Exactly, declare it unconstitutional and then return it back for Congress to rewrite, the power of Legislation lies with Congress, as one of it's enumerated powers, not the Judiciary, the Supreme Court has no authority by enumeration, to make new law, or, to task pr spend money in implementation of any law, it is not a power granted to the Courts.
There is no such thing. The British liberals of the time period were generally supporters of the Parliament against an absolute monarch, and this was largely the source of their motivation. They were actually very divided regarding what they thought the appropriate powers of government actually were. There was no such thing as a "liberal party" and a "conservative party" at the time. However, I think that they would have favored a strong Congress and a more limited executive branch. They essentially did the same thing during the time period. Besides that, their views would likely have been skewed in accordance with their particular circumstances and natural sensibilities. There wasn't really any real...mold at the time. That said, the only historical figure that I seek to emulate is Machiavelli.
Yes, Wigs/liberals, big government, government spending and control, over the peasants Now the problem for you and the Liberals today is, "The Constitution", as written by these Great Men, who founded our Country, it is nothing but a limit on the powers of Congress, President, and Judiciary, in favor of the Rights of the People. They clearly enumerated what powers the Federal Government and it's branches were limited to, and in very plain word.
I don't know about "Great Men." I am not sure there is any doubt in my mind that they were savvy politicians. What these guys were really up against, though, was absolute monarchy. There was this idea, that was becoming prevalent for a while, that kings were born with some "divine right" to take or do whatever they wanted to do. They were even forming religious sects around the idea. A more modern parallel would be emperor worship in the Empire of Nippon, during World War II. Many older Americans still remember the terrors of that time period. The truth is that the country was founded by imperfect, although educated men who happened to be living in a time in which even a person who was morally profligate could understand and act upon what was obviously the right thing to do at the time. The people of the time period were facing very different challenges from what we are today. The politics at the time were fundamentally different, not just different in terms of degree or quantity. This is our country. It is not their country anymore. They are dead. It is not entirely your country, either. You have to share it with me. By the way, have I mentioned the fact that our Constitution really seems to be based very much on the Discourses on Livy, by Niccolo Machiavelli? I find this extremely interesting in light of the fact that many people associate Machiavelli with a very different work, created with a very different purpose. Like the men whose ideas led to the founding of this country, though, Machiavelli's views and ideas were very much a product of the stresses and circumstances of the time in which he was living. The world was not all that much different then in most respects. The grass was the same shade of green, and there are places in the US, even today, in which you can still see little more than the means and technology that were available to them at the time, save perhaps for electricity and motorcars. Most families went about their day-to-day lives in similar fashion to what we do today. It was not an alien world. However, to truly understand the politics of HIS time period, see some of the places in Africa that are ruled by warlords. To understand the environment that our founding father were dealing with, take a simple look at dictators and bullies today that are using a religious institution to justify their rulership. I am not a supporter of so-called "big government." I am a supporter of good government, and that is where I stand. I am willing to be respectful toward your input. I am willing to be respectful toward your input, in particular, because you don't really resemble the kinds of men who left me as disaffected with the GOP as I have expressed in another thread on which we have both participated but interacted very little. You know from what I have said there and elsewhere that I would not hesitate to rail against anyone I thought fit the bill for something that I hated. You know that I am self-destructive when I get a certain sense about people because you, BR, have seen me in action all over this forum. Therefore, you can be perfectly confident that I am not bullshitting you when I state that I honestly don't consider you, in particular, to be in the "Them" category. Perhaps we don't always agree, but that shouldn't be something to come between two men who generally trust each other. To me, the conclusion is not entirely clear. However, I think that, between people like you and people like me, we will eventually settle on what constitutes "good government" together as long as we all try to practice some civility. I understand that there are certain people I can't practice that with, but screw them. I will have you know that I am a moderate liberal. I do believe that liberalism, as we understand it today, has an important heritage in our country. It even goes back to some of the ideals that were supported by Adam Smith. Most people don't truly understand Adam Smith, but I think he would be called an extremely moderate, tentative progressive even in modern times. In spite of where we may disagree on the specifics, though, I think that we can agree that we want our government to be "good government." We want it to be effective and efficient at whatever we call on it to do. We want it to do so discreetly.
