Hamilton & Madison: What little you think you know.

[Paulie]

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.

Where does it say in the constitution that Congress can spend our precious tax dollars drafting and voting on a resolution to honor a celebrity?

For example...

 

[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.

I suggest you read the Constitution.

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

I've read the Constitution and the Federalist essays. I've read more and have watched pbs programs with noted historians who are experts on this stuff. I think you are a wing-nut with a bit of moonbat thrown in for good measure

 

[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.

Where does it say in the constitution that Congress can spend our precious tax dollars drafting and voting on a resolution to honor a celebrity?

For example...

I ahve no clue what you are talking about, but any abuse of authority does not make a case for you

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

I've read the Constitution and the Federalist essays. I've read more and have watched pbs programs with noted historians who are experts on this stuff. I think you are a wing-nut with a bit of moonbat thrown in for good measure

I don't care what you think of me, but it is clear that you didn't comprehend the Constitution if you think the federal government is doing nothing unconstitutional.

 

[Dante]

I suggest you read the Constitution.

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

I've read the Constitution and the Federalist essays. I've read more and have watched pbs programs with noted historians who are experts on this stuff. I think you are a wing-nut with a bit of moonbat thrown in for good measure

I don't care what you think of me, but it is clear that you didn't comprehend the Constitution if you think the federal government is doing nothing unconstitutional.

|No matter how often you post your pathetic troglodyte rants about the federal government it still sounds like moonbatism.

 

[Paulie]

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.

Where does it say in the constitution that Congress can spend our precious tax dollars drafting and voting on a resolution to honor a celebrity?

For example...

I ahve no clue what you are talking about, but any abuse of authority does not make a case for you

Of course you have no clue. That's typical.

I'm referring to the resolution to honor Michael Jackson. I don't see the article or amendment in the constitution that authorizes congress to spend one second of my time, or one dollar of my taxes recognizing aesthetic characters.

Like I said though, that was merely an example. If you REALLY want to get into this subject, say the word. I'll be back at a later time when I can really sink my teeth into it.

But let's not pretend you aren't going to validate every one of my examples simply because you think it's ok to interpret the constitution however you want to like the rabid liberal that you are.

 

[Dante]

Where does it say in the constitution that Congress can spend our precious tax dollars drafting and voting on a resolution to honor a celebrity?

For example...

I ahve no clue what you are talking about, but any abuse of authority does not make a case for you

Of course you have no clue. That's typical.

I'm referring to the resolution to honor Michael Jackson. I don't see the article or amendment in the constitution that authorizes congress to spend one second of my time, or one dollar of my taxes recognizing aesthetic characters.

Like I said though, that was merely an example. If you REALLY want to get into this subject, say the word. I'll be back at a later time when I can really sink my teeth into it.

But let's not pretend you aren't going to validate every one of my examples simply because you think it's ok to interpret the constitution however you want to like the rabid liberal that you are.

Did congress honor the child molester? I didn't know that. I don't follow the pederats mews like you do.

thanks, I guess.

 

[BrianH]

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 )

Ok, I was leaning towards that, but I wasn't quite sure of the purpose of the OP. I will agree that it is slightly ignorant for many people to draw exact meaning from the Constitution, when clearly, some things were written "vague" for a reason.

While it is possible to grasp some understanding of "some" of the constitution based on what these men said, it's impossible to grasp all, or to completely understand why it was written. What is pretty amazing, is that the problems we have today (in our country) are the very things Jefferson and others warned about.

 

[Dante]

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 )

Ok, I was leaning towards that, but I wasn't quite sure of the purpose of the OP. I will agree that it is slightly ignorant for many people to draw exact meaning from the Constitution, when clearly, some things were written "vague" for a reason.

It is that people claim to be able to draw exact meanings where the authors themselves were often unable to (I listed examples) that gives me pause and informs my opinion of the general public and certain academics and judicial/constitutional experts. My opinion is such that whenever I hear the phrase (the public) in an argument for or against an idea, I tend to put my critical thinking skills to work and my ssssskeptism raises it's pretty head..

While it is possible to grasp some understanding of "some" of the constitution based on what these men said, it's impossible to grasp all, or to completely understand why it was written. What is pretty amazing, is that the problems we have today (in our country) are the very things Jefferson and others warned about.

It is pretty amazing only if we look upon the framers and founders as average men. They were not avaerge by any scale.

 

[Dante]

It seems like the ignorance of many members here has changed over time. USMB is a case study on how ignorance can grow like a fungus

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

and there was this thread to go along with this one. this and this?

 

[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

*still waiting

 

[Peach]

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

Are you referencing The Federalist PAPERS? Got my copy on a bookshelf.

 

[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

Are you referencing The Federalist PAPERS? Got my copy on a bookshelf.

look at the title: The Federalist a collection of essays. that be it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

I'm waiting for you to make a compelling OP argument based on cogent example. Nah__ Don't think I'll be spoon feeding any trolls.

 

[Peach]

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.

You left out John Jay, the quote is HAMILTON; note, Publius did a great job. ; )

 

[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

I'm waiting for you to make a compelling OP argument based on cogent example. Nah__ Don't think I'll be spoon feeding any trolls.

based on cogent example? are you letter (a)-intolerant?

 

[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.

You left out John Jay, the quote is HAMILTON; note, Publius did a great job. ; )

How many essays did Jay write?

 

[whitehall]

What do you lefties think we think we know about Hamilton and Madison? Hamilton was a Revolutionary War Soldier. He risked everything for freedom and the US Constitution. Founding Father Madison gave everything he had to create the greatest Country on the planet. Franklin said it best, "we must hang together or surely we will hang separately" and they truly risked their lives and fortunes. I'm sure Soros tax exempt Media Matters isn't adverse to cherry picking statements from the Founding Fathers and creating a fake conspiracy just like they do with modern conservatives so go for it hate-America lefties.

 

[regent]

Some of the people that helped write the Constitution refused to sign the finished document.
Article one, Section eight, clause eighteen, the necessary and proper clause, gave the Congress some leeway in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not.
The Amendment process is difficult and only 27 have passed thus far and there are a few proposals still floating around with no termination date. The California Constitution, for example, is easier to amend and it probably has close to five hundred amendments.
The biggie in changing the Constitution has been simple useage and Court decisions. The Court was never given the power per se to interpret the Constitution nor declare a law of Congress unconstitutional but it took that power unto itself in 1803.
The Federalist papers were simply letters to the editor by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. All wanted the Constitution to be ratified. Of the nine states required to ratify some of the votes were fairly close.
It was not believed there would be political parties so no accomodation was made in the Constitution. But the battle over ratification began the political parties.
Had Jefferson been at the convention we might have a different document today. He was in Paris.
The convention was held in secret, and supposedly no word got out. But after a hard day debating some of the delegates would meet in the local taverns.
The antiFederalists, later to be the Jeffersonians later to be the Republicans, and finally to become today's Democratic party insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would vote for ratification.

 

[whitehall]

For the first time in human history the government turned over power to the people and even listed the the rights of free people in the first ten Amendments. You can nit-pick about intents and reluctance to sign the document but it was truly a milestone in human history and every free nation since 1776 has patterned itself from the concept of free elections and the will of the people. Every American should be thankful that they live in the greatest Country in the world but sadly it seems that radical lefties are never happy.