The Health Insurance Mandate and the Founding Fathers

[Osborne Russell]

Garrett however goes on to say that:

"...The Founders . . . remained suspicious of a strong, centralized government . . .

Wrong. George Washington demanded a strong centralized government. That's why he's called the father of the nation, not because of the revolution. The revolution didn't create a nation.

IGNORANT REDS

[Osborne Russell]

This has been pretty well addressed in at least two other threads that I am aware of, and is not keeping with the topic of this thread.

That which you quote is twaddle.

Apparently, the people at Think Progress believe a requirement to buy health insurance is akin to the requirement under the Second Militia Act of 1792 that soldiers equip themselves for duty in case of invasion. The provocative title attached to this insipid argument is "Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care’s constitutionality".

The two requirements are not only akin they are identical, in terms of the issue, i.e. can the feds force anyone to buy anything. If they can do it as part of exercising one of the named powers, they can do it as to all.

This is what your father meant when he said a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What does it say about progressives -- or, at least, the sort of progressive who would nod approvingly at such stuff -- that a law enacted when the United States was young and in constant danger from foreign enemies would be cited as precedent for mandated health insurance? It almost reads like a parody of progressivism, with its slipshod conflation of national defense with the welfare state.

One is a precedent of the other. What it "says about" anyone who says it is that they understand that. There is no difference between national defense and the welfare state or any other exercise of federal power whatsoever, in terms of this issue.

[wardd]

how long after the ratification of the constitution did they start doing things that today some would consider unconstitutional and against original intent?

[Osborne Russell]

Should we have an individual mandate for food insurance?

Depends on the circumstances. If it's necessary to preserve the republic and or promote the general welfare, yes, we will do it.

ANOTHER FAILED EVASIVE TACTIC

[SaltyBoatr]

Wrong. George Washington demanded a strong centralized government. That's why he's called the father of the nation, not because of the revolution. The revolution didn't create a nation.

IGNORANT REDS

True. Bear in mind that the Constitution was created in 1789. Prior to that in the USA, from 1774 to 1788 the government was decentralized. The solid majority of founding fathers recognized that the 14 year experiment in decentralized government was a failure.

The Constitution of 1789 created a strong centralized government, (to fix the problems of de-centralized government) and was ratified by unanimous vote of the states. Of course, some people at the time were still suspicious of centralized government, but they were in a definite minority.

[Y Bar Ranch]

...and was ratified by unanimous vote of the states.

Wrong

Edit: Oops, I'm wrong. Not signed unanimously (trivial pursuit question).

[RonW]

Believe it or not this debate (as we will call it ) over if the federal government can mandate the citizens to buy health insurance, is the same debate that was held over 224 years ago. And that debate was how much gov. and how much federal gov. over state gov. and when the gov is infringing upon the rights
of the people.........

Guess what? After they hashed it all out, they even went so far as to write down what they agreed upon.
As for what power the federal gov. shall have is all written down in article 1 section 8 spelling out exactly what the powers of the federal gov. shall be.
As for the states rights, they also wrote that down in the bill of rights amendment #10..........
As for the people rights not to be infringed upon is spelled out in the first 8 amendments and the 9th. was used to reafirm no infringement upon...

Some of you should actually read this stuff instead of making all the emotional partisan political arguments that don't hold water.....

[wardd]

Believe it or not this debate (as we will call it ) over if the federal government can mandate the citizens to buy health insurance, is the same debate that was held over 224 years ago. And that debate was how much gov. and how much federal gov. over state gov. and when the gov is infringing upon the rights
of the people.........

Guess what? After they hashed it all out, they even went so far as to write down what they agreed upon.
As for what power the federal gov. shall have is all written down in article 1 section 8 spelling out exactly what the powers of the federal gov. shall be.
As for the states rights, they also wrote that down in the bill of rights amendment #10..........
As for the people rights not to be infringed upon is spelled out in the first 8 amendments and the 9th. was used to reafirm no infringement upon...

Some of you should actually read this stuff instead of making all the emotional partisan political arguments that don't hold water.....

and it was rehashed in 1861-65 and still going

[Norman Bernstein]

As for what power the federal gov. shall have is all written down in article 1 section 8 spelling out exactly what the powers of the federal gov. shall be.