Again you lack of Historical Knowledge is apparent, England wasn't a Absolute Monarchy, it was a Parliamentary Monarchy, and those Great Men were not Politicians. They absolutely put their Lives and Fortunes on the Line for their Beliefs, if they had Failed in this they would have ended up on the end of the Hangman's Rope for Treason.
My "lack of historical knowledge"? BR, this is an unnecessary insult, and I have demonstrated myself to have a fair level of historical savvy. During the Glorious Revolution, it was a Parliamentary Republic! It was a parliamentary monarchy because there were people in England and in Scotland and in Wales who were fighting to keep it that way. This was more the work of savvy statesmen than belligerent firebrands. I will use one of my own ancestors as an example: Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the First Earl of Shaftesbury, was never really anti-Catholic. In fact, he became a supporter of religious toleration. However, a fellow who was in the line of succession had been abusing his power, and it looked like he had fallen under the temptation to try to replicate the events that had led to absolute monarchy in France. Now, to get things done in politics, you often have to build a few unattractive alliances and make difficult decisions. Although my ancestor realized the evils of religious intolerance, he also realized that the rampant anti-Catholicism in Britain could be a useful tool for bracing his country against a descent into tyranny, so he found himself amidst a group of paranoid fanatics whose fertile imaginations tended to invent new reasons for hating the Catholics. The history of modern democracy was made by brilliant politicians and statesmen. There was nothing special about them. There was nothing anymore special about them than there is about Barack Obama or George H.W. Bush. To tell you the truth, I think that even the best of them would be embarrassed to be remembered as picture-perfect icons, rather than the flawed, human figures they actually were. The flaws and quirks of these men are what give them life and depth. It makes them more approachable, and it becomes easier then to believe that we can emulate them. Adam Smith was a very strange, unattractive man. He had a number of eccentric habits, and he would regularly do weird things like take these late night walks. He was a brilliant scholar, though, and his work in the area of economics helped set the mold for what America's economy was to become. Countries all over the world are still being touched today by the influence of this man. The humanity in this man, though, makes him something that people today, who are also imperfect human beings, can aspire to be more like. If you make him into some mythological figure, then what is that telling some weird, little bug-eyed kid today? It's telling him the same ugly thing that the bullies he deals with every day are telling him: "you're not good enough, and you will never be good enough. Give it up." I believe that a flawed, human hero sets a much better moral example for young people. They were politicians, and many of them were intellectuals. Yes, my ancestors were very heroic during the Revolutionary War. I am proud to say that none of them were tories. They were still politicians.
Liberal Vs Libertarian This is a quotation from the opening statement i do believe. "ALL OF THESE GREAT PEOPLE WERE LIBERALS: John Locke Benjamin Franklin Thomas Jefferson John Adams Patrick Henry Thomas Paine" These people were not liberals these people were Libertarians. Libertarians believing in little to no government. Liberals believing that they need to play Robin Hood and take money from people who actually work and give it to the people that dont. Dont get me wrong i believe in a lot of Liberal Views such as separation of church and state. (Hence the libertarian side of liberalism) However i believe that the government shouldn't only keep their hands out off of my religious believes or the lack there of but also keep their hands out of my wallet as well. This is why these men are not liberals, some of these men helped form our constitution, right after we fought a war to get out of a government that was sticking their hands in all places but where it needed to be.
Funny, I seem to recall the objections being a lack of representation, not taxation as such, or over-governance in general.
Yes it was about lack of representation and may not only be directed to the taxation. However look at how the Articles of Confederation it self was written. No power to the government specially with the Executive Branch. Then the fact that none of them even wanted to be the First President because they feared becoming what they hated the most. BTW i am not splitting hairs. A liberal is a liberal, a conservative is a conservative, and a libertarian is a libertarian. Liberals believe in control of economics, conservatives believe in control of Moralities, and Libertarians believed in the control of none of it but basic public safety, and defense of the nation. I expected you to know better Mr. Moderator.
