Founding fathers were village idiots.

Perhaps it's time for you to get over your infatuation with insulting me?

it's not an infatuation, dear. i just really dislike when people pretend to know things they know nothing about.

if you were a mechanic, i'd defer to you when it came to my transmission an i wouldn't pretend to be able to rebuild one. :thup:

Your analogy falls flat for a very simple reason. A mechanic must learn their trade, and it's a specialized trade. Not everyone learns how to be a mechanic. However, while it's true that not everyone can read, most people are taught to read this day and age. I happen to be among them, so reading the Constitution doesn't pose a challenge to me.

However, you continually like to call me arrogant for having an opinion on the Constitution, but I would suggest that the only arrogance on display is coming from you for thinking that nobody can understand the Constitution without a law degree. Get real.

i didn't say law degree, i said study. because constitutional scholars don't agree on these things. some kid on the internet is pretty arrogant thinking he knows more than scholars. and no, i don't count myself among those constitutional scholars.

the joke is that you do....

the man who taught me con law did an amicus for brown v board of ed...

and HE wouldn't have approached it with your arrogance toward the subject. you seem to have this warped idea that any jerk off the street has equal right to interpret the constitution with the people who actually know what it means and understand what a common law system is.

you sound like a child
 
Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

see, you get all cranky and insulted when it's pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about. but you don't know what you're talking about.

the comments of politicians of the day have no more meaning than comments of politicians today.

the only thing that matters are the interpretations made by the Court.

go learn about marbury v madison.

but seriously... until you do, you really have no business making the assertions you do.

lol.

If you and I enter into a contract, with the plain meaning of the contract clear to both of us, and then tell you that it means something else afterwards is that contract enforceable to what I said it is after the fact? I don't have a law degree, so maybe I do have that wrong. :rolleyes:

keep your lol to yourself, child.

and a good contract IS clear.

but you'd know that if you did them for a living.
 
Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

Both Madison and Hamilton argued over just that. Within a few short years they fell on both sides of the same argument---in order to gain political power.

I've posted this numerous times. There are links to when and over what argument(s).

I do recall that Madison and Hamilton argued over whether the meaning of the Constitution as understood by the state committees or the understanding of the words themselves were correct---or whether the meanings as understood by the writers and signers and signatories...

The people who wrote the Constitution argued over meanings and whose understanding of those meanings should rule. "You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed" is not and was never, the issue.
 
it's not an infatuation, dear. i just really dislike when people pretend to know things they know nothing about.

if you were a mechanic, i'd defer to you when it came to my transmission an i wouldn't pretend to be able to rebuild one. :thup:

Your analogy falls flat for a very simple reason. A mechanic must learn their trade, and it's a specialized trade. Not everyone learns how to be a mechanic. However, while it's true that not everyone can read, most people are taught to read this day and age. I happen to be among them, so reading the Constitution doesn't pose a challenge to me.

However, you continually like to call me arrogant for having an opinion on the Constitution, but I would suggest that the only arrogance on display is coming from you for thinking that nobody can understand the Constitution without a law degree. Get real.

i didn't say law degree, i said study. because constitutional scholars don't agree on these things. some kid on the internet is pretty arrogant thinking he knows more than scholars. and no, i don't count myself among those constitutional scholars.

the joke is that you do....

the man who taught me con law did an amicus for brown v board of ed...

and HE wouldn't have approached it with your arrogance toward the subject. you seem to have this warped idea that any jerk off the street has equal right to interpret the constitution with the people who actually know what it means and understand what a common law system is.

you sound like a child

That's just it, however. I don't consider myself a constitutional scholar. I am giving my opinion on an internet message board. My opinion is that a strict constructionist view of the Constitution is correct, and yes I attempt to defend that view. This is a politics message board, and constitutional law might just come up when discussing politics from time to time. Should I be a board certified constitutional scholar, or just keep quiet on an internet message board?
 
see, you get all cranky and insulted when it's pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about. but you don't know what you're talking about.

the comments of politicians of the day have no more meaning than comments of politicians today.

the only thing that matters are the interpretations made by the Court.

go learn about marbury v madison.

but seriously... until you do, you really have no business making the assertions you do.

lol.

If you and I enter into a contract, with the plain meaning of the contract clear to both of us, and then tell you that it means something else afterwards is that contract enforceable to what I said it is after the fact? I don't have a law degree, so maybe I do have that wrong. :rolleyes:

keep your lol to yourself, child.

and a good contract IS clear.

but you'd know that if you did them for a living.

I see, so being condescending towards you bothers you. Perhaps you should keep that in mind when addressing others. I may be young, but I've never been rude or condescending to you. I would appreciate the same in return.