Ok, let's see:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Just what is the 'general welfare' of the United States, and what does this constitutional provision include? What does it exclude? Is it obvious, or does it require interpretation?

It doesn't look as if the Constitution 'spells it out exactly', by a long shot.....

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Ironic don't you think A justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution and yet wants to make judgments based on the impact of their decision.

I assume you are referring to this treatise....

No. The original quote, I believe, was attributed to some supreme court justice. And the idea behind it was sticking to legal dogmas no matter what the cost can be a fast trip to national ruination.

[fishrswim]

Compelled to buy insurance. Hmmm, I remember my father somewhere around 1953 going into an insurance office to buy auto insurance for the first time because it was now a state law that required everyone have liability insurance. He wasn't happy about it, but as we know we've all been doing it since then. I just showed my insurance card last week to get an access sticker for a local military base. Don't see much new in requiring health insurance.

Get over it.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Believe it or not this debate (as we will call it ) over if the federal government can mandate the citizens to buy health insurance, is the same debate that was held over 224 years ago. And that debate was how much gov. and how much federal gov. over state gov. and when the gov is infringing upon the rights
of the people.........

....

Where do you get this stuff?
The idea for a new goverment was hatched because the old government, the Confederation States, was a failure because it had allowed the states to remain souvereign. The states had run up debts during the revolution and had fobbed them off on the national government. The national government coudn't pay any debts becasue it had no power to tax and no money was forthcoming from the states. George Washington infered the confederation was not a respectable government because it had bad debts. Also there was no way to guarantee states would not walk away from the confederation if they found a deal more to their liking.
So a conference to amend the Articles of Confederation was called then highjacked, by some very smart people, with the idea of an all-new governmental configuration.
The big bone of contention was good ol' "states rights". The states were not going to give up what they had engineered in the confederation without a fight.
Then they conducted the state conventions of 1787-1788 where everyone involved tried to protect their own political interests at the expense of everybody else. A lot of intense politicing produced the first draft which had no amendments. Some states resisted voting on it because they wanted amendments. More politicing. The smart money said all was lost if some amendments were not entertained. The number offered were beyond practical limits so more politicing and a short list of amendments were produced. Evetually they got the Ok from, I believe, 11 states so the constitution was offered and a call for ratification was made. More politicing which ate up 4 years and the document went into effect in 1792. It was shot thu' with the results of deal making , horse trading and arm twisting. It is what it is. The best deal that could be gotten at the time.


Quizz on Friday
Bring a number 2 pencil
Make sure it's sharpened this time.

[Waddie]

The federal government knows no limits to power. I don't say that in jest.

They have the right to force you to buy anything, or register everything - so long as they can get the votes in Congress and a President who will sign it. If the SC objects they can simply restate the bill a different way and go around them, or do it by executive order.

You do not own your property, except for tax purposes. You possess it at the whim of government, who can take it for any purpose they see fit.

Your money is not your money. The government decides how much of it you can keep, once again by Congressional action or executive order. The IRS can confiscate or place a lien on your assets without a court order.

Your must obtain government permission to marry and government approval to divorce.

The government has the power to force you into the military, and/or to financially support wars you may not approve of.

In short, all this talk of rights is a mirage. The basis of every government is force, and power enables more power.

I'm not making a judgement, or even saying it's wrong.....just that it's how it is. Liberals have rights they would like to regulate more (possibly out of existence) and Conservatives have rights they would like to see weakened (or possibly eliminated). Both groups would love to have lots more power in order to promote their respective versions of Utopia.

regards,
Waddie

[TANSTAF1]

The argument for the constitutionality of Obamacare because of parallels to the Militia Act of 1792 misses the point.


The Militia Act of 1792 did force individuals to have arms. This was not because of Second Amendment’s stipulation that the militia be “well regulated” ad that a command to have arms, etc. wasand can be a proper regulation.


It actually was passed pursuant to Congress’s Article I power to call forth, arm, and organize the militia. The Constitution explicitly allows the government to issue affirmative commands to individuals in highly limited circumstances but this does not mean it has a general power to issue such commands in all circumstances.

[TANSTAF1]

Ok, let's see:



Just what is the 'general welfare' of the United States, and what does this constitutional provision include? What does it exclude? Is it obvious, or does it require interpretation?

It doesn't look as if the Constitution 'spells it out exactly', by a long shot.....

Anything and everything can be considered as being for the general welfare.

So what you are saying is that there are NO limits on government power? Is that your opinion. Or is "general welfare" just "health care?" Why isn't it also homes, heat, cooling, clothing, and food? And don't forget wide screen TVs and cable so everyone can see their favorite pol. And cell phones, so they can keep in touch.

[Norman Bernstein]

If you want a better analogy, try the one I posted yesterday, the article about the striking similarities between the 1918 Supreme Court decision which affirmed the right to employ child labor, despite a congressional law to illegalize it... and the subsequent reversal by the Supreme Court years later. While it does NOT deal with the issue of compelling citizens to purchase a private product, it does draw strong comparisons to the application of the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution... and talks about the limits of that clause.

[wardd]

The federal government knows no limits to power. I don't say that in jest.

They have the right to force you to buy anything, or register everything - so long as they can get the votes in Congress and a President who will sign it. If the SC objects they can simply restate the bill a different way and go around them, or do it by executive order.

You do not own your property, except for tax purposes. You possess it at the whim of government, who can take it for any purpose they see fit.

Your money is not your money. The government decides how much of it you can keep, once again by Congressional action or executive order. The IRS can confiscate or place a lien on your assets without a court order.

Your must obtain government permission to marry and government approval to divorce.

The government has the power to force you into the military, and/or to financially support wars you may not approve of.

In short, all this talk of rights is a mirage. The basis of every government is force, and power enables more power.

I'm not making a judgement, or even saying it's wrong.....just that it's how it is. Liberals have rights they would like to regulate more (possibly out of existence) and Conservatives have rights they would like to see weakened (or possibly eliminated). Both groups would love to have lots more power in order to promote their respective versions of Utopia.

regards,
Waddie

not the best definition of the social contract i've heard

[wardd]

this is not the same country it was over 200 years ago

[Norman Bernstein]

Anything and everything can be considered as being for the general welfare.

So what you are saying is that there are NO limits on government power?

Hmmm... I think that's why we have a Supreme Court, in the very first place: to interpret the Constitution... and most especially, to interpret those clauses which were intentionally left vague by the Founding Fathers.

The way I look at it, the Constitution enumerates some concepts which are eternal and unchanging.... and establishes others which could ONLY be interpreted in the context of contemporary reality. The Founding Fathers had nary a clue as to the possibility that, 250 years hence, this thing we call 'health care' would be an issue; in their time, 'health care' consisted of essentially nothing, until one got extraordinarily sick... at which time, primitive medicine did what it could... but many people died young of diseases and conditions we routinely treat today as non-life-threatening. In the late 18th century, health care consumed ZERO percent of the budget... obviously not the case today.

So, today, we still revere constitutional protections like the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment.... all subject to 'reasonable control and restriction', as defined by the court, and more importantly, changed and evolved over the past 250 years. The broad priniciples are eternal, even if the details have to change, to be relevant to modern society.

However, in so many OTHER areas of life today, the vague principles of 18th century political thought become anachronisms... and we either adapt to the modern era, or be destroyed. As I've said before, the Constitution is not, and should not be, an ideological straightjacket or communal suicide pact, which raises ideology over reality. It's easy to stand on principles, when you're not bucking against reality.... it's a lot harder to do it, when you have to pay a severe price for those principles. When you're not sucking the fuzzy end of the stick, it's pretty easy to think that some vague and amorphous concept of 'liberty and freedom' is worth more than the health of 30 million Americans.... less so, if you're one of the 30 million.

[wardd]

the courts are not there to find the truth as the truth can't always be found or agreed on but to render decisions that can be accepted so we can get on with our lives without killing each other

[Y Bar Ranch]

As I've said before, the Constitution is not, and should not be, an ideological straightjacket or communal suicide pact, which raises ideology over reality.

It isn't. They planned for the future.

T

he Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section ofthe first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Ted Hoppe]

I thought this was rather interesting: The ideas of caring for the population is part of the soul of the founding fathers - it is part of our genetically infused Common Sense.

Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine, published in 1797, which advocated the use of an estate tax to fund a universal old-age and disability pension, as well as a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens on reaching maturity. It was written in the winter of 1795-96, but remained unpublished for a year ,Paine having read a sermon by Richard Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, which discussed the "Wisdom ... of God, in having made both Rich and Poor", he felt the need to publish, under the argument that "rich" and "poor" were arbitrary divisions, not divinely created ones

The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.

Not to pay for universal health is therefore an abomination. We as a society exist because we take care of each other in the attempt to make a better place for God's intended plan for man and nature.

[Norman Bernstein]

It isn't. They planned for the future.

Then the Supreme Court is unnecessary, according to you... have I got that right?

We've had 27 amendments to the constitution in 250 years... and the first ten came almost immediately after the Constitution itself, demonstrating that it was a flawed document to begin with.... so you think that amendments alone do the trick?

Sorry, but we have a Supreme Court for a reason; to decide how the constitution, and those amendments, are to be applied. You may agree or disagree with the decisions of that court, but to think that the Constitution itself is so crystal clear as to preclude the necessity of deciding what it means is absurd...

...or perhaps you can tell me what the clause containing the 'general welfare' phrase means?

[Concordia 33]

Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.

I am interested in this, can you tell me a little more about where Paine says this? Much of his writing originated from the writings of Locke and de Montesquieu, but there is no context for me here.

[Concordia 33]

Sorry, but we have a Supreme Court for a reason; to decide how the constitution, and those amendments, are to be applied. You may agree or disagree with the decisions of that court, but to think that the Constitution itself is so crystal clear as to preclude the necessity of deciding what it means is absurd...

Actually the Supreme Court is not here to determine how the Constitution and its amendments are applied that is the job of the legislative branch. The Supreme court can only evaluate the executive and legislative branch's application of the law in relation to the Constitution.

[Norman Bernstein]

Actually the Supreme Court is not here to determine how the Constitution and its amendments are applied that is the job of the legislative branch. The Supreme court can only evaluate the executive and legislative branch's application of the law in relation to the Constitution.

Different words, same net effect.

[Concordia 33]

Different words, same net effect.

Only if you want to blur the boundaries between one branch of government and thew other.

[Norman Bernstein]

Only if you want to blur the boundaries between one branch of government and thew other.

You're just obscuring the facts with a 'precedence' argument. Yes, the Supreme Court doesn't weigh in, in advance... it waits until the exective or legislative branches DO somethnig, like pass a law or rule.... and THEN it may decide on the constitutionality of a law or executive order.....

..but, as I said before, the net effect is exactly the same.

[wardd]

can the supreme court rule on something if no one brings it before the court?

[Concordia 33]

You're just obscuring the facts with a 'precedence' argument. Yes, the Supreme Court doesn't weigh in, in advance... it waits until the exective or legislative branches DO somethnig, like pass a law or rule.... and THEN it may decide on the constitutionality of a law or executive order.....

..but, as I said before, the net effect is exactly the same.

The net effect has nothing to do with it. If SCOTUS creates a law, executes it, and then upholds the law in a court challenge, the net effect would be the same as if the legislature enacted a bill, the President Executed it and the Court upheld it, but I think that completely distorts the concept of the three branches of government. I think that this is a big distinction.

[Norman Bernstein]

can the supreme court rule on something if no one brings it before the court?

Nope.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

It isn't. They planned for the future.

They didn't plan too well.
Once a constutional convention is called there is no bar to what they can consider. The original cause can be cast aside and other amendments can be put on the agenda. Once an amendment is offered the period of ratification can go on forever unless some time restraint is included in the enabling legislation.
The power to amend is, pretty much, unchecked once the process is inaugurated.

[Norman Bernstein]

The net effect has nothing to do with it. If SCOTUS creates a law, executes it, and then upholds the law in a court challeng......

SCOTUS 'creates laws'?

That's a new one, to me.

[Y Bar Ranch]

Then the Supreme Court is unnecessary, according to you... have I got that right?

Sorry. I just love this gif.

[Y Bar Ranch]

Actually the Supreme Court is not here to determine how the Constitution and its amendments are applied that is the job of the legislative branch. The Supreme court can only evaluate the executive and legislative branch's application of the law in relation to the Constitution.

Indeed.

The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-govern...udicial-branch

[Gerarddm]

The Constitution is not black and white like mathematics. It requires interpretation. "Strict constructionists" are delusional.

