Hamilton & Madison: What little you think you know.

[Dante]

Lots of shit-talkin' here about the US Constitution, The Federalist essays and other stuff.

Do any of you who speak of The Federalist essays and orginial intent (original intent being a term coined after originalism was first used by Ed Meese in 1985) realize that both Madison and Hamilton spoke out of both sides of their mouths on how to interpret the Constitution?


*waiting

 

[Dante]

Who said the US Constitution was nothing more than a draft?

"Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our constitution, the sense of that body could never be regrded as the oracular guide in the expounding the constitution...If we were to look therefore, for the meaning of the instrument, beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it not in the general convention, which proposed, but in the state conventions, which accepted and ratified the constitution."

...And who later used an argument that relied on text and inference alone and not the history of drafters and ratifiers?

 

[Dante]

Who said in 1791...

Whatever may have been the intentions of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual and established rules of construction.

...then in 1796, we should analyze "the manner in which {the Constitution} was understood by the convention who framed it, and by the people who adopted it."

two very contrary opinions by one of the authors of The Federalist essays.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

 

[Dante]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

Your blabberings are getting so convoluted not even -- I -- can follow them. That my friends deserves





Both Hamilton and Madison who wrote the essays (The Federalist) together and disagreed (on opposite political sides of two constitutional questions) on their meanings, Yet you somehow know what they and others intended by reading writings not even your own?

 

[BrianH]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

Your blabberings are getting so convoluted not even -- I -- can follow them. That my friends deserves





Both Hamilton and Madison who wrote the essays (The Federalist) together and disagreed (on opposite political sides of two constitutional questions) on their meanings, Yet you somehow know what they and others intended by reading writings not even your own?

What is the point of your post? You seem to be talking alot of shit yourself without getting to the point. What are you trying to prove/disprove?

 

[Oddball]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

Something the OP knows plenty about.

What is the point of your post? You seem to be talking alot of shit yourself without getting to the point. What are you trying to prove/disprove?

Most know this phenomenon by the term "trolling"

 

[Dante]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

Your blabberings are getting so convoluted not even -- I -- can follow them. That my friends deserves





Both Hamilton and Madison who wrote the essays (The Federalist) together and disagreed (on opposite political sides of two constitutional questions) on their meanings, Yet you somehow know what they and others intended by reading writings not even your own?

What is the point of your post? You seem to be talking alot of shit yourself without getting to the point. What are you trying to prove/disprove?

Disprove that most people who act with sureity about The Federalist have very little knowledge of the people who wrote the essays and what exact role they played...and when they do know---they are blinded by idiocy and ideology.

The original intent of things is always open to interpretation where nuance is existing. When the founding fathers and framers wanted to be exact---they were. The constructions used in their writings and arguments atre many times all over the place. \They themselves seemed to be searching on how best to form a government...While people I criticize here seem to think/imagine they have a grasp of what was beyond the people they are quoting.

There are writings by those great men where they warn against holding them up on pedastal or as oracles.

(written late at night and on the fly---please excuse )

 

[Dante]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

Something the OP knows plenty about.

What is the point of your post? You seem to be talking alot of shit yourself without getting to the point. What are you trying to prove/disprove?

Most know this phenomenon by the term "trolling"

Oh the i-r-o-n-y!!!

 

[Oddball]

Go find some used cars to sell, trolly boy.

 

[Shogun]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

How many contracts do you know of that have an AMENDMENT PROCESS BUILT IN? You do realize that the Constitution has been changed and reinterpreted at almost every point of it's existence, right?

 

[Dante]

Go find some used cars to sell, trolly boy.

Why you looking to sell your motor home dude?

 

[Dante]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

How many contracts do you know of that have an AMENDMENT PROCESS BUILT IN? You do realize that the Constitution has been changed and reinterpreted at almost every point of it's existence, right?

let us see how long it takes to get a non-response from the latest dufus-in-chief of USMB

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.

How many contracts do you know of that have an AMENDMENT PROCESS BUILT IN? You do realize that the Constitution has been changed and reinterpreted at almost every point of it's existence, right?

It is up to the states to finally ratify an amendment, rather than just one side of the agreement ignoring the Constitution and doing what it likes. If you and I enter into a contract and choose, after the fact, to change the nature of some part of that contract then there is no problem. However, if I simply come to the conclusion that some part of that contract is not in my best interests and decide to ignore it at your expense then I am guilty of fraud.

 

[Shogun]

Dude. Are you telling me that the founding fathers would have WANTED AND VALIDATED Amendment 13? If not, then how do you figure it's not unconstitutional by your original intent argument? You are talking out both sides of your mouth. Either The constititon IS a finite contract that cannot be changed from it's original intent and purpose or it CAN be changed with an amendment process that applies to every state. Which do you think the 13 Amendment falls into. So, are you suggesting that the founding fathers would NOT have seen the abolition of slavery as "not in my best interests and decide to ignore it at your expense then I am guilty of fraud"?


Better yet. WE added prohibition and then REPEALED prohibition. What contract do you know of that has that sort of maleabiltiy? And, who was giving a damn about what Thomas Jefferson thought about Alcohol?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dude. Are you telling me that the founding fathers would have WANTED AND VALIDATED Amendment 13? If not, then how do you figure it's not unconstitutional by your original intent argument? You are talking out both sides of your mouth. Either The constititon IS a finite contract that cannot be changed from it's original intent and purpose or it CAN be changed with an amendment process that applies to every state. Which do you think the 13 Amendment falls into. So, are you suggesting that the founding fathers would NOT have seen the abolition of slavery as "not in my best interests and decide to ignore it at your expense then I am guilty of fraud"?


Better yet. WE added prohibition and then REPEALED prohibition. What contract do you know of that has that sort of maleabiltiy? And, who was giving a damn about what Thomas Jefferson thought about Alcohol?

The amendment process is provided for by the Constitution itself, therefore is not unconstitutional. What I'm objecting to is the government doing things not provided for by the Constitution without first amending the Constitution.

 

[Shogun]

I can live with that.


have a great day!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I can live with that.


have a great day!

You as well.

 

[Dante]

The amendment process is provided for by the Constitution itself, therefore is not unconstitutional. What I'm objecting to is the government doing things not provided for by the Constitution without first amending the Constitution.

The US government is not currently doing things not provided in the Constitution. If you think it is go to court and then get thrown out on your lousy fat arse.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The amendment process is provided for by the Constitution itself, therefore is not unconstitutional. What I'm objecting to is the government doing things not provided for by the Constitution without first amending the Constitution.

The US government is not currently doing things not provided in the Constitution. If you think it is go to court and then get thrown out on your lousy fat arse.

I suggest you read the Constitution.

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution