We know that the founding fathers were for limited government. I think it is safe to assume they would have opposed communism. I don't doubt that someday some enlightened judge will find a way to tell us that communism is enshrined in the Constitution as the prefered form of government. When this happpens guess which side will applaud?

The right-wing has been twisting the left-wing's live-and-let-live philosophy to mean communism for many years now.

The People are now wise to this political ploy.

No, but they did largely oppose racial and gender equality.
I think that we no only need to be realistic about our founding fathers but also realize that, despite their obvious triumphs, they had their flaws, big ones. It's probably also time to remind everyone that we are not a Christian nation and that not all of the founders were Christians. Here however their wisdom shone as they created as secular government that protected the people from theocracy/religious monopoly, unlike England at the time, but allowed religious freedom, unlike the communist nations to come.

Letter to editor is letting facts get in the way of cherished conservative tradition.

One more point, the constitution gives the government a mandate to take care of the general welfare. Conservatives don't like this part, but its there like it or not.

Well said, Mr. Reid. And here's one for you: Capitalism is not in the Constitution. Capitalism did not fully develop in this country until there was a Transportation Revolution in the early 1800s (eg., canals, steamboats, and later trains). It's hard to create a surplus of goods for sale in distant markets when there's no menchanism to get the goods there.

Some may agreed with Mr. Reed when he asserts that Communism started with Marx and Engels while others would point out that other forms of Communism have been tried in some form or another for thousands of years. Unfortunately, the word "Communist" is linked with the abuses found in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and most other modern Communistic States.

Most would agree that the followers of Jesus Christ held all things in 'common' without private individual ownership. The difference, between 'Christian-Communism' and 'Marxist-Communism' is the element of force.

Other pre-Constitution examples of Communism would be the people who followed Sparticus, the followers of Mazdak, and those living in monastic communities. Thomas Moore wrote of communism in "Utopia". The Puritans (Diggers) advocated a form of Communism. French thinkers, Rousseau and Babeuf wrote of Communism.

Our Founding Fathers were very much aware of Communistic thought. In bringing this Nation to birth, they examined Communistic principles and chose to not base the Constitution on Communistic principles.

Don't let facts obscure our Utah beliefs!

"and you point is?" you clearly have never actually bothered to read Karl Marx. His basic premise is that there should only be a time limited and scope limited government that is promptly replaced by complete self rule. The country's that claim to be or have been labled as Communist have more in common with our own government then Karl Marx

John Adams declared that the constitution was for a "moral and religious" people. That isn't the case today.

@Don't let facts get in the way-The "general welfare" clause is outlined in Article 1, Section 8. If you want to change what it states, it would require an Amendment. The left-wing nutcases like to justify their "entitlement" agenda for a "general welfare" clause. It boggles my mind that someone could think that. No thanks, I already have "forced charity by taxation" (aka legal plunder).

Communism came later and guess what. It is as American as apple pie. Look it up.

To 'facts' (6:23 a.m.),

The wording in the Preamble is not "to take care of the general welfare", but to "promote the general Welfare". There is a great difference between taking care of something and promoting something.

Article 1 Section 8 also addresses the general welfare. James Madison, John Quincy Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all wrote about the danger of reading more into 'general welfare' than was intended. Jefferson wrote in 1791, ". . . that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

The Founding Fathers knew that lazy people would look to the Government for their daily support, but they wrote of their trust in the principle of personal responsibility. John Quincy Adams stated, “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is up to each of us to choose to be lazy or to be responsible, caring or self-serving.

Don't confuse people with the Facts. Next some will have to admit that Marx and Stalin didn't rule Russia together.

I love it when people tell me what other dead people WOULD have thought. Somehow they (dead person) always seem to agree with the live person.

Truth out on both sides. While Das Kapital did not come out for many decades the concept of communialism had been around for centuries. Clearly the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Dec of Independence does not refer to them it is safe to say our Founding Fathers were not collectivists.

Consider their passion for property rights.

And no, they were not perfect but the structure of government they gave us has been the model for the world since, in many regards.

Also, the General Welfare never meant what the great communalists of today want it to mean. They want it to mean (tongue in cheek) cradle to grave Nanny state-ism; taking care of every whim, need or passion.

Take Social Security. We consider this part of the "general welfare" clause of the Constition. Did you know that Thomas Paine actually advocated an almost identical retirement provision for senior citizens?! He did. And it was dead the moment he proposed it. It became a very clear benchmark on what the Founding Fathers thought of the "general welfare" clause they added to the Constitution.

For them general welfare was not the Nanny State. That is a relatively new addition to the Constitution.

Gopherus,
please define "Christian". If you mean people who belong to a christian church, then you are correct.

If you mean a follower of Christ, then you are diffintely wrong.

90 percent of the Founding fathers believed in the bible and God (Sorry to douse your flame). A lot of them did not like the current Christian teachings going on at the time, so they choose to not attend a church.

