Our founding fathers were not conservative

Yeah! Look at the quote! Patrick didn't want no LIBERAL crap! He wanted LIBERTY!



:rofl:

Henry did not support ratifying the constitution. In addition, he introduced legislation to publicly fund the ward system. ...just sayin'

Many of the Founders didn't trust the Federal Power Grab. Hamilton had to lie to them about checks and balances and Enumerated Powers to get the Constitution Ratified. ;)

Tyrant's are all the same, wanting more power over each of us than we each have over ourselves.

On the state level, though, Henry had no problem with publicly funding welfare (through the ward system). Again, just sayin'
 
It is not my reading comprehension that's weak...

Then what is it, your cognitive skills? Yes, just what is your excuse for coming off like a retard?

No no. In the slightly edited quote of my post, you "accidentally" left the emphasis off. [Quotes get formatted in italics and the highlight in my original post was in italics. "It is not [ I ]my[ /I ] reading comprehension that's weak, Afraider."]

Your mistake.

Your excuse for coming across like a retard is that you are obviously retarded. But it's ok. Once you established so early on that you are nothing more than a stupid, uninteresting troll, nobody takes you seriously, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Henry did not support ratifying the constitution. In addition, he introduced legislation to publicly fund the ward system. ...just sayin'

Many of the Founders didn't trust the Federal Power Grab. Hamilton had to lie to them about checks and balances and Enumerated Powers to get the Constitution Ratified. ;)

Tyrant's are all the same, wanting more power over each of us than we each have over ourselves.

On the state level, though, Henry had no problem with publicly funding welfare (through the ward system). Again, just sayin'

In our brand of Federalism, The States were intended to have more power, giving them the ability to experiment and compare results against what other States were doing on most matters. They could creatively think outside the box and try new things. That which clearly stood out could then be adopted by other States freely, or advanced to a new level, as in consideration of Constitutional Amendment. When you consider change through due process with the support of the people behind you there is better acceptance than shoving shit down peoples throats without consent, claiming moral ground that you don't hold. Even the issue of abortion, would have naturally reverted back to the States. So if Someone really needed an abortion, and their State was restrictive, at the worst they could travel to a State that was receptive. Should either POV get 75% support, one way or the other, you would get ratification of an Amendment, with the track record of 50 separate States to compare what works and what doesn't. That was Madison's vision, unlike Hamilton.
 
Many of the Founders didn't trust the Federal Power Grab. Hamilton had to lie to them about checks and balances and Enumerated Powers to get the Constitution Ratified. ;)

Tyrant's are all the same, wanting more power over each of us than we each have over ourselves.

On the state level, though, Henry had no problem with publicly funding welfare (through the ward system). Again, just sayin'

In our brand of Federalism, The States were intended to have more power, giving them the ability to experiment and compare results against what other States were doing on most matters. They could creatively think outside the box and try new things. That which clearly stood out could then be adopted by other States freely, or advanced to a new level, as in consideration of Constitutional Amendment. When you consider change through due process with the support of the people behind you there is better acceptance than shoving shit down peoples throats without consent, claiming moral ground that you don't hold. Even the issue of abortion, would have naturally reverted back to the States. So if Someone really needed an abortion, and their State was restrictive, at the worst they could travel to a State that was receptive. Should either POV get 75% support, one way or the other, you would get ratification of an Amendment, with the track record of 50 separate States to compare what works and what doesn't. That was Madison's vision, unlike Hamilton.

Indeed. And the people grow tired of the Federal mandates with no recourse.
 
Nobody can really say what the founding fathers would be today with certainty. It was a much different world. We simply don't know.
 
Now THAT's American! :)

On paper perhaps but let me remind you that the Constitution specifically says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." Yet the USSC had no trouble violating that and stepped in to influence the choice of electors in Bush V. Gore.

After the 14th amendment and the process of incorporation, State Constitutions became moot.


After the 14th amendment and the process of incorporation, State Constitutions became moot.

Maybe you can connect the dots here. How exactly does the 14th Amendment moot State Constitutions? Please elaborate.



U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment


Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection


Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
 
Nobody can really say what the founding fathers would be today with certainty. It was a much different world. We simply don't know.

That's a cop out. Either that or a poor emphasis on history in your studies.
 
15th post
Nobody can really say what the founding fathers would be today with certainty. It was a much different world. We simply don't know.

Sure we DO...

The Federalist Papers



Anti-Federalist Papers


Nice try at the art of the DODGE...

and kudos to the LAZY among us... simply don't know indeed...:lol:

COP OUT.

-The federalists papers were written by THREE founding fathers (Madison, Hamitlon, and Jay).

-The country has been through a civil war, civil rights, become less isolationism, become much more intricate in the economy, and most importantly has decreased to a TWO party system.

The founding father's weren't chained to two parties like politicians are today. There were multiple parties that have now become extinct. What party would those founding fathers become members of?
 
No multiple parties existed in the beginning, JamesInFlorida, and you know it.

Washington and some did not like 'factions', and all of that generation fought over the legacy of the War of Independence. Factions organized around Jefferson and Hamilton, which developed into the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties. When the Federalists dissolved as a national party because of their perceived treasonous behavior during the War of 1812, a one-party system with two developing wings, one a strong nationalistic party and the other based one states' rights, matured over the next decade or so. They became the Whigs and the Democrats. The Whigs dissolved as a national party because of slavery. The two important heir apparents, the Republicans and the Know-Nothings, tried to fulfill the national void. The Know-Nothings concentrated on a national party compromising on slavery and failed. The Republicans concentrated on being the sole sectional party of the North and West, and succeeded. The two major parties have survived third party attempts for the last 150 years.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you can connect the dots here. How exactly does the 14th Amendment moot State Constitutions? Please elaborate.

Here's what I said: After the 14th amendment and the process of incorporation, State Constitutions became moot.

Obviously you don't know what "incorporation" in this context means.

It is a constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Let me give you an example of what this means. Recently the five right wing jurists on the USSC incorporated the 2nd amendment into the 14th and in doing so, struck down state law. Understand? State law, concerning individual rights, was struck down. Which means any State Law that conflicts with the INTERPRETATION of the political dominated USSC is moot.

This is a complete reversal of the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution who considered the States the protectors and deciders of individual rights. At least that was the excuse they gave for leaving individual rights almost completely out of the body of the Constitution.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom