Skip to comments.Bracing Brew (Jim Robinson Quoted)
Posted on 05/13/2010 5:46:29 AM PDT by JACKRUSSELL
...Summing up a universal Tea Party sentiment, Freerepublic.com founder Jim Robinson said at a Georgia rally, I would like to see this country go back to the Constitutionget rid of all this socialism....
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
I’d like to see this country go back to the Articles of Confederation.
“Id like to see this country go back to the Articles of Confederation.”
They knew that a "Democracy" would self destruct at that point. Some things simply do not change.
LOL. That "enumerated powers" bit always gives me a belly laugh.
What made the Articles superior to the Constitution?
Good question. The problems with the Articles are what prompted the Constitutional Convention.
What we should be doing is adhering to the United States Constitution.
...and making examples of those public official who violate their oaths to it.
Founders intent. What we have in practice is off the mark.
I don’t think that worked out too well the first time, hence the need for the Constitution.
Yep! I agree. ;-)
I would to, dont know if it will happen though.
The road to hell...
By the way, not all founders intended the same thing. The limited gubmint crowd within the Federalist party were proven wrong before the Washington admin was over. See the First Bank of the US--implied powers.
The fact that the AoC required amending does not lead inevitably to the need for what we got. To fix our problems, you have to go all the way back to that time, and do what the Philly delegates were actually tasked to do---amend the AoC. Of course that won't happen. Just sayin'.
Where the delegates had been tasked to add a few specific new powers to the national congress to fix those errors. Instead, they secretly created a consolidated national government with supreme power over the states, unlimited "implied powers", an unaccountable judiciary, etc.
The articles needed some fixing. They didn't need to be thrown out. Where we are today is the inevitable result of what the delegates in Philly wrought.
Why didn’t the Philly delegates amend the AOC? That’s the real question...
If you were at Philly in 1787, how would you have specifically improved the Articles?
That is simply ridiculous and demonstrates a severe lack of common sense....not to mention basic history.
By the time the delegates met in Philly, Hamilton and Madison had already drafted some plans to use as a starting point, and had been working the politics behind the scenes. This was their golden opportunity to create a consolidated government and they seized the moment.
It was typical government expansion really. They went beyond their mandate. They did it in secret. Then they used the press to convince the public everything was fine.
Searching for substance in your post. None found.
The word is government...
Sentences end with a period, not an ellipsis.
I could say the same regarding yours. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliant document that was written after seeking Divine guidance. It provided us with a wonderful way to balance power between the states and the nation as a whole. It is not perfect, but comes very close. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution has not always been adhered to.
Can you compare the Articles with the Constitution pointing out precisely why the Articles would be superior?
At the opening of the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry tried the same ruse, to challenge the legitimacy of debating the merits of the Constitution. He was politely told to sit down, and the Convention proceeded to ratify the Constitution.
If it is any consolation, Henry, like you couldn't come up with improvements to the Articles.
As with any human endeavor, they had differences of opinion. Many of those were STRONG differences, but they continued to ask God’s help and they worked conscientiously (in extreme heat) to overcome their differences in wisdom.
The Articles were no more than treaties between thirteen sovereign states, and certainly not a government. As with any treaty, they could ignore or obey the provisions at will and without penalty.
Our Constitution was the culmination of Western political philosophy, from Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas to Locke.
What other government is dedicated to secure our natural, unalienable rights, given to mankind by God?
You know it’s a great read when Robinson and Santelli are quoted in the same piece. Thanks for posting this..
Tea Party attendees, we need to be prepared to answer the Medicare/Social Security Question:
First say that these benefits should only go to people who paid into them, and not a token 5 years/$1000 per year as it is now. It should be limited to US Citizens who have paid in for 20 years or more, full time work. Second, say that you will give up your Medicare/SS when the government pays you back what you paid in for it along with the 'interest' owed the SS Trust Fund.
I see. You're one of those who think the Constitution was handed to Moses on a tablet.
Under the Constitution, we are continually harassed by an unaccountable Federal judiciary. Under the Articles this was not the case. Under the Constitution, the government is consolidated. Under the Articles, it was federal. Under the Constitution, the government has implied powers. Under the Articles, the government had expressed powers only. Under the Constitution the states cannot recall a US Senator. Under the Articles they could. I could go on.
The Articles needed some fixes, and would have needed more over time. But it was a sad day when our forefathers threw away their federal system, and replaced it with the supreme, consolidated leviathan we have today.
Well for one thing, I'd make the 2nd Amendment a heck of a lot less ambiguous, (i.e., remove the dependant clause) and include it in the Constitution itself.
“I see. You’re one of those who think the Constitution was handed to Moses on a tablet.”
Actually, you seem BLIND. ;-/
I’m serious. I’ve come across some people who actually think the Constitution was divinely inspired. I’m told that’s part of Mormon ideology. Of course there’s no debating with such a mindset.
Inspired? As per the Bible? NO....
However, I DO believe God granted wisdom to those who wrote it. They asked for that. Read some of Madison’s copious notes..
Oh my...You need to look at some of the problems engendered by the Articles.
Not me. I think they blew it. In fact I think the whole enterprise was a fool’s errand—create a part-federal, part-national government. Epic fail.
This person has a doctorate in economics? Well, he certainly doesn’t have one in history. I’m not into conspiracy theory.
The Articles needed some tweaks. A few more expressed powers. But the form was correct—a confederation of states. Once we ditched that for a national consolidated gubmint, the die was cast. Article 3 alone should have been sufficient grounds to reject their plan.
I’m not too impressed with what you think.
I repeat: You need to look at some of the problems engendered by the Articles.
i’m not at all impressed by titles nor education/indoctrination neither!
personal knowledge, now that’s something else...
The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, ‘well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward’: provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.
Excellent! I’m glad you posted it. Additionally, there is quite a bit more to consider. Consider the problems with foreign policy alone under the Articles...each state making its own treaties, etc....or interstate commerce, each state having different regulations....absolute nightmare.
Good grief .. NO!!!!
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.