John Adams was perhaps our first liberal president, and we're still paying the very very high price!

[James972]

John Adams was perhaps our first liberal president, and we're still paying the very very high price!!

As a high Federalist liberal he (along with Washington and Hamilton)* believed in Platonic elite central govt ruling over the drooling masses. He appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court who gave us Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review. Thus, 9 unelected fools for life in black robes can tell the other two branches of govt what laws they will accept. This is why all hell will break out if Judge Ginsburg dies. Everyone knows another conservative on the court will mean the entire govt of the United States is conservative. Obviously, the Supreme Court was intended to be just a co-equal* branch of a limited central govt sharing power with the states.*

 

[Mizzy22]

John Adams was perhaps our first liberal president, and we're still paying the very very high price!!

As a high Federalist liberal he (along with Washington and Hamilton)* believed in Platonic elite central govt ruling over the drooling masses. He appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court who gave us Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review. Thus, 9 unelected fools for life in black robes can tell the other two branches of govt what laws they will accept. This is why all hell will break out if Judge Ginsburg dies. Everyone knows another conservative on the court will mean the entire govt of the United States is conservative. Obviously, the Supreme Court was intended to be just a co-equal* branch of a limited central govt sharing power with the states.*

Alrighty then.

 

[enderpotato00]

John Adams was perhaps our first liberal president, and we're still paying the very very high price!!

As a high Federalist liberal he (along with Washington and Hamilton)* believed in Platonic elite central govt ruling over the drooling masses. He appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court who gave us Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review. Thus, 9 unelected fools for life in black robes can tell the other two branches of govt what laws they will accept. This is why all hell will break out if Judge Ginsburg dies. Everyone knows another conservative on the court will mean the entire govt of the United States is conservative. Obviously, the Supreme Court was intended to be just a co-equal* branch of a limited central govt sharing power with the states.*

There was the Federalist Party, or sorry, Whig Party. Then there was Democrat-Republican Party

 

[JANFU]

Perhaps familiarize yourself with a great man. What he accomplished during the Revolutionary War in France, Spain and in negotiating peace terms with England.
A truly brilliant and gifted man

 

[lefty louie]

Maybe that's why he and Tommy J stopped talking all those years.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Perhaps familiarize yourself with a great man. What he accomplished during the Revolutionary War in France, Spain and in negotiating peace terms with England.
A truly brilliant and gifted man

I don’t think he understands what the term federalist actually means.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Maybe that's why he and Tommy J stopped talking all those years.

No, more likely they made their politics personal

 

[azgreg]

I don’t think he understands what the term federalist actually means.

Or any terms actually.

 

[Common Sense 1]

John Adams played a very important part in the American revolution. He was our 1st vice president and our 2nd president. He was Harvard-educated and a very strong critic of Great Britain’s authority in colonial America.

He was the 1st president to live at the White House. (Nov 1800) He nominated Thomas Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence. He did sign into law the Alien and Sedition Acts and that hurt him during the election of 1800.

 

[JANFU]

I don’t think he understands what the term federalist actually means.

I as well but have read about him.

 

[James972]

Maybe that's why he and Tommy J stopped talking all those years.

Yes Jefferson hated Marshall. Adams appointed him after he lost election and his party was thrown out forever but thank to Adams we got stuck with Marshall long after his Federalist Party died!! Marshall actually used the power of the court to give the court more power!!

 

[itsforthekids]

John Adams was perhaps our first liberal president, and we're still paying the very very high price!!

As a high Federalist liberal he (along with Washington and Hamilton)* believed in Platonic elite central govt ruling over the drooling masses. He appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court who gave us Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review. Thus, 9 unelected fools for life in black robes can tell the other two branches of govt what laws they will accept. This is why all hell will break out if Judge Ginsburg dies. Everyone knows another conservative on the court will mean the entire govt of the United States is conservative. Obviously, the Supreme Court was intended to be just a co-equal* branch of a limited central govt sharing power with the states.*

We can only hope that she retires soon.

 

[ChrisABrown]

Obviously, the Supreme Court was intended to be just a co-equal* branch of a limited central govt sharing power with the states.*

I think not. The states are intended to control IF needed. Two reasons for stating that.

1) Lincolns 1859 statement. "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court"

2)Article V has this passage, " in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof."

It is a convention to propose amendments to the constitution conducted by states legislations and represents the orderly lawful method of altering or abolishing government destructive to unalienable rights. States do not have the right to define constitutional intent, so if an intent is not written, states cannot recognize it unless the people define it under law.

 

[Pedestrian]

Perhaps familiarize yourself with a great man. What he accomplished during the Revolutionary War in France, Spain and in negotiating peace terms with England.
A truly brilliant and gifted man

Well what most don't know or forget is that Jefferson said, he could write the declaration of independence,

John Adams, gave a eloquent, passionate voice to it.

I say and many agree, if not for Adams, there'd have been no revolution at all.

Too easy to positively say Adams was liberal in view of the fact most all FFs were much more conservative

than anybody now. So OP, give us a detailed invoice for how 'we are paying a very, very high price now.'

