Did the Founding Fathers Screw Up? - Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson for American Prospect

Mott the Hoople said:
http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/The Founding Fathers---Hofstadter.pdf

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Founding_Fathers'_position_on_direct_democracy

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/printthread.php?threadid=161216

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070910223725AAR3TR4

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=161216

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=161216

http://www.nifi.org/about/TheDomesticPolicyAssociationAmericanDemocratic.pdf
Click to expand...

mott, your premise on the founders not trusting the 'unwashed masses' is slightly off. that's why it threw me the way it did.

you could have better classified your statement. the founders did indeed have a distrust of the people in times of crisis. The fear that a simple majority would be enough to push extremely bad legislation due to some crisis is why a republic was founded and not a democracy. unfortunately, that's pretty much what we have now, a simple democracy, as evidenced by the patriot act and the latest 'battlefield' redefinition.

so, i'll reclarify my statement. the nation was founded on a distrust of central government. the republic was founded on the mistrust of a panicky mob.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And you're a right wing extremist who uses false patriotism, religion and bigotry to further your agenda rather then principles and ideas.

Please, tell me what makes you any more of an American then anyone else here?
Click to expand...

Now you're going to have to back up your charges. "False patriotism" is certainly interesting. Feel free to provide an example so we can have a discussion on your charges. Go for it.
 
Alias said:
Now you're going to have to back up your charges. "False patriotism" is certainly interesting. Feel free to provide an example so we can have a discussion on your charges. Go for it.
Click to expand...

he could simply point out how you like that american citizens can be arrested and detained by the US Military without charge or trial for an indefinite period of time, disregarding the 5th and 6th amendment.
 
Emperor Nero said:
Sometimes, the minority needs to be roughshod over. It's also not like this is a purely negative power. A veto can never be a purely negative power. The minority can block necessary legislation (like a budget) and use that to bargain with the majority for legislation that they want. Effectively leading to rule by the minority.
Click to expand...


The idea that the founders intended the Senate to be a super-majoritarian body is nonsense. For certain matters it was intended to be super-majoritarian and those are specified in the Constitution. For ordinary legislation and appointments, the Senate was intended to be a majority rules body.
 
Dungheap said:
The idea that the founders intended the Senate to be a super-majoritarian body is nonsense. For certain matters it was intended to be super-majoritarian and those are specified in the Constitution. For ordinary legislation and appointments, the Senate was intended to be a majority rules body.
Click to expand...

The Senate was also intended to represent the States and not the citizens, they were represented by the House. This change was made in 1913 by ratification of the 17th Amendment.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
he could simply point out how you like that american citizens can be arrested and detained by the US Military without charge or trial for an indefinite period of time, disregarding the 5th and 6th amendment.
Click to expand...

Take it up with Abe Lincoln. If it's good enough for ole Abe, it's good enough for me. You won't have a 5th and 6th amendment if the terrorists use our own system to destroy us. I suggest if you dont want to be arrested then don't hang with terrorists because we are at war. Did you forget that? Idealogues don't preserve liberty. Warriors preserve liberty.
 
Alias said:
Take it up with Abe Lincoln. If it's good enough for ole Abe, it's good enough for me. You won't have a 5th and 6th amendment if the terrorists use our own system to destroy us. I suggest if you dont want to be arrested then don't hang with terrorists because we are at war. Did you forget that? Idealogues don't preserve liberty. Warriors preserve liberty.
Click to expand...
the end justifying the means is completely unamerican. yes, lincoln is a war criminal and a traitor to the constitution.

the problem with simple minded people like you is that you think it's ok to violate the rights of a few if it makes the majority safe. the founders would have exiled you back to england.
 
Dungheap said:
And?
Click to expand...

And.... if you want to argue about what the founding fathers intended with regard to the Senate, we need to be honest about that. The Senate was supposed to be the representative body of the STATES! Do you think for one second, that the Obama Administration would be suing STATES, if the Senate still maintained its original integrity? I kind of doubt that!
 
Dixie said:
And.... if you want to argue about what the founding fathers intended with regard to the Senate, we need to be honest about that. The Senate was supposed to be the representative body of the STATES! Do you think for one second, that the Obama Administration would be suing STATES, if the Senate still maintained its original integrity? I kind of doubt that!
Click to expand...


What the founders intended is irrelevant with respect to matters that are the subject of Amendments to the Constitution. To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to require a supermajority for the passage of legislation or presidential appointments. Thus, the founders' intent is relevant thereto.
 
Dungheap said:
What the founders intended is irrelevant with respect to matters that are the subject of Amendments to the Constitution. To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to require a supermajority for the passage of legislation or presidential appointments. Thus, the founders' intent is relevant thereto.
Click to expand...

Well then you can't argue that the founding fathers intended something that wasn't a part of the Constitution at the time. You tried to claim the founding fathers intended the Senate to legislate based on majority rule most of the time, but that isn't how the founding fathers intended the Senate to function at all, the Senate was supposed to represent the state's interests, not the majority of the people. The House of Representatives was established to represent will of the people, not the Senate. Now, you can say, with passage of the 17th Amendment, the Constitution intends to allow majority rule in the Senate, but that's not what you stated. I just wanted to clarify your remarks.

And you know... it's really funny to me, whenever the Democrats are in the minority, and they successfully manage to block the majority on some piece of legislation, you all rally around this concept of how we're a republic and not a democracy, and how the system is designed to protect us against the 'mob rule' mentality.... but when it's the other way around, suddenly that's not what the founding fathers intended.
 
Dixie said:
Well then you can't argue that the founding fathers intended something that wasn't a part of the Constitution at the time. You tried to claim the founding fathers intended the Senate to legislate based on majority rule most of the time, but that isn't how the founding fathers intended the Senate to function at all, the Senate was supposed to represent the state's interests, not the majority of the people. The House of Representatives was established to represent will of the people, not the Senate. Now, you can say, with passage of the 17th Amendment, the Constitution intends to allow majority rule in the Senate, but that's not what you stated. I just wanted to clarify your remarks.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the number of votes required to pass a bill. No clarification was necessary on that score.


Dixie said:
And you know... it's really funny to me, whenever the Democrats are in the minority, and they successfully manage to block the majority on some piece of legislation, you all rally around this concept of how we're a republic and not a democracy, and how the system is designed to protect us against the 'mob rule' mentality.... but when it's the other way around, suddenly that's not what the founding fathers intended.
Click to expand...

Quote me on it.
 
Dungheap said:
I was talking about the number of votes required to pass a bill. No clarification was necessary on that score.
Quote me on it.
Click to expand...

The number of votes to pass a bill stands at 51 (technically it can be passed at 50/50 with the VP getting a tie breaker vote)

So your point?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the end justifying the means is completely unamerican. yes, lincoln is a war criminal and a traitor to the constitution.

the problem with simple minded people like you is that you think it's ok to violate the rights of a few if it makes the majority safe. the founders would have exiled you back to england.
Click to expand...

No, Lincoln is not a war criminal and a traitor. You're nuts.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
almost half the population of this country thought he was during the war.

tell us, what would YOU consider someone who ignored the constitution and violated the rights of american citizens?
Click to expand...

That's your opinion and that's fine. No problem. I have mine. No problem. I think I'll find more support for Lincoln as a great American than you will supporting Lincoln as a war criminal and a traitor.
 
Alias said:
That's your opinion and that's fine. No problem. I have mine. No problem. I think I'll find more support for Lincoln as a great American than you will supporting Lincoln as a war criminal and a traitor.
Click to expand...
you might want to reconsider how much of a TEA party person you are, unless you're the TEA party person that Dune considers the TEA party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top