The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The self evident rights? Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary

they thought people had rights, but that it might be be foolish to empower govt to protect those since it would probably subvert that empowerment and use it to take away rights.

and others thought the most important at that time needed to be enumerated, and still others demanded if so, a ninth amendment

yes dear people had many different thoughts and then they created a very very tiny government Which Jefferson confirmed 10000% in 1800.

 

[Dante]

The self evident rights? Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary

What self evident rights are those? There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution. I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

actually not. Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.

The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights. Learn your history before posting

Actually not what? Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.

the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point

Then why do you make reference to a line from the Declaration in your anecdotes about the Constitution?

perspective. the USC was not written in a vacuum. Most informed people know about the battles over a bill of rights. Excuse me for mistaking you for an informed dingbat. Your just a plain old commoner of a dingbat

 

[norwegen]

. 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

Another simplistic, liberal, i.e., progressive, assumption. Americans were quite well off and happy. They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century. The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east. It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists. American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.). The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers. They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.

 

[Dante]

There were arguments over how big a government should be

yes and the issue was tiny or very tiny!!


Jefferson or Obama:
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

go back to the rubber room

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama beat the crap out of the GOP

which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.

 

[Dante]

The self evident rights? Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary

they thought people had rights, but that it might be be foolish to empower govt to protect those since it would probably subvert that empowerment and use it to take away rights.

and others thought the most important at that time needed to be enumerated, and still others demanded if so, a ninth amendment

yes dear people had many different thoughts and then they created a very very tiny government Which Jefferson confirmed 10000% in 1800.

The Louisiana Purchase refers to the 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States purchased from France in 1803 for US $15 million.

 

[Dante]

Obama beat the crap out of the GOP

which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.

Reagan? give it a rest/ go back to the rubber room

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Louisiana Purchase refers to the 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States purchased from France in 1803 for US $15 million.

dear, a bigger country does not mean a bigger govt. In fact Jefferson wanted land so all could be very independent farmers and not stuck in cities where they could be organized by govt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obama beat the crap out of the GOP

which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.

Reagan? give it a rest/ go back to the rubber room

which is why Obama lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his signature Obamacommie care which he lied through his teeth to pass.

 

[Dante]

. 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

Another simplistic, liberal, i.e., progressive, assumption. Americans were quite well off and happy. They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century. The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east. It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists. American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.). The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers. They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.

nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy

Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

In the end we are all liberal.

 

[Dante]

Obama beat the crap out of the GOP

which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.

Reagan? give it a rest/ go back to the rubber room

which is why Obama lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his signature Obamacommie care which he lied through his teeth to pass.

The democratic Congress was going to pass a healthcare bill. No lies were needed silly

 

[norwegen]

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

Another simplistic, liberal, i.e., progressive, assumption. Americans were quite well off and happy. They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century. The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east. It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists. American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.). The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers. They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.

nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy

Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

In the end we are all liberal.

If your end is liberal, you will always have a comfy place to sit.

 

[Dante]

The Louisiana Purchase refers to the 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States purchased from France in 1803 for US $15 million.

dear, a bigger country does not mean a bigger govt. In fact Jefferson wanted land so all could be very independent farmers and not stuck in cities where they could be organized by govt.

he wanted votes for an agrarian society and for slavery as an institution. If you believe his actions and the amount of money he spent did not violate his principles, you don't know diddly squat about Early american history

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Another simplistic, liberal, i.e., progressive, assumption. Americans were quite well off and happy. They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century. The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east. It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists. American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.). The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers. They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.

nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy

Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

In the end we are all liberal.

modern liberals oppose natural law and natural rights because they want to be free to impose their own laws on human kind. HItler Stalin Mao and to a lesser extent FDR and Obama are good examples.

 

[Dante]

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

Another simplistic, liberal, i.e., progressive, assumption. Americans were quite well off and happy. They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century. The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east. It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists. American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.). The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers. They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.

nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy

Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

In the end we are all liberal.

If your end is liberal, you will always have a comfy place to sit.

Our federalist republic grew out of the liberal tradition.

 

[Dante]

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

Another simplistic, liberal, i.e., progressive, assumption. Americans were quite well off and happy. They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century. The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east. It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists. American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.). The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers. They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.

nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy

Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.

In the end we are all liberal.

modern liberals oppose natural law and natural rights because...

they believe in the science of today

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

he wanted votes for an agrarian society

agreed because farmers were very very independent people who could not easily be corrupted by liberal government

 

[Darkwind]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

What?

Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?

What article is that under?

 

[Dante]

he wanted votes for an agrarian society

agreed because farmers were very very independent people who could not easily be corrupted by liberal government

nope. because Jefferson was nuts.

Jefferson had this mental quirk that often embarrassed his friends and proponents: He believed in a mythical time when Saxons lived free and liberty reigned and then governments entered the picture and destroyed Eden.

If Jefferson had his way the USA would never have been ready for the coming Industrial Revolution. The USA would have been an agricultural backwater like Russia

 

[Dante]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide,

To Republicans? Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.

What?

Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?

What article is that under?

straw man alert!