Thread: The Balance between Conservatives and Progressives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You are just further proving my point. The Constitution is a useless document unless you have a universal, generic understanding of it by all citizenry and they don't deviate from that understanding. And I am called utopian for trying to propound a people with no government, truly Constitutionalists take the cake.

But why am I supporting localized government? Because people can choose how they are governed at a local level, if they are upset, it's often very simple to change with a small group of people. It's far more difficult to change a Federal government than a localized one.

If I were at the Constitutional Convention I would have been with Jefferson, I'm an Anti-Federalist. (And just because not everyone agrees completely on the Constitution doesn't make it useless. The whole part about "due process" and the right to trial by jury, that's usually a good thing, even though some may oppose it due to lack of expediency.) Unless someone doesn't believe in human rights, which is quite possible.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

But why am I supporting localized government? Because people can choose how they are governed at a local level, if they are upset, it's often very simple to change with a small group of people. It's far more difficult to change a Federal government than a localized one.

If I were at the Constitutional Convention I would have been with Jefferson, I'm an Anti-Federalist. (And just because not everyone agrees completely on the Constitution doesn't make it useless. The whole part about "due process" and the right to trial by jury, that's usually a good thing, even though some may oppose it due to lack of expediency.) Unless someone doesn't believe in human rights, which is quite possible.

Be mindful of Jefferson. He wanted aristocratic rulers but ones who were disinterested in using political powers for further gain. Those who were not "gentlemen" were apart of the rabble who were incapable of running a republic. It is only later that he mellows out. Anyways, the fact that not everyone agrees on the Constitution is something that creates its own downfall for what is "general welfare?" If 51% think it is the right for the government to distribute healthcare and entitlements then the 49% have a serious problem. In some capacity American history is the battle of the role of government. Look at the revolutionary era and the disputes between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, look at the early Republic and see the conflict over the United States and whether it should build a navy for our merchant fleet and send in into international waters. Look at the antebellum years: temperance, slavery, tariffs, secession, fugitive slave laws, The Guilded Age, monetary control & inflation/deflation, tariffs (again) international trade disputes. The Progressive era, business for the public welfare, democracy for the world, tax collection. The inter-war period, prohibition. Post WWII, defense against subversive ideas that degrade national character...should I continue?

Where was the Constitution during temperance? secession? international trade defense? business regulation? international democratization? Where was it for taxation? Not every state concurred with the income tax. Where was the Constitution during the House of Unamerican Activities?

It was sitting behind a bullet proof glass frame in Washington D.C., doing nothing. When it comes to power in this nation, its is whatever the 51% wants and supposedly following a document isn't going to change that.