 

[James972]

Well what most don't know or forget is that Jefferson said, he could write the declaration of independence,

John Adams, gave a eloquent, passionate voice to it.

I say and many agree, if not for Adams, there'd have been no revolution at all.

Too easy to positively say Adams was liberal in view of the fact most all FFs were much more conservative

than anybody now. So OP, give us a detailed invoice for how 'we are paying a very, very high price now.'

Adams gave is Marbury v Madison, he was a big govt liberal. When America saw what he was up to he and his party were driven out of America by Jefferson and Madison who were the real Americans.

 

[James972]

I think not. The states are intended to control IF needed..

who's talking about the states??? OP is about Federal govt. Do you understand?

 

[Fiddytree]

I think you mean "conservative" and he was not among the first. Liberals, classically understood, were a wee bit more hopeful about the rational mind and being bound to the masses than conservatives of the time (like Adams) were. Nevertheless, Adams was still part of the liberal tradition. American politics couldn't fully enjoin itself to European conservatism.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Fiddytree]

No, more likely they made their politics personal

Politics was personal for them and then on top of that their other personal matters became political, leading to the bitter rift.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[James972]

I think you mean "conservative" and he was not among the first. Liberals, classically understood, were a wee bit more hopeful about the rational mind and being bound to the masses than conservatives of the time (like Adams) were. Nevertheless, Adams was still part of the liberal tradition. American politics couldn't fully enjoin itself to European conservatism.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

what is all this rubbish using definitions from 200 years ago??? Using today definitions Adams was a big govt liberal who fought for a powerful elitist central govt just like modern liberals do today. Now do you understand??

 

[Fiddytree]

what is all this rubbish using definitions from 200 years ago??? Using today definitions Adams was a big govt liberal who fought for a powerful elitist central govt just like modern liberals do today. Now do you understand??

Because with history you have to confront the times as they were, in addition to modern insights.

Using today's definitions, Adams, on the whole, would be totally outside our spectrum of normal dialogue.

Let's use your first example: how he felt about people in general.

Wants to recognize citizen rights

Doesn't want most people to be able to vote

Doesn't believe in equality beyond those few inalienable rights

Believes that the elites (political and intellectual), particularly certain families, are inherently better than the mass

Doesn't inherently believe in the freedom of the press interpreted as being able to give dissent from government action, particularly during times of war

Believes in Christian original sin and thinks it governs man's behavior (and demands government response) far beyond most of his colleagues in either of his contemporary parties

Isn't the most concerned about the plight of ethnic, racial, most other minorities

I could go on.

The thing is, either the context of those remarks goes beyond the platitudes spoken today by one side or the other.... or even the remarks themselves are abhorrent to nearly everyone.



Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[James972]

Because with history you have to confront the times as they were, in addition to modern insights.

exactly and the entire battle in human history has been between govt and freedom. Adams was for govt and Jefferson was for freedom. Plato was for govt and Aristotle was for freedom. Reagan was for freedom and Obama was for govt. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

Using today's definitions, Adams, on the whole, would be totally outside our spectrum of normal dialogue.

totally wrong of course. Jefferson (the first Republican) hated him because he was for govt. Modern Republicans hate Adams and Obama for same reason!

 

[Fiddytree]

exactly and the entire battle in human history has been between govt and freedom.

Not sure you could find anything more cliche and reductionist than pitting human history against two concepts, but okay.

Adams was for govt and Jefferson was for freedom. Plato was for govt and Aristotle was for freedom. Reagan was for freedom and Obama was for govt. Now do you understand?

...And now you've contorted everyone's writing and purported thought to fit it into your bubble.



Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[James972]

Let's use your first example: how he felt about people in general.

Wants to recognize citizen rights

Doesn't want most people to be able to vote

Doesn't believe in equality beyond those few inalienable rights

Believes that the elites (political and intellectual), particularly certain families, are inherently better than the mass

Doesn't inherently believe in the freedom of the press interpreted as being able to give dissent from government action, particularly during times of war

Believes in Christian original sin and thinks it governs man's behavior (and demands government response) far beyond most of his colleagues in either of his contemporary parties

Isn't the most concerned about the plight of ethnic, racial, most other minorities

I could go on.

The thing is, either the context of those remarks goes beyond the platitudes spoken today by one side or the other.... or even the remarks themselves are abhorrent to nearly everyone.



Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

wow are you disorganized. Always remember history is the battle between govt and freedom. You will never make sense of it if you focus on trivial issues. Adams and his Party were destroyed and driven out of America because they were for big govt. This was called the Second America Revolution because it defined what the first Revolution had been fought for.

 

[Fiddytree]

totally wrong of course. Jefferson (the first Republican) hated him because he was for govt. Modern Republicans hate Adams and Obama for same reason!

Again, their disagreements were far, far more than whether or not government should do X, Y, or Z.

Jefferson was wounded by him because of what he considered personal slights, and the same was felt by Adams. Their politics, while serious, were held onto less than the other things.

Lastly, you need to spend more time on intellectual history for your pronouncements to be taken seriously. Then again, as Adams so taught us, perhaps you shouldn't.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk