If one tries to imagine how Gouverner Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the others who wrote the Constitution would have felt--in an era when most Americans were yeoman farmers or craftsmen living in small towns--they would surely have found it preposterous that the federal government require people to buy insurance. But they would also have found it unbelievable that the federal government required hospitals to treat anyone who showed up for emergency care for free if they couldn't pay. In their view, that would have been a state issue, not a federal issue, since hospitals did not operate across state boundaries then. They also probably could not have imagined the federal government licensing the electromagnetic spectrum or sending rockets to the moon. A lot has changed since 1788 and not every modern dispute can be resolved by looking at the text of the Constitution.---Electoral-Vote.Com
An interesting statement that begs the question...what if it's OK to say that the Founding Fathers would have been against something like the health care law but it's still good policy for today? Given that they didn't face the same issues that we do, it's likely they really shouldn't be any sort of authority.
In addition, I'm not sure I agree with Andy here as President Adams signed into a law a bill that forced seamen to hand over some of their pay check for health care.
Too many liberals cower in fear when the right invokes the spirit of the Founding Fathers. I wish they would point out the fact that the FFs argued constantly among themselves. It was out of this debate that our country was born, for better or worse. Even with all the animosity that floats around these days, it's clearly been for the better.
And it's improving every day. Happy 4th of July everyone!
8 comments:
The idea that the Founding Fathers were one monolothic block that had one opinion is dead wrong. Some of them would think the health care law is fine, and others would violently disagree. Some of them would see how small, powerful and dangerous modern firearms are and would have used different wording in the second amendment.
They were as diverse a group as the Democrats and Republicans of today and their arguments were every bit as fierce and contentious.
The difference is that they understood that they had to come to a resolution to go forward. They were united in a common goal to make the country succeed. Today's Democrats still believe that.
Today's Republicans only care about partisan victory for themselves, no matter the cost to the people, economy, and legal system. The idea of compromise among disparate ideas, which was the very foundation of this country, has become anathema to the Republicans.
Today's Democrats still believe that.
Yep, you are still a dupe!
...what if it's OK to say that the Founding Fathers would have been against something like the health care law but it's still good policy for today?
They expected that to happen - that's why they provided us with the amendment mechanism. Times change, you amend the Constitution - pretty smart, huh? In their early days progressives even did just that, but apparently it got to be too hard so they opted for creative interpretation (at least while they hold power).
The idea of compromise among disparate ideas, which was the very foundation of this country
Except when the ideas were so disparate that no compromise could be made. Then they started shooting at the other side.
Now this gets at the reality of your Golden Age:
Consider America during the two decades after World War II. Stereotypically but also in fact, the conformist pressures of bourgeois social norms were powerful. To dress or speak or live life in unorthodox, extravagantly individualist ways required real gumption. Yet just as beatniks were rare and freakish, so were proudly money-mad Ayn Randian millionaires.
I'll take the 80s, 90s or today over the 50s thank you very much!
Damn, Samuelson totally nails it today!
Would the Founders think this Health Care bill is great? Probably not.
Since they really didn't want a federal central power, This information makes it hard to believe they would support it as it is written, adding vast amounts of regulations and bureaucracy which always opens the door for waste and corruption.
Does this further liberty or curtail it?
It furthers it due to the unique nature of the health care market.
It's really hard to say what the FFs would do. Your point is valid. But when you see that they required taxes on carriages and whiskey, a payroll tax for seamen and ordered every man to own a firearm, it becomes more muddied.
Post a Comment