The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[MaryL]

After President Obama pulls unilateral BS: legalizing gay marriage, legalizing Illegal alien amnesty, the health care fiasco, you name it. I have to wonder who he represents. The Constitution? Bahh humbug.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

After President Obama pulls unilateral BS: legalizing gay marriage, legalizing Illegal alien amnesty, the health care fiasco, you name it. I have to wonder who he represents. The Constitution? Bahh humbug.

babbling again Mary?

 

[Liminal]

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

Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.

really? Funny, Dante does it because he can

 

[Dad2three]

[ In most cases, especially as of late, they make the rules as they go.

liberals want a loose reading of the Constitution so it can mean anything they want. While Republicans want a strict reading since they share the basic principles of our Founders about govt being the source of evil in human history.

Now even you can understand why our liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler and elected Obama?

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.


Bush Claims He Has Authority To Disobey More Than 750 Laws...

 

[Dad2three]

After President Obama pulls unilateral BS: legalizing gay marriage, legalizing Illegal alien amnesty, the health care fiasco, you name it. I have to wonder who he represents. The Constitution? Bahh humbug.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.


Bush Claims He Has Authority To Disobey More Than 750 Laws...

 

[Dad2three]

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.

You mean AS Jefferson GREATLY expanded federal power AND did the Louisiana purchase



Shortly thereafter, Jefferson wrote to Kentucky's governor, James Garrard, to inform him of Monroe's appointment and to assure him that Monroe was empowered to enter into "arrangements that may effectually secure our rights & interest in the Mississippi, and in the country eastward of that."

As Jefferson noted in that letter, Monroe's charge was to obtain land east of the Mississippi. Monroe's instructions, drawn up by Madison and approved by Jefferson, allocated up to $10 million for the purchase of New Orleans and all or part of the Floridas

Seizing on what Jefferson later called "a fugitive occurrence," Monroe and Livingston immediately entered into negotiations and on April 30 reached an agreement that exceeded their authority - the purchase of the Louisiana territory, including New Orleans, for $15 million. The acquisition of approximately 827,000 square miles would double the size of the United States.


Exact boundaries would have to be negotiated with Spain and England and so would not be set for several years, and Jefferson's Cabinet members argued that the constitutional amendment he proposed was not necessary. As time for ratification of the purchase treaty grew short, Jefferson accepted his Cabinet's counsel and rationalized: "It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good."

The Louisiana Purchase Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

 

[Dad2three]

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.

What were the effects of Jefferson's decision to go against his own philosophy concerning a strict interpretation of the Constitution? It can be argued that his taking liberties with the Constitution in the name of need and expediency would lead to future Presidents feeling justified with a continual increase in the elasticity of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. Jefferson should rightly be remembered for the great deed of purchasing this enormous tract of land. But one wonders if he might regret the means in which he earned this fame.

Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[Dad2three]

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?

liberals like to pretend that Articles did not work and there was universal agreement about it. Only on 3rd try did enough attend the Convention to begin deliberations and not all voted for new Constitution because they were very very afraid of creating a monster liberal govt. Washington's attendance was critical so they lied to him to get him there.

Weird, yet the states STILL voted for the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T over the weak federal Gov't,. strong states rights Articles? lol

ARTICLES DID WORK? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

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.

The Constitution is not independent of the Declaration of Independence.

Sure it is, one was aimed at the head of England, and one, 15 years later gave US a FRAMEWORK for our laws!

 

[Dad2three]

. 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.

"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."

lol

If there’s one thing that we know about the Founding Fathers, it’s that they didn’t want a weak national government.

But there was a group who wanted a weak national government. They were called the anti-Federalists, and they were appalled by the proposed Constitution. These believers in small-government fought tooth-and-nail against adoption of the Constitution. They lost.

If the supporters of the Constitution had wanted a government “small enough to drown in a bathtub” (in the words of Grover Norquist), they already had one before the Constitution was even conceived. The Articles of Confederation gave Congress few powers and made it procedurally almost impossible to exercise even those. Norquist would have been thrilled: there was no tax power at all.

The whole point of the Constitution was to make the federal government much stronger than it had been. The Constitutional Convention left no doubt on that score. It explained its goals at the same time it made the Constitution public. Here are some key statements:

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union . . .

It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. . .

In all our deliberation on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union . . .


Did the Founding Fathers Believe in a Strong Federal Government You Betcha. Legal Planet


If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Estate tax and the founding fathers You can t take it with you The Economist

 

[Liminal]

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

Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.

really? Funny, Dante does it because he can

Really? I think Dante does it because he's still confused, quoting the Declaration in reference to the Constitution.

 

[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?

straw man alert!

Straw man? LOL

Tell Me, where does it say that Congress is obligated to do the President's bidding.....I won't wait up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.

really? Funny, Dante does it because he can

Really? I think Dante does it because he's still confused, quoting the Declaration in reference to the Constitution.

stop being and idiot. Being a moron alone is sufficient

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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!

Straw man? LOL

Tell Me, where does it say that Congress is obligated to do the President's bidding.....I won't wait up.

No one wrote: "Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?" except you. You make a straw man and then you shoot it down.

see?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

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

 

[Liminal]

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.

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

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.

Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So -- drum roll please ......................
\
......................


/..............

? = a cymbal .......... / There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy

 

[Liminal]

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

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.

Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So -- drum roll please ......................
\
......................


/..............

? = a cymbal .......... / There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy

Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.