Most red states receive more from the feds than they pay. Would the application of states rights require those states to send more money to Washington ,or is the application of states rights just a facile way to garner votes from single issue voters?
Hmm. I'd always assumed that the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to declare our independence from Mother England, not from each other. The fact that the phrase "Independent States" is used more times in this blog post than in the entire Constitution doesn't exactly instill confidence in this alternative explanation.
Incidentally, I've always been fascinated by the history of how the constitution came to be. "Far right conservatives" may worship it today, but they clearly would never have tolerated it at the time, as it was nothing if not a series of compromises among men with exceedingly different views, and the only compromise accepting to today's conservative is straight out of "Re: Your Brains" :
"All we want to do is eat your brains
We're at an impasse here, maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We'll all come inside and eat your brains"
Of course, thinking back to the sequestration (in Jon Stewart's words, "I wish I was there when Democrats said to Republicans, 'Look, if we can't come to a deal, there's going to be massive, across-the-board spending cuts.' I'm sure the Republicans were like, 'OK. If that's what you want.'"), I suspect that more than a few Democratic congressman and senators would open the door!
As a historian I have read many of the journals and other writings of our nation's founding fathers. As such, I have gathered a pretty good idea of how they wanted our 'Federal' government to work.
This is my very much simplified take:
First and foremost, scindapsus, the founding fathers wanted to create a political umbrella under which these "United States" could operate in their dealing with foreign powers. They werent just concerned about Great Britain, they were equally concerned about the actions of France and Spain.
Also present were concerns about the actions in the former colony of smaller imperial powers, which today are not even thought of when discussing the American Revolution: Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and more.
Secondly, the founding fathers wanted ensure that there would be a way to coordinate the settlement of all the conflicting or confusing state laws when it came to deciding legal matters and whose rights were being protected or denied.
Furthermore, for those who treat the actions of the founding fathers with contempt, know this: many of the signers of the Declaration lost their lives, their property, and many of their families suffered equally horribly because of their bravery in constructing and then signing such a revolutionary document. Many died penniless and destitute because of them taking such a stand.
Before you criticize it, and therefore, those who wrote it, scindapsus, ask yourself, would i have had the guts to stand up and risk everything just to make such a point.
You cannot treat the creation of the Constitution as if it was another pointless and purposeless political statement made before a bunch of cameras in order to gain some political points in your upcoming campaign!
Not sure what to make of your ability to infer the intentions of others based on their writings, as I criticized NEITHER the Founding Fathers NOR the document they produced; quite the opposite! I commended this group of men with very different viewpoints for being able to accommodate these differences through compromise, and noted the irony of how this very approach is viewed with contempt by today's supposedly Constitution-worshiping conservatives.
Scindapsus, (gotta find a way to abbreviate that - can't decide on sin or pus. Neither complimentary.) I read your initial post as you have described it. However, you're labeling of Regional as a "... supposedly Constitution-worshiping conservative..." makes you guilty of the same offense you charge him with.
But, Regional, his points stand. It was politics and compromise all the way. But, it was done in the interest of our growing nation - not avoided or reluctantly agreed upon because of the next election cycle.
But I didn't label Regional anything (other than incorrect in his/her reading of my post). If he/she 1) self-identifies as a conservative, and 2) views compromise with contempt, then the label would apply (given his/her opinion of the Constitution). But Regional wasn't belittling compromise here, and so that particular turn of phrase wasn't aimed at him/her at all.
here's my point...you stated "they clearly would not have tolerated it at that time"...that is patently false...
if you read the writings of the men who drafted and then signed the Constitution then you would know that they came from what at then would have passed for every political spectrum..
sometimes they disagreed with each other so violently on matters as to come to blows....
but when it came to crafting our nations Declaration they set aside everything and worked...
maybe for the first and only time in their lives...for truly what was the common good.!
the only people I know today who feel contempt for the Constitution are those who've never bothered to read it.....
maybe what offends me the most is your oft stated disdain for anyone "conservative".....
if someone being conservative, IE: someone who accepts traditional values and mores, if that bothers you......
then I as a Christian Conservative think you have a problem my friend...
Um, what's patently false is your version of my writing. I'm sorry, but it seems extremely obvious that ...
"'Far right conservatives' may worship it today, but they clearly would never have tolerated it at the time"
... refers to today's "Far right conservatives," not the men who drafted the Constitution! You seem to have locked into a faulty narrative (i.e., that I'm criticizing the Constitution and the men responsible for it), and are unfortunately misreading everything so it fits that narrative.
And I'm sorry that you're offended at my disdain for conservatives. To be fair, though, the only time I express this seeming disdain is in direct response to clumsy conservative attacks on anything or anyone deemed insufficiently conservative. If I'm not mistaken, that means you're offended that I dare be offended, sort of like Holly Fisher's getting upset when her mocking of liberals was itself mocked. Ah well.