Just because someone does not profess allegence to a church, does not mean they are not christian.

From my studies, each man had a very deep love of God. They showed it in differnt ways. They had their flaws, but to compare today's standards to 1700's is not logical.

May I offer a different view?

Although Women and children were consider property back then (mandated by the reglious fevor of the day) and blacks were sold and traded as slaves.

The founding fathers set a system wherein "The People" could make changes to it that would improve the life of all men, women and children reguardless of race, color or creed. We are now more enlighten than we were 250 years ago.

Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Later, Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Democrats don't like that part.

So should the “nanny state also stop coddling the Lazy business interest that look to them for bail out when their business and investments fail because of poor chooses. If businesses and jobs are lost and the economy fails so be it? Should they do away with protections for companies that protect them from infringement rights and law suits? Should the government get out of a women’s uterus and my bedroom? It’s all part of the “nanny state.”

Anon, if the party of high taxes, hyperregulation, nanny-statism, university speech codes, and so forth is "live and let live," I'll eat my hat.

Liberals are libertarian about sex. That's about it. They want to regulate the living crud out of literally everything else.

This is the third post I've done in the past week. Why aren't my posts showing up? What kind of a sham press is this to ignore dissenting opinions. What disgrace!

@fr1nk- Your comment above leads me to beleive you have not studied the Founding Father's works. Just a simple glimpse or a one time read is not enough. It takes reading and re-reading and perhaps years to understand what their intention was.

it's very clear that they detested socialism, even if it wasn't explicitly written. This is what liberals try to do to push their agenda: "It's not written therefore we can do." It's clear they do not understand these works nor have they studied them.

Our founding fathers were of agrarian roots. They owned plantations with salves doing the labor. They had experience in trade. They lacked familiarity with the excesses of the industrial age. Why would a slave owner see fault in industrial peonage?

It took work houses, government solders shooting miners and the shanty towns metastizing like cancer around textile mills to show the ills of unregulated capitalism. It took the age of the robber barons and the gilded age to see the excesses of wealth in America.

Those who fondly called for returning to the government of our founding fathers are calling for a return to slavery and an abolition of one man, one vote. We would replace clean water with industrial refuge. Thick clouds of deadly aerosols could return to envelop the skies above us.

We where blessed as a nation to have these founders. They were men, not gods. Man’s creations meant we needed a government, which could adapt to new challenges. This, our founding fathers gave us.

But did Karl Marx wear a lapel flag pin?

*** "We know that the founding fathers were for limited government. I think it is safe to assume they would have opposed communism. I don't doubt that someday some enlightened judge will find a way to tell us that communism is enshrined in the Constitution as the prefered form of government. When this happpens guess which side will applaud?" ***

Undeniably...

*** "No, but they did largely oppose racial and gender equality...despite their obvious triumphs, they had their flaws, big ones" ***

And the point would be???

Actually there is half an unintended point. There are lots of people who think the Constitution is nothing more than a grab bag of rights for whatever they define as "good." They then seak to impose their version of good through court decrees.

"I think gay people should be able to marry" - so it must be in there.

"I think abortion should be a right" - so it mist be in there.

Well. I happen to believe that two parents should be able to decide how THEIR tax money is used to educate THEIR children. Funny none of these leftist judges find that one in there.

Thomas -
You fool!
What you have just described is the power-crazed conservative adminstration that YOU voted in place.

And the country continues to go down the drain.

Thomas who raises the taxes in Utah? Isn't national debt deferred taxation? Utah isn't a nanny state?

I'm against speech codes. Anne Coulter does a wonderful job disproving compassionate conservatism. Rush proves conservative speech today, unlike the conservatism of Goldwater has a foundation in lies.

It's hearing Hanity that has formed my impression of those who listen to him. I understand why conservatives vilify intellectualism. I bet you never read "ignorance is strength, war is peace..." anywhere?

The right is always so busy trying to muster up different versions of the McCarthy era, that they fail to realize how fascist they've become in the process.

Oh no!
Not another "Democrats are communists" blog!
Is that all the right-wing thinks about?

Anonymous 11:56. I got used to being called names wearing a army uniform during Vietnam. It's all some folks can do. You can't use the n-word. You can say liberals. It's the same type of people using different words.

"In a major blow to national Republicans, a Mississippi congressional seat that once voted for President Bush by a twenty-five point margin elected a Democrat on Tuesday. Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers beat out Republican candidate Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, by a 54%-46% margin, a spread that several Republican strategists on Capitol Hill characterized as a startling wake-up call for a party in dire straits."

What more can conservatives do but grasp for straws? They have failed miserably electing Bush.

They will listen to those who bought about that failure and repeat in following their advise.

To the “Anonymous” person that posted that thinks it is only gay people and women how read things into the constitution that are not there. Where in the Constitution does it declare that you or anyone else has the right to stop a woman from getting and an abortion or gay couples from marring? The reason these conservative agendas get shot down in court is because the constitution does not allow for you to limit these things in the manner you try to. The role of the court is not just to sit passively by and just rule on the laws past by the legislative branch it is also to be one of the three check and balances in our government. They are the branch charged with striking down laws that run afoul the constitution. If the legislative branch does not agree there is a process by which to amend the constitution. But what am I saying you are all objective experts on our form of government you already knew this right?

Curtis is right. The Founders obviously knew no more about Marxism than about the telegraph or other 19th century inventions. Besides, who cares what the Founders thought? Even Madison, one of Them, said the Constitution needs to stand on its own, and no undue respect needs to be paid to the Founders' opinions.

The Founding Fathers were also against automobiles, iPods, cable TV and hi speed quad chairlifts. It's easy to say that because none of those things were mentioned in the Constitution.

I never put much stock in a group of people (in this case - The founders of this country) that believed in owning other human beings (slaves) to do their capitalist work for them.

To Republicans, this master-slave mentality exists today, only in subtle forms.

Well, be prepared for a person whose ancestors were once owned by the Founding Father types to perhaps become the President of The United States.

"90 percent of the Founding fathers believed in the bible and God (Sorry to douse your flame). A lot of them did not like the current Christian teachings going on at the time, so they choose to not attend a church."

This merely strengthens the case that the Lord used these great men to create this nation, where religious freedom could flourish, and His gospel and true church could develop, and grow to flow out across the world.

These men believed in God, but did not find Him in any of the churches of the day. Sound familiar?

The founders believed the various states were sovereign. SO we could have a peoples republic of New York and a Vermont free state in the same union. This allows for experimentation, which would be a good thing.

"democrats don't like that part"

Well that part never made it into the constitution. The part about "general welfare" did.

Back then there were opposing beliefs as now. Some parts made it in, some didn't.

to short cut...the abortion and gay marriage clause is in there right after the medical insurance guarantee clause and right before the right to never be offended by the language of others clause. What a bunch of piffle this all is. The constitution is what it is and there is a lot of stuff that needs dealt with that can not be solved in any way using the constitution. Now I want some clarification. Before Newton gave us a name for gravity, did it exist or not? Communism is a concept, and as such, existed long bfore Marx or anyone else existed did it not?

You know, I'd be willing to bet that liberals call conservatives fascists a lot more than conservatives call liberals Communists. Even in Utah.

Of course, true-believing liberals will just say "if the shoe fits" or some other nonsense. Because liberals Don't Do History, they're blind to the fact that modern left-liberalism has a lot more in common with classic fascism than American conservatism ever was.

Fascism was an inherently collective ideology. Socialists hated it, because they and the fascists were fighting for the same ground -- the hearts and minds of disaffected people who believed classical liberalism, democracy, and capitalism were obsolete, and needed replacing by a collective New Order.

Actually the judicial branch is supposed to interpret the laws and NOT CREATE them from the bench. It's reasoning like yours that the liberals run to the bench for everything. They can't get it passed in the legislature to actually become law so they go to the courts where willing judges enact law without authority to do so....

You need to sharpen the pencil pal.

Well, no matter how you cut it, it appears we will be having a black, democratic liberal winning the prize in November.

And it will be a positive changes for this country that has been dominated my the wacky conservatives for too long.

If Utah cannot handle this (don't forget it's only been 30 years since a black man was deemed worthy enough for the LDS priesthood) why not start packing your bags now.

the editorial says what happened, Communism wasn't around as we know it until later. Those pesky fact finders...

“dear short cut” someone needs to sharpen their pencil but it is not me. I think you should probably spend a little less time on these boards and a little more time in school and with your nose in a book, you will be less likely to embarrass yourself. I think if you take a little time researching the constitution and a little time studying our governmental structure you will see that I am right about the idea of checks and balances. Just for the record the two judges most likely to strike down acts of congress according to their history of past rulings are Scalia and Thomas. Again a little more research. It did not escape my attention that you have not shown any evidence than the constitution clears the way for you to limit abortions or gay marriage, also known as the whipping post of conservatives. I am going back to the real world now have fun!

interpreting the laws inevitably leads to creating laws. Just the nature of the beast.

To Clarifier, I agree none of the solutions to these very complex issues rest in the constitution which is why I have a hard time with some of the wild claims the so called “originalist” make in wanting to limit peoples freedoms. But, I think you have a great point in that we need to move forward in our thinking (with a clear understanding and respect of our past). As to your second point you may well be right but I have been thinking back to my days in undergrad studies in sociology and I think Karl Marx thoughts where grounded in study of so called “primitive cultures” My concern is the severe distortion of Karl Marx and his concept of communism in today’s world> Honestly I do not think it is superior to our form of government, it had its share of flaws, but it has been grossly distorted by modern history and the people on this board.