Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on December 28, 2008 By Draginol In Politics

In the beginning...

There were 13 colonies, each considered themselves a sovereign independent state (what we would call a nation today). Virginia and New York, for instance, considered themselves as sovereign as England and France.

The peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States was between Britain and the 13 specifically named independent states.

As a means to largely defend themselves from powerful colonial powers as well as to discourage warring between themselves (Virginia, for instance, claimed the territory today used by Michigan, Ohio and numerous other future states), they created what was effectively a neighborhood association.

They first tried out the Articles of Confederation but it proved to be too weak. Many veterans of the Revolutionary war remembered darkly the starving men in their ranks because congress was too weak to get them the food and resources they needed.

To this end, we got the constitution. Originally, it had no bill of rights. Its authors didn't consider it necessary because this new federal government didn't have the power to do anything other than what was expressly mentioned in the constitution. They feared that even having a bill of rights might imply to future politicians that the federal government had the power to enact laws that could somehow violate such a bill of rights.

In compromise, the bill of rights included the 10th amendment that made clear that the federal government did not have any powers that weren't expressly given to it in the constitution. All power would rest with the individual states and the people of those states.

The problem was the Supreme Court. Being a federal institution appointed by the federal President, the Supreme Court would constantly find new powers given to the constitution.  The states responded with the 11th amendment which as designed to slap down the Supreme Court in making clear that the states were the supreme authority, not the federal government.

...

Time Passes...

Of course, today, the federal government has managed to get all kinds of power. The federal government provides a retirement plan to citizens of the states, it has a minimum wage law (where did that power come from -- states have that power, the federal government does not but still does it).

So how did that happen? The answer is the supreme court.  The founding fathers were brilliant in most respects but could have used some experience in game theory.

The federal government is made up of 3 branches:

  1. The executive which was picked by the states via the electoral college.
  2. The legislature which is picked by the citizens of the states (now anyway).
  3. And then... the judicial branch which isn't picked by the states but instead by the federal executive and conformed by the federal legislature branch.  Oops.

Not surprisingly, the federal government is naturally biased in favor of power being with it rather than the states. As time passes, more and more power gets concentrated into the federal government from the states. There is no question of if this will continue to happen but only the progression of it.

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 28, 2008

there are so many rights in this i dont even know where to start...but all i can say is that im sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves

on Dec 29, 2008

but all i can say is that im sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves

What better way is there to honour a revolutionary than refusing to move even an inch from his positions.

 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.

Hindsight is 20/20.  I agree, now we have to see if we can change the stupid thing.  The Feds have used lame excuses to sieze the power, and I do not think they are going to voluntarily reliquish it either.  The American century is over, and it was not the barbarians at the gate that did them in, but the internal "good intentions" of idiots.

on Dec 29, 2008

Dr Guy

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.
Hindsight is 20/20.  I agree, now we have to see if we can change the stupid thing.  The Feds have used lame excuses to sieze the power, and I do not think they are going to voluntarily reliquish it either.  The American century is over, and it was not the barbarians at the gate that did them in, but the internal "good intentions" of idiots.

 

Thats usually what happens... good intentions untill the politicans stick thier fingures into it and mess it up

on Dec 29, 2008

Leauki



but all i can say is that im sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves

What better way is there to honour a revolutionary than refusing to move even an inch from his positions.

The founders provided a way for people to move inches or miles from their position. The amendment process of the constitution is very straight forward.

on Dec 29, 2008

Makes me wonder why people complains about the Patriot Act. The act pails in comparison to what the Gov't has done for the past few decades and people do little if any complaining about it. Of course who complains when you flash money and power in their faces (minimum wages, food stamps, welfare, free medical assistance)

on Dec 30, 2008

The problem was the Supreme Court. Being a federal institution appointed by the federal President, the Supreme Court would constantly find new powers given to the constitution.  The states responded with the 11th amendment which as designed to slap down the Supreme Court in making clear that the states were the supreme authority, not the federal government.

My ignorance of US history is showing - I never knew that. I always figured the founding fathers wanted to (eventually) centralise and slowly limit the role of the state legislatures - why else would they have a tripartite federal structure? (Congress could have served as a supreme court, neatly making supreme court cases much rarer due to legislative laziness).

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.

