Our founding fathers were not conservative

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Obama is no more and no less a fraud than Bush is the point. Either we get some civicly virtuous leaders, or none of it matters.

 

[Affrayer]

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

Shouldn't you first make your case?

BTW: The reason we abandoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted the more stronger central government in the Constitution was to form a government capable of suppressing rebellion. See Shays's Rebellion: essortment.com/all/shaysrebellion_raid.htm

That sounds pretty conservative to me...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hookay..that's your story and you can stick with it..
You're basically out of ammo..so you are using mild insults.

Concluding you didn't know what the term meant but used it anyway isn't an isult of any form.
It -is- clear, however, that the truth hurts.

And - speaking of not having any ammo - I'm --still-- waiting for you to cite the text from the constitution that prohibits secession, pursuant to your claim to that effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...but it's not the Constitution..which is pretty clear on the points that I outlined.

Still waiting for you to cite the text that supports your positions...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ultimately they are under the power of Congress.

Congress has only limited power over the milita.
The ultimate authority comes from the members of the militia and their officers.

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

The NG is part of the standing army. It has nothing to do with the militia as the term was used.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Really?
What part of the "make up the the military today" goes against the Constitution?
What part of the constitution does it violate?
Be specific.

And I am "not" confusing the Militia.

You are when you try to relate it to the NG.
Either that or you -know- you're wrong and are simply lying.

 

[Contumacious]

What part of the "make up the the military today" goes against the Constitution?What part of the constitution does it violate?
Be specific.g.

In Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it states that The Congress shall have Power

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

But the Congress, part of the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US government , ignores that provision.

The Founders were opposed to standing armies.

.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Article I, Section 8,
The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


But the Congress, part of the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US government , ignores that provision.

Can you cite a specific instance?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Shouldn't you first make your case?

BTW: The reason we abandoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted the more stronger central government in the Constitution was to form a government capable of suppressing rebellion. See Shays's Rebellion: essortment.com/all/shaysrebellion_raid.htm

That sounds pretty conservative to me...

A few words of wisdom

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
James Madison

 

[Contumacious]

Article I, Section 8,
The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


But the Congress, part of the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US government , ignores that provision.

Can you cite a specific instance?

The dogs of war unleashed

As of 1999, the U.S. military had troops in 132 countries. The budget for the U.S. military is larger than those of the next 20 largest militaries combined. Since 1950, the military has been deployed 71 times to 42 countries and U.S. soldiers have died in 17 operations in 16 countries with more than 98,000 U.S. dead and more than 279,000 wounded. All of this has occurred without a declaration of war. This is hardly the leashed military and small defensive army that the Founders envisioned.

The walls of separation that the Constitution provides to keep apart the power to declare war and the power to wage war have dissolved. The idea that Congress alone has the power to take the country to war is now considered quaint. The military is now at the president’s disposal and he is free to decide where it will be sent, when it will be sent, and how long it will be there. Congress has abrogated its duty to keep the country from war with its use of “authorizations” that grant the declaration-of-war power to the president. The president did not simply assume this power — Congress willingly surrendered it.

Though we have had a standing army for most of the history of this country, it was the usual practice to shrink the military to a relatively small defensive level once a conflict had ended. World War I saw the military grow exponentially to become a threatening offensive force, but once peace had been declared, it was shrunk to pre-war levels. But after World War II, the Founders’ fear of a menacing standing army became realized. Not only did the military not shrink after World War II was over, it grew exponentially in the following year"

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Article I, Section 8,
The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


But the Congress, part of the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US government , ignores that provision.

Can you cite a specific instance?

The dogs of war unleashed

So.... no, you cannot cite a specific instance of Congress appropriating of Money to the purpose of raising/supporting armies for a longer Term than two Years;

 

[Intense]

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.

Good point, in part, which actually makes them more relevant, though I'd be interested how much if any change they effected in what was ratified. The Federalist Papers were written and published before the Constitution became the law of the land. You know that, right?


The Federalist Papers

Welcome to our Federalist Papers e-text. The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.

In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five.



The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

We have three ways to browse the Federalist Papers. Thee first two are both in numerical order. Frames make it slightly easier to flip back and forth between different pages. The third is by author.

Federalist Papers with Frames
Federalist Papers without Frames
Indices by author:
Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
John Jay

Federalist Papers

They did a great job of it huh... if only Hamilton hadn't turned out to be a real Scum Bag, we could have had a Real Republic, rather than an Oligarchy State disguised as one.

 

[Contumacious]

Can you cite a specific instance?

The dogs of war unleashed

So.... no, you cannot cite a specific instance of Congress appropriating of Money to the purpose of raising/supporting armies for a longer Term than two Years;

President Obama's 2010 budget proposal includes a total of $663.8 billion, including $533.8 billion for the DOD and $130 billion for overseas contingencies, primarily the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ultimately they are under the power of Congress.

Congress has only limited power over the milita.
The ultimate authority comes from the members of the militia and their officers.

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

The NG is part of the standing army. It has nothing to do with the militia as the term was used.

False. Act on it, and you got to jail. Kill someone over it, you go to the gurney,

 

[M14 Shooter]

So.... no, you cannot cite a specific instance of Congress appropriating of Money to the purpose of raising/supporting armies for a longer Term than two Years;

President Obama's 2010 budget proposal includes a total of $663.8 billion, including $533.8 billion for the DOD and $130 billion for overseas contingencies, primarily the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

That's one year of appropriation. One year is less than two years.
Why do you think this supports your assertion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article I, Section 8,
The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


But the Congress, part of the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US government , ignores that provision.

Can you cite a specific instance?

When you cite the Constitution and stand on it, do not expect a greater requirement from your opponent who does the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can you cite a specific instance?

The dogs of war unleashed

So.... no, you cannot cite a specific instance of Congress appropriating of Money to the purpose of raising/supporting armies for a longer Term than two Years;

Answered and sustained.

 

[Paulie]

Another thread comparing today's version of liberal and conservative to the version from the 1700's???

This is why you suck, newbs.

You think this shit hasn't already been debated ad nauseum around here?

Do a search, puta.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Good point, in part, which actually makes them more relevant, though I'd be interested how much if any change they effected in what was ratified. The Federalist Papers were written and published before the Constitution became the law of the land. You know that, right?


The Federalist Papers

Welcome to our Federalist Papers e-text. The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.

In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five.



The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

We have three ways to browse the Federalist Papers. Thee first two are both in numerical order. Frames make it slightly easier to flip back and forth between different pages. The third is by author.

Federalist Papers with Frames
Federalist Papers without Frames
Indices by author:
Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
John Jay

Federalist Papers

They did a great job of it huh... if only Hamilton hadn't turned out to be a real Scum Bag, we could have had a Real Republic, rather than an Oligarchy State disguised as one.

And Washington, and Adams, and Marshall, and Pickering, and Adams ad infinitum ad naeuseum. In the era of Jefferson and Jackson we saw your limited republic committed to slavery and exploitation of the common man. And we saw Lincoln execute a pretend American country committed to your political values.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another thread comparing today's version of liberal and conservative to the version from the 1700's???

This is why you suck, newbs.

You think this shit hasn't already been debated ad nauseum around here?

Do a search, puta.

This is how the new pups on the block learn, Paulie.