A Thornbird's Lesson on The Federalist and Dude-lite-ism

[Dante]

But here is a simple lesson for you:

Separation of Powers

Why is it important to not concentrate too much power in one branch of government? Give examples of what might happen if there were too much power in the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch. Give examples of when it might be necessary for one branch to exercise more power than another branch.

In a parliamentary system, like England's, the executive and legislative powers are often closely interconnected. In a presidential system, like the United States', these powers are separated. What are some of the pros and cons of each system?

Some have suggested that having a closer working relationship between the branches of government would end "gridlock" and lead to a more efficient government. Others have argued that the separation of powers was specifically created to "slow down" the pace of government to ensure cool deliberation and not emotional reactions.

What is your opinion?

Does the separation of powers result in reasonable deliberation, or excessive delay?

More important than the so-called "checks and balances" was the system of federalism which allowed the states to protect their rights from an overreaching federal government. Since the Civil War essentially ended states rights we've seen the rapid expansion of the federal government which simple checks and balances hasn't stopped one bit.

The American Civil War was about slavery. The South lost. There were slave holders down south who were northerners who came back to the north to fight against secession. Did you know that? Nothing is black and white--not even slavery.

State's rights? \south Carolina signed documents stating the cause for secession...and it was slavery. SC initiated the rebellion.

Main article: Secession in the United States
Discussions and threats of secession have often surfaced in American politics, but only in the case of the Confederate States of America was secession actually declared. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."[21][22] The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that while the union

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're confusing states rights with slavery.

 

[Dante]

The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union was a legal proclamation issued on December 24, 1860, by the government of South Carolina, explaining its reasons for seceding from the United States. The actual ordinance of secession had been issued on December 20. The declaration was written by Christopher Memminger.

The opening portion of the declaration outlines the historical background of South Carolina and offers a legal justification for its secession. It asserts that the right of states to secede is implicit in the Constitution and this right was explicitly reaffirmed by South Carolina in 1852. The declaration states that the agreement between South Carolina and the United States is subject to the law of compact, which creates obligations on both parties and which revokes the agreement if either party fails to uphold its obligations.

The next section asserts that the government of the United States and of states within that government had failed to uphold their obligations to South Carolina. The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the US Constitution protecting slavery and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dante]

You're confusing states rights with slavery.

Nope. America's Civil War was fought over slavery. State's rights without teh slavery argument is a whole 'nother Byrd <*thh>

 

[Dante]

More important than the so-called "checks and balances" was the system of federalism which allowed the states to protect their rights from an overreaching federal government. Since the Civil War essentially ended states rights we've seen the rapid expansion of the federal government which simple checks and balances hasn't stopped one bit.

note: for clarification


KEvin, here is where YOU introduced state's rights along with slavery

just soze youze knows

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I did not mention slavery whatsoever, and I believe that since you saw fit to neg-rep me with the same lie then you are clearly grasping at straws.

 

[editec]

The original purpose of the constitution was to create a form of government with checks and balances within the Federal government and between the Federal and State government and the people, too.

It was ALSO designed in such a way that we could change things, modifying the way we conduct affairs to react to the changes that the floundering fathers knew would happen.

That's why when some of you folks tell me that the only things the FEDS are supposed to do are spelled out in the constitution I know you're freaking nuts.

The mechanisms for altering our government are spelled out in the constitution by its very structure.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The original purpose of the constitution was to create a form of government with checks and balances within the Federal government and between the Federal and State government and the people, too.

It was ALSO designed in such a way that we could change things, modifying the way we conduct affairs to react to the changes that the floundering fathers knew would happen.

That's why when some of you folks tell me that the only things the FEDS are supposed to do are spelled out in the constitution I know you're freaking nuts.

The mechanisms for altering our government are spelled out in the constitution by its very structure.

Yes, the mechanism for altering our government is spelled out in the Constitution, it's called the amendment process. If the founders believed that the meaning of the Constitution was supposed to somehow change over time they wouldn't have included an amendment process because there'd be no point.

 

[Dante]

The original purpose of the constitution was to create a form of government with checks and balances within the Federal government and between the Federal and State government and the people, too.

It was ALSO designed in such a way that we could change things, modifying the way we conduct affairs to react to the changes that the floundering fathers knew would happen.

That's why when some of you folks tell me that the only things the FEDS are supposed to do are spelled out in the constitution I know you're freaking nuts.

The mechanisms for altering our government are spelled out in the constitution by its very structure.

Yes, the mechanism for altering our government is spelled out in the Constitution, it's called the amendment process. If the founders believed that the meaning of the Constitution was supposed to somehow change over time they wouldn't have included an amendment process because there'd be no point.

still ignoring the facts that two authors (Hamilton & Madison) of The Federalist essays
disagreed with each other and themselves over the meaning of the Constitution?





I already gave you wiggle room when I started a thread listing how Madison and Hamilton at different times took opposing views on whether the Constitution should be interpreted with the intent of the framers or the intent of the ratifiers of the states or whether the Cosntitution should be interpreted according to "the usual and established rules of construction."


here you are reading the minds of the framers and founders wgho couldn't even agree on what they themselves meant?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, Hamilton eventually came up with implied powers of the Constitution and a so-called "energetic" federal government. However, you should note that this was after he assured the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution would limit the federal government and after the Constitution was ratified. Apparently power corrupts.

