What The Founding Fathers Really Believed

I’ve frequently pointed out that the right wing, including Ron Paul and the Tea Party supporters, promote a version of the Constitution which exists in their heads but which has little to do with the actual document. Independence Day is a good time to point out that the American Revolution had little to do with the themes promoted by the right wing. E. J. Dionne used his column today to explain What Our Declaration Really Said.

We need to recognize the deep flaws in this vision of our present and our past. A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such.

In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

Dionne also discussed the misconceptions about the Constitution and the formation of a government to promote the common good:

This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. “The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around,” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently.

No, our Constitution begins with the words “We the People” not “We the States.” The Constitution’s Preamble speaks of promoting “a more perfect Union,” “Justice,” “the common defense,” “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty.” These were national goals.

I know states’ rights advocates revere the 10th Amendment. But when the word “states” appears in the Constitution, it typically is part of a compound word, “United States,” or refers to how the states and their people will be represented in the national government. We learned it in elementary school: The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation to create a stronger federal government, not a weak confederate government. Perry’s view was rejected in 1787 and again in 1865.

We praise our Founders annually for revolting against royal rule and for creating an exceptionally durable system of self-government. We can wreck that system if we forget our Founders’ purpose of creating a representative form of national authority robust enough to secure the public good. It is still perfectly capable of doing that. But if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, we will draw all the wrong conclusions and make some remarkably foolish choices.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Comments

  1. 1
    Mark Bernay says:

    What The Founding Fathers Really Believed #p2 #p21 #topprog http://t.co/NuDfAmO

  2. 2
    b-psycho says:

    It doesn’t help that the same people citing the 10th Amendment against federal law usually support at the same time more restrictive measures in state…

  3. 3
    Libertarian Conservative says:

    I notice that the left-liberals don’t cry for the fed when a state legalizes same-sex marriage or decriminalizes marijuana. It is a fact that one of the most notable instances of state nullification in the nineteenth century was the northern states nullifying the Fugitive States Act. The truth is that the 10th Amendment empowers individual states, and by extension the people, and can and should be a powerful force for progressivism. It’s not very liberal to force our values on everybody else.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Objecting to the misinterpretation of the 10th amendment by many in the right wing does not mean that liberals believe all matters are to be settled by the federal government as opposed to the states. The liberal position of supporting individual liberty, regardless of level of government, is not forcing our values on everybody else. It is giving individual’s the choice to live by their own values but not to use the state to enforce their values upon others.

    While there conceivably could be limited areas where states’ rights could lead to more liberty, in the vast majority of cases states’ rights has been used to restrict liberty. I note that it was frequently conservatives who have defended the Bush administration’s use of the federal government against medical marijuana in states where it was legal.

Leave a comment