Gun Bans Unconstitutional

[rwarn17588]

Jefferson had a lot of very good things to say.  Then turned around and owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson was a bonafide genius, but he said and did some very contradictory things throughout his life. Consistency wasn't a strong suit. He was the same guy who at one point argued for a small government, then rammed through the Louisiana Purchase (with misgivings from lawmakers), more than doubling the size of the country.

I'm not saying the Louisiana Purchase was a bad thing. Indeed, I think his flexibility, given the circumstance, was a good thing. But for others to cite him as a Founding Father, thinking he would have had a certain viewpoint about an issue, are overlooking his unpredictability. He decided things on a case-by-case basis instead of rigidly following ideology. And I can't complain about that, either.

[custosnox]

Thomas Jefferson was a bonafide genius, but he said and did some very contradictory things throughout his life. Consistency wasn't a strong suit. He was the same guy who at one point argued for a small government, then rammed through the Louisiana Purchase (with misgivings from lawmakers), more than doubling the size of the country.

I'm not saying the Louisiana Purchase was a bad thing. Indeed, I think his flexibility, given the circumstance, was a good thing. But for others to cite him as a Founding Father, thinking he would have had a certain viewpoint about an issue, are overlooking his unpredictability. He decided things on a case-by-case basis instead of rigidly following ideology. And I can't complain about that, either.

From my understanding of what happened with the Louisiana Purchase Jefferson had entered into negotiations with the understanding that it was pretty much the southern end of what we now call Louisiana and the Florida panhandle.  After the deal was done, and it came out how much Nepolean considered to be Louisiana, Jefferson had lamented over the fact that he thought what he had done was unconstitutional.  This is coming from a historian, btw.

[Conan71]

Thomas Jefferson was a bonafide genius, but he said and did some very contradictory things throughout his life. Consistency wasn't a strong suit. He was the same guy who at one point argued for a small government, then rammed through the Louisiana Purchase (with misgivings from lawmakers), more than doubling the size of the country.

I'm not saying the Louisiana Purchase was a bad thing. Indeed, I think his flexibility, given the circumstance, was a good thing. But for others to cite him as a Founding Father, thinking he would have had a certain viewpoint about an issue, are overlooking his unpredictability. He decided things on a case-by-case basis instead of rigidly following ideology. And I can't complain about that, either.

Granted, Jefferson had his quirks but I don't see how doubling the land mass necessarily went against a small government philosophy.  Doubling land mass would not have automatically doubled the size of the Federal government.  At that point in time, what all government jobs were there? Legislative, Executive, and SCOTUS, the armed forces, and revenue collection.  I'm sure I'm leaving something out but at that point in time, how many functions had been devised for a Federal Gov't.  Not many, nowhere close to what we have today.  I also think Jefferson would have believed that eventual states created in the buy would be run by state gov't. anyhow.

[nathanm]

Granted, Jefferson had his quirks but I don't see how doubling the land mass necessarily went against a small government philosophy.

His concern had nothing to do with the size of government in general, but specifically whether or not he actually had the Constitutional authority to make the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, I know it's shocking to think a President might be aware that there are Constitutional limits to his authority.

[we vs us]

One of the things I can't see is how a small government would practically function in the world we live in.  The only examples I see of small-sized governments are the ones where government is limited because of warlordism and cultural fragmentation (Africa), or cronyism and extreme imbalance between haves and have nots (the Middle East and India), or ex-failed states that have a sheen of democracy which lay overtop oligarchies, narco-states, or dictatorships (Russa, Mexico, Venezuela).  Look around and name for me a modern equivalent of a functioning nation anywhere near our size in population or square footage that keeps it's government the size of what ours was in the 19th century.  I just don't see it. 

I'm genuinely curious to know if there's a small-government state or two out there that we should emulate. Any modern day examples?

[custosnox]

One of the things I can't see is how a small government would practically function in the world we live in.  The only examples I see of small-sized governments are the ones where government is limited because of warlordism and cultural fragmentation (Africa), or cronyism and extreme imbalance between haves and have nots (the Middle East and India), or ex-failed states that have a sheen of democracy which lay overtop oligarchies, narco-states, or dictatorships (Russa, Mexico, Venezuela).  Look around and name for me a modern equivalent of a functioning nation anywhere near our size in population or square footage that keeps it's government the size of what ours was in the 19th century.  I just don't see it. 

I'm genuinely curious to know if there's a small-government state or two out there that we should emulate. Any modern day examples?

A government needs to be of a sufficient size to administer to it's people.  The larger the population, the larger the government needs to be.  It does become a careful balancing act, however.  At some point the principles of the people are soon outweighed by the need of the government. The question is where is the line drawn?