Skip to comments.The Founders Would Not Be Thankful For These 10 Things
Posted on 11/28/2013 2:52:40 PM PST by Kaslin
The principles America was founded on have paved the way for the freedoms and privileges each citizen is thankful for today. At the heart of conservatism, is the recognition that many of these founding ideals are worth fighting to preserve.
In the words of John Quincy Adams: "Posterity--you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
So in the spirit of preserving todays blessings for tomorrows Americans, lets take a look at ten things the Founding Fathers would be fighting against in the 21st century.
1. President Obamas Power Grabs
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson
2. Increased Taxation
The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. James Madison
3. Adult Children
Congratulations, 26-year-olds today can now stay on their parents health insurance and prolong adolescence. By the age of 26, George Washington had already worked as an official surveyor for Virginia, fought in the French and Indian War and climbed to the rank of Colonel.
4. Breakdown of the Family
Marriage is an institution, which may properly be deemed to arise from the law of nature. It distributes the whole of society into families, and creates a permanent union of interests, and a mutual guardianship of the same. It binds children by indissoluble ties, and adds new securities to the good order of society, by connecting the happiness of the whole family with the good behavior of all. It furnishes additional motives for honest industry and economy in private life, and for a deeper love of the country of our birth. - Joseph Story
5. Foreign Involvement
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. -George Washington
6. Chicagos Gun Laws
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason
7. Religious Intolerance
The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. -James Madison
8. Direct Election of Senators
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." U.S. Constitution Article I, section 3.
9. The National Debt
No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of the time more valuable. -George Washington
10. The Federal Reserve
"Paper is poverty...it is only the ghost of money, and not money. -Thomas Jefferson
Sad how far we’ve come from the Founding principles of America.
#8 proved unworkable, which is why it was rightfully amended via the Constitution.
All true, but as a friend said in an email earlier today:
“The great thing about America is that even with the present people in charge mucking up every conceivable thing we stand for, we are still Americans and have a lot to be thankful for. It can be worse. and it appears it will get worse,
but as long as we honor the One who the founders based it all on, we will persevere and will overcome.”
"Rightfully" my aunt fanny.
The 17th amendment is directly responsible for worthless, lifetime politicians like McCain, Schumer, Boxer, Kennedy, etc.
We'd be much better off without it.
Nonsense. You want unaccountable ? Return to having politicians electing politicians. That’s why the people demanded it be changed.
The founding fathers knew what they were doing
They weren’t infallible. After all, they still saddled us with slavery enshrined into law instead of abolishing it at the start.
Number 10 is the root cause of the first nine.
What was “unworkable” about it? Do you really think that popular elections for senators fixed some fundamental problem?
The Fed empowers the expansionary politicians who created it and the expansion of the federal government leads to the breakdown of all other parts of society.
How about having senators representing the interests of their individual states as a check on growing federal power?
The unworkable part is self-evident. Politicians electing politicians instead of the people. It was a high-minded notion which was corrupt in practice.
Would you feel better having the chance of defeating Boxer and Feinstein go from 40% to 0% by putting your full and complete faith in the corrupt, statist and Stalinist California legislature ? That’s what repeal will get you.
Disagree. This anti-17th schtick has been beaten to death.
ROFL. Who elects the politicians to the state legislature then? City and county politicians?
The 17th should be repealed, along with the 16th.
Hey, those corrupt, statist, and Stalinist CA legislators are just taking orders from the corrupt, statist, and Stalinist CA morons.
It wasn't changed via the amendment process outlined in the Constitution?
**3. Adult Children
Congratulations, 26-year-olds today can now stay on their parents health insurance and prolong adolescence. By the age of 26, George Washington had already worked as an official surveyor for Virginia, fought in the French and Indian War and climbed to the rank of Colonel. **
My kids were all on their own when they entered college. What gives?
Fortunately, the one thing you cannot gerrymander is a U.S. Senate seat. The same cannot be said for state legislators. I don’t want politicians electing politicians to “represent” me, especially when neither do. Repealing the 17th is the ultimate in statist politician empowerment.
Thank you for making my point. Puppets or puppetmasters, and repealing the 17th removes one of the last vestiges of power for the people and makes it a complete statist circlejerk.
Isn’t it amazing that the Founders would have put in such a “statist circlejerk” when they wrote the Constitution? It’s almost as if they had no idea what they were doing.
Basically, you’re OK with a Senator simply being a statewide version of a Congresscritter.
You are aware that the Founders provided for an Amendment process for things that didn’t work out or needed changing ? Hence why the 17th was ratified. Senators being elected by state legislators wasn’t working.