I don't who these 'rational' people are who oppose ACA because there is supposedly a long list of reasons to be against it. I suppose they must be entrenched interests.

SINGLE PAYER. MEDICARE FOR ALL.

[Concordia 33]

SCOTUS 'creates laws'?

That's a new one, to me.

That's my point exactly. You say all that matters is the net effect yet I gave two examples, but the first example is absurd whereas the second example is the process as dictated by the Constitution. Both meet your measure of the "same net effect". That is why the net effect is a pointless way to evaluate the argument.

[Concordia 33]

The Constitution is not black and white like mathematics. It requires interpretation. "Strict constructionists" are delusional.

I don't who these 'rational' people are who oppose ACA because there is supposedly a long list of reasons to be against it. I suppose they must be entrenched interests.

SINGLE PAYER. MEDICARE FOR ALL.

If we aren't going to adhere to the Constitution, what is the argument for even having it? Seriously, what good is it at that point? I guess I am also a little curious about the difference between adherence to the Constitution vs "strict adherence"?

[Y Bar Ranch]

If we aren't going to adhere to the Constitution, what is the argument for even having it? Seriously, what good is it at that point?

Top cover

[Norman Bernstein]

If we aren't going to adhere to the Constitution, what is the argument for even having it? Seriously, what good is it at that point? I guess I am also a little curious about the difference between adherence to the Constitution vs "strict adherence"?

Why is it that so many people presume that the Constitution is so incredibly clear and well-defined, that they can also presume that THEIR interpretation of the Constitution is the 'correct' one?

I see this constantly.... and I just can't figure it out. If nine men and women on the Supreme Court, all notable jurists, highly intelligent, with years of experience in adjudicating questions of constitutionality, can rarely EVER agree on a constitutional issue.....

...then why are the faux Supreme Court justices here in the Bilge so damn sure of what is, or is not, Constitutional?

[Concordia 33]

Why is it that so many people presume that the Constitution is so incredibly clear and well-defined, that they can also presume that THEIR interpretation of the Constitution is the 'correct' one?

I see this constantly.... and I just can't figure it out. If nine men and women on the Supreme Court, all notable jurists, highly intelligent, with years of experience in adjudicating questions of constitutionality, can rarely EVER agree on a constitutional issue.....

...then why are the faux Supreme Court justices here in the Bilge so damn sure of what is, or is not, Constitutional?

I think you missinterpret my comment. I was responding to the comment about "strict Constitutionalists" being "delusional". My assumption is that the Constitution is not clear and that is why the Supreme Court is needed to help in this measure, but the term strict Constitutionalist implies that one can also be a loose Constitutionalist. And in that part I disagree - whatever the interpretation is about the Constitution, we cannot be loose about it. You cannot conclude that the strict interpretation requires action "A" but instead follow action "B" which is more loosely adherent to the intent of the Constitution. It renders the Constutution moot.

[Norman Bernstein]

I think you missinterpret my comment. I was responding to the comment about "strict Constitutionalists" being "delusional". My assumption is that the Constitution is not clear and that is why the Supreme Court is needed to help in this measure, but the term strict Constitutionalist implies that one can also be a loose Constitutionalist. And in that part I disagree - whatever the interpretation is about the Constitution, we cannot be loose about it. You cannot conclude that the strict interpretation requires action "A" but instead follow action "B" which is more loosely adherent to the intent of the Constitution. It renders the Constutution moot.

Fair enough... but if this is the case, then the adjective 'strict' as applied to Constitutional interpretation is an incorrect one... a VERY incorrect one, just as incorrect as the adjective 'loose' would be (if anyone ever tried to apply that adjective that way... I'm not aware of anyone who has).

Nonetheless, it is absolutely true that most folks who would self-describe as 'strict constitutionalists' DO apparently think that 'interpretation' is unnecessary, and in the controversial issues that come before the Court, the 'correct' constitutional interpretation is obvious.

I would submit that the entire history of the Supreme Court lays this falsehood to rest. You might argue that 9-0 decisions, or 8-1 decisions, or even 7-2 decisions, were the result of a fairly strong concensus on the interpretation of the constitution... but the prevalence of 5-4 decisions completely denies this. There are MANY contentious issues for which there is no 'clear' agreement of constitutionality.

