Because Jefferson was a strict constitutional constructionist. Hamliton was not, Madison was closer to Jefferson's views but not as strict of a constructionist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Printable View
Because Jefferson was a strict constitutional constructionist. Hamliton was not, Madison was closer to Jefferson's views but not as strict of a constructionist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
And I would agree with this statement from any - especially you, Gaiwain and Xiahou. There is no complelling advantage for detailed federal involvement in the education process. The only involvement the federal government should have in education is to insure equal opporunity of education throughout the country, and to standardize education level requirements for high school graduation.
However to claim public education is unconstitutional is not correct.
Working my way through the cut & paste I think Redleg has the best historical perspective on the issues involving the FF. But what I do not understand is that the views of the FF are regarded as Mosaic law by many Americans. The characters, views, words and intentions of the men who wrote that Constitution are interesting in their own right; I would probably be the first Yurpean on this board to confirm that. Reading Madison, for me, ranks up there with reading Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Hobbes, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Freud or Aron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
What I do not understand is this tendency to regard the Constitution as set in stone, implying that any change in its interpretation would somehow have to be in line with the thoughts of the FF. The result of this is that the FF have been dehistoricised, anachronised and cut down to the size of marketing executives whose world consists entirely of slogans.
Jefferson was a Christian? Yes and no. He was a deist, as were all the other FF right down to Thomas Paine. Their works, private conversations, letters and table speeches make that very clear. But they were also politicians and diplomats, and they realised the world was not ready for their notion of a distant and possibly impersonal God. In the eyes of many ordinary people that would have amounted to Freemasonry, heresy, betrayal of the worst kind. So they put a brave face on it and adapted themselves to circumstance. In speeches to American church audiences they would emphasise that the new Republic was Christian; in treaties with North African rulers they would emphasise that the United States was not a Christian nation at all. Anyone who fails to recognise this dynamic, or fails to understand that FF were no robots and that they went through personal and philosophical changes during their lives (Tom Paine would be an excellent example because he wrote about it all the time) is just a fool in my eyes.
But what baffles me is the idea that the American political compact should somehow still conform to the notions of gentlemen who have been dead for 200 years. That seems somehow so rigid, so static, so ... un-American. ~D
Adrian:
Well written. I think you may have just summarized the basis for the intepretivist position vis-a-vis our Constitution better than most of the folks who take that view.
While I am more of an "originalist," I am not a strict "constitutionalist." Those latter view the document as an absolute legal contract spelling out the duties and powers of government and reserving ALL other power, rights or decisions to the several states and or the people as appropriate. For any change of any significance to be made, they view a fully prosecuted constitutional ammendment as a necessary requirement.
My views, though trending in that direction, do accept the idea that the Constitution was a framework and not a fully detailed blueprint covering all facets for all times. I therefore do not object to the existence of, for example, the State Department, even though it is only implicitly mentioned in reference to "executive departments." Some form of state secretariat was and is a necessary and reasonable component of government.
Where it becomes problematic, however, is when a representative of the judicial branch, reviewing some legal decision, promulgates some "right" or viewpoint as being within the scope of the Constitution without some clear textual reference or measured and reasonable inference thereon. For example:
The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was entirely understandable and correct, albeit dreadful (sorry, couldn't resist). Any reading of the original text of the Constitution shows that slavery was implicity, and even explicitly, accepted in that version. While I (and I hope they) consider slavery immoral on a basic level, the Constitution as then constituted clearly condoned it. It is our national tragedy that we could not achieve the necessary ammendment to the Constitution without killing ourselves in great big batches.
By contrast, the Court's recent decision regarding eminent domain is more jarring. Though the Constitution implicitly condones the concept of Eminent Domain (I don't believe it is explicitly mentioned) -- an extent power drawn from British common law and an accepted part of normal governance, the court condoned the use of eminent domain in cases of private development, as opposed to the traditional uses of public transportation, government buildings, and other facilities designed specifically for public use. Even the court's earlier support of private railroad's using eminent domain was questionable, but this decision effectively allows any government entity to confiscate any property for any purpose as long as it feels there will be some indirect public benefit -- including a higher tax base with which to fund more government! While this will be blocked legislatively in most states, the Court has taken their interpretation of the 5th ammendment quite far afield here.
