Would the founders of our country have approved of Bush and the job he's done as President?

Answer 1

No. The founding fathers never meant the government to have such overwhelming power, no matter whether the president is Republican OR Democratic.

Answer 2

No because the Founding Fathers created the Constitution and George Bush has not upheld the Constitution by working to give the executive branch incredible power and by undermining certain amendments, most notably the First and Fifth (habeus corpus) amendments.

The Judicial and Legislative braches are slowly becoming obsolete. I mean, if the President doesn't have to obey the Senate's subpoena's, then who is he accountable to? Where are the checks and balances the Founding Fathers worked for?

Answer 3

Given that the president consistently claims that Congress is over-stepping its bounds in regards to the wars, yet the Constitution clearly shows otherwise, I doubt they would approve much of that.
Most of the founders were against a standing army.
They might have had some trouble, too, with a VP who claims he's not part of the executive branch.

Answer 4

The Founding Father himself, President Washington , warned us about the likes of the Georges Bush (and the Clintons for that matter) in his Farewell Address:

>> "...combinations or associations of the above description
may now and then answer popular ends, they
are likely, in the course of time and things, to become
potent engines by which cunning, ambitious,
and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the
power of the people and to usurp for themselves the
reins of government, destroying afterwards the very
engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion....

Let me now take a more comprehensive view and
warn you in the most solemn manner against the
baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our
nature, having its root in the strongest passions of
the human mind. It exists under different shapes in
all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or
repressed; but in those of the popular form it is
seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst
enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another,
sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to
party dissension, which in different ages and coun-
tries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length
to a more formal and permanent despotism. The
disorders and miseries which result gradually incline
the minds of men to seek security and repose
in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner
or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more
able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns
this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation
on the ruins of public liberty." <<

Answer 5

I think our Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution right after FDR started his New Deal, and probably as soon as Wilson got the income tax ammendment passed. I am pretty sure that this country is so far from what they wanted ON BOTH SIDES, that they would be disgusted with all of us for letting it happen. That being said, I'm pretty sure that they would like the Republicans just a hair better than they would like the Democrats.

Answer 6

They would have approved of some of his measues as freedom was for a select type of people post-colonists the original inhabitants who lived in the area before colonisation and after would notm likely matter to them. once free of Britain the idea of becoming a major power must have crossed their minds .There is a long tradition of Freedom-Hypocrisy in that one people were free while others were eslaved. By freedom the makers of it envisioned themselves and others having these freedoms they did not think in terms of people not like themselves already having similiar freedoms in the land they were in freedoms which had existed before The U.S had existed. this is what has been done ever since somehow think of other people as different while ostensibly freeing them thinking in terms of U.S. style freedom not in terms of freedom that others might have on their own.

Answer 7

I doubt the 'Founding Fathers' would have aproved of many Presidents after Monroe, certainly none after Lincoln (and probably some would have objected to him).

Answer 8

Well, I think we'd have to stop them spinning, or at least roll them over, in their graves first before we could even ask them. After going through that effort, I suppose the question would be a moot point, or maybe prompt more spinning.

Answer 9

Actually probably Yes. Several of our founding fathers faced a similar problem which led to the war with tripolitan wars yes im sure most people have never heard of the war. http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa092001a.htm its a different situation, but not that different, in the end they would have agreed with it, if for no other reason, it was a muslim nation that threatened the United States.

Answer 10

Yes. They actually had backbones.

And Bush doesn't have any more power than any other administration has had. Its yet another liberal myth. The ONLY thing you can point to is the wire taps. And the only thing that changed was they don't need a warrant if A) its an international call and B) someone in the conversation is a suspected terrorist or terrorist supporter. If anything thats more convenience, but not more power. And that's exactly why Democrats passed their own warrant-less wire tapping bill.