Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Intense]

Ultimately..the Congress have power over the Militia. It's part of it's enumerated powers.

No. The Militias are separate. The National Guard is under the Authority of the respective Governors. God I hate public School indoctrination.

Ultimately they are under the power of Congress.

What part of the National Guard fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't you getting?

The Militias are now separate from the National Guard Sallow. They are Non Government. The original Purpose of the Militias was to avoid the need of a standing Army. You are confusing the roles of 3 or 4 types of entities, including the Reserves. They are not interchangeable, though The Reserves and National Guard are used by Military command.

 

[Sallow]

Hookay..

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist #29

 

[Intense]

We have already shown that claim to be a lie. Either that or are you suggesting the Framers misinformed. You repeat and by repeating, mis-characterize, mis-represent original intent. When that fails, what is the plan? To claim how different things are now? The rule of law only has meaning when it serves you?

No..what you are showing is the "Federalist Papers" which is essentially a series of opinion pieces. It's a good way to gain insight on what they may or may not have been thinking, but it's not the Constitution..which is pretty clear on the points that I outlined. And the Framers had different opinions at different points in their lives. Jefferson at one point held that revolution was a protection against tyranny right up until the French Revolution which was a bloodbath.

And to characterize anything as a lie that isn't a lie dilutes your argument and is rather insulting.

Let's be honest. The Federalist Papers were propaganda for the new federal government.

You are showing your colors again, people might start to get you and your true intent. I know you don't want that now, Comrade.

The Federalist Papers were the plea for a new Federalist System, which addressed every voiced concern about the intent in detail, in order to advance the cause. Propaganda is what you do.

 

[Sallow]

No. The Militias are separate. The National Guard is under the Authority of the respective Governors. God I hate public School indoctrination.

Ultimately they are under the power of Congress.

What part of the National Guard fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't you getting?

The Militias are now separate from the National Guard Sallow. They are Non Government. The original Purpose of the Militias was to avoid the need of a standing Army. You are confusing the roles of 3 or 4 types of entities, including the Reserves. They are not interchangeable, though The Reserves and National Guard are used by Military command.

The entire make up the the military today goes against what's in the Constitution.

And I am "not" confusing the Militia.

 

[Intense]

Hookay..

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist #29

Hey, you got one quote of how many??? Good job, considering it's you we are dealing with. Check out Hamilton's other quotes in the list. For a Statist Control Puke, Hamilton got a couple of things right.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 Bear Arms

Wow there goes the rest of your argument again and again.

 

[Agit8r]

No..what you are showing is the "Federalist Papers" which is essentially a series of opinion pieces. It's a good way to gain insight on what they may or may not have been thinking, but it's not the Constitution..which is pretty clear on the points that I outlined. And the Framers had different opinions at different points in their lives. Jefferson at one point held that revolution was a protection against tyranny right up until the French Revolution which was a bloodbath.

And to characterize anything as a lie that isn't a lie dilutes your argument and is rather insulting.

Let's be honest. The Federalist Papers were propaganda for the new federal government.

You are showing your colors again, people might start to get you and your true intent. I know you don't want that now, Comrade.

The Federalist Papers were the plea for a new Federalist System, which addressed every voiced concern about the intent in detail, in order to advance the cause. Propaganda is what you do.

Only one of the three Federalist authors believed in a strict constuction. And even then met his limit as Secretary of State, with the Louisiana Purchase. At the very least, all of Hamilton's and Jay's Federalist Papers are deceptive propaganda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intense, you are believing in an universal construct that did not exist in 1787 and certainly not now. Not all the Founders, much less all the writers of the Federalist Papers, believed in a strict construction of the Constitution. The FP were published to persuade the New Yorkers to ratify the document, not to set a definitive guideline for the future. We live in their future, and my personal opinion is that I do not believe they would think we should be bound by their perspectives.

 

[Intense]

Intense, you are believing in an universal construct that did not exist in 1787 and certainly not now. Not all the Founders, much less all the writers of the Federalist Papers, believed in a strict construction of the Constitution. The FP were published to persuade the New Yorkers to ratify the document, not to set a definitive guideline for the future. We live in their future, and my personal opinion is that I do not believe they would think we should be bound by their perspectives.

In your imagination you are of course right Jake. You need to know where to draw the line though. Madison and Jefferson both fought with Hamilton over encroachment of Federal Powers, as we fight today. Amendment the true path of the Living Document. When Judicial Review crosses the line of reason, it negates all checks and balances. There is a definitive guideline Jake, that is due process, rule of law.

 

[Sallow]

Hookay..

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist #29

Hey, you got one quote of how many??? Good job, considering it's you we are dealing with. Check out Hamilton's other quotes in the list. For a Statist Control Puke, Hamilton got a couple of things right.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 Bear Arms

Wow there goes the rest of your argument again and again.

No.

You really don't get it.

I posted that particular quote to illustrate that there really is not some rigid interpretation of the Constitution to be found, even in the Federalist Papers. The message seemed to change with the audience as well. They were "Opinion Pieces" and NOT the Constitution which is where we actually derive law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intense, you are believing in an universal construct that did not exist in 1787 and certainly not now. Not all the Founders, much less all the writers of the Federalist Papers, believed in a strict construction of the Constitution. The FP were published to persuade the New Yorkers to ratify the document, not to set a definitive guideline for the future. We live in their future, and my personal opinion is that I do not believe they would think we should be bound by their perspectives.

In your imagination you are of course right Jake. You need to know where to draw the line though. Madison and Jefferson both fought with Hamilton over encroachment of Federal Powers, as we fight today. Amendment the true path of the Living Document. When Judicial Review crosses the line of reason, it negates all checks and balances. There is a definitive guideline Jake, that is due process, rule of law.

My understanding is complete, Intense, and yours is rigid and unthinking. Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Clay, Webster, Marshall, Lincoln and hundreds of others moved left while Madison and Jefferson and dozens of others moved right. History has proven the side that has dominated, is dominant today, and will continue dominant in the future. The far right wing of strict constructionism cannot prevail. Now you are entitled to your opinion no matter how false it may be. I honor your right to be wrong on this matter, and I will defend it to your death.

 

[Intense]

Hookay..

Hey, you got one quote of how many??? Good job, considering it's you we are dealing with. Check out Hamilton's other quotes in the list. For a Statist Control Puke, Hamilton got a couple of things right.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 Bear Arms

Wow there goes the rest of your argument again and again.

No.

You really don't get it.

I posted that particular quote to illustrate that there really is not some rigid interpretation of the Constitution to be found, even in the Federalist Papers. The message seemed to change with the audience as well. They were "Opinion Pieces" and NOT the Constitution which is where we actually derive law.

They were the Foundation that the Constitutional Convention was based on. Without them, it would not have happened. Good try though. The Constitution is the Law, that is why it is exact in meaning and limitations. At least it was until the Court decided it knew better.

 

[hipeter924]

Intense, you are believing in an universal construct that did not exist in 1787 and certainly not now. Not all the Founders, much less all the writers of the Federalist Papers, believed in a strict construction of the Constitution. The FP were published to persuade the New Yorkers to ratify the document, not to set a definitive guideline for the future. We live in their future, and my personal opinion is that I do not believe they would think we should be bound by their perspectives.

In your imagination you are of course right Jake. You need to know where to draw the line though. Madison and Jefferson both fought with Hamilton over encroachment of Federal Powers, as we fight today. Amendment the true path of the Living Document. When Judicial Review crosses the line of reason, it negates all checks and balances. There is a definitive guideline Jake, that is due process, rule of law.

My understanding is complete, Intense, and yours is rigid and unthinking. Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Clay, Webster, Marshall, Lincoln and hundreds of others moved left while Madison and Jefferson and dozens of others moved right. History has proven the side that has dominated, is dominant today, and will continue dominant in the future. The far right wing of strict constructionism cannot prevail. Now you are entitled to your opinion no matter how false it may be. I honor your right to be wrong on this matter, and I will defend it to your death.

Interesting considering the left formed that well known path to relativism, which they denounce when it suits them, mainly when they want to be right about something.

 

[Intense]

Let's be honest. The Federalist Papers were propaganda for the new federal government.

You are showing your colors again, people might start to get you and your true intent. I know you don't want that now, Comrade.

The Federalist Papers were the plea for a new Federalist System, which addressed every voiced concern about the intent in detail, in order to advance the cause. Propaganda is what you do.

Only one of the three Federalist authors believed in a strict constuction. And even then met his limit as Secretary of State, with the Louisiana Purchase. At the very least, all of Hamilton's and Jay's Federalist Papers are deceptive propaganda.

I'd agree that Hamilton used Federalism as a stepping stone to effect his Empire State, and I agree that he did harm to Madison's vision, and us, but that is correctable. What is your Poison? Progressivism? Socialism? Marxism? What is your position on Unalienable Rights? Property Rights? Speech? Conscience? Where does the individual stand with you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

In your imagination you are of course right Jake. You need to know where to draw the line though. Madison and Jefferson both fought with Hamilton over encroachment of Federal Powers, as we fight today. Amendment the true path of the Living Document. When Judicial Review crosses the line of reason, it negates all checks and balances. There is a definitive guideline Jake, that is due process, rule of law.

My understanding is complete, Intense, and yours is rigid and unthinking. Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Clay, Webster, Marshall, Lincoln and hundreds of others moved left while Madison and Jefferson and dozens of others moved right. History has proven the side that has dominated, is dominant today, and will continue dominant in the future. The far right wing of strict constructionism cannot prevail. Now you are entitled to your opinion no matter how false it may be. I honor your right to be wrong on this matter, and I will defend it to your death.

Interesting considering the left formed that well known path to relativism, which they denounce when it suits them, mainly when they want to be right about something.

The word you are looking for is properly recognized as "pragmatism." You clearly do not know the history or development of pragmatism or moral relativity. Give Michelle Bachman an email and ask for some of her pamphlets. You need ya sum edurmakashun.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are showing your colors again, people might start to get you and your true intent. I know you don't want that now, Comrade.

The Federalist Papers were the plea for a new Federalist System, which addressed every voiced concern about the intent in detail, in order to advance the cause. Propaganda is what you do.

Only one of the three Federalist authors believed in a strict constuction. And even then met his limit as Secretary of State, with the Louisiana Purchase. At the very least, all of Hamilton's and Jay's Federalist Papers are deceptive propaganda.

I'd agree that Hamilton used Federalism as a stepping stone to effect his Empire State, and I agree that he did harm to Madison's vision, and us, but that is correctable. What is your Poison? Progressivism? Socialism? Marxism? What is your position on Unalienable Rights? Property Rights? Speech? Conscience? Where does the individual stand with you?

You cannot realistically unlink the individual from the environment culturally and socially in which he lives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How come Publius forgot to mention free Health Care for all as a reason to ratify?

 

[hipeter924]

My understanding is complete, Intense, and yours is rigid and unthinking. Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Clay, Webster, Marshall, Lincoln and hundreds of others moved left while Madison and Jefferson and dozens of others moved right. History has proven the side that has dominated, is dominant today, and will continue dominant in the future. The far right wing of strict constructionism cannot prevail. Now you are entitled to your opinion no matter how false it may be. I honor your right to be wrong on this matter, and I will defend it to your death.

Interesting considering the left formed that well known path to relativism, which they denounce when it suits them, mainly when they want to be right about something.

The word you are looking for is properly recognized as "pragmatism." You clearly do not know the history or development of pragmatism or moral relativity. Give Michelle Bachman an email and ask for some of her pamphlets. You need ya sum edurmakashun.

Only when you wake up to the reality that Obama is a fraud, which you never will so it's all good for me.

 

[Sallow]

Hey, you got one quote of how many??? Good job, considering it's you we are dealing with. Check out Hamilton's other quotes in the list. For a Statist Control Puke, Hamilton got a couple of things right.



Wow there goes the rest of your argument again and again.

No.

You really don't get it.

I posted that particular quote to illustrate that there really is not some rigid interpretation of the Constitution to be found, even in the Federalist Papers. The message seemed to change with the audience as well. They were "Opinion Pieces" and NOT the Constitution which is where we actually derive law.

They were the Foundation that the Constitutional Convention was based on. Without them, it would not have happened. Good try though. The Constitution is the Law, that is why it is exact in meaning and limitations. At least it was until the Court decided it knew better.

No..it's not a "good try". The "Federalist Papers" came after the Constitution. And they were meant to convince the general public of New York that the Constitution was sound.

 

[editec]

If these guys were alive today to answer your questions you still couldn't pin them down as being either conservative or liberal.

Not at least using the definitions of those words like most of us then now use them.

 

[Blagger]

there, I said it. Feel free to prove me wrong with empirical fact. go on.

Unless you can prove otherwise, my guess would be that the founding fathers of the United States and their fledgeling government were more concerned about surviving the coming winter, rather than establishing and projecting their political position.