So its not the Constitution you don't like, it's the people who interpret and implement the laws? You think those old white gentlemen would have imagined 50 states and a civil war in between?

You must want your America back and don't want to share it with other Americans.

Obviously the founding fathers couldn't envisage much beyond, well, the Ohio and the Mississippi, after all most of it was in French and Spanish hands. Their concerns were much closer to home, staying out from under the British thumb, and they were fortunate, the British had bigger fish to fry, for which they would prove the beneficiaries. The British made a fatal mistake in 1814, they should have ended it then

It wasn't fatal and it ended up okay in the long run. We are best friends now. What's a war among friends?

Quote:

---

So its not the Constitution you don't like, it's the people who interpret and implement the laws? You think those old white gentlemen would have imagined 50 states and a civil war in between?

---

You know I think the Constitution is timeless .It is not me who favors expanding the powers of the national government beyond the scope of the Constitution. All I've ever asked is that if changes are needed ,that it gets amended properly.
Yes I do think the founders imagined an expanded nation ;and expansion in knowledge of the sciences. Are you kidding ? By the time the founders passed away they had engineered the expansion of the nation in territorial size well beyond the Mississippi River.Many of the founders were the foremost scientist and philosophical minds of the enlightenment . Few of them limited themselves to being professional politicians as today's group of leaders do.

A civil war ? It was avoidable They set up a system that would've solved the slave issue without civil war . I blame SCOTUS and the Dredd Scott decision for the civil war. That decision by the appointed for life oligarchs wiped out a generation of compromise . Had the legislations been allowed to stand ,eventually the slave trade would've been abolished without bloodshed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Obviously the founding fathers couldn't envisage much beyond, well, the Ohio and the Mississippi, after all most of it was in French and Spanish hands. Their concerns were much closer to home, staying out from under the British thumb, and they were fortunate, the British had bigger fish to fry, for which they would prove the beneficiaries. The British made a fatal mistake in 1814, they should have ended it then

---

The Brits mistake was in thinking they could stomp on the rights of free men.

No Tom the Brits decided to free men long before it became fashionable in the United States, you want to talk about stomping on the rights of free men, why did it take until the later half of the twentieth century for your nation to stop stomping on the rights of free men, if in fact that is what they have actually done. You claim to be founded by members of the enlightenment, but they were only enlightened in their own direction, in enriching and entrenching themselves behind some flowery language

That is a complete falsehood. Most of the founders sacrificed personal wealth in public service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that is a complete falsehood. most of the founders sacrificed personal wealth in public service.

---

You mean to say they got nothing out of it. Didn't someone tell them politics costs money or is that a twenty-first century phenominom. Your defense of these people is slavish and laughable, they may have had some good motives but behind it was defense of their own interests. I think they got into more than they could chew

Even back then public service had its perks. Politicians never go broke or lose any power or influence and that's for a lifetime just like those judges. We have always seen where there is a will, or interest, there are was to stretch the boundaries of any law.

All men being created equal is a nice idea, but we all know that some are worth a lot more than others is the reality, and has been forever.

Capitalism says its okay to be greedy and know how to make/take as much as you can. Why bribe a politician to make favorable laws for you when you can just lease/rent/or own them? And its LEGAL if not questionable. So its not the Constitution that's flawed Tom, it's the money that can manipulate it that's the problem.

Wouldn't matter if it's a SCOTUS for life, or a month.

maybe you should read up on it instead of speculation based on 21st century values. Save your cynicism for your leaders today . The founders don't deserve it .

Samuel Adams had to borrow clothing to go to Philadelphia for the 2nd Continental Congress.
Jefferson began his public life at 26 .He ended it at 66 years and in all that time added nothing to his personal wealth .

Here is a letter he wrote after returning home from a decade of service .

Quote:

---

On returning home after an absence of ten years, I found my farms so much deranged that I saw evidently they would be a burden to me instead of a support till I could regenerate them; and, consequently, that it was necessary for me to find some other resource in the meantime. I thought for a while of taking up the manufacture of potash, which requires but small advances of money. I concluded at length, however, to begin a manufacture of nails, which needs little or no capital, and I now employ a dozen little boys from ten to sixteen years of age, overlooking all the details of their business myself, and drawing from it a profit on which I can get along till I can put my farms into a course of yielding profit. My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility or the ensigns of a new order are in Europe.

---

To Jean Nicolas Demeunier Monticello, Virginia, Apr. 29, 1795 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Jefferson was technically bankrupt at the time of his death.

Patrick Henry had to leave public service to tend to his personal finances and had to be coaxed back into public service. Washington often kept the army together out of his own pockets . He was wealthy ,but did not increase in wealth in his times of public service.

That is just a few examples . They all took greater risks than our pols today ;and in the case of the wealthy ones ,risked all on something that was hardly a sure thing .

Okay I don't mind being corrected with facts. Since the founders are gone and we only have today as an example, I will stick to how Today's politician gets richer than when he/she started their public services. Whether it's a cush lobby job, or hired by former donors.

Fair enough?

Politicians getting richer, isn't that why they went into politics? Do you really think their intention wasn't to advantage themselves in the process? We had one senior politician who was known as the ten thousand dollar man, that was a while ago, we now have one former politician who is likely to be called the hundred million dollar man

Consider that in some places, the US for example its not in the best interests of politicians to do the right thing by the whole country. 100% election participation would be a nightmare for those seeking to exploit the flaws in the system for personal gain.

You lost me Tal

The bigger the electorial participation, the more chance that hidden self interest can gain a foothole. The more that can be done for the whole, NOT just the few.

An informed, engaged electorate is the solution in my opinion to corruption, and exploitation. That was the intent of our founding fathers for a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The bigger the electorial participation, the more chance that hidden self interest can gain a foothole. The more that can be done for the whole, NOT just the few.

An informed, engaged electorate is the solution in my opinion to corruption, and exploitation. That was the intent of our founding fathers for a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

---

I don't quite follow how the electorate can be informed when the media totes Obama's water and all he'd tell us was that the other guy is a greedy, evil, dog abuser instead of any actual second term agenda.

It is possible the electorate is better informed than it has been in the past, this has led to a polarisation, but it has not led to the electorate being more engaged or the politicians less corrupt. The bigger the electoral participation the more likely that you can "keep the b@stards honest" as the leader of one of our minor parties put it, but you mean electoral participation as number of voters and I mean electoral participation as number of candidates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't quite follow how the electorate can be informed when the media totes Obama's water and all he'd tell us was that the other guy is a greedy, evil, dog abuser instead of any actual second term agenda.

---

I gather my own facts and do the math according to what the candidate says or WRITES himself.

Its not always as cut and dried as the media says so check the sources before you believe them.

What is a second term agenda other than reinforcing the policies of the first term. There seems to be an idea that new ideas just spring up because an election campaign exists. The reality is the pressing issues of years have not been successfully dealt with, and concluded, so how can there realistically be new initiatives. The idea that you can fish and cut bait doesn't apply. There will be no moving on until the deficit is under control

Tal, I couldn't agree more. But if you think the electorate isn't swayed by the media and a negative campaign that's awfully naïve.