Quote Drop

[AZhitman]

George Washington was a great man in many ways. However, I also have to ask myself, "How great is a man that enslaves his fellow man?" If he were around today living out his daily life (sans war or politics) and was caught, he'd be in jail for life.

That may be easily said of Al Gore in 200 years when use of petroleum is outlawed, I can read it now "How great is a man who actually raped mother nature of her resources?"

Great point. I was thinking (as I read Matt's post), "How many men in history (who we consider "great") were repressive, misogynist bastards?

Are they then, by that measure, less "great" now?

History is a blurry lens through which to view mens' actions.

[AZhitman]

BY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY LINE. The Democrats are a big tent party. They include everyone, and there is no official line because not everyone agrees and thus its difficult to find the consensus needed to have a party line.

Even upper-middle-class White males who believe in the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion and welfare, believe in God and support peace through superior firepower?

Just checkin'.

[heliochrome85]

BY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY LINE. The Democrats are a big tent party. They include everyone, and there is no official line because not everyone agrees and thus its difficult to find the consensus needed to have a party line.

Even upper-middle-class White males who believe in the sanctity of marriage, oppose abortion and welfare, believe in God and support peace through superior firepower?

Just checkin'.

sarah palin doesnt bat for our team

[AZhitman]

... that's just because she throws like a girl.

[stebo0728]

I disagree. The enumerated powers themselves are written very vaguely, and Congress has the authority to pass any law that is "necessary and proper" to pursue those powers. You're quibbling with people who wrote the Constitution, Stebo.

And just so you dont think I'm a total goon, I did pretty much surmise that the above would be the nature of your argument on unenumerated powers, which was why I specifically chose the following quote I will re-iterate.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

[BusyBadger]

... that's just because she throws like a girl.

Actually, it's more likely because she's an NRA member.

[IBCoupe]

...they weren't people...

Please, dont further this misconception. You have a point about them not being recognized citizens, but lets leave the reparationists diatribe behind please ...

Wait, what? How is that at all reparationist? Wtf?

[IBCoupe]

I disagree. The enumerated powers themselves are written very vaguely, and Congress has the authority to pass any law that is "necessary and proper" to pursue those powers. You're quibbling with people who wrote the Constitution, Stebo.

Couldnt you say that a line of reasoning such as that negates a need for a difference between enumerated and unenumerated powers? I guess its sort of similar to a pressure relief valve at a dam. A dam designed to hold back water no matter what, but sometimes the pressure is too great as to threaten the integrity of the dam, so if you relieve a bit of pressure by letting a little water through, the dam is saved. Well with than analogy I'd say we've made a habit of opening the valve just a bit too often.

No, it means that you can't take the words in the Constitution at it's face value. Was it unconstitutional to create the Air Force as a separate branch of the military? Was it unconstitutional to create the department of education? In your view, yes. In my view, no, as they're both necessary and proper for raisIng and supporting armies. Those are unenumerated powers, but because the constitution doesn't give us a real closed-ended list, they are included into the enumerated powers.

You can argue that you think there are bad policies that have been made, but when you go and say that the Constitution has been breached, you're making a very specific kind of argument, and you are making very specific assertions about the Constitution itself.

[IBCoupe]

You go down the list of founding fathers, and you'll find they were very much split on the matter.

If nothing else, it's the insinuation in the OP that anything else is true - that we really weren't of two minds all along - is what got my panties in a bunch.

I find those two statements contradictory.

How?

[IBCoupe]

I disagree. The enumerated powers themselves are written very vaguely, and Congress has the authority to pass any law that is "necessary and proper" to pursue those powers. You're quibbling with people who wrote the Constitution, Stebo.

And just so you dont think I'm a total goon, I did pretty much surmise that the above would be the nature of your argument on unenumerated powers, which was why I specifically chose the following quote I will re-iterate.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

I never appealed to the general welfare clause, Stebo. Try reading what I write, instead of looking for a place to jump in.

I'll help you out: throughout this thread, I've been presenting arguments from the "Necessary and Proper" clause.

[IBCoupe]

And I shouldn't have to get you a bunch of quotes, Stebo. I shouldn't have to educate you. You should already understand how our Country was in the beginning. I don't fault you for coming up with the lie you're propagating, but I do hold you accountable for an inexcusable failure to see it.

Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things."