The truly 'obvious' decisions never reach the Supreme Court; they, instead, refuse to hear the case, letting the lower court decisions stand. There are plenty of those... but I'd argue that virtually NONE of the questions that the court decides to hear are in that category.

[SaltyBoatr]

...the prevalence of 5-4 decisions completely denies this.

And those 5-4 always fall on the same ideological lines? That pattern tell us that the real reason is ideology. And, the excuse of strict constitutionalism is a smoke screen.

[Ted Hoppe]

I am interested in this, can you tell me a little more about where Paine says this? Much of his writing originated from the writings of Locke and de Montesquieu, but there is no context for me here.

Paines 1790-2 writings of the Rights of Man are fundamental to the American Experience which was inspired by Burke. the tyranny of wealth was of great concern. It amazes me to read postings about who the founding fathers are - obviously there are many who discount the men who live and died working out the goals of the American Republic. those men who fought near Boston, Valley Forge, at Georgetown weren't exactly Hamiltonians. They sought a system of equality, prosperity and life in pursuit of balance of god and nature through a civil just society.

[Concordia 33]

Paines 1790-2 writings of the Rights of Man are fundamental to the American Experience which was inspired by Burke. the tyranny of wealth was of great concern. It amazes me to read postings about who the founding fathers are - obviously there are many who discount the men who live and died working out the goals of the American Republic. those men who fought near Boston, Valley Forge, at Georgetown weren't exactly Hamiltonians. They sought a system of equality, prosperity and life in pursuit of balance of god and nature through a civil just society.

Yes I do know quite a bit but not everything from the founding fathers, but what I was asking you (perhaps crudely) is if you have the specific passage you referenced rather that its paraphrase - I am not familiar with it.

[Ted Hoppe]

Yes I do know quite a bit but not everything from the founding fathers, but what I was asking you (perhaps crudely) is if you have the specific passage you referenced rather that its paraphrase - I am not familiar with it.

Excerpted from Agrerian Justice - http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm
"The rugged face of society, checkered with the extremes of affluence and want, proves that some extraordinary violence has been committed upon it, and calls on justice for redress. The great mass of the poor in countries are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impossible them to get out of that state of themselves. It ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all countries that are called civilized. re persons fall annually into it than get out of it.
Though in a plan of which justice and humanity are the foundation principles, interest ought not to be admitted into the calculation, yet it is always of advantage to the establishment of any plan to show that it beneficial as a matter of interest. The success of any proposed plan submitted to public consideration must finally depend on the numbers interested in supporting it, united with the justice of its principles.


The plan here proposed will benefit all, without injuring any. It will consolidate the interest of the republic with that of the individual. To the numerous class dispossessed of their natural inheritance by the system of landed property it will be an act of national justice. To persons dying possessed of moderate fortunes it will operate as a tontine to their children, more beneficial than the sum of money paid into the fund: and it will give to the accumulation of riches a degree of security that none of old governments of Europe, now tottering on their foundations, can give.


I do not suppose that more than one family in ten, in any of the countries of Europe, has, when the head of the family dies, a clear property of five hundred pounds sterling. To all such the plan is advantageous. That property would pay fifty pounds into the fund, and if there were only two children under age they would receive fifteen pounds each (thirty pounds), on coming of age, and be entitled to ten pounds a year after fifty.


It is from the overgrown acquisition of property that the fund will support itself; and I know that the possessors of such property in England, though they would eventually be benefitted by the protection of nine-tenths of it, will exclaim against the plan. But without entering any inquiry how they came by that property, let them recollect that they have been the advocates of this war, and that Mr. Pitt has already laid on more new taxes to be raised annually upon the people of England, and that for supporting the despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the liberties of France, than would pay annually all the sums proposed in this plan.


I have made the calculations stated in this plan, upon what is called personal, as well as upon landed property. The reason for making it upon land is already explained; and the reason for taking personal property into the calculation is equally well founded though on a different principle. Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.


Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.


This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence.


It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it.
The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress. This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of property as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system that, while it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall secure the other from depreciation.


The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly Surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries, and leaving the possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth and splendor, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; n, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult on wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security.


