Was John Quincy Adams A "Founding Father"??

Tell me Kate, have you ever read and digested the Federalist Papers - all 85 of them? Have you read the arguments the writers of the Constitution forwarded to the people of New York in support of adopting the Constitution? Have you read the anti-Federalist papers to see the counter arguments? Have you read the notes of the debates conducted in the Philadelphia Convention to gain a sense of the discussions that resulted in the Constitution?

I have. I have also read the amalgamations of Jefferson's writings published by direction of Congress. My "opinion" is nothing more than an echo of what these men, the ones who crafted the documents that are the foundation of our government, thought. The men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to throw off a government of tyranny and despotism and then constructed a new one from the ground up intent on preserving the greatest amount of individual liberty possible by strictly confining the power and reach of the proposed national government to specific areas.

It is not my opinion Kate, it is the one expressed by men who actually argued, debated and drafted the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I have in my possession copies of the drafts of the Declaration full of the notes and revisions requested by the committee in the margins of Jefferson's original efforts. My knowledge of the history of this nation is not confined to the last few decades or the last century. My understanding doesn't come from Napalitano, Beck, Obama, Stewart or some op-ed piece published as an excuse for news above the fold of the NYT. It comes from reading the words of the men who wrote the documents, not the conclusion of a historian who read the documents, the documents. It comes from reading what they wrote, working through the language they contain to understand the message they contain.

Tell me you have done the same thing Kate - tell me you have spent hundreds of hours of your time reading and researching original documents from the founding era to come to your understanding of the intent contained within the documents. I've got a spare nickel I can wager that you've never read all 85 Federalist Papers Kate - care to take the bet?

Amazingly, I am not going to engage with your argument, PrintSmith. I've learned not to give too much credence to someone that thinks their opinion is a fact, someone who is more interested in winning an argument than they are in the true representation of facts.

You can bloviate and opine all you wish, you can use complex sentences to obfuscate the issue, you can outright lie and twist facts as you have done in the past, but I'm not going to bite. So you can take your pontificating interpretation of the federalist papers and your opinions of what the founding fathers really meant and ...

Kate wrote: I'm so glad you were around when the founding fathers (of whom, John Quincy Adams was not a member) made their arguments and told you their opinions. It's just like when you render opinions on the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, since you were obviously a member of the jury and heard all the arguments and evidence.

Your opinions are just opinions and to be honest, have grown tiresome. Don't you have some new comedy material?

Let's try this again. They did tell me their opinions - they wrote them down and told everyone their opinions. All you need do is invest a little (actually a lot of) time and read what they wrote to see what the opinions of the authors of the Constitution were regarding the document they created. That's the beauty of the written history that they left for us. I didn't have to be around to hear Madison forward the argument that the Constitution created a government with very specific limits to its power and that the states would retain their authority over the welfare of their citizens - Madison clearly states that to be the case in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

It isn't my opinions that I express Kate, it is the opinion of the man who is known as the "Father of the Constitution". I can understand why you might question my opinion, but don't you think the opinion of the man largely responsible for the writing of what is contained in the Constitution is beyond question?

Read your own history Kate. Not what someone else determines what was said by these men, not what someone with an agenda interpreted their writings to mean so that their agenda could be advanced, but the history they left for you to read yourself - in their own words. It's very enlightening to say the least, and I understand why such effort has been expended to keep them unread by the regressive element of our society that wishes to morph a federal government into a national one. Something else that Madison addressed by the way - Federalist 39 if you are interested.

Of course Printsmith conveniently omits, as he usually does, that the other "Fathers of the Constitution", Alexander Hamilton to name one, held the opposing view, that Congress held wide ranging powers, that there was a raging dispute at that time, and of course that the Hamilton view was the view that prevailed.

As an exercise in mental-masturbation, I'm sure we're all impressed with PS's ability to trot out "original intent" minutiae at will...

On the other hand, .... :Snooze

Wake me when it's over...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course Printsmith conveniently omits, as he usually does, that the other "Fathers of the Constitution", Alexander Hamilton to name one, held the opposing view, that Congress held wide ranging powers, that there was a raging dispute at that time, and of course that the Hamilton view was the view that prevailed.

Hence the "General Welfare" clause.... (whether he likes it or not...)

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course Printsmith conveniently omits, as he usually does, that the other "Fathers of the Constitution", Alexander Hamilton to name one, held the opposing view, that Congress held wide ranging powers, that there was a raging dispute at that time, and of course that the Hamilton view was the view that prevailed.

That would be the same Alexander Hamilton who remarked that the British government was the most perfect government, despite its corruptions, that had ever existed and that to remove the corruption inherent in the system would be unwise, correct? The same government that so many had given their lives to defeat was the same one that was adopted by the new nation in 1789? Really? Show me where he said that the new government was a national government invested with limitless power over the sovereign, free and independent states and their citizens Dog. Not you interpretation of what he said, which is how we got ourselves into this mess to begin with, but Hamilton's actual words stating that opinion. I've got a nickel that says it doesn't exist.

Here you go PS:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... _1s21.html

Sorry Dog - what you've provided says that the power to levy and collect taxes extends beyond enumerated powers, which I would agree with provided such extensions remained consistent with the common defense and general welfare of the union. This opinion does not specifically say that their delegated powers includes the ability to address the individual welfare of each and every citizen in a state that is a member of the union.

I would agree that it covers such things as the EPA for instance, since that entity serves to protect the general welfare of every state by regulating such things as purity of water that flows from state to state. The individual benefits indirectly from such efforts, but the purpose of such an entity is still within the realm of affairs that concern harmony between the states - which is clearly within the scope of preserving the general welfare of the union.

Show me specifically where he said that the proposed Constitution, or even the adopted one, had the ability to remove from the independent sovereignty of the states the responsibility for addressing the individual welfare of the citizen that resides within that independent and sovereign state that belongs to the union.

If he showed it to you carved in stone, you wouldn't believe it, and would continue to regurgitate your nonsense... Personally, I hope he's got the time to ram it down your throat, but the truth is that even if he does, you'll continue to try to spin it your way...

Sorry, dude... You've been out-"original-intent"ed' ....

Actually it that states that Congress has the power to do pretty much what it desires as long as it deems it to be within the General Welfare, such as imposing an individual mandate to possess health insurance. You can keep up with your straw man arguments to keep shifting focus, but it is what it is.