Originally Posted by TSGracchus

That isn't possible, outside the context of material circumstances in which they did: an agrarian economy, a rural population, an open frontier. That last may not be essential. The first two are.

We have not had that government since the Civil War. It will never come back. It can't.

Edit: However, that doesn't mean that we're going to emerge from the current Crisis with an even-more strengthened federal government. There's a limit to that process and I believe we've reached it, at least in some areas of governance. In fact, if things go more or less the way I think they will, at the end of this upheaval we will have ceased to be a superpower, and that means that the federal government will be able to shrink in some ways -- especially those ways that are most dangerous to liberty: the military, and the national security apparatus.

The point being that at all times we have had the government that was appropriate for our material circumstances. When that ceased to be the case, a huge upheaval and crisis -- war of independence, civil war, economic meltdown -- forced us to change. It's happening again. The sixth America will be as different from the fifth as the fifth was from the fourth or the fourth from the third. But the third will not return. Ever.

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Well, there is some truth to what you say. For example, the US is not supposed to have a standing army, but I am not foolish as to propose we disband our armed forces. It is here now and we simply can't go back.

However, the US government is out of control. Spending is way out of control. I mean really, how stupid can an institution be that spends 30 million dollars sending out letters telling people to expect their stimulus checks?

You might as well have burned 30 million dollars.

Morons.

Originally Posted by Chocobot

This Madison fellow, is it his country?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Do we still live in a country of individual freedom, free markets, and limited govt. That was the country Madison designed.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

no, and we never did. you have simple bought into a mythologized version of the past.

can you name one primary source document from madison? can you evaluate to what extent his ideas won, in the constitution? in the functioning of this society?

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

It wasn't even his country, or his Constitution, when he was alive. His influence, admittedly substantial, is exaggerated by those who wish we could still live by his political ideas.

Originally Posted by Chocobot

Indeed.

Seems strange to give 300+ years of history, and the varied wishes of 300+ million people over to the wishes of this long dead man.

It seems our friends Jviehe and Norrin are barking at the moon.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

they are just examples of two minds being completely ignorant of all of the history between the myths. they know the myths, they just don't know the reality.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

therefore, they are hung up on things like madison, one of 50 'founding fathers.'

Originally Posted by Eagle88

Although Hamilton (as was pointed out by Norrin) was for a less limited state, I dare say even he would reel back in terror at what we have done with the federal government.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Hardly. Have you seen Hamilton's proposed constitution that he submitted to the convention in Philadelphia? He wanted a lifetime president with an absolute, non-overrideable veto, and for the states to cease to exist as independent governments and become subordinate arms of the federal government. His own interpretation of the general welfare clause and also the necessary and sufficient clause would have given the government carte blanche to do whatever it wanted except where it was explicitly forbidden.

But it wasn't just Hamilton. He was probably the extreme edge of the faction that became the Federalist party, that wanted a strong central government to facilitate industrializing the country. Madison and Jefferson represented the other side of the discussion, the ones that wanted a weak central government and did NOT want to industrialize. The founders were not a monolith. They had disagreements among themselves just as politicians do today. The Constitution represents a compromise. Everyone agreed that if the union was to be preserved, the central government needed to be strengthened. The dispute was over how, and how much, and whose oxen would get gored.



That's not where we disagree.

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

So, if it were up to Hamilton, there would have been no 10th amendment, no State's rights, yet this is the man you most align yourself with?

Originally Posted by htperr6565

they are just examples of two minds being completely ignorant of all of the history between the myths. they know the myths, they just don't know the reality.

therefore, they are hung up on things like madison, one of 50 'founding fathers.'

Originally Posted by Chocobot

Thats a stupid charge. These letters are effective for making sure people dont treat their cheques as junk mail. Sending emails instead would pose the same problems.

Just because its a big number it doesnt mean it wasnt a good idea.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

I've never said that. I merely use him as an example of the other side of the discussion, to show that "what the founders believed" is not fully encompassed by the words of Jefferson or Madison. I could also use John Adams or George Washington, but they didn't write any of the Federalist papers, so probably Hamilton's a better example.



If Hamilton's view was not at least twice as persuasive as YOU claim, there would not have been a president. I've never claimed he stood alone or dictated the process. Obviously the Bill of Rights shows a substantial anti-federalist sentiment.