Seamus
Thank you. I prefer to discuss matters in a calm, reasoned manner (muhahaha...) of the kind you have just displayed rather than 'debate' them with knives drawn and cut & pastes flying. I am aware of the American debate raging over Scalia's Constitutional 'originism' versus Ronald Dworkin's interpretivism; at least I try to follow what is being said and written. I think my own position would be very close to what John G. Roberts said in the hearing yesterday (which I quoted in another post just an hour ago). But my view is hardly relevant because I know too little about American jurisprudence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
What amazes me, though, is the frequent suggestion that what the FF intended for America is automatically good for America. No matter what interpretation people give to the Constitution and to the many and various words of the FF about it, once Americans have settled on a particular interpretation they defend it with their lives because the FF said so. It is as if the the real fight is not over the Constitution and what it should mean today, but over who owns the FF. I mean, if you happen to have views that are at odds with the FF, why wouldn't you say so instead of twisting and turning their words until they fit your bill?
You could just as easily say: Look, this is 2005, it is time for a new vision and a new interpretation of the Constitution - no matter what the FF might think about it if they lived. Wasn't it the great American Henry Ford who said ' History is bunk', meaning that the official history of past wars and statesmen and political doings is not relevant to us today?
I've been trying to revisit all of those Constitutional threads from times past; it's always fun to see how my opinion has evolved, and how. ~;) (How do I dig that stuff up anyways?)
For many, I don't think it is necessarily what the godly FF thought, as much as, what the law says, and the law shouldn't be changed except in the format lain down in the Constitution; this so often goes to what the FF meant, although, you will find Justices like Black who interpreted the law literally, especially in First Amendment cases he is a good read. That the Amendment process is difficult makes Constitutional law problematic to change without unelected Judges changing it, though.
Quote:
Jefferson was a Christian? Yes and no. He was a deist, as were all the other FF right down to Thomas Paine. Their works, private conversations, letters and table speeches make that very clear
How this myth continues is beyond me. This is total BS. Do I have to start cuttting and pasting again to show you how wrong you are. They considered diesim as infedility and bad.
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:
The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. [6]
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickenson that Paine's Age of Reason was "absurd and impious."[7]
Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion."[8]
John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders, said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith."[9]
John Quincy Adams declared that "Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution." [10]
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation -- a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. In a letter to his daughter, Susan, Boudinot described his motivations for writing that rebuttal:
I confess that I was much mortified to find the whole force of this vain man's genius and art pointed at the youth of America. . . . This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day, you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity; and for want of an answer at hand to his subtle insinuations might suffer even a doubt of the truth, as it is in Jesus, to penetrate your mind. . . . I therefore determined . . . to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper for your edification and information, when I shall be no more. I chose to confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his animadversions -- not knowing that "they are the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth [Romans 1:16]."[11]
Quote:
In 1844, a case came before the U.S. Supreme Court [Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126 (1844)] in which a Frenchman, suspected of being a "deist" or "infidel," wanted to build a school quite different from most -- one in which the teachers would not be clergymen. His will left millions of dollars to the City of Philadelphia to build a school in which "no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever" should be allowed in. He stipulated that "only the purest principles of morality" should be taught, by which he obviously meant Secular Humanism/No Bible.
(I say this is "obvious" because of the opprobrium with which the atheistic French Revolution was viewed in America. Both the City of Philadelphia and Girard's heirs suspected that by this provision he wanted to exclude the Bible from the school and to prohibit Christianity from being taught.)
Both the City of Philadelphia and Girard's heirs conceded that an atheistic school such as this would be repugnant to the Christian law of this country. This is one of the arguments raised before the Supreme Court by Daniel Webster:
[T]he plan of education proposed is anti-Christian and therefore repugnant to the law.
His reasoning before the US Supreme Court was based on Biblical authority:
Both in the Old and New Testaments its importance [viz., the religious instruction of youth] is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children," and in the New, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not . . . ." No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it.
