Did our Founding Fathers intend for the Fed to be this powerful ?

In theory that's correct, but in effect the SCOTUS does reign supreme over the other branches, which is something the Anti-Federalists warned about.

 

Or is it a reason to return to something akin to the Articles of Confederation?

(As if such a thing were possible at this point)

 

Yes, and I also understand it is the duty of every state and individual to adhere to the constitution to protect those rights. The constitution is the guideline in assuring that the government is kept in check, and limited in its power when it tramples on those rights. And that those rights must be protected equally and consistently, or no rights are protected, not the states rights or the individuals rights.

 

The courts and congress are entrusted with interpreting the constitution. Unfortunately it is clear we cannot trust them.

Accordingly at this point the people do what ONLY the people can do. That is DEFINE constitutional intent. Then we use that on our states to control them before we compel them to Article V to amend in a way that alters or abolishes the Government led by a congress and court destructive to unalienable rights.

Because that federal government has empowered communications corporations to distract, corrupt, exploit and mislead us, usurping the purpose of free speech, enabling the people to create unity, we must define that which asserts our right to the purpose of free speech to be so unified that our states become the instruments we use to control the federal government.

Hence the use of this simple inquiry between us for the beginning of our definition of constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

 

Yes, but only the states have the power to lawfully control the federal government. That control is through Article V. To assure all amendments have constitutional intent the people must use their EXCLUSIVE right and define constitutional intent then impose that upon states before Article V to create states legislatures than will be sure all amendments have constitutional intent.

 

Which body handed down that determination of the meaning of the constitution?

(Hint: S C _ _ _ _)

 

Interesting conversation
But i was expecting to find a discussion of the fed

Well, carry on

 

The Founding Fathers aren't here and haven't been for 200 years or so, give or take. What they intended is not even relevant anymore, because the world we live in is not the world they lived in.

Stop trying to run the country by attempting to guess what the people who didn't even have electricity were doing. Would we expect our modern doctors to figure out what doctors from the 18th and 19th century would have done to treat cancer? Of course not.

 

The courts inherently are the chief arbiters of constitutional intent BUT if their interpretations allow destruction of unalienable rights it is the peoples EXCLUSIVE right to DEFINE constitutional intent anew, through the 9th amendment, in a way which usurps the unconstitutionality of congress or courts. They, in this case are both destroying unalienable rights.

The solution is a process of using this inquiry to define MOST prime constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Then the intent is implimented through legal process as described here with our lawful and peaceful revolution

There is a thread here for discussion of that legal due process and strategy of solution.

 

Um no but the founder's views got killed by the Fourteenth amendment and the Commerce clause which have since been used by an out of control supreme court to do an end run around the entire rest of the constitution.

 

It isn't as cut and dry as that anymore since precedence has been established to interpret and reinterpret whenever more than one branch of government says so. That is what the two party system has brought us, and that is what a stacked USSC has created. You know what they say about opinions. I am with you, unfortunately 'we the people' do not run the show any more, if we ever did.

 

One founder's thoughts on banks.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."
Jefferson

 

Yes. As Abe Lincoln told us: "forming a more perfect Union" is an ongoing process. The Supreme Court has exceeded its original role and the Constitution contains the solutions to bring them back under Constitutional constraint.

We need broad agreement and resistance to the court by Congress is certainly part of that process. The Senate should not consent to a single additional Justice that is not committed to Judicial restraint. If this means a season with fewer Justices, that's fine. We had no problems with just 6 for a very long time.

When Newt is Trump's Chief of Staff, he will explain more on this and many other subjects.

 

Congratulations. This is the stupidest statement I have ever read in any internet forum.

 

I thought the discussion was whether they have sole power of Judicial review.

 

No they got it using lawyer speak. Once more it can be inferred from interpreting the constitution its not in it

- - - Updated - - -

Read what Jefferson wrote.

 

of course not but FDR and his lapdogs on the Supreme court ((*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-whipped lapdogs cowering after FDR threatened to pack the court) completely raped the tenth amendment by pretending the commerce clause allows anything the federal government wants and trashing over 100 years of Supreme court precedent. Its too bad we cannot go back in time and try FDR and his pet monkeys for high treason because that is what they did

- - - Updated - - -

its up there with the Banoids who claim that the term "well regulated militia" is where the federal government was given the power to ban privately owned firearms

 

It seems few these days realize this. The original 13 colonies became 13 separate sovereign states after the treaty of Paris with all the powers that go with it. They had to deceive everyone and write the constitution claiming they were going to amend the articles of confederation not write a constitution. Who knows what the average man would have thought had they known what the government was up to in reality back then

 

How so?

Are you saying that the Philadelphia Convention and the Constitution that came out of it didn't destroy the Articles of Confederation and that the Anti-Federalists didn't warn their opponents of the consequences of their actions?

Since those facts are beyond dispute, I have to presume you have some other argument to make.

 

He is saying that because the purpose of the constitution is supposed to be to limit the power of the feds not give them more or so its claimed. The anti federalists had it right and their worries have come home to roost.

 

The solution is what it has always been, separation of powers. Congress has the power to check the Judiciary, and they have been pretending for a long time that they are helpless before the Court. They are not. Holding Congress to a greater degree of accountability is a good first step.

Demanding that the Senate no longer confirm Judges that exceed their role is probably a better first step.

If the Judiciary continues to exceed their role and dissatisfaction becomes very wide-spread, an Article 5 Convention of the States could also reform the Supreme Court:

I would support 12 year term limits.
Mandatory floor votes for all Judicial nominees.

Part of why every Judicial nomination is a knockdown drag out fight is because these are lifetime appointments. All we need from the Judiciary is to call balls and strikes. They do not need to rewrite legislation. If the legislation was originally written so poorly that it cannot be easily understood, it needs to be returned to the Legislature with the instructions to try again and come up with something that that can be more easily understood.

Remember, we operate our nation with the presumption that everyone that is not mentally disabled knows and understands the law "ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Have you ever tried to take a portion of the Federal Register and then tried to convert it to training material that can be understood by construction workers so they can do simple home services without violating the law?

Holy Crap! What a mess.

But that brings me back to Congress. A good part of our problem is that the legislature writes and passes colossal piles of crap, and then the President signs it, and then when it gets to the Courts, they do the best they can with it, but there is only so much polish that can be applied to a turd.

It would help if the president would refuse to sign Legislation that he or she does not understand. Hell, George Bush said he didn't think the McCain Feingold was constitutional and then signed it into law! What sense does that make? That is the reason not to sign the bill.

 

It limited some powers and granted others, especially the ability to tax.

 

I don't think so. They would have recognized the inevitability. And the chaos that would have resulted if it had been any other way.

 

Of course they don't. The people do. Any Supreme Court ruling can be overturned by the people va constitutional amendment.

 

"They would have opposed the very idea of the Fed. They would be appalled at how big the government had become"


arguably the founders would be appalled about any number of things

our large standing army
slavery being illegal
women with the right to vote
political parties
non property owners having a vote
the usa as a global empire wth armed forces around the world
corporations having rights of personhood
Etc

if it is possible that the federal reserve central bang was instituted to address certain problems
is the idea being proposed in this thread that the founders would prefer a failed nation to having a central bank? Because the obvious truth is that ALL NATIONS HAVE A CENTRAL BANK... For the same reasons that we have a central bank