There was one bit of clumsy wording...the founding fathers did not have the option of paying taxes to a centralized gov't that they were represented in. If the George had allowed representation in the Empires gov't would there have been a lessening of tension that could have held off the Revolution. Likewise if the king had offered the founding fathers the equivalent of being in 'commonwealth', with a strong central colonial gov't would they have accepted it.<quoted text>
You might want to replace the East India Tea Co. with any of the health insurer's names. The colonists had no problem with local taxation. I don't think our founders with their limited government ideals would approve of a public being forced to purchase health insurance or taxed tea from the East India Tea Co. The IRS and other bureaucracies don't sound representative to me.
Oh, those tea partiers wore silly little American indian clothing with war paint.
Don't forget the time lag between the seeds of the revolution being sewn and the constitutions ratification.
After only a few years they had begun to evolve out of the ultra - small gov't articles of confederation, an evolution which as you know has advanced throughout the life of the Republic.
the question is would the founding fathers accepted the evolution of the Republic, the evidence is not clear that they pictured a static gov't stuck in the point in time which it was written.