Was the adoption of the U.S. Constitution a liberal or conservative act?

Sep 2019
128
Seattle
Interesting. Quite possible, because many of The Founders were well-educated and well-versed in history. Jefferson, of course, was our ambassador to France, and in Paris, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, in 1787. However, he may have mentioned Karantanija in correspondence. I don't know? I think we normally consider Locke as the Christian link to "natural law" and the Creator...the British political philosopher.
Personally, I've always connected the rise of democracy and the sovereignty of the "people" to the Reformation, which I suppose in some ways was in itself a return to the "early church," to escape both the corruption and bureaucracy of the Catholic Church at the time of Luther.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Sep 2019
182
Slovenia
@Stone6 about Thomas Jefferson... he was inspired partly by French lawyer, historian and philosopher Jean Bodin from 16. century. He wrote a book Les Six livres de la Republique ( the six books of the republic ). The core of the book is the theory of sovereignty of the nation. And example Bodin finds also in old Karantanija.

In Jefferson's copy of Bodin's work Professor Felician discovered that Jefferson had initialled two pages. On one page was Bodin's definition and characterization of a tyrant, which was quite similar in concept to phrases used in the Declaration of Independence. On the other page was a description of the installation of the Dukes of Carinthia.


 
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
Interesting. Quite possible, because many of The Founders were well-educated and well-versed in history. Jefferson, of course, was our ambassador to France, and in Paris, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, in 1787. However, he may have mentioned Karantanija in correspondence. I don't know? I think we normally consider Locke as the Christian link to "natural law" and the Creator...the British political philosopher.
Personally, I've always connected the rise of democracy and the sovereignty of the "people" to the Reformation, which I suppose in some ways was in itself a return to the "early church," to escape both the corruption and bureaucracy of the Catholic Church at the time of Luther.
Yet religion, and specifically including Protestant sects, was seen by the Founders specifically as a threat to freedom, hence the 1st Amendment.

The Reformation did not produce a non-corrupt Church. Protestants burned witches as readily as Catholics. The Scottish Church collaborated with the English government in the matter of the Highland Clearances, all due to connections with the landed interests, its preoccupation with its own power, etc.

USA Christians love to pretend that the USA is the progeny of Christianity, but while the entwining of Christianity with European culture is undeniable, there were significant non-Christian influences at play. One seldom mentioned is that of the Iroquois League, the Plan of Peace.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,260
Caribbean
Yet religion, and specifically including Protestant sects, was seen by the Founders specifically as a threat to freedom, hence the 1st Amendment.
That's only one Constitution. There are, in fact, State Constitutions which did not have an equivalent of the establishment clause - quite the opposite. The First Amendment has a lot less to do with what these founders thought about religion, than what they thought about police power being resident in State governments not the general government (as the later excerpts will show conclusively),

IMO, you are inventing history. Can you cite even one founder who said even once that "Protestantism" is a threat to freedom? I can't find one, but I can surely tell where not to look.

Resolutions of the Continental Congress 1765 - (reference to the English Bill of Rights)
“the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession"​
The Articles of Association 1774 - describe themselves as
"Protestant Colonies"​
Constitution of New Jersey
XIX...all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust,​
Constitution of North Carolina
XXXII.That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State​
Constitution of South Carolina
XII...and that no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath attained the age of thirty years, and hath been a resident in this State at least five years.​

The Reformation did not produce a non-corrupt Church.
Protestantism, in fact, did not produce a church. It produced many churches (sects). Nor do I believe that a law against witchcraft is correctly described as "corruption."
USA Christians love to pretend that the USA is the progeny of Christianity
And how many have confessed to you that they are pretending? As the cited documents show, the Founders are not pretending. And I am not pretending.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2014
939
Texas
The American revolution was about self preservation....and there were Colonists who liked Great Britain and didn't want to rebel. The articles/amendments were added to guarantee rights that both sides hold dear.
 
