Jefferson on "'Shays' Rebellion"***

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice deflection. I don't think I'm an expert; I do however think. And I think you're unable to provide a primary source and don't have the balls to admit so. Post it and I will publicly apologize.

Go read the letters you claimed you studied.

Better yet, read the link I posted the first time.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

After you do that I will still ignore your question because it has nothing to do with anything I am saying, since I am not a partisan hack that conveniently ignores things that make his position weaker. Or would you like a list of all the OWS supporters who conveniently forgot their own words about restricting Westboro from being able to protest at funerals that now fully supprt OWS actually ignoring laws that restrict camping?

Now I will get back to my initial question, do you have a point?

I could not find the book of Jefferson's letters but did find the letter you offer as proof in a book assigned in a Philosophy Class I took in 1966 (My sophmore year at CAL), Social and Political Philosophy The letter, written by Jefferson to Madison was composed in Paris and dated Sept. 6, 1789.

Your quote is accurate and part of a long and somewhat rambling letter which begins, "I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develop a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches"

My sense is that Jefferson was musing, given the turmoil in Paris during the summer and fall of 1789 in Paris it would not be surprising. It is an idea he wants to explore in greater detail at a later time; to infer his intent was to rewrite our Constitution every 19 years is a reach.

Yes the quote is accurate, though I disagree that it is conclusive that Jefferson wished for the body of law to expire every 19 years.

My point, btw, is that the Tea Party protest lauded Jefferson's comments in his letter to Madison on January 30, 1787 ["...a little rebellion now and then is a good thing..."] and to Colonel Smith on January 13th of that year ["The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"]; yet their support for a "little rebellion" does not carry forth when the "little rebellion", OWS is the example, includes the young, women and minorities. Using pejoratives (commies, lefties, dirty pigs, etc) and casting all of them with the unruly few as vermin, and dirty hippies is no less wrong than those who characterize all Tea Party supporters as right wing racists motivated by greed and callous to the needs of others. There are some TP supporters who do not fit this mold. Well, a few.

First you claimed I did not actually provide an original source. When I proved I did actually provide an original source, and actually quoted from it, you then dismissed the original source as not being representative. You also refused to address my original question, again.

You are definitely setting yourself up as an expert despite your claims to the contrary.