Yes and no. Would I like there to be some high-minded ideal of Senators explicitly representing state interests ? Yes. But repeal of the 17th won’t bring us Henry Clays or John C. Calhouns again. You have a better shot with getting such a person elected by the popular vote than you ever would by the legislators (Ted Cruz a premier example of that, as had the legislature of TX elected a Senator, there’d be the RINO David Dewhurst in his stead). They’d only be interested in one thing, not protecting the states interests vis a vis the Constitution, but protecting and increasing their share of pork.
Ping for later
I didn't say that.
I just said it wasn't right.
Roe vs Wade was "Constitutionally" decided as well, as was John Roberts' Obamacare decision. (I know there's a difference between judicial decisions and Constitutional amendments....both, however, are guided by the Constitution.)
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Thomas Jefferson
Now we’ve found the nugget of your misperception, that Senators were invented to represent you. Under the original Constitution, they were to represent the states in order to be a source of further balance of power. I’d recommend a read of Mark Levin’s latest book.
Thank you, there’s no misperception on my part. I’m well aware of what the Senators were supposed to represent and what they ended up representing, which was far removed from the original intent. Hence why the 17th was ratified.
Except it was right. You’re also confusing a rightfully amended Constitution with misrulings on the part of the Supreme Court.
How, in your opinion, does the direct election of senators benefit the republic?
How, in your opinion, does re-empowering politicians to elect Senators benefit the republic (especially those in states that have zero percent chance of ever electing a non-Marxist, i.e. every Democrat state) ?
I have yet to get a direct answer from the anti-17thers who think we’d magically get statesmen on par with the early republic, not only from Democrat states but from Republican states when all you’d be guaranteeing is an almost complete set of Big Porker Statists. You’d be lucky to get a Conservative at all from ANY state. Texas, under your ideal, would be sending David Dewhurst and Karl Rove. Tell me how those two would benefit the republic ?
I asked you a question first and you didn't answer.
I have yet to get an answer from you.
My legislature members serve for 4 years. If they do something I don't like, I have a chance to get rid of them every 4 years.
U.S. Senators serve for 6 years. If they do something I don't like, I have to wait 50% longer to do anything about it.
If my local legislature elects someone to the senate that I don't like, I can kick them to the curb.
I prefer to keep the control at the state level, like the federalists intended.
Would that my very Liberal sisters
would agree to read this and then
reflect on it.
They wouldn’t admit to being
influenced but, maybe, over time,
something might sink in...
I’ve already answered it.
I question your reasoning because like many anti-17thers, it remains unsound and lacks any reasoning where the dynamics of today’s politics are at. You continuously believe that by removing an amendment that addressed the issue of a FAILED experiment by the Founding Fathers (that which hoped to have Senators jealously standing up for states rights and balancing that against the federal system, which never panned out) that it will somehow work this time. You know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Again, you put your blind faith and trust in politicians. I do not. I do not want my left-wing legislators choosing my U.S. Senator when neither have either my best interests or the interests of the U.S. Constitution.
As an example, do you realize given the makeup of the Colorado legislature that you’d still have two very leftist Democrat Senators, neither of which would be in favor of anything other than a moonbat agenda, expanding federal government and getting every last $$ of pork.
I’ll remind you again that what the “federalists” wanted was based upon presumptions of how things would be expected or theorized to work (and often of compromising principles at that), not HOW they would ultimately work out for the long run. Again, they also preserved the rights of slaveholding, too. This was not infinite wisdom, but political expediency.
The first on the list would be 1000 babies being aborted every single day.
Roe v. Wade and Obamacare were not based on the Constitution at all. The former invented a “right to privacy” that just doesn’t exist and the latter deemed the power to tax to apply to the act of breathing. The 17th Amendment came about due to significant corruption in the selection of senators by state legislatures.
Maybe an imperfect solution, but it sure as hell wasn’t crammed down anyone’s throats.
Anti 17 = the need for Einsatzgruppen; these are the idiots waiting for Old Country Buffet to open so they can hurry home to “catch the Lawrence Welk program”.
You inspired this:
17th Amendment—founders wanted “States”to be represented. The people had “Congress”. The direct election process for senators was pushed by the “socialists”, “progressives”,of the time. Really early “communists”
Let’s do away with the “electoral college” system, also. Then we are NO longer a “REPUBLIC”. We become a European “Parliamentary” system, Changing Gov’ts at will. Italy’s had over 100 since WWII
Please provide or point me to the proof.
You keep using terms such as “unworkable” and “not working”. Please provide an example or two of that being the case at the time the 17th was ratified. The modern-day situations that you keep citing are quite possibly effects of having ratified it rather than reasons for doing so in the first place.
And, yes, in answer to your earlier question, I’m well aware of the amendment process. The ability to repeal mistakes is the reason that we don’t have Prohibition today. One amendment repealed an earlier mistaken one.
The loss of states rights would be appalling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.