Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Affrayer]

That's a cop out. Either that or a poor emphasis on history in your studies.

Then can you tell us who won the Federalist Paper's debate?

 

[The T]

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...

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?

SO? What did you say in your blanket stement? >>>" Nobody can really say what the founding fathers would be today with certainty..."

And they spoke to the mood of the time...idiot.

 

[The T]

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...

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?

They weren't chained...and then there were multiple...make up your mind son...take your time...

And what did WASHINGTON offer in his farewell address to the nation regarding party affiliations?

And NO...I ain't gonna find it for you because it's replete in this thread and others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's a cop out. Either that or a poor emphasis on history in your studies.

Then can you tell us who won the Federalist Paper's debate?

The 'rats'?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Alexander Hamilton, the monarchist who wanted America to have its own king and was shunted off into the Treasury by the other Founding Fathers because they disagreed so profoundly with him, is supposed to be accepted, wholly and all by himself, as the final word on what the entirety of the Founding Fathers wanted and intended?

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My apologies to Intense for confusing him with JamesinFlorida, so I repost.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Alexander Hamilton, the monarchist who wanted America to have its own king and was shunted off into the Treasury by the other Founding Fathers because they disagreed so profoundly with him, is supposed to be accepted, wholly and all by himself, as the final word on what the entirety of the Founding Fathers wanted and intended?

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Such a lady. In the future, remember that Washington, Adams, Marshall, Pickering, and hundreds of others sided with Hamilton.

You make a very poor mini-me to Tea Party Samurai.

 

[The T]

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Such a lady. In the future, remember that Washington, Adams, Marshall, Pickering, and hundreds of others sided with Hamilton.

You make a very poor mini-me to Tea Party Samurai.

Just because they sided with that miscreant Hamilton doesn't make them correct...and they happen to be outnumbered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Such a lady. In the future, remember that Washington, Adams, Marshall, Pickering, and hundreds of others sided with Hamilton.

You make a very poor mini-me to Tea Party Samurai.

Just because they sided with that miscreant Hamilton doesn't make them correct...and they happen to be outnumbered.

That's why we have the Constitution and interpretation of the laws that we have for the last 150 years? You know better. You, T, and your brethren and sistren, are very small in numbers and shrinking quickly as you age and die. I understand why you are howling, but that howl is fading on the wind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You fail to understand - or, perhaps, simply do not know - that the Founding Fathers were very much fighting for the rights that had been established under the English government up to that time.

Really? Perhaps you'll explain why the "framers" of the Constitution pretty much left individual rights out of that document? That they had to be forced to include a Bill of Rights...

I believe they explained it when they said - essentially - that rights already belonged to individuals, and thus did not need to be "granted" to them. They only needed to be protected from government infringement by placing strict boundaries on the government's power.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." - The Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine)

"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example ... of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness." - James Madison

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." - Alexander Hamilton

I could go on, but my husband is chomping at the bit for the computer. Let me just finish by saying the Founding Fathers were not "forced to include a Bill of Rights", as though the only Founding Fathers involved were the people opposing a Bill of Rights. Those men who wanted a Bill of Rights were ALSO our Founding Fathers, so it is more correct to say that our Founding Fathers came to a compromise among themselves on a Bill of Rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The nationalists of the time, like Madison, were opposed to the amendments, so CeCilie1200 is siding with the big government folks. Just saying that she flops like a fresh fish on the front lawn.

 

[Intense]

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.

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

Funny thing. Unlike you, I don't cut and splice quotes, changing meaning and context. Unlike you I can debate without manipulating the conversation, or divert it by leading it up blind alleys.

In what way did they become mute? Be specific. I asked you to qualify a general statement, that taken generally is false. Specific application, which you failed in, may have justified your position. You choose to insult, and after the fact qualify your point? What courtesy do you show anyone here?

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

You are a joke. I gave you a break, allowing you to correct the gap in your argument, which you did in part, in a very half assed way. We do understand that The Constitution as written and amended, is the Supreme Law of the Land, within It's Jurisdiction. You failed to qualify that, and I plainly pointed it out.


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.

Tell me something I don't know here.


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.

Can't you make a simple statement without dragging it in the mud? Is this TV wrestling you are confusing us here with? Do you suffer from premature Ejaculation? Hallucinations?

The Second Amendment stands on It's own. It alway's has. The States that have either forgotten that or are in denial are being schooled. We do not need the 14th Amendment to justify it. "The Right of the People To Bear Arm's Shall Not Be Infringed." We have dozens of references and Links on the subject on this very Thread.

You are a manipulator, a lier and a cheat. Grow up. Work on those communication skills.

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.

The Constitution was about the Limit's placed on the Federal Government, and the break down and balance of power. It gave the Federal Government both Powers, areas of Jurisdiction, and limits. It recognized the Separate Powers of the States, and their Jurisdiction's too. The 14th Amendment expanded those jurisdictions subjecting the State Governments further. You are not even close on "Original Intent". You may be a good example of the difference between indoctrination and education. The excuse for leaving The Bill Of Right's out of The Constitution was the claim of The Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government, leaving it Powerless outside of It's recognized Powers and Jurisdiction. There was no need, to protect what was obvious the freedom and Liberty of the people, from the threat of usurpation and Tyranny of the Federal Government,because the People themselves had the right to stop the encroachment through Amendment. What was not foreseen was the change in the role of the court . Of course that claim was but one of Hamilton's lies.

