Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,110 posts)
Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:32 PM Dec 2012

I have a hunch that this is not what our Founding Fathers meant by "divided" government?

I always assumed they meant that when there were opposing positions, then they would compromise or the Supreme Court would have the final say?

I don't think they meant for one branch of government to leave town and refuse to do their job?

In some respect, that seems to betray the intent of our Constitution and our Founders?

When, in our history, has anything similar to this ever happened? When a bunch of partisan ideologues decided to shut down the very function of government?

Can it be defined as anything other than "an enemy within"?

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I have a hunch that this is not what our Founding Fathers meant by "divided" government? (Original Post) kentuck Dec 2012 OP
True but elleng Dec 2012 #1
The Founding Fathers Turbineguy Dec 2012 #2
Watch the John Adams series. atreides1 Dec 2012 #3
Sessions had to be short as a matter of necessity Resonance_Chamber Dec 2012 #4

elleng

(131,122 posts)
1. True but
Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:45 PM
Dec 2012

they hadn't thought so far as a supreme court reviewing legislative matters, I think; that only came later, when it became clearly necessary and the Supremes DID such a thing.

They surely knew about disagreements. Watch 1776 for a 'lighthearted' review of the problems the Founders encountered in establishing US.

atreides1

(16,093 posts)
3. Watch the John Adams series.
Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:00 PM
Dec 2012

That will give you a look at the division within the government...I don't think the Founders meant for the job to be anything but part time or as needed.

The 1st United States Congress, consisting of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, met from March 4, 1789 to March 4, 1791, during the first two years of George Washington's presidency, first at Federal Hall in New York City and later at Congress Hall in Philadelphia. The apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives was based on the provisions of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. Both chambers had a Pro-Administration majority.

Session 1 Held March 4, 1789 through September 29, 1789 at Federal Hall in New York City(6 months)

Session 2 Held January 4, 1790 through August 12, 1790 at Federal Hall in New York City(8 months)

Session 3 Held December 6, 1790 through March 3, 1791 at Congress Hall in Philadelphia(4 months)

 

Resonance_Chamber

(142 posts)
4. Sessions had to be short as a matter of necessity
Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:29 PM
Dec 2012

Took a while for the Members of Congress to go back and forth between Congress and home.

They also had to figure out what to do. They had a general idea but how do you make it happen with over 100 people working on a solution with people who never worked in a Government before. Hence much chaos and not much happening they basically were floundering around trying to figure out what would or would not work.

I did like how John Adams went to the Netherlands to borrow money. Really sends the message home, OK you are free now what?

What was/is really telling is how many things were problems then and they are still problems today for many of the same reasons.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have a hunch that this ...