Brian37 wrote:

Just now on MSNBC, resident republican reject, who was ousted by his own party as being nuts, Newt Gingrich wrote a book about Washington claiming he was the most responsible for creating our nation. NO he was the most responsible for winning the war. But he was one of many that wrote our Constitution.

However, like most idiots, misses context. While it may be tactically true that if he had not crossed the Delaware with his physically strained and freezing military, you could make the case that the war would have been lost.

However, what Newt failed to mention is that many speculated on making George Washinton a king, and not a republic, which to Washington's credit he flatly turned down.

Washington was responsible for winning the war, but the Declaration of Independence was NOT a law, but a letter. Our nation did not exist officially until the ink was dry on the Constitution. While lots of hands were responsible in its crafting, the person I consider most responsible, ironcally did not sign it.

We do a great disservice by focusing on Washington, which while important, equally if not more important were the words of Thomas Jefferson, even before the finalization of the Constittution.

Madison modled the First Amendment after Jefferson's Virginia Religious Freedom act.  Which demanded a no pecking order in government based on religion and a neural attitude on the subject. So winning the war was only one aspect, but not the only aspect. It would not have done us any good to win that war and set up simply another pecking order which is what they fought to escape.

Newt is smply indulging in revisionist history trying to paint the founders as monochromatic religious right wingers. For their time the founders were far more diverse in politics and religion than people like Newt would have us believe. He plays into the stupid nostalgia of the Mayflower mindset, ignoring or simply cherry picking history.

Washington won the war, but Jefferson made our Constitution what it is today.

To value a man who was ousted by his own party for being inept, to dare write a book and call himself a historian, is the same stupid mentality that causes revisionists to say we "settled" the west when the truth was that  we invaded it and took it over.

What good would that war have been if Washington had won and said "Ok, I'kk be king". What good would winning that war have done if Jefferson had not demanded religious neutrality in VA for Madison to take that secular concept and make it into law?

Newt is an incompetent baffoon and has no business pretending to be a historian. Cherry picking facts out of context does not make one a historian, much less an objective one.

I didn't see what Newt said at all and I suspect that you are completely taking him out of context. Regardless, yes it is obvious that Washington had virtually no hand in writing either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Washington as a politician was extremely passive and did not take an active role in much of anything, one of the reasons why he was the single man popular enough to gain the support to become the first president. 

Jefferson on the other hand clearly had significant influence. While a quiet man when it came to speeches and argumentation he was very radical and forceful in his writings. My question to you, is if you admire Jefferson so much, why do you ignore his words? If alive today Jefferson would no doubt be someone who would be your worst enemy, probably even higher up the list than the Koch brothers. He believed in a very small government that was extremely limited in its power. The bitter feud between Jefferson and Hamilton was precisely on the issue of how much power the federal government should have. In modern politics it is clear that Hamilton's side has won and those of us on Jefferson's side are portrayed as radicals. Even a shallow reading of Jefferson's writings should be enough to realize that Jefferson would be appalled at the size and power of our current federal government.  

Brian37 wrote:

How could you come so close to bringing me to orgasim by recognizing Jefferson's influance but then pull the states rights vs federal crap?

 

States rights vs. federal was a HUGE issue during Jefferson's days, to ignore his views on the subject is to ignore who he was as one of the finest political writers of all time.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Please tell me why if it was always about states rights why would a federal Constitution be written in the first place?

Because it was in the interests of the states to band together for economic and military reasons. Jefferson fought very hard to limit the amount of power granted to the federal government and the Constitution as written was a compromise and gave ground in several areas to the federalists. How much power the federal government should have vs the states was one of the reasons that Jefferson and Hamilton absolutely hated each other and the main disagreement between the two major political parties at the time- the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (no association with either the Democrats or Republicans of today). The Federalists supported a strong central government and the Democratic-Republicans supported a Republican form of government (ie, very strong state governments tied loosely with a weak federal government) Jefferson was strongly against a powerful federal government and did everything he could to make it as weak as possible.

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

Jefferson with states was the same on issues of religion. IT DEPENDED. He was neither for tyranny of the majority over the minority or vice versa.

If it were all about states rights for Jefferson, then why successfully convince a Baptist majority prior to the Constitution to inact the Virgina Religious Freedom act. The interest of the majority of Baptist in that state at that time, would have gone against the Baptist state rights.