One has to exercise a little historiographic wisdom here. What kind of world was it back then the a man of Daniel Webster's stature (called "the Defender of the Constitution") could rise before the US Supreme Court and cite Bible verses as the basis for setting aside probably the largest devise of its kind in the history of the New World?
Webster argued that the single anti-Christian provision of Girard's will should force the entire will to be set aside. But courts will attempt to salvage a will by removing any clause offensive to public policy. This is what the City of Philadelphia argued. They granted that the atheistic school clause was anti-Christian and therefore unlawful, but they argued that Webster should have
. . . joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious clause.
The City agreed with Webster that this was a Christian nation and that the Bible must be taught in schools. Giving a tortured interpretation of the Frenchman's will, the City argued:
The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith -- the Bible. . . . [T]here is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz., a pure system of morality.
So here we have two parties before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that a clause in a will requiring a Bible-free school cannot be enforced in America because this is a Christian nation
I hope this also puts to rest the absurd claim that the US is not a christain country.Quote:
After both sides argued that the anti-Christian provision of the will was repugnant to law, the unanimous opinion of the US Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Joseph Story, whose Commentaries on the Constitution were regarded as the greatest statement of U.S. Constitutional Law. The Court ruled that Christianity could NOT be excluded from the school.
Christianity . . . is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. . . . It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider . . . the establishment of a school or college for the propagation of . . . Deism or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.
Note that "deism" is equated with "infidelity." The Supreme Court said they were not to be tolerated in a Christian nation. Deism is not approved the way modern writers say the Founders did.
Diest my a$$Quote:
I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present systems of paganism, deism and atheism prevail in the world.[21]
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
The attempt by the rulers of a nation [France] to destroy all religious opinion and to pervert a whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy [an act of depravity] . . . . [T]o establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity [is] to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes and to make it a gloomy desert of the universe.[22]
Alexander Hamilton
[T]he rising greatness of our country . . . is greatly tarnished by the general prevalence of deism which, with me, is but another name for vice and depravity. . . . I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and indeed that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory, because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics . . . . [B]eing a Christian . . . is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.[23]
Patrick Henry
[I] have a thorough contempt for all men . . . who appear to be the irreclaimable enemies of religion.[24]
Samuel Adams
[T]he most important of all lessons [from the Scripture] is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion.[25]
Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution
[S]hun, as a contagious pestilence . . . those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or [who are] enemies to the power of religion.[26] Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.[27]
John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration
John Adams also recognized that the Bible cannot be removed from schools, because freedom cannot exist in chaos. We cannot separate religion and government:
Religion and virtue are the only foundations . . . of republicanism and of all free governments.[28]
LINK
[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
That is worthy of its own thread Gawain.
Were the founding fathers diests or were they christians. Would be an interesting discussion if the I hate religion crowd remains civil in the discussion. However I am afraid such a discussion will quickly become derailed by such behavior.
You did okay there Adrian logical approach and criticism without attacking the oppostion viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
The way I see it there were basically four philosophies in the founding fathers writing of the constitution and ever since the founding of the country its been a hotly debated subject. Sometimes leading to changes in how the country operates.
These are my definations based on readings - some will coincide with constitutional historians - however I am sure they are many who would disagree.
1. Strict constitutional constructionists - Jefferson is the best model of this in my opinion
2. Constitutionist - Gawain seems to fit the defination fairily for the modern constitutionist - Madison is the founding father most often associated with this philosophy.
3. Originalist - Seamus identifies himself as this type of follower of the constitutional philosophy - I am also more of an orignalist in my philosophy of the constitution - but the problem is that we really dont have any founding fathers that followed this philosophy - its a more modern approach.
THere are a few founding fathers that might fit this model - but for the most part you could of called them moderates in the founding and formulation of the government.
4. Federalists - Well Hamilton is propably the most well know of the founding fathers that followed this philosophy on government and the constitution. The funny thing is that many democrates in American government opinion follow this pattern more then anyone else. So do the republican as a political body.
You should embrace the philosophy fully since you already agree with much of what the founding fathers of the United States intended. They wanted a central government that would fulfill the needs of the society. The constitution is loosely worded in many ways to allow this growth, and in other ways its speficially worded to prevent the government from eroding individual property rights and individual rights.Quote:
What amazes me, though, is the frequent suggestion that what the FF intended for America is automatically good for America.