Yes, a good contract is clear. And it is my opinion that the meaning of the Constitution was clear to those who ratified it, and was later changed to mean something else by those who had something to gain from increasing the power of the federal government.
 
Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

Both Madison and Hamilton argued over just that. Within a few short years they fell on both sides of the same argument---in order to gain political power.

I've posted this numerous times. There are links to when and over what argument(s).

I do recall that Madison and Hamilton argued over whether the meaning of the Constitution as understood by the state committees or the understanding of the words themselves were correct---or whether the meanings as understood by the writers and signers and signatories...

The people who wrote the Constitution argued over meanings and whose understanding of those meanings should rule. "You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed" is not and was never, the issue.

Except that it is an issue. You see, Hamilton and Madison made the meaning of the Constitution clear before it was ratified, and afterwards Hamilton decided the Constitution meant something else.
 
Very true. James Madison, on the other hand, is known as the "Father of the Constitution," and he authored the Virginia Resolutions in conjunction with Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions.



Virginia Resolution of 1798

The "Father of the Constitution" supporting nullification, I'll be.

Madison ended up being a Federalist before he was against the Federalists.

It appears the Founding Fathers were politicians apt to change their tunes with the winds of political expediency, once iot came to gaining or holding onto power.

only a fool uses the words (regarding the Constitution and it's meanings and interpretations) of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for an argument. After the Constitution was ratified the Founding Fathers began the real battles---interpretations and meanings. A foundation built on quicksand will never hold.

Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

actually you can ...if both parties behave in the new way and agree that the new way is the original intent then the original contract intent is modified by mutual behaviour.....
 
Madison ended up being a Federalist before he was against the Federalists.

It appears the Founding Fathers were politicians apt to change their tunes with the winds of political expediency, once iot came to gaining or holding onto power.

only a fool uses the words (regarding the Constitution and it's meanings and interpretations) of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for an argument. After the Constitution was ratified the Founding Fathers began the real battles---interpretations and meanings. A foundation built on quicksand will never hold.

Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

actually you can ...if both parties behave in the new way and agree that the new way is the original intent then the original contract intent is modified by mutual behaviour.....

But if one side were to try to enforce the new "meaning" of the contract against the wishes of the other what would happen?
 
Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

actually you can ...if both parties behave in the new way and agree that the new way is the original intent then the original contract intent is modified by mutual behaviour.....

But if one side were to try to enforce the new "meaning" of the contract against the wishes of the other what would happen?

both have been behaving according to the new meaning.....so their actions have defined the terms.....when one wants to revert to the old meaning is when it gets fun....

they sort it out via mutaual agreemtn or some form of dispute resolution....go to mediation...arbitration ....court.....welcome to one of my daily duties at my company.....
 
actually you can ...if both parties behave in the new way and agree that the new way is the original intent then the original contract intent is modified by mutual behaviour.....

But if one side were to try to enforce the new "meaning" of the contract against the wishes of the other what would happen?

both have been behaving according to the new meaning.....so their actions have defined the terms.....when one wants to revert to the old meaning is when it gets fun....

they sort it out via mutaual agreemtn or some form of dispute resolution....go to mediation...arbitration ....court.....welcome to one of my daily duties at my company.....

That's the theory of nullification, however. If the federal government overreaches, the states can nullify that act. The Constitution is a contract between federal and state governments, and yet we accept the fact that only one side has the right to say what that contract means. It's utterly nonsensical.
 
This argument is made to sound as if there is a gun to the head of every American, forcing them to live in a country that was founded by these "village idiots" as it was put. If someone does not agree with the foundation that was put in place here over 200 years ago, then why don't they move to another country that suits them better? Move to a socialist nation in Europe or a communist one like China. If you dislike freedom and liberty so much, then maybe America isn't the place for you.
 
The founding fathers were brilliant, this is one of those horrible OPs IMO.

They created the best damn government possible IMO, with checks and balances to prevent one branch from getting too much power and attempting to limit widespread corruption as much as possible. They allowed the ability to the laws to be interpreted with the changing times having SCOTUS being able to rule on it and the ability to change the constitution, but not too easy to do so.

The government they put in place, with the help of the vast resources in the land in which the country was formed, and a hard working citizenry made this country rise up from nowhere to be a world power in relatively short time considering the other powers in the world were around for centuries.

I would kindly felate anyone of the founding fathers for their brilliance:razz:

Well said -- except for the fellate part
 
I'm still stunned someone named their kid Adolf Nixon.

Poor bastard never had a chance - no wonder he hates America.

That does not excuse his utter stupidity though...
 
..............................Makes you wonder why those that don't like it remain here. They are FREE to leave. Instead they whine, complain, and make life miserable for the rest of us that outnumber them by a wide margin.

The majority of us subscribe to it, and in fact participate to sustain it, not screw it up by listening to a few malcontents that are into self abuse by remaining.

In short? America- Love It, or Leave It...and Stop trying to screw it up for the rest of us that want to be left alone...


90% or more of the American People would never tolerate living under the Constitution's true and original meaning..........assuming they could even understand said meaning. That vast majority be it of the ACORN or the Tea Party factions are mostly interested in getting more out of the federal ponzi scheme than is taken from them. Each faction too seems to just luv compelling others to bow down and worship the faction's particular filthy little PC's. Hell these sheeple are even too fucking stupid to realise how badly they are fleeced daily by their invisble in plain sight masters.

BTW, sport ya think you have sand enough to make me Leave or Be Silent you are welcome to try little lamb.
 
:cuckoo:
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true

And even these 9 Black-Robed Humans get it wrong.

\Maybe so, but that's the way the constitution works. Simply claiming something is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. BUt the beauty of the system is that it can be overturned.


Yes those 9 persons can and DO get it wrong.... and when they do get it wrong it does not make that wrong inherently constitutional... all it does is still keep it 'legal'... but in terms of the intent of the constitution, it can STILL be unconstitutional .... much like a murderer can be acquitted by a court, and taht verdict still does not take away from the basic fact that they are indeed a murderer, conviction or not
 
But Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

Very true. James Madison, on the other hand, is known as the "Father of the Constitution," and he authored the Virginia Resolutions in conjunction with Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Virginia Resolution of 1798

The "Father of the Constitution" supporting nullification, I'll be.

Madison ended up being a Federalist before he was against the Federalists.

It appears the Founding Fathers were politicians apt to change their tunes with the winds of political expediency, once iot came to gaining or holding onto power.

only a fool uses the words (regarding the Constitution and it's meanings and interpretations) of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for an argument. After the Constitution was ratified the Founding Fathers began the real battles---interpretations and meanings. A foundation built on quicksand will never hold.

I don't believe that Madison was ever Anti-Federalist. He became anti Hamilton who abused Federalism, and favored Oligarch-ism. Madison was an Idealist, Hamilton, a cheat.
Madison's concept did not bring us here, Hamilton's perversion and corruption did.
 
Except the only interpretation that matters is the one that was put forth by Madison and Hamilton before the Constitution was ratified. You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed.

Both Madison and Hamilton argued over just that. Within a few short years they fell on both sides of the same argument---in order to gain political power.

I've posted this numerous times. There are links to when and over what argument(s).

I do recall that Madison and Hamilton argued over whether the meaning of the Constitution as understood by the state committees or the understanding of the words themselves were correct---or whether the meanings as understood by the writers and signers and signatories...

The people who wrote the Constitution argued over meanings and whose understanding of those meanings should rule. "You can't change the meaning of a contract after it's signed" is not and was never, the issue.

Except that it is an issue. You see, Hamilton and Madison made the meaning of the Constitution clear before it was ratified, and afterwards Hamilton decided the Constitution meant something else.

Here Hamilton's true colors come out.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791
 
Following that logic why should we follow the "220 years of progress and history," as your article puts it? Lysander Spooner put forth a similar argument, saying that the Constitution has no force over those who had nothing to do with its inception, but his stance was consistent as he was an anarchist. This article simply puts forth this argument to attack the founders, while not applying the same standard to the rest of American history. If we shouldn't follow the Constitution because we weren't alive when it was written, what laws from the FDR administration can we ignore? And how much beloved Supreme Court precedent is now out the window since it can't obviously have any force on those of us who had nothing to do with it? And should we simply craft a new form of government all together, since we had no say in the creation of our current republic?

As for the Constitution being a document we "follow today more closely than the bible," that's obviously a ridiculous argument. Our government, which is mandated to follow the Constitution, barely follows the Constitution at all, whereas following the bible is a personal choice of each individual.

:cuckoo:
If a law is not deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, then the constitution has been followed. Just cause you don't like something or think you are more a constitutional scholar than the SC justices, doesn't make it true

And just because you agree with the Court's assessment that it has a monopoly on deciding what is or is not constitutional doesn't make it true.

Has nothing to do with my opinion, that's the difference between you and I, I rely on the facts of the matter, you opinion. The CONSTITUTION give them that authority, that is the fact. it gives congress the ability to amend the constitution also, but SCOTUS is their to interpret the constitution. Did you fail your civics class in HS or what?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top