Read Virginia Religious Freedom Act. There was no "Baptist State" there was a "State of Virginia" and Jefferson saw himself as a Virginian first (as many people associated with their state more strongly than as "American" in those days. In fact, it wasn't until after the Civil War that most people started to regard themselves as "American" as opposed to primarily identifying as citizens of their state.)

 

Brian37 wrote:

Jefferson convinced the state of Virginia that Baptists DID NOT hold special rights over all others, PRIOR to the ratification of the Constitution.

And what does that have to do with the federal vs. state issue? 

 

Jefferson made numerous arguments for a very restricted and limited federal government. One such example is his argument against establishing a National Bank (which we now have called the Federal Reserve which you are considered an extreme right wing radical for suggesting we eliminate it) 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

 

15 Feb. 1791Papers 19:275--80

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes, among other things

 

1. to form the subscribers into a Corporation.

 

2. to enable them, in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.1

 

3. to make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage.

 

4. to transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors: and so far changes the course of Descents.

 

5. to put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

 

6. to transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line: and so far is against the laws of Distribution.

 

7. to give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority: and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.

 

8. to communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the states: for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the controul of the state legislatures; and so, probably they will be construed.

 

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that "all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people" [XIIth. Amendmt.]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless feild of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

Note that in modern law the 10th Amendment is pretty much ignored. No significant Supreme Court case in recent years has taken notice of it. 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

The incorporation of a bank, and other powers assumed by this bill have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution.

So why can't Congress incorporate a bank? Because it is a bad idea? Because it hurts the country? No. According to Jefferson it can't do it because it wasn't granted that power by the Constitution. 

So what powers did Jefferson believe Congress does have?

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

I. They are not among the powers specially enumerated, for these are

 

1. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the U.S. But no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, it's origination in the Senate would condemn it by the constitution.

 

2. "to borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money, nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill, first to lend them two millions, and then borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

Ok, government can tax and borrow money- check.

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

3. "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank creates a subject of commerce in it's bills: so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines. Yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To erect a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides; if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to it's external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution, does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a state (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remains exclusively with it's own legislature; but to it's external commerce only, that is to say, it's commerce with another state, or with foreign nations or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a "regulation of trade," but as "productive of considerable advantage to trade."

Here we can see that Jefferson took a much narrower view of the commerce clause than is commonly accepted in modern jurisprudence. He didn't think the federal government had any power to regulate commerce that occurred between citizen and citizen (say for example me and you) only commerce between states and with foreign nations. (For example, Congress could regulate if a state decided to charge import or export taxes) Today, the commerce clause is commonly interpreted to regulate any form of commerce that could potentially cross state lines even if it never does. For example, the federal government has decided it is ok to regulate health insurance even though it is actually illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines.

 

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.

 

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following.

 

1. "To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means, was rejected as an end, by the Convention which formed the constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons of rejection urged in debate was that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on that subject adverse to the reception of the constitution.

Again, we see a much narrower interpretation of the "general welfare" clause than is commonly accepted. Note he says specifically that it does NOT give Congress the power to "do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union". 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

2. The second general phrase is "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorised by this phrase.

Here he argues that since the law is not necessary, it is not authorized. How many laws do we have today that are not necessary to fulfill any of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

It has been much urged that a bank will give great facility, or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the constitution allows only the means which are "necessary" not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for [there] is no one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience, in some way or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one phrase as before observed. Therefore it was that the constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of the power would be nugatory.

IOW, just because you can make an argument that your law is good or convenient is not sufficient to justify federal action. Jefferson stated the same thing numerous times throughout his life. It is obvious that he believed that even in cases where it could be argued that federal action was more efficient or better than state action, it was better for the power to be left to the state. 

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

But let us examine this convenience, and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3. states the only general convenience to be the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the states and the treasury. (For I pass over the increase of circulating medium ascribed to it as a merit, and which, according to my ideas of paper money is clearly a demerit.) Every state will have to pay a sum of tax-money into the treasury: and the treasury will have to pay, in every state, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that state. In most of the states there will still be a surplus of tax-money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each state may be made by treasury-orders on the state collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he has collected in his state, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the state. If there be a balance of commerce in favour of that state against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes but in the form of money. Treasury orders then and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank: and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.

 

Perhaps indeed bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience, cannot constitute the necessity which the constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.

 

Besides; the existing banks will without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency: and the more favourable, as there will be a competition among them for it: whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia, I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any state collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done without this assumption; therefore it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

 

It may be said that a bank, whose bills would have a currency all over the states, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single state. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.

 

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorised to break down the most antient and fundamental laws of the several states, such as those against Mortmain, the laws of alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostration of laws which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry the constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the state-governments for the slightest convenience to theirs?

 

The Negative of the President is the shield provided by the constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature 1. the rights of the Executive 2. of the Judiciary 3. of the states and state legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the states and is consequently one of those intended by the constitution to be placed under his protection.

 

It must be added however, that unless the President's mind on a view of every thing which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorised by the constitution, if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favour of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s10.html

 

Even among the founders Thomas Jefferson was a radical and spent his political life fighting for more powerful state governments and a less powerful federal government. And, as you pointed out, even at the state level he fought for a restrained government that did not meddle with religion or business, nor endorsed a religion or business. And consider that Jefferson was a radical states rights supporter at a time when states were much more powerful than they are now. If Jefferson were running for office today, there is no question that you would be smearing him all over the place. He was as radical if not more radical than me. He truly believed it would be necessary from time to time to start killing government officials and overthrow the feds when they got too powerful. I think it is quite plausible that if the man were alive today he would be in a militia out in Montana planning on how to overthrow the government- a point I haven't gotten to yet.  

 

 

 

 

 

Even among the founders Thomas Jefferson was a radical and spent his political life fighting for more powerful state governments and a less powerful federal government. And, as you pointed out, even at the state level he fought for a restrained government that did not meddle with religion or business, nor endorsed a religion or business. And consider that Jefferson was a radical states rights supporter at a time when states were much more powerful than they are now. If Jefferson were running for office today, there is no question that you would be smearing him all over the place. He was as radical if not more radical than me. He truly believed it would be necessary from time to time to start killing government officials and overthrow the feds when they got too powerful

fought for a restrained government that did not meddle with religion or business, nor endorsed a religion or business.

You an make lots of cases for his positions, but those positions were of his time. But considering how retrospect he was and complex in thought he was, he most certainly would not advocate what he might have at the time if alive today.

He also supported the French Revolution, certainly not the outcome. But he basically saw centralized wealth and centralized power abuse the majority of citizenry of France. No different than the abusive wealth of the King.

The plutocracy we have today is no different, instead of one nobility with weath abusing all others, you have 1% abusing all others, not as a conspiracy, but as a climate. States rights cannot work right  now under this climate break that monopoly, all it would do is set up smaller centralized state plutocracies. Instead of one king you simply would have state kings(meaning centeralized wealth in the hands of the few)

Wealth is not above creating tyranny. The king was a wealthy tyrant. The tyranny today isn't one person, but the ignorance of the climate all of us live in. States rights will not fix that, just split it up into smaller corosive climates.

Everything sounds nice on paper, but without the conditions to exist, something has to step in to correct it. Much like safety laws with cars and seatbelts are a result of changing conditions.

I am proud of the humility of GM and JEEP to be humble enough to accept our help and reverse the trend to move everything overseas. If our economic climates both on the federal level and state level did that, and had not gone down the exploding pay gap level it has for the past 30 years, I have no doubt that "less government" could work. But right now the only thing he voters who make the bulk of demand can do is use that same voting booth to correct things.

 

Brian37 wrote:

First off THAT WAS THEN, secondly Jefferson unlike you, valued questioning and even if he advocated for states rights as much as you say here, he would not stagnate when things change. There would be no supremacy clause and while never used, there is a review clause in the Constitituion that every so often you review the entire thing to see if it needed revision. Why put a review clause in the Constitution if you wanted things to always remain the same?

 

He may have had the mentality you say, but unlike you I don't think, if alive today would be stuck in the past and the entire Constitution SMACKS with the smell of CASE BY CASE in terms of no absolutes.

 

 

Why provide for constitutional amendments? Because they all knew the Constitution wasn't perfect. One particular example relevant to Jefferson is that he supported the eventual abolition of slavery so that is one area he most likely would have supported amending the Constitution.