They took that in consideration in their writing of the document. Unfortunately some Americans do exactly what you stated.Quote:
No matter what interpretation people give to the Constitution and to the many and various words of the FF about it, once Americans have settled on a particular interpretation they defend it with their lives because the FF said so. It is as if the the real fight is not over the Constitution and what it should mean today, but over who owns the FF. I mean, if you happen to have views that are at odds with the FF, why wouldn't you say so instead of twisting and turning their words until they fit your bill?
The Constitution remains relative to the United States as its written because certain aspects are indeed able to be changed based upon the desires of the people. That is why constitutional arguements always come up in the United States.Quote:
You could just as easily say: Look, this is 2005, it is time for a new vision and a new interpretation of the Constitution - no matter what the FF might think about it if they lived. Wasn't it the great American Henry Ford who said ' History is bunk', meaning that the official history of past wars and statesmen and political doings is not relevant to us today?
Reasonable set of definitions here. As an originalist, I trend a bit more toward the constitutionist side than you, from what I have read, but these labels are reasonable. I suspect good old Ben would have been in our camp, at least for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
It should also be noted that a number of our founders, notably Patrick Henry, actively opposed the Constitution in its then extent form, arguing that it was too restrictive of liberty and nothing but a springboard for the acquisition of power by the Central government. The Federalist papers were, to some extent, an ongoing persuasive effort to get people to support the new constitution. Opposition, while not in the majority, was significant. Rhode Island's legislature is reputed to have voted for the Constitution only under the implied threat of military violence from its neighboring states!
While I accept a limited scope of interpretation, I too would prefer any major changes to follow the process outlined for ammending the Constitution, but I agree with you that its continued relevance for the USA despite more than 2 centuries of worldwide change -- societal changes that many would argue eclipse the totality of change experienced in the preceding two millenia -- demonstrates its value and the craftsmanship of the framers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That, of course, is the importance it carries to those of other nations. No other nation has a written constitution that has stood for so long and continued to be relevant, even though quite a number of the world's nations have a longer-lived -- if less written out -- system of government.
Seamus
I tend to follow Ben Franklin's philosophy on government more then any of the other founding fathers - but I do have a slight lean toward Hamilton's version. However I am extremely glad that not all of Hamilton's ideas took hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Yep I have heard that story about Rhode Island - however I have never seen any historical mention of it beyond a tell. I would be interested if anyone has any confirmed history about the threat of violence used in getting the Constittution ratified. I do know that several of the colonies were wanting more of a Confederation type of charter verus the Constitution.Quote:
It should also be noted that a number of our founders, notably Patrick Henry, actively opposed the Constitution in its then extent form, arguing that it was too restrictive of liberty and nothing but a springboard for the acquisition of power by the Central government. The Federalist papers were, to some extent, an ongoing persuasive effort to get people to support the new constitution. Opposition, while not in the majority, was significant. Rhode Island's legislature is reputed to have voted for the Constitution only under the implied threat of military violence from its neighboring states!
Patrick Henry if my memory serves me correctly would of fallen into that camp. He would of made the anarchists of today proud since he was basically opposed to any form of power being given to a central government.
That is the problem with the government today - and the blame can be laid squarely on the shoulders of congress and the American people. Many have decided that the government's responsiblity is to take care of them - verus what the founding fathers true intent of government was, to insure that the government was held responsible by the people for its actions.Quote:
While I accept a limited scope of interpretation, I too would prefer any major changes to follow the process outlined for ammending the Constitution, but I agree with you that its continued relevance for the USA despite more than 2 centuries of worldwide change -- societal changes that many would argue eclipse the totality of change experienced in the preceding two millenia -- demonstrates its value and the craftsmanship of the framers.
Quote:
That, of course, is the importance it carries to those of other nations. No other nation has a written constitution that has stood for so long and continued to be relevant, even though quite a number of the world's nations have a longer-lived -- if less written out -- system of government.
Seamus
Yes indeed the Consitution is a worthy model for a governmental charter.