Sep 2019
128
Seattle
The American revolution was about self preservation....and there were Colonists who liked Great Britain and didn't want to rebel. The articles/amendments were added to guarantee rights that both sides hold dear.
I believe so...the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed AFTER King George had declared the colonies to be in rebellion. Up to that point, they thought they might "negotiate" their way out of the situation. By the time of the Declaration, there was little alternative to revolution. I believe it was John Adams who later said that at the time about a third favored independence, a third favored remaining with Britain and a third didn't care either way. War tends to force people to take sides.
 
Sep 2019
128
Seattle
@Stone6 about Thomas Jefferson... he was inspired partly by French lawyer, historian and philosopher Jean Bodin from 16. century. He wrote a book Les Six livres de la Republique ( the six books of the republic ). The core of the book is the theory of sovereignty of the nation. And example Bodin finds also in old Karantanija.

In Jefferson's copy of Bodin's work Professor Felician discovered that Jefferson had initialled two pages. On one page was Bodin's definition and characterization of a tyrant, which was quite similar in concept to phrases used in the Declaration of Independence. On the other page was a description of the installation of the Dukes of Carinthia.


Interesting...but, in my opinion, while that may be true of Jefferson and the Declaration, in 1776, it doesn't necessarily apply to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which scrapped the Articles of Confederation, and established a far stronger central government.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,260
Caribbean
Interesting...but, in my opinion, while that may be true of Jefferson and the Declaration, in 1776, it doesn't necessarily apply to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which scrapped the Articles of Confederation, and established a far stronger central government.
I agree with your prior post about trying to negotiate (Olive Branch Petition). The King was not receptive.

However, here, you overstate. The Declaration lists 27 offenses of the King. The power to engage in these acts is not delegated under either the Articles or the Constitution. That's a lot of similarity in scope of power.

The biggest difference between the general governments (and they don't call them central, which is something different) is not so much the scope of power, but that the latter did not need so complete a consensus to act. I can think of nothing permitted the general government under the Constitution that could not be done under the Articles with a 13-state consensus. In fact, it was such a consensus that "scrapped" the Articles, not the Convention of 1787.
 
Sep 2019
128
Seattle
I agree with your prior post about trying to negotiate (Olive Branch Petition). The King was not receptive.

However, here, you overstate. The Declaration lists 27 offenses of the King. The power to engage in these acts is not delegated under either the Articles or the Constitution. That's a lot of similarity in scope of power.

The biggest difference between the general governments (and they don't call them central, which is something different) is not so much the scope of power, but that the latter did not need so complete a consensus to act. I can think of nothing permitted the general government under the Constitution that could not be done under the Articles with a 13-state consensus. In fact, it was such a consensus that "scrapped" the Articles, not the Convention of 1787.
Interesting, but I think you're "overstating" the similarities of the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution. In regard to the 27 offenses of the King, most of those complaints in the Declaration would have been covered in the State Constitutions. Moving from a "confederation" to a "federation," created a "new sovereignty," that of the United States, with the United States assuming, in large measure, the "powers of Parliament," mitigated by leaving many of the pre-Constitutional powers of the Articles with the States. I've always considered the major reasons for the Constitutional Convention as: 1) Shay's Rebellion and the fear of an on-going revolution; 2) the need to enforce a federal taxation; 3) the need to regulate inter-state activities; and 4) the need to call together a defense against foreign powers. I would certainly agree that the underlying problem with all four was the requirement for the approval of nine of the thirteen states to get anything done (or 69.23%), but the transfer of sovereignty was, IMO, equally important. [See Article II, of the "Articles."] Of course, the entire idea of a democratic republic was fundamentally based on ultimate "sovereignty" resting with the people themselves, but IMO, the Constitution divided the representation part of that sovereignty between the States and the new Federal government. Did they leave room for argument? Definitely...Article VI suggests a conflict between the 9th and 10th amendments, which we've been arguing over since ratification.
Interesting topic...but, I have errands to run and guests to entertain...will return later.