What is very clear, is that he did not support the idea of using changes in judicial interpretation to change the meaning of the Constitution and he also favored a very narrow interpretation. So he may or may not have supported a constitutional amendment making providing health care an enumerated power, supporting such a law without amending the constitution first would have been very inconsistent with his writings.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

If it was always about states rights there would be no reason for a federal government at all, and long term that government has to change with conditions and as such cannot be treated in terms of absolutes. It is unwise to make it all federal or all state. Otherwise we would stagnate in many of the horrible things once propped up by "states rights".

That is why the Constitution lays out very specifically what areas are under federal control. It isn't all or nothing- there is a specific list in the Constitution of what the federal government can do and it also says that when it does those things, it is superior to the states. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

For a man who DIED BROKE AND IN DEPT, you have lots of nerve to talk about how he thought it was all about states rights and making personal wealth the only think that mattered in life. He did not write that just to protect big money. He got burned by big money.

What the fuck does money have anything to do with the issue? Of course he wasn't writing to protect big money, Jefferson's main goal was individual liberty. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

States rights for him back then was political like any politician does today in trying to get votes. But the Constitution itself did not preclude the rights of future people who saught to use it, and ONLY the supremacy clause allows the "petition the government for a redress of grievance" to overide states rights when a successful case is made that ones individual rights are being violated, DISPITE what a majority might want at the time.

 

EVEN Jefferson would say "yea, I lean toward states rights, but that cannot be an absolute".

 

Oh? So Jefferson was just a political whore looking for votes? 

"lean toward states rights"? lol try reading the Principles of '98 http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm

of course, I'm sure Jefferson didn't really mean what he said. Probably just whoring for votes. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A BAN ON ABSOLUTES! It is a demand to take everything case by case and be willing to change and adapt.

No it isn't. The Constitution is quite absolute in listing what the roles of each branch of government are. It also created an absolute method by which it could be changed if necessary. That method was intentionally made to be rather difficult to discourage change unless it was really important. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

And I would argue with him as well, if we are going by your premise here, that it is not always good to repeat the same thing over and over when conditions change. Saying that something works misses the point that conditions change and you have to ajust to those conditions.

STATES RIGHTS once allowed for slavery. STATES RIGHTS once prevented women from voting. I am damned glad blacks and women live under a Constittuion they can use to override the bigotry and sexism inflicted on them by STATES RIGHTS.

And on those issues constitutional amendments were passed using the approved method of the Constitution. I have no problem with that and support the results. I think one can confidently say that Jefferson would have supported the process and probably the results.

 

Brian37 wrote:

 

And STATES RIGHTS right now is preventing gays in NC from getting married. The good thing is that eventually as times change this hollow victory on the part of homophobes wont last precisely because NOTHING IS SET IN STONE AND CAN BE CHANGED.

I would support a constitutional amendment on the issue if one were offered. I would be opposed to congress passing a regular statute that changed the regulation of marriage from a state issue to a federal one. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

IT DEPENDS on the conditions. But in no way dispite the politics of their time were they thinking selfishishly about themselves and their own personal wealth or STATES RIGHTS. Many of them were open abolishionists and that alone should tell you about their intent for the future. Economics most certainly played a part in politics of their time. BUT they also knew that some things were more important than money.

 

Back then they dealt with what they had to work with, but there is too much in their words to make things absolute or restricted to stagnation. EVERYTHING thy put into the Constitution outside their personal writings became a tool for everyone and I have no doubt that they were thinking beyond the politics and voters of their time.

And even if it was all about states rights and protecting only property owners, they must have fucked up by painting those words too broadly as to appeal to others.

If they intended to stagnate it would have been simple to say "NO ONE EVER IN THE FUTURE CAN USE THIS DOCUMENT BESIDES PROPERTY OWNERS"

That was the politics of the time, but the Constitution itself dealt with a future of growing inclusion, which is the very premise and entent of the First Amendment. They knew at some point more people would want to use it to fight for their own rights.

With Washignton in a letter talking about the religion of a contractor to build MT Vernon, basically said "I don't care, just as long as they do a good job". Do you really think someone like that would if alive today want to always leave it up to the states?

The Constitution is a pendulum that swings and the default is that the individual is not thrown under the bus because of a selfish majority, thus it cannot be an absolute.

Jefferson would have been appalled at the Constitution being viewed as a pendulum that swung back and forth based on who was in political power. Read his comments on Marbury vs. Madison. The Constitution is a legal document and Jefferson believed in a very strict interpretation of it. IF you want to change the Constitution there is a system in place to do so, you don't just pass a regular law through congress and play word games to change the meaning of the Constitution. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Jefferson would be appauld today at the abuses of big money. He would clarify that while business is the backbone of society, it has no special rights to a monopoly of power. The property ownership laws were the social norm of the time, but they never precluded anyone from making the attempt to appeal to government. Even amongst property owners they saw no monopoly or wanted a monopoly.

