Our founding fathers were not conservative

You are irrelevant, bigrebnc. You crack me up, big guy. You look like a weasel in uniform, fight like a goose, and have the courage of an especially brave ewe. The Mexicans will laugh themselves silly at the likes of you. :lol: Your turn :lol:

do you have anything else to offer? If not admitt you failed be the big man for once and stop being the troll that most here have said about you.
 
In other words, your mini OP failed? I understand. And "that most here" guy left you a dear bigrebnc letter and ran away. :lol:
 
:lol: Weak, son, weak Since you are out of work now, build a rickshaw and hook yourself up to it. You go off the welfare rolls, and you will do well since you have an intimate knowledge of the streets :lol:
 
:lol: Weak, son, weak :lol: Since you are out of work now, build a rickshaw and hook yourself up to it. You go off the welfare rolls, and you will do well since you have an intimate knowledge of the streets :lol:

Weak or what ever it still pawns your ***** ass.
 
Still waiting for the constitutional cites that negate my position.

One, you don't have a constitutional site that supports your point.

Two, the father of the Constitution disagrees with you.

Refute those two with evidence.
 
Still waiting for the constitutional cites that negate my position.

One, you don't have a constitutional site that supports your point.

Two, the father of the Constitution disagrees with you.

Refute those two with evidence.
 
Still waiting for the constitutional cites that negate my position.
One, you don't have a constitutional site that supports your point.
That's "cite" as in "priovise a citation". "Site" is a location.

If you had actually read my posts, you'd know this isn't true.
I laid out my argument complete w/ all the citations necessary to support it.
So.. you're erither lying, speaking from a posiiton of abject ignorance, or both.

Two, the father of the Constitution disagrees with you.
The text of the constitution trumps opnion on the general subject.

Still waiting.
 
Sorry Jake, This is gonna hurt me more than it does you. ;)


Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them. -The Father of The Constitution

Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 46
 
Your argument is vague at best, and has been clearly refuted by the guy who designed the document.

"Site" means a "place" or a "location", which is exactly what I mean above.

"Cite" means provenance of the work itself.

Learn your terms and how they are used.

When you meet your burden of proof, we will talk again.

Right now, you have fail.

Intense, a Federalist paper quote is secondary to a quote from Madison right in the middle of the 1832-1833 secession issue. Your quote is theory, while Madison's quote is literal, within the context of real time play of the issues.
 
Last edited:
15th post
I have clearly refuted your position. Your denial only reinforces the point that your on defense. Come on: bring some evidence rather than neener neener.

This is the way it is with the reactionary far right wing nuts. They lose a point or can't defend one, so they get smarmy and personal. Sad, really.
 
On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States...
Ultimately, the states are sovereign over the federal government.
It's really that simple.
 
Nope, look up the various types of federalism, then go read Jefferson and Madison more carefully. The Union is supreme: always was, always will be.
 
Nope, look up the various types of federalism, then go read Jefferson and Madison more carefully. The Union is supreme: always was, always will be.

Not correct. The Constitution and the laws passed pursuant to the Constitution are Supreme. But that reference is with regard to possible conflicting laws. For example, let's say that New Jersey has passed a Law on Issue A. New York has a different Law on Issue A. Then, if passed pursuant to the authorities granted by the Constitution, The United States has a Law on Issue A. In case of conflict, the U.S. Law controls.

That doesn't make the Federal Government, the "Union" supreme. It makes the laws passed by the U.S. Government (if passed pursuant to the Constitutional grants of authorities and within those limitations) supreme.

The fact of the matter is clear: if a Federal law is passed OUTSIDE of the authority granted by the Constitution, it is NOT Supreme. It is, in fact, void in that case.

There's a clue inherent in that fact. It tells all of us who bother to pay attention that the Union was formed BY the States which ceded SOME of their sovereignty to the newly crafted Federal Government ONLY UPON CONDITIONS. Those conditions included the guaranteed, written LIMITATIONS on the authority of the U.S. Government. When the Federal Government acts outside of the bounds of that set of limitations, it acts without the authority of the States that created it. And, if the circumstances arise, the same State governments that agreed to cede some of their sovereignty to the Union can also withdraw that grant and terminate the relationship.

THAT is the way it always was. It is the way it always should be. The Acts of the Union at the time of the Civil War do not establish that the States have ever stipulated any change to that framework.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom