Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[candycorn]

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

That wasn't the question I asked.

I asked "If I don't like Obamacare...where do I move to get away from it ?"

Albania I suppose.

Where do you get the idea you shouldn't have to pay for things you personally do not like. A lot of people don't like submarines....yet they pay for them. Even more don't like Congress.

 

[candycorn]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

 

[candycorn]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

 

[candycorn]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

 

[candycorn]

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

 

[Foxfyre]

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

You got it friend. Pierce from Georgia didn't concern himself with abortion or the space program so I haven't read or seen any of his comments on abortion or the space program which is totally off topic for this thread. Rule violation per Rule #1. I can tell what people are thinking when I read what they argue for that they themselves wrote or hear what they themselves say but that too is off topic is this thread is not about me or what I think about anything.

Rule No. 1: stay on topic on this thread with no ad hominem or personal insults please.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, you can't know the intent of the framers.

typical lefty who wants the Constitution to mean anything she wants since it has no meaning whatsoever. She makes it easy to understand why those who support it are patriotic flag wavers and those who don't spied for Hitler and Stalin and elected Obama despite 3 communist parents.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

they are agreed on certain principles regarding natural law established by Aristotle Cicero Locke etc.
After the Revolution of 1800 here's what Jefferson said as president:

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you can't know the intent of the framers .

the framers intent is revealed in what they wrote,namely, the Constitution:

Madison:
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison

 

[dcraelin]

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

 

[Foxfyre]

, you can't know the intent of the framers.

typical lefty who wants the Constitution to mean anything she wants since it has no meaning whatsoever. She makes it easy to understand why those who support it are patriotic flag wavers and those who don't spied for Hitler and Stalin and elected Obama despite 3 communist parents.

Let's not refer to folks as 'typical lefty'. . . .please review the thread rules in the OP and that, while technically not a personal insult, could be taken as one. But yes, there are some, usually on the left, who see and understand the Constitution much differently than most of those on the right see and understand it. Which is probably why we have people on the left and right if you really think about it.

Which brings us back to Michelsen's amendment that returns power to those who demand integrity regarding the Constitution and gives them a bit of clout to demand it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Which is probably why we have people on the left and right if you really think about it.

Surprise, I've really thought about it. The people on the left don't care about what it says, they only care about what they think is right and that is always more and more crippling marxist welfare.

That position is in effect treasonous since the Constitution requires an oath to what it says, not an oath to anything you want.

If the Constitution was enforced liberals would not be allowed and the debate would be among conservatives and libertarians about for example, the size of the military, and the small degree of involvement with domestic matters. Instead of having left and right we'd have patriotic right A and patriotic right B and little or no gridlock.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which is probably why we have people on the left and right if you really think about it.

Surprise, I've really thought about it. The people on the left don't care about what it says, they only care about what they think is right and that is always more and more crippling marxist welfare.

That position is in effect treasonous since the Constitution requires an oath to what it says, not an oath to anything you want.

If the Constitution was enforced liberals would not be allowed and the debate would be among conservatives and libertarians about for example, the size of the military, and the small degree of involvement with domestic matters. Instead of having left and right we'd have patriotic right A and patriotic right B and little or no gridlock.

And this is an example of the ignorance, hate, and stupidity the Constitution and its case law protect citizens from.

 

[RKMBrown]

, you can't know the intent of the framers.

typical lefty who wants the Constitution to mean anything she wants since it has no meaning whatsoever. She makes it easy to understand why those who support it are patriotic flag wavers and those who don't spied for Hitler and Stalin and elected Obama despite 3 communist parents.

Let's not refer to folks as 'typical lefty'. . . .please review the thread rules in the OP and that, while technically not a personal insult, could be taken as one. But yes, there are some, usually on the left, who see and understand the Constitution much differently than most of those on the right see and understand it. Which is probably why we have people on the left and right if you really think about it.

Which brings us back to Michelsen's amendment that returns power to those who demand integrity regarding the Constitution and gives them a bit of clout to demand it.

No it does not return power to those who demand integrity regarding the Constitution. It tears up the Constitution and defecates on it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

That wasn't the question I asked.

I asked "If I don't like Obamacare...where do I move to get away from it ?"

Albania I suppose.

Where do you get the idea you shouldn't have to pay for things you personally do not like. A lot of people don't like submarines....yet they pay for them. Even more don't like Congress.

Submarines sit under the cause of National Defense. That is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

As to your reply, it's simply a dodge when you know the answer.

BTW: I have always felt like I don't have to pay for things I don't like. More importantly, I don't pay for things I don't want.

Or do you go into a shop and pay for clothes you think are ugly ? For whatever reason.

The context of this conversation was clear from the start. The fact that you don't recall that isn't my problem.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So how does this support a concept that 'the Framers didn't think one way or the other' or that 'nobody knows what they were thinking?' Of course they all had their own individual point of view about the issues they were dealing with, but they did come together in agreement sufficiently to create the Constitution that we have. And we absolutely know 'what they were thinking' when they did it because they left us a wealth of now historical documents, letters, transcripts etc. that inform us very well about 'what they were thinking'.

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

But what happens when those entrusted to protect, defend, and implement the Constitution--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government--all fail to do so? There is no 'Constitutional jurisprudence' the people can easily use and case law becomes worthless because it too reflects the corruption that has crept into the system.

All this speaks to the necessity of additional amendments to better restrain an ever overreaching government. Michelsen has offered one.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

Collectively, you have a pretty good idea.

First, all you need to do is look at the mess they were leaving behind. The Articles of Confederation.

Next, you look at the arguments that were taking place around the proposed constitution (for and against). If Madison, Jay, and Hamilton were way off base, there would be no U.S. Constitution.