followed allow despotism or a military autocracy.

Show me a case where this has happened and we will most likely be facing a breach of constitutional law.

Hamilton was not the only author or only Federalist but I do think he is deserving of respect and I am not glad for his death. We also have James Madison and John Adams who was a Federalist and very different from Hamilton.

The constitution permits extortion of money from innocents (taxes), slavery (the draft), and the use of force to interfere with free and voluntary trade between individuals. These things are fundamentally immoral.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The constitution permits extortion of money from innocents (taxes), slavery (the draft), and the use of force to interfere with free and voluntary trade between individuals. These things are fundamentally immoral.

+1776 The government has been a lawless anarchy within an ordered society since even before Shay's Rebellion. I foresee that the archists' dreams of minarchist constitutional government will turn out to be more wishful thinking from utopian political philosophers.

 

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

You seem young, so I'll forgive you your ignorance on this issue.

I like the Constitution as a temporary means to an end-that is, toward individual freedom and the elimination of the State. I also prefer the Articles of Confederation. I don't worship Jefferson, but I like him for such things as the DoI-I don't approve of the Louisiana purchase because it was made with stolen loot. (the DoI is a FAR greater intellectual/philosophical achievement than the CONstitution, I assure you)

The Louisiana Purchase was a bad idea too, as the territory should have been settled and developed by entrepreneurs. (further reading-When Did the Trouble Start? ), Jefferson's Folly

I am glad that Burr killed Hamiliton, and you should be too-Hamilton betrayed the Revolutionaries by creating a massive central government when the Federalists were only supposed to amend the AoC. Had Hamilton been shot or otherwise removed sooner, we would be free now and not fighting against government tyranny.

Suggested reading- "Hamilton's Curse" by DiLorenzo, What Hamilton Has Wrought, Hamilton's Curse and the Death of the Dollar Standard

Patrick Henry: Enemy of the State

The reason I still occasionally come here is for articles and there are a few good contributors left I like to see.

~HB34~

Frankly,

I think you are full of shit.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Frankly,

I think you are full of shit.

I think you're full of shit, too. So? I have more empirical evidence on my side than you do.

 

[CCTelander]

I think you're full of shit, too. So? I have more empirical evidence on my side than you do.

I agree with you, but since when have facts and evidence actually mattered? At least to most people they almost never do. The overwhelming majority of people make decisions based upon emotion. Then, if they're at all inclined that way, they use facts and reason to validate decisions already made.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree with you, but since when have facts and evidence actually mattered? At least to most people they almost never do. The overwhelming majority of people make decisions based upon emotion. Then, if they're at all inclined that way, they use facts and reason to validate decisions already made.

Thanks. You're right-this is the big problem with democracy and republics: the worst always end up on top because they can most easily buy off and/or appeal to the greed and other base instincts of the majority of voters.