That's in direct conflict with James Madison (who actually happened to change sides now and then), who wrote, "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

These are two of the authors of the Constitution. To suggest that the Founders wanted any single thing, and that a certain reading of the Constitution is not in keeping with the Founders' intentions, is to discount half of the men that built this nation. Stop perpetuating the lie that strict constructionialism isn't a choice of multiple original intentions for the Constitution.

[AppleBonker]

slavery was a resource at the time. A common practice, and to demonize someone for it seems a bit unfair

Not to me it doesn't. Slavery has always been wrong. There are few things that should be moral absolutes: murder, rape, child abuse, slavery (and some others). I don't really care where you live or during what era; these are all wrong. The fact that you can use the excuse of "everyone else is doing it" does NOT make it right. So yeah, I'm going to go ahead and think less of those people.

[IBCoupe]

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."
- George Washington

Slavery was a cultural addiction, like oil is now. They knew it was bad, even back then but they were trapped. That's why George Washington promised to free his slaves when he died. Kinda like Aladdin promising to free the Genie only after he got his first two wishes. How's that for an inconvenient truth?

By the way, why didn't Aladdin free the genie sooner? Isn't it possible that the genie would have been thankful and used his unlimited magic to help Aladdin even more? Stuff I never got as a kid. Robin Williams always seemed like a pretty courteous fellow.

[Cold_Zero]

Politics according to Aladdin. Love it!
That is definitely not the message I got from the movie. Yet when the movie came out I was in high school, so I look at it from a different lense with my kid, now.

[AppleBonker]

By the way, why didn't Aladdin free the genie sooner? Isn't it possible that the genie would have been thankful and used his unlimited magic to help Aladdin even more? Stuff I never got as a kid. Robin Williams always seemed like a pretty courteous fellow.

Also, as Cyanide and Happiness so accurately pointed out, why don't people wish for more genies? Clearly you can't wish for more wishes, but the genie never makes the rule of no wishing for more genies...

[IBCoupe]

That was an epic comic.

[mattblancarte]

That may be easily said of Al Gore in 200 years when use of petroleum is outlawed, I can read it now "How great is a man who actually raped mother nature of her resources?"

Asinine? Perhaps, no oil is not as important as the liberty of a man, but still, and tieing into another current thread, slavery was a resource at the time. A common practice, and to demonize someone for it seems a bit unfair.

That very well may be the case. I hope the folks around in 200 years aren't deifying Al Gore, either. That's my point.

You're correct in pointing out the difference between slavery and petroleum use.

To assume that George Washington was so morally dense that he couldn't recognize that slavery was just plain wrong, is just plain wrong. Men had been fighting for their freedom since the beginning of history. He had been well educated, and clearly knew it was morally corrupt to enslave his fellow man.

I reject the notion that I'm demonizing Washington, as well. I already said he was a great man, but wanted to interject some reality into that statement by addressing a glaring flaw.

Is he "less great?" That's for you to decide. I'm just telling you what happened.

I'd argue that hindsight (valid history) is 20/20, and that the lens of "current events" is often the MOST blurry.

It's interesting to consider Washington's hypocrisy, as he wishes for freedom yet owns a large number of slaves.

He (and the other founding fathers) were just men with flaws, like all of us now. That's all I was trying to get across.

[stebo0728]

Well I hope you're right about Gore, but the reason I used him, is he IS one of the political front runners for environmentalism, and in a future filled with PETA/NOAH members, petroleum use might just be as "evil" as slavery was, who knows, but it'll be noted that "even the Great Gore used large amounts of petroleum". Well duh, he had to.

Again though there are differences between the 2 "resources" in question. We just have to be careful not to judge the past based on present ideology. Some portion of reality is subject to change, and if you assess one reality based on the specifics of another reality, you get a muttled up assessment. But thats nothing to quarrel over anywho.

Yes our founding fathers were men just the same as we today are, flaws and all. But the level of rational and critical thought is greatly diminished, presumably because of our own actions, our our own shift of values. Whats important to realize, is for the most part, our founding fathers engaged in reason, and had little place for emotion. Thats not to say that emotion was non existent, but it was not always the primary drive of policy. Thats also not to say that today emotion IS always the primary driver, but the level of emotional permeation into matters of logic and reason is at what I would argue to be an all time high.

We are every bit as capable of leaving the same legacy for future generations that was left to us by the previous, but its up to us to own it, and I dont mean Congress, I mean US, all of US. "Of the people.....by the people", not just "For the people".