JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #101
That is why Organic Theory is sound, bendog.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jefferson certainly did correspond with Madison on principles of government, and Jefferson certainly opposed a strong national government theory.Incorrect. Jefferson had no part in drafting the Constitution.The constitution was written to preserve the wealth of the elite. Jefferson believed in the self-government of the educated and property (slave) owning white male.right wing Intelligence?Disagree. It was a document for white men with property.Our federal Constitution was, intelligently designed, to be Both, gender and race neutral, from Inception.
They Wrote the federal doctrine, after the Declaration of Independence.
They had to work with what they had at the time.
Jacksonian democracy broadened the message to the ill educated and laboring classes ... of white males.
Well, the Jacksonian Democracy part is right, I guess. It's the party that embraced the ignorant vote.
They didn't have some requirement to limit the vote to the minority of property owners. They believed that only the educated and moneyed should vote. Both Adams and Jefferson thought that. So did Washington.
Well, this is an amusing thread.
Now, disagreements with the final outcome of the Constitution is the same as some of the founding fathers not understanding the language in the document.
Seems a bit of a contradiction.
They disagreed with each other because the absolutely understood the original intent of the language.
Too damn funny.
One thing we know is that it doesn't mean what modern liberals say it means. They don't even care what it says.
What do historians make of originalism? Jack Rakove, the Stanford historian and one of the foremost experts on the revolutionary era, argues that there wasn’t just one meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written and then ratified, but rather the founders had disagreements among themselves over its meaning.
He points to the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, who wrote that “historians can never forget that it is a debate they are interpreting.”
The inability to recognize the extent to which the Founding Fathers argued among themselves is a major flaw in the conservative case for originalism since it is dependent on the theory that people in the 18th century shared a common interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, they did not, as one of the earliest debates over the meaning of the Constitution shows.
The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism—Why Should We?
I don't know of any of the founders who believed in voting for the unlanded. Certainly not Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison or ..... I think Adams ... and he was the principled drafter of Mass's constitution, which served as a model.Jefferson certainly did correspond with Madison on principles of government, and Jefferson certainly opposed a strong national government theory.Incorrect. Jefferson had no part in drafting the Constitution.The constitution was written to preserve the wealth of the elite. Jefferson believed in the self-government of the educated and property (slave) owning white male.right wing Intelligence?Disagree. It was a document for white men with property.Our federal Constitution was, intelligently designed, to be Both, gender and race neutral, from Inception.
They Wrote the federal doctrine, after the Declaration of Independence.
They had to work with what they had at the time.
Jacksonian democracy broadened the message to the ill educated and laboring classes ... of white males.
Well, the Jacksonian Democracy part is right, I guess. It's the party that embraced the ignorant vote.
One thing we know is that it doesn't mean what modern liberals say it means. They don't even care what it says.
What do historians make of originalism? Jack Rakove, the Stanford historian and one of the foremost experts on the revolutionary era, argues that there wasn’t just one meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written and then ratified, but rather the founders had disagreements among themselves over its meaning.
He points to the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, who wrote that “historians can never forget that it is a debate they are interpreting.”
The inability to recognize the extent to which the Founding Fathers argued among themselves is a major flaw in the conservative case for originalism since it is dependent on the theory that people in the 18th century shared a common interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, they did not, as one of the earliest debates over the meaning of the Constitution shows.
The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism—Why Should We?
They usually don't even KNOW what it says.
what skin is that, homey? us debt means even the poor get to help pay for it.They didn't have some requirement to limit the vote to the minority of property owners. They believed that only the educated and moneyed should vote. Both Adams and Jefferson thought that. So did Washington.
So did Greece. So did Rome.
The French did not. The French Revolution is where everything changed.
And they got it wrong.
Even the Lying Cocksucker in Chief said you need to have some skin in the game.
Most dimocrap scum do not. Most of them are social parasites in one form or another.
I'm talking goobermint workers, lawyers, teachers, et al
what skin is that, homey? us debt means even the poor get to help pay for it.
you point and argument? anyone can copy and paste a link.
get their arguments from right wing, "intelligence". ^^what skin is that, homey? us debt means even the poor get to help pay for it.
^^Gets political guidance from Comedy Central^^
Hispanics are a mixture (of varying degrees) of the European Spaniards and the indigenous peoples of North and South America.
They identify differently from Caucasian ... although they are sometimes difficult to tell apart.
Racially, they are Caucasian.
I don't know of any of the founders who believed in voting for the unlanded. Certainly not Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison or ..... I think Adams ... and he was the principled drafter of Mass's constitution, which served as a model.Jefferson certainly did correspond with Madison on principles of government, and Jefferson certainly opposed a strong national government theory.Incorrect. Jefferson had no part in drafting the Constitution.The constitution was written to preserve the wealth of the elite. Jefferson believed in the self-government of the educated and property (slave) owning white male.right wing Intelligence?Disagree. It was a document for white men with property.
They Wrote the federal doctrine, after the Declaration of Independence.
They had to work with what they had at the time.
Jacksonian democracy broadened the message to the ill educated and laboring classes ... of white males.
Well, the Jacksonian Democracy part is right, I guess. It's the party that embraced the ignorant vote.
It's largely irrelevant except for the fact that to those who view originalism as the means to all ends of preventing just finding new rights willy nillly really have no concept of what they actually wish for.
Inferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Inferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.