He would be very appalled at the incestuous relationship between government and business that we see today. The solution most consistent with his arguments would be to dramatically reduce the power of the federal government so that it can't hand out money to companies like GM. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:

Even among the founders Thomas Jefferson was a radical and spent his political life fighting for more powerful state governments and a less powerful federal government. And, as you pointed out, even at the state level he fought for a restrained government that did not meddle with religion or business, nor endorsed a religion or business. And consider that Jefferson was a radical states rights supporter at a time when states were much more powerful than they are now. If Jefferson were running for office today, there is no question that you would be smearing him all over the place. He was as radical if not more radical than me. He truly believed it would be necessary from time to time to start killing government officials and overthrow the feds when they got too powerful

 

Now, you just defied your own logic in this quote which plays right into my neutral concept of it cannot be all or nothing but case by case.

Quote:

fought for a restrained government that did not meddle with religion or business, nor endorsed a religion or business.

So how is the Koch brother super pac money favoring their business not an endorsement? THE KEY WORDS IN THAT SENTANCE IS "NOR ENDORSED"

So I am doing exactly what Jefferson did, not only against a Rich King that monopolized business, but would say by vertue of NOR, in that quote, negates the clear favoritism that has been going on for both Christianity and big business.

You are trying to have it both ways. If government should not favor any religion or business, our current cliimate does not reflect that, which also bolsters my argument, if you don't want government stepping in then you have to self police. But if you dont, then others have every right to use that same government to STOP that religious and cooporate favortism.

I don't support our current government at all. I have consistently argued against using government as a tool to provide advantages to businesses. How can you say you are doing the same thing when you turn around and cheer about the GM bailouts? What is that if it isn't showing favoritism?

 

Brian37 wrote:

The Koch brothers are the poster children of favoritism. And for far too long the rest of us have allowed OUR government to pander to the likes of such merely so they can line their pockets.

Can you provide me any concrete examples of the Koch brothers supporting favoritism?

 

Brian37 wrote:

The Tea party was not anti government or even anti tax, it was a unarmed protest of not having a voice. The occupy movement wasn't anti business or anti wealth, much for the same reason, it was about not having a voice and being at the mercy of those with money and power. Just like the Colonies were at the mercy of a wealthy king.

Oh so the Tea party (Taxed Enough Already) are actually all part of OWS and were protesting the evil businessmen? Huh, they did a great job hiding it. Here I thought they were pissed off about all the government spending.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I could see Jefferson today saying "yea we need cuts", but wealth does not intitle you to bully others. I think he would say, which is what Obama is doing, fix the mess first and then from now on if you don't want us stepping in dont make a mess we have to step in.

He would point to you and say "fine, I agree that less government can work, but it cannot work when there are no rules at all" which is the climate at the top, well separate rules. We have been at the mercy of big business which has had a monopoly on politics and the party that wants to fix it cant because it is trapped by right and its pandering to abusive power.

So states rights is not more important or less important than individual rights but case by case and Jefferson WOULD BE appauled at the abuse that put us in this mess.

 

Can you find a single Jefferson quote to back up all those words you just put into his mouth? Or are you now a medium capable of channeling a dead man?

 

 

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF everything was about states rights there would be NO REASON for a Constitution. Your argument is that by breaking down big things you have more of an oportunity to prevent absolute power.

I am saying which is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that money issues were not the sole or absolute concern of Jefferson. Jefferson certainly leaned at the time to the tactic of states rights first, but you are making an argument I am not arguing.

I AM SAYING that when you take into account his views on EVERYTHING it was clear that he was first and formost an anti monopoly advocate. Otherwise why support the 97% poor of France over the 3% that controlled it at the time of his support of the French Revolution.

And I also said which you missed, at the time he may have leaned to defaulting to states rights first. But the totality of his views in context still amount to a ban on absolute power, and that would include all issues of religion and press, EVEN AT THE STATE LEVEL.

Leaning toward a prefured tactic did not change that ultimately the rights of the state vs the federal were not set in stone. Just like the First Amendment does not favor the majority over the minority or the minority over the majority.