Question for Tea Party Folks: 19th-Century Political Role Models? (Representatives, Pelosi, radical)

[Fiddlehead]

*bump*

The OP is asking good questions and deserves a thoughtful reply.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by diva360

Of course the Constitution is "authentic," which is beside the point and not what I was asking. So what about other things its authors wrote before it was adopted? There was huge debate about adopting it, and the issue of limited governance was among the issues being debated (I've already cited "Federalist No. 10," and I could cite similar essays that the framers wrote further). Political ideas typically neither come about sui generis nor without historical precedent; given that I'm asking about a group of people who claim the Constitution as their mantle, I think it is more than reasonable to inquire about which constitutional or early Republic thinkers they admire in particular.

I'll take your argument on your own terms: you say that liberals "reject outright any authenticity of the Constitution and the philosophy of limited governance," so, assuming that is true, to which framers of the Constitution do you align yourself, and why?

I most closely agree with Jefferson... as opposed to, say, Hamilton. Jefferson understood the nature of power and how giving people power makes them self serving and corrupt.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

If they are leaders, why are they so undeniably stupid? Government shutdown as Exhibit A.

They aren't.

I mean the people that have been put forward as thought leaders would struggle to lead a freshman seminar in history, math, or physics. I am having a hard time seeing these folks as the Steve Jobs of our day.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Being self-confident and being competent are entirely different things.

They sure are. Your confidence in your superiority is a great example.

Besides, I think your premise fails on its face. I see a clear pedigree of following for the Tea Party, starting with the goons of reconstruction, demagogues like Father Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, KKK Grand Masters, Moral Majority clowns like Swaggart, Falwell, and Robertson, Contract with America charlatans like Newt Gingrich, Dittoheads following the blowhards Limbaugh and Beck, and Tea Party " Patriots" following wingnuts like Ron Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Bachmann, etc.

No, that's just your hate-filled imagination running overtime.

You bet you azz they are followers, but they seem to have the lowest standards for leadership I have ever seen.

You have not the slightest clue what leadership is, nor why you're a follower.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by diva360

And if a group of people like the Tea Party wants to claim the Constitution as its primary mantle, then its sympathizers should be able to explain what framers they look up to and why. So again, since you all claim to hold the Constitution so dear, who among its authors do you most admire? What do you think about all the arguments leading up to its adoption in 1787? What about the preceding decade when all was up for debate? What about debates about the Bill of Rights? What about the argument that that Bill wasn't enforceable until the 14th Amendment was passed?

You make the fundamental mistake of believing that the Constitution was all about the writers. Anyone who thinks that you have to follow someone is themselves incapable of being a leader. Admiring the Constitution has nothing to do with "following" anyone. It has to do with intellectually understanding the brilliance it contained - as failure to follow it has brought about exactly what it was intended to prevent - debt, tyranny, waste, and loss of freedom.

Tea Party adherents talk about the Constitution a lot, and that is fine; they are entitled to do so. So why not talk nuts and bolts here? The questions I've asked are simple, and I'm still waiting for a response.

Your question and underlying assumptions are erroneous. The brilliance of the Constitution is not who wrote it, but the ideas and principles that guided it, which have not only withstood the test of time, but also gave us clues about what would happen if it failed.

The people who wrote it did not believe it contained the definitive truth, nor any other such arrogance. Rather, they debated the validity of what principles should found a nation, and the notion of freedom won.

[diva360]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

You make the fundamental mistake of believing that the Constitution was all about the writers. Anyone who thinks that you have to follow someone is themselves incapable of being a leader. Admiring the Constitution has nothing to do with "following" anyone. It has to do with intellectually understanding the brilliance it contained - as failure to follow it has brought about exactly what it was intended to prevent - debt, tyranny, waste, and loss of freedom.



Your question and underlying assumptions are erroneous. The brilliance of the Constitution is not who wrote it, but the ideas and principles that guided it, which have not only withstood the test of time, but also gave us clues about what would happen if it failed.

The people who wrote it did not believe it contained the definitive truth, nor any other such arrogance. Rather, they debated the validity of what principles should found a nation, and the notion of freedom won.

OK, just for the sake of argument, I will grant that what you say is true, even though you are once again evading the questions I posed, and I am not sure whether you are ascribing arrogance to me or to the framers. Based on what you said, let me put the question in another way and in the most simple terms that I can possibly conceive: what parts of the Constitution as written do you hold most sacrosanct, and why? Among its Amendments, which do you adhere to, and why? If not its authors', what are the ideas and principles to which you hold so dear? Please specify.

[carolac]

All of it. It's the law of the land. Its Articles and Amendments apply to different people at different times of their lives. Amendments 4, 6, 8 are used every day in our criminal justice system for example. I could go through the importance of each, but it's not necessary. It's about rights granted to the citizens of America, which I hold very dear--rights granted to all citizens by the Constitution. It's why we are not a third world couintry.

Originally Posted by diva360

what parts of the Constitution as written do you hold most sacrosanct, and why? Among its Amendments, which do you adhere to, and why? If not its authors', what are the ideas and principles to which you hold so dear? Please specify.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by diva360

OK, just for the sake of argument, I will grant that what you say is true, even though you are once again evading the questions I posed,

I'm not "evading", I'm trying to explain why your question doesn't have an answer. The premise that you must be modeling your thinking after someone else is not true. Being asked who you model your thinking after is a bit of an insult. ** I ** do my own thinking. This isn't to say that we're not influenced by what we read. After all, we read and study influential people to learn from them. But people who are not just mindless followers DO NOT model their thinking after someone else, they stand on their own.

. Based on what you said, let me put the question in another way and in the most simple terms that I can possibly conceive: what parts of the Constitution as written do you hold most sacrosanct, and why?

This also has no answer. The Constitution is a legal contract. Like a contract between you and someone else, there aren't parts one of you is free to ignore, or think is unimportant.

Among its Amendments, which do you adhere to, and why?

Refer to the answer above... same thinking.

If not its authors', what are the ideas and principles to which you hold so dear? Please specify.

As it concerns political matters - THIS is so well written I can't improve on it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I read so much about government needing to be permanent and powerful and how it needs to ensure that life is fair. Yet, that's NOT what they are for. They are for just one purpose... to secure our "inalienable rights".

Perhaps you would be far more interested in discussing what actual "rights" are.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by carolac

All of it. It's the law of the land. Its Articles and Amendments apply to different people at different times of their lives. Amendments 4, 6, 8 are used every day in our criminal justice system for example. I could go through the importance of each, but it's not necessary. It's about rights granted to the citizens of America, which I hold very dear--rights granted to all citizens by the Constitution. It's why we are not a third world couintry.

The Constitution does NOT grant us rights. The Constitution forbids government from encroaching on our rights. Our rights exist as an integral part of humanity itself. If you're human, you have rights that belong to you just because you were born.

[carolac]

Right to a speedy trial? Right to confront witnesses? Right to bear arms? Those aren't rights granted to us in the Constitution to name a few? I do agree that many of the amendments are protection of our rights against government acts.

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

The Constitution does NOT grant us rights. The Constitution forbids government from encroaching on our rights. Our rights exist as an integral part of humanity itself. If you're human, you have rights that belong to you just because you were born.

[TrapperJohn]

The history of the 19th century isn't relevant. We only need to look back to the last midterms. The republicans won big and they weren't all Tea Partiers.