The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[Dante]

I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application. Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid confusion and conflict.

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution. It's an addendum. As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges. That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

Madison underwent a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts). Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).

in bold: so very Dante!

Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.

What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.

It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?

 

[Dante]

norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)

Campaigns and Elections
The Campaign and Election of 1808
In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.

Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York

American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections
​

now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?

 

[norwegen]

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution. It's an addendum. As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges. That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

Madison underwent a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts). Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).

in bold: so very Dante!

Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.

What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.

It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?

They were Republicans. Libertarians, we might even say. They created a radical new government, a limited, innocuous government seated in a new city, set apart from society not to shape it but rather to preserve it.

 

[norwegen]

norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)

Campaigns and Elections
The Campaign and Election of 1808
In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.

Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York

American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections
​

now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?

You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.

 

[Dante]

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

Madison underwent a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts). Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).

in bold: so very Dante!

Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.

What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.

It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?

They were Republicans. Libertarians, we might even say. They created a radical new government, a limited, innocuous government seated in a new city, set apart from society not to shape it but rather to preserve it.

poppycock

 

[Dante]

norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)

Campaigns and Elections
The Campaign and Election of 1808
In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.

Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York

American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections
​

now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?

You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.

your opinions are shittier than your copying and pasting skills

true story

 

[norwegen]

norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)

Campaigns and Elections
The Campaign and Election of 1808
In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.

Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York

American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections
​

now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?

You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.

your opinions are shittier than your copying and pasting skills

true story

My limited copying and pasting ability is to boast of. It forces me to speak for myself.

 

[Dante]

norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)

Campaigns and Elections
The Campaign and Election of 1808
In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.

Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York

American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections
​

now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?

You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.

your opinions are shittier than your copying and pasting skills

true story

My limited copying and pasting ability is to boast of. It forces me to speak for myself.

So when confronted with relevant facts your style is to pull your head out of your arse and put your shitty fingers in your ears and over your mouth and shake your head back and forth?

cool

are you a carnival act?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

Madison and Jefferson were blood brothers and both especially Jefferson hated Hamilton for his big govt ideas. Liberal versus conservative was the theme of the revolution and indeed the theme of human history.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution would NEVER have been ratified without the later inclusion of the Bill of Rights. That was the deal. Quid pro quo -- so to speak

what??? The real issue was whether to impower govt to guard basic rights or whether such impowerment would be subverted and be used to take away rights.The most basic stuff like separation of powers was designed to limit the monster as much as possible.

Modern treasonous liberals live only to empower the monster!!

 

[Dante]

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

please go back to the rubber room

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

please go back to the rubber room

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

 

[regent]

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

please go back to the rubber room

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

The correct terms would be liberal and conservative, words for a political philosophy or set of beliefs not a political group. The American revolutionists were liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution, "Tories." Rare is it to find conservatives as revolutionists if they are the ruling class. The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work. Another group labeled the framers then created a new government with infinitely more power and we still use that government today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. The American revolutionists were liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,

you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..

Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's

Epstein’s most recent book, The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.

see why we say slow??

 

[rightwinger]

. The American revolutionists were liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,

you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..

Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's

Epstein’s most recent book, The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.

see why we say slow??

They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work.

too stupid. Most would say our modern govt has huge power and does not work!! Do you get the logic??

Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution and secured a
peace treaty with land all the way to Mississipi, state govts were established, voting franchise greatly extended, freguent elections, separation of church and state, beginning of abilition of slavery in northern states, expansion of education and literacy, establishment of State Bills of Rights, patterns of expansion with NW Ordinances established, ( all westen land to Fed was to be divideded and sold for $1 per acre, self rule, and admission to union when population was 60,000, freedom of worship, trial by jury, no slavery, trade opened with Europe and Asia, loans secured to US from foreign powers.

Additionally, many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Another group labeled the framers then created a new government with infinitely more power and we still use that government today.

the new govt was 1% the size of today's liberal govt on an inflation adjusted per capita basis and had no welfare entitlements nor did it envisage any. The new govt was designed to make liberalism illegal by allowing only a few enumerated powers.

Liberalism is far more at home in Cuba than the USA. Now you can see why our liberals spied for Stalin's very very big liberal govt and why they elected Obama a guy with 3 communist parents who voted to left of Benie Sanders!

 

[Dante]

The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work.

too stupid. Most would say our modern govt has huge power and does not work!! Do you get the logic??

Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution...

really? The United States existed before the articles. July 1776 - November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781

 

[Dante]

many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.

so what? and why?