To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national bless, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above other shall increase the national fund in the same proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it shall for the general mass; it is then that antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis of national interest and protection.


I have no property in France to become subject to the plan I prose. What I have, which is not much, is in the United States of America. But I will pay one hundred pounds sterling toward this fund in France, the instant it shall be established; and I will pay the same sum England, whenever a similar establishment shall take place in that country.


A revolution in the state of civilization is the necessary companion of revolutions in the system of government. If a revolution in any country be from bad to good, or from good to bad, the state of what is called civilization in that country, must be made conformable thereto, to giveth at revolution effect.


Despotic government supports itself by abject civilization, in which debasement of the human mind, and wretchedness in the mass of the people, are the chief criterions. Such governments consider man merely as an animal; that the exercise of intellectual faculty is not his privilege; that he has nothing to do with the laws but to obey them; and they politically depend more upon breaking the spirit of the people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by desperation."

[Ted Hoppe]

I want to point out one more point to this argument about founding fathers and intent...

How many of you remember the Articles of Confederation?

Congress had debated the Articles for over a year and a half, and the ratification process had taken nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates, and some of the signers had only recently arrived. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time.

Patrick Henry warned us of the Federalists and the mischief they were perpetrating on the ideals of which this American Revolution was founded. it was the money (banks, financiers and thier lawyers that wrote the Constitution) interests that secured its freedoms and promisary notes through this political system. it is not by total coincidence that Jefferson not at the Consitutional Convention and remained in France at the time of its drafting.

[SaltyBoatr]

I want to point out one more point to this argument about founding fathers and intent...

How many of you remember the Articles of Confederation?

Congress had debated the Articles for over a year and a half, and the ratification process had taken nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates, and some of the signers had only recently arrived. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time.

Patrick Henry warned us of the Federalists and the mischief they were perpetrating on the ideals of which this American Revolution was founded. it was the money (banks, financiers and thier lawyers that wrote the Constitution) interests that secured its freedoms and promisary notes through this political system. it is not by total coincidence that Jefferson not at the Consitutional Convention and remained in France at the time of its drafting.

The Articles of Confederation were widely seen as a failure, and were repealed and replaced by the Constitution in 1789.. Patrick Henry, an anti-Federalist, was out of step with the majority of the other Founding Fathers who supported a strong central government.

Interesting, anti-Federalist sentiments continue forward to the present time. The Tea Party are anti-Federalists too.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

. There's a LONG list of reasons rational people are opposed to it.

Yeah, like it SUCKS?
It SUCKS more in the AM than the PM?
Even if it didn't SUCK it still SUCKS?
If the Supreme Court says it doesn't SUCK then they will SUCK, too?
My buddies on the corner say it SUCKS and they know everything?
ad nauseum.....

[Ted Hoppe]

The Articles of Confederation were widely seen as a failure, and were repealed and replaced by the Constitution in 1789.. Patrick Henry, an anti-Federalist, was out of step with the majority of the other Founding Fathers who supported a strong central government.

Interesting, anti-Federalist sentiments continue forward to the present time. The Tea Party are anti-Federalists too.

You can not dismiss the Articles so quickly. You seem to take the Hamiltonian side in the argument quite readily. Moreover the revolution is not over after the fighting and Because lawyers draw up a questionable document. Dont forget that each State is an independent entity. Shays and the Whiskey Rebellion are really reactionary to these Federalists. just because money interests won doesn't make the situation correct. Moreover radical elements from the revolution continues and the reactions to Federalist (and the Banks) are strongly contested... As a result we get the Jacksonian era were percieved common men take the white house. this union of States are for the common good. Free land, a chicken in every pot, a civilized society balanced by god and nature where human affairs are based on liberty, equality and fraternity - ideas taken from America to France. clearly this argument is not over until put to rest in 1865.

At the Constitutional Convention Alexander Hamilton said, “inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself.” He believed men and women who fought to create America did not desire equality, they wanted freedom. A desire for equality cannot be found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Proponents of equality are forced to use the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence to justify their views. However this phrase was based on the writings of George Mason who proposed that “all men are born equally free and independent.” The idea that men are equal in the sight of God and under the law is related to the idea that all men “are born equally free.” The Elite founders of America believed in equal protection under the law but not in equality.