 

[Intense]

That's a cop out. Either that or a poor emphasis on history in your studies.

Then can you tell us who won the Federalist Paper's debate?

You tell me who won. They were published Articles, not a Debate.

THE
DEBATES
IN THE SEVERAL
STATE CONVENTIONS
ON THE ADOPTION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
GENERAL CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA
IN
1787
TOGETHER WITH THE
JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
LUTHER MARTIN'S LETTER
YATES MINUTES
CONGRESSIONAL OPINIONS


State Conventions on Ratification of Constitution

 

[Agit8r]

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.

I agree that in a perfect state of things, government would be limited to those things specifically enumerated, and that such radical departures from enumeration as a Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Naturalization Service, etc, should require a super-majority vote in order for the amendment allowing their existence.

It is as well worth noting the items that Madison vetoed on constitutional grounds

List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lasher]

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

It would seem that it's up to you to prove your contention, not for us to disprove it. You know, the old "prove a negative" thing. In any event, whatever their politics, they were better than that of today's liberals who have put us into the unenviable position of being one of the least respected countries extant, and us conservatives having fight to perpetuate the Constitute they gave to us.

 

[Agit8r]

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

It would seem that it's up to you to prove your contention, not for us to disprove it. You know, the old "prove a negative" thing.

did you read the rest of the thread?

 

[Intense]

Hamilton contradicts himself several times regarding the allocation of power in a general and then specific sense. He is consistent in his view here only in that hiis writings support whatever HE wants to be able to do at the time.

Given that you can quote Hamilton making both sides of the same argument indictates that his words here are useless.

Madison's interpretation of the clause is, however, consistent within his other writings. There's no sound reason to accept the Hamiltonian construct over the Madisonian, other than you, like Hamilton, want the government to be able to do whatever you want it to do.

Hey, genius, while you're analyzing the meanings in people's writings, perhaps you could give a quick once-over to my post and then explain to me how you came to the insulting and egregiously incorrect assumption that I 1) agree with Hamilton OR the dimwit I was responding to, or 2) have any desire for "the government to be able to do whatever I want it to do.

In future, please try to refrain from responding to people until you have at least SOME ******* clue what they actually said. Thank you so much in advance for your expected increase in English competence from this moment forward.

Such a lady. In the future, remember that Washington, Adams, Marshall, Pickering, and hundreds of others sided with Hamilton.

You make a very poor mini-me to Tea Party Samurai.

I really like and respect Washington, don't get me wrong. I think of him more as a jock type... you know ... a little slow.... intellectually... I picture him digesting about one out of every 15 sentences from Hamilton, and just telling him to get on with his schemes, with no clue as to what he consented to.

Adam's caught on to him and stood up to him after the damage was done. The Whiskey Rebellion, the Alien and Sedition Acts. Hamilton even undermined relations and negotiations with England by leaking sensitive information to them through Jay I believe, putting American Seamen at risk, and revealing our cards to the British. The perfect ending for him, had Burr not been such a good shot, would be him with a life sentence in a French Prison, being someone's *****. Speaking hypothetically of course.

Marshal got to play God with the new Powers he conspired with Hamilton to get. Hamilton probably handled allot of the Appointments of 2 Administrations, and had allot of control, and people owing him favors. I bet hundreds sided with him in his lust for power and control.

 

[Lasher]

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

It would seem that it's up to you to prove your contention, not for us to disprove it. You know, the old "prove a negative" thing.

did you read the rest of the thread?

Yes I did. Why don't you prove yourself right with empirical fact?

 

[Intense]

The nationalists of the time, like Madison, were opposed to the amendments, so CeCilie1200 is siding with the big government folks. Just saying that she flops like a fresh fish on the front lawn.

No Madison was Enumerated Powers, Limited Government. Hamilton, Marshal, were big Government.

 

[Intense]

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.

I agree that in a perfect state of things, government would be limited to those things specifically enumerated, and that such radical departures from enumeration as a Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Naturalization Service, etc, should require a super-majority vote in order for the amendment allowing their existence.

It is as well worth noting the items that Madison vetoed on constitutional grounds

List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They seem pretty sound. His reasons for the War of 1812 were too.


The United States declared War on Great Britain on June 12, 1812. The war was declared as a result of long simmering disputes with Great Britian. The central dispute surrounded the impressment of American soldiers by the British. The British had previously attacked the USS Chesapeake and nearly caused a war two year earlier. In addition, disputes continued with Great Britain over the Northwest Territories and the border with Canada. Finally, the attempts of Great Britain to impose a blockade on France during the Napoleonic Wars was a constant source of conflict with the United States.
War of 1812 US Declares War on Britain

Maybe next time Britain will fight on our side against Canada