The Constitution was not fully supported by the people

[ihopehefails]

The constitution is often thought of as a document that was unanomously supported by the Americans but the document was barely ratified in most state legislatures by three or four votes. Not even all states signed onto it initially.

The biggest blow to the idea that the constitution was wholly popular was the fact that many of the most prominent founders of the revolution such as Thomas Jefferson did not show up to the constitutional convention itself so this change was not supported by all the founders of this country.

The only way the constitution could get over this massive hump was to throw in the bill of rights which was nothing more than re-affirming ideas already states about how the government should run and have the creators of the document run around and write the federalist papers in order to get people to vote for it.

If you were to run a popularity poll on its approval it probably would have got George W. Bush's numbers like 50.0000001% of the vote which shows how contentious this new constitution was at the time.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Are you going somewhere with this?

 

[bodecea]

The constitution is often thought of as a document that was unanomously supported by the Americans but the document was barely ratified in most state legislatures by three or four votes. Not even all states signed onto it initially.

The biggest blow to the idea that the constitution was wholly popular was the fact that many of the most prominent founders of the revolution such as Thomas Jefferson did not show up to the constitutional convention itself so this change was not supported by all the founders of this country.

The only way the constitution could get over this massive hump was to throw in the bill of rights which was nothing more than re-affirming ideas already states about how the government should run and have the creators of the document run around and write the federalist papers in order to get people to vote for it.

If you were to run a popularity poll on its approval it probably would have got George W. Bush's numbers like 50.0000001% of the vote which shows how contentious this new constitution was at the time.

1. The Constitution would go into effect with only 9 states approving it. ALL 13 did.

2. You make it sound like Jefferson didn't BOTHER to show up and he didn't support it. Not true. He was BUSY being our Ambassador to France and became a STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST supporter of the Constitution once it went into effect.

So...come back when you get your history right.

 

[uscitizen]

So Jefferson was spending all his time on vacation in France?

 

[dilloduck]

Hawaii didn't exist then.

 

[ihopehefails]

The constitution is often thought of as a document that was unanomously supported by the Americans but the document was barely ratified in most state legislatures by three or four votes. Not even all states signed onto it initially.

The biggest blow to the idea that the constitution was wholly popular was the fact that many of the most prominent founders of the revolution such as Thomas Jefferson did not show up to the constitutional convention itself so this change was not supported by all the founders of this country.

The only way the constitution could get over this massive hump was to throw in the bill of rights which was nothing more than re-affirming ideas already states about how the government should run and have the creators of the document run around and write the federalist papers in order to get people to vote for it.

If you were to run a popularity poll on its approval it probably would have got George W. Bush's numbers like 50.0000001% of the vote which shows how contentious this new constitution was at the time.

1. The Constitution would go into effect with only 9 states approving it. ALL 13 did.

2. You make it sound like Jefferson didn't BOTHER to show up and he didn't support it. Not true. He was BUSY being our Ambassador to France and became a STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST supporter of the Constitution once it went into effect.

So...come back when you get your history right.

Eventually all 13 signed on...

 

[JakeStarkey]

ihopehefails has an agenda here. I hope that it is something more than some Americans didn't like the Constitution. News flash, ihhf, we all learned that in high school. If you mean anything more than, let us in on the subtext.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And it turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct in their warnings against the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

And it turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct in their warnings against the Constitution.

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And it turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct in their warnings against the Constitution.

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

I don't know what you're asking.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And it turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct in their warnings against the Constitution.

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

English Grammar For Dummies:Book Information - For Dummies

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And it turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct in their warnings against the Constitution.

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

I don't know what you're asking.

It means we had two examples of Confederation and neither worked well.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

I don't know what you're asking.

It means we had two examples of Confederation and neither worked well.

Meaning the Articles and the Constitution?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't know what you're asking.

It means we had two examples of Confederation and neither worked well.

Meaning the Articles and the Constitution?

Meaning the Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America.

 

[editec]

And it turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct in their warnings against the Constitution.

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

I don't know what you're asking.

He's asking you why you apparently want a confederation style government (I suppose he's basing this theory about you based on your posts regarding the rights of the states re. the civil war) that had already proved to be a failure.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The constitution is often thought of as a document that was unanomously supported by the Americans .

Out of what ass hat did you pull that "fact"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution is often thought of as a document that was unanomously supported by the Americans .

Out of what ass hat did you pull that "fact"

Yup , I was taught that the Constitution had a hard time passing and that the Authors had to write the Federalist papers to help pass it in New York. That right up to the end no one was sure it would pass and that the deal maker was an inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

The original Authors felt that since the document only granted VERY limited powers there was no reason to include a list of things not covered. It being easier to list the few that were allowed vise the lot that would not be covered.

As we can see with the idiots and the supposed General Welfare clause they were sadly mistaken on what future Generations would claim the document did grant.

 

[bodecea]

And it turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct in their warnings against the Constitution.

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

I don't know what you're asking.

I meant to say they had two TRIES at Confederation....both abject failures.

 

[ihopehefails]

ihopehefails has an agenda here. I hope that it is something more than some Americans didn't like the Constitution. News flash, ihhf, we all learned that in high school. If you mean anything more than, let us in on the subtext.

The question is this. Why is it whenever someone expresses an opinion lefties like yourself don't agree with they criticize the expression of that opinion as an "agenda" in an attempt morally shame someone into silence? When has the expression on any opinion never had an "agenda" behind it other than to hope that it pursuades other people to that point of view?

This might make you shit a brick but I don't think that expressing an opinion is "unethical" (in fact it is an act that is amoral) so your accusation means so little to me.

 

[ihopehefails]

They've had two tried at Confederation.... How did THOSE work out?

I don't know what you're asking.

I meant to say they had two TRIES at Confederation....both abject failures.

I think the current constitution can be fixed with constitutional nullification by states. That would balance the power between state and federal governments.