 

[Dante]

Yes, Hamilton eventually came up with implied powers of the Constitution and a so-called "energetic" federal government. However, you should note that this was after he assured the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution would limit the federal government and after the Constitution was ratified. Apparently power corrupts.

the point is s-t-i-l-l that both Hamilton and Madison were all over the place as to the prginal emaning of what they themselves wrote. and---along comnes the likes of you who imagine they have an insight Hamilton and Madison both lacked?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, Hamilton eventually came up with implied powers of the Constitution and a so-called "energetic" federal government. However, you should note that this was after he assured the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution would limit the federal government and after the Constitution was ratified. Apparently power corrupts.

the point is s-t-i-l-l that both Hamilton and Madison were all over the place as to the prginal emaning of what they themselves wrote. and---along comnes the likes of you who imagine they have an insight Hamilton and Madison both lacked?

Their original position before the document was ratified was that the Constitution limited the federal government to what was explicitly written in the Constitution. If they changed their minds afterwards it was simply because they themselves did not wish to be constrained by the Constitution and had little fear that anyone could stop them. If you enter into a contract and understand it to mean one thing and then the other side says it means something else after you've already signed it then that is an example of fraud, and that is what Alexander Hamilton tried to pull when he suddenly found the so-called "implied powers" of the Constitution.

 

[Dante]

Yes, Hamilton eventually came up with implied powers of the Constitution and a so-called "energetic" federal government. However, you should note that this was after he assured the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution would limit the federal government and after the Constitution was ratified. Apparently power corrupts.

the point is s-t-i-l-l that both Hamilton and Madison were all over the place as to the prginal emaning of what they themselves wrote. and---along comnes the likes of you who imagine they have an insight Hamilton and Madison both lacked?

Their original position before the document was ratified was that the Constitution limited the federal government to what was explicitly written in the Constitution. If they changed their minds afterwards it was simply because they themselves did not wish to be constrained by the Constitution and had little fear that anyone could stop them. If you enter into a contract and understand it to mean one thing and then the other side says it means something else after you've already signed it then that is an example of fraud, and that is what Alexander Hamilton tried to pull when he suddenly found the so-called "implied powers" of the Constitution.

how do you get from original intent to exact texual meanings? you are all over the place. It is my opinion that most of us are all over the place when it comes to readings andinterpretations of the Constitution, but you---you bring a doctrinaire...you come across as a dogmatic tool. So sure of yourself where greater minds hade doubts.

and Saclia you are N-O-T.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the point is s-t-i-l-l that both Hamilton and Madison were all over the place as to the prginal emaning of what they themselves wrote. and---along comnes the likes of you who imagine they have an insight Hamilton and Madison both lacked?

Their original position before the document was ratified was that the Constitution limited the federal government to what was explicitly written in the Constitution. If they changed their minds afterwards it was simply because they themselves did not wish to be constrained by the Constitution and had little fear that anyone could stop them. If you enter into a contract and understand it to mean one thing and then the other side says it means something else after you've already signed it then that is an example of fraud, and that is what Alexander Hamilton tried to pull when he suddenly found the so-called "implied powers" of the Constitution.

how do you get from original intent to exact texual meanings? you are all over the place. It is my opinion that most of us are all over the place when it comes to readings andinterpretations of the Constitution, but you---you bring a doctrinaire...you come across as a dogmatic tool. So sure of yourself where greater minds hade doubts.

and Saclia you are N-O-T.

I'll take this as meaning you can't form any kind of rebuttal to what I said. My position clearly hasn't shifted in the slightest, but continue to dream.

 

[Dante]

I'll take this as meaning you can't form any kind of rebuttal to what I said. My position clearly hasn't shifted in the slightest, but continue to dream.

naw, take IT as an observation that you are an idiotic dolt. you lay out a false premise oir two and become immovable regardless the evidence or reality. that my dear pal makes you a wing-nut.

sorry, but it is my duty to inform you that you are not worth the spit off my sweaty balls.

now run along and play with the other 'tards in the yard.

d.

;/O

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll take this as meaning you can't form any kind of rebuttal to what I said. My position clearly hasn't shifted in the slightest, but continue to dream.

naw, take IT as an observation that you are an idiotic dolt. you lay out a false premise oir two and become immovable regardless the evidence or reality. that my dear pal makes you a wing-nut.

sorry, but it is my duty to inform you that you are not worth the spit off my sweaty balls.

now run along and play with the other 'tards in the yard.

d.

;/O

I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Dante]

I'll take this as meaning you can't form any kind of rebuttal to what I said. My position clearly hasn't shifted in the slightest, but continue to dream.

naw, take IT as an observation that you are an idiotic dolt. you lay out a false premise oir two and become immovable regardless the evidence or reality. that my dear pal makes you a wing-nut.

sorry, but it is my duty to inform you that you are not worth the spit off my sweaty balls.

now run along and play with the other 'tards in the yard.

d.

;/O

I'll keep that in mind.

careful, I'd hate to fill up your mind. bad enough you're running on too few cylinders.