That would work too. Make it a rolling court comprising the chief justices of each state legislature, as decided by availability/fairness. The only problem there would be that you'd get lots of conservative cases launched in the southeast, and lots of liberal ones in the west and northeast, which would naturally attract sympathetic justices. The next step would be to have each decision appealable to the full court - the bureaucratic grinding would make constitutional amendments look like a walk in the park.

on Jan 01, 2009

Hey Draginol,....this is off subject but what the heck is Little Whip's problem with the world?

on Jan 05, 2009

My ignorance of US history is showing - I never knew that. I always figured the founding fathers wanted to (eventually) centralise and slowly limit the role of the state legislatures - why else would they have a tripartite federal structure? (Congress could have served as a supreme court, neatly making supreme court cases much rarer due to legislative laziness).

This is really what the civil war was about.  Sure slavery was an issue but the major reason that the civil war started was because the southern states wanted to preserve states rights and the northern states wanted to increase the strength of the federal government.  The North won and so we got a stronger Federal government and states rights continue to be eaten away.

on Jan 05, 2009

Good article.

I disagree with your conclusion.

I think the Founding Fathers got all three branches right because they designed it under the strongest form possible...a Constitutional Republic form of government.   They set up the Constution so that "We the people" tell the government what powers we are "delegating" to them. That means all radical changes, like freedom of speech, would have to be made by the people through the difficult process of amendment.   

Time Passes...

Of course, today, the federal government has managed to get all kinds of power. The federal government provides a retirement plan to citizens of the states, it has a minimum wage law (where did that power come from -- states have that power, the federal government does not but still does it).

So how did that happen?

The Constitution was written for a moral society based upon Judeo-Christian mores and ethics holding sway. However, for decades now,  society has preferred secular, amoral values and we stopped teaching true history, civics and patriotism.

Even though the Federalists papers have it that the Constitution would be "unalterable by the government", numbskulls claim the Constitution is a "living document" and can be changed at the whim of the president, congress or judiciary own pleasure.

Since the whole idea of the original Framers has been stood on its head and its purpose all but defeated, we should be asking Why do we stand for this?

on Jan 05, 2009

This is really what the civil war was about. Sure slavery was an issue but the major reason that the civil war started was because the southern states wanted to preserve states rights and the northern states wanted to increase the strength of the federal government.

History - and the words of LIncoln - show this to be true.  But the victor writes history so to cover their usurping of power, they claimed it was about slavery.  Funny, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in the USA.  But that is often ignored and hidden.

on Jan 05, 2009

The states responded with the 11th amendment which as designed to slap down the Supreme Court in making clear that the states were the supreme authority, not the federal government.

That's an interesting perspective. Wikipedia is totally lacking any examination of the politics behind the decision.

What I know from political science supports this perspective -- the Supreme Court doesn't strike down whatever it pleases with judicial review.  It supports the federal government against the states (overturning about eight times as many state laws as federal), and it strikes down laws when the federal government pressures it to.  Sometimes the leaders of the government "pass" a law to satisfy their coalition, and then make sure the Supreme Court will strike it down!

Like you say, the Supreme Court has no political power base other than the federal government.  No wonder it doesn't dare be "activist" in a way that would make the federal government unhappy.

on Jan 06, 2009

The Constitution was written for a moral society based upon Judeo-Christian mores and ethics holding sway. However, for decades now,  society has preferred secular, amoral values and we stopped teaching true history, civics and patriotism.

That's nonsense, Lula.

The constitution was specifically written to create a secular state, which is why it specifically prohibits the establishment of a religion, Judeao-Christian or otherwise.

Plus you still haven't answered my question of many months ago: what are the Christian values that are not also Islamic or secular values?

(Incidentally, what you call "Judaeo-Christian" is really "pagan-Christian". I know your value system. There is nothing "Judaeo" in it.)

 

on Jan 06, 2009

Plus you still haven't answered my question of many months ago: what are the Christian values that are not also Islamic or secular values?

Love thy enemies is one.

 

on Jan 07, 2009

Love thy enemies is one.

I remember a story (one of the Hadith perhaps) about Muhammed where he was regularly insulted by a woman in Mecca until one morning, when she wasn't on the street and didn't insult him. He inquired if she was ill.

The Quran also teaches forgiveness and peace. (Whether Muslims follow the principle of nor is another matter.)

And historically it has been secular states who showed the most mercy to their enemies, not particularly Christian states.

Any other Christian values that you think are not Islamic or secular values as well?

 

3 Pages1 2 3