Constitutional Question

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
At the time the constitution was ratified there was already a healthy degree of paranoia regarding a strong central federal government. The ONLY reason that the constitution was finally ratified was that states were to remain sovereign within their borders.

Based on the fact that wording was not present, I would have to say you are flat out WRONG.

Today that concept has been substantially watered down. Many people view a state on the national level in the same manner that they view a county on the state level. That perspective was never intended by the founders. The federal government was superior only to items stated specifically in the constitution such as providing "for the common defense".

Intention or not, omission of wording does not have weight.

 

[Merlin1047]

"Based on the fact that wording was not present, I would have to say you are flat out WRONG."

Wow. You go from zero to obnoxious in record time.

Fact: After the revolution, the colonies started to call themselves states. This occurred PRIOR to the formation of a central federal government, which was not approved by the states until some five years later. During this time each state wrote and adopted its own constitution. They considered themselves sovereign within their own borders. The first attempt at a constitution was the articles of confederation. These were later scrapped for many reasons, but chiefly because the states objected to the absence of specific statements of rights. When the constitution was being written, twelve amendments were offered to address the concern of the states. Ten of the twelve amendments were adopted.

Further evidence that states were considered as sovereign can be found by reading statements and letters from the era just prior to the civil war when southern slave states elected to withdraw from the union.

To understand the political attitudes of the day, you need to do a bit more reading than simply reviewing the constitution itself. While it is a wonderful document, one cannot gain from it an understanding of how and why it was adopted.

Recommendation: With just a little practice you might be successful in presenting a contradictory viewpoint without coming off as a total horse's ass.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
"Based on the fact that wording was not present, I would have to say you are flat out WRONG."

Wow. You go from zero to obnoxious in record time.

Fact: After the revolution, the colonies started to call themselves states. This occurred PRIOR to the formation of a central federal government, which was not approved by the states until some five years later. During this time each state wrote and adopted its own constitution. They considered themselves sovereign within their own borders. The first attempt at a constitution was the articles of confederation. These were later scrapped for many reasons, but chiefly because the states objected to the absence of specific statements of rights. When the constitution was being written, twelve amendments were offered to address the concern of the states. Ten of the twelve amendments were adopted.

Further evidence that states were considered as sovereign can be found by reading statements and letters from the era just prior to the civil war when southern slave states elected to withdraw from the union.

To understand the political attitudes of the day, you need to do a bit more reading than simply reviewing the constitution itself. While it is a wonderful document, one cannot gain from it an understanding of how and why it was adopted.

First, I am in agreement that that would have been the spirit of the situation.

Second, since these guys were highly educated and were smart enough to figure out that they needed to seperate and organize powers in the Constitution WHICH INCLUDED:

ARTICLE IV:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

again, you are flat out WRONG.

Recommendation: With just a little practice you might be successful in presenting a contradictory viewpoint without coming off as a total horse's ass.

I don't care what your opinion is about me since you ignored my point in the first place in light of personal attack.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
First, I am in agreement that that would have been the spirit of the situation.

Second, since these guys were highly educated and were smart enough to figure out that they needed to seperate and organize powers in the Constitution WHICH INCLUDED:

again, you are flat out WRONG.




I don't care what your opinion is about me since you ignored my point in the first place in light of personal attack.

You ARE pretty much a total horse's ass. But you do have a right to your opinion and I welcome your contributions on the board.

 

[Merlin1047]

"I don't care what your opinion is about me since you ignored my point in the first place in light of personal attack."

I rather thought I addressed your point rather specifically. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.

And in regard to your whining about my "recommendation" being a "personal attack" - you are flat-out WRONG. It was simply an observation.

Finally, I have no real opinion about you, but I'm working on one.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
"I don't care what your opinion is about me since you ignored my point in the first place in light of personal attack."

I rather thought I addressed your point rather specifically. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.

:clap1:

Ummm...yeah. Proving your logic faulty with the Constitution after you oriented your attack at me instead of adressing the topic gives me a "reading comprehension" problem.

And in regard to your whining about my "recommendation" being a "personal attack" - you are flat-out WRONG. It was simply an observation.

It would appear you cannot define whining:

Main Entry: 1whine
Pronunciation: 'hwIn, 'wIn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): whined; whin·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwInan to whiz; akin to Old Norse hvIna to whiz
intransitive senses
1 a : to utter a high-pitched plaintive or distressed cry b : to make a sound similar to such a cry <the wind whined in the chimney>
2 : to complain with or as if with a whine
3 : to move or proceed with the sound of a whine <the bullet whined... across the ice -- Berton Roueché>
transitive senses : to utter or express with or as if with a whine
- whin·er noun
- whin·ing·ly /'hwI-ni[ng]-lE, 'wI-/ adverb
Finally, I have no real opinion about you, but I'm working on one.


Just because you are proven wrong doesn't mean you have to get onto personal attacks. Just learn from the conversation and move on.

 

[Merlin1047]

Let's see --- how can I say this politely -----

oh well,

Bite me.

 

[NewGuy]

:cof: