The truth about the Constitution

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your view is exactly why the Constitution keeps getting violated. Because you are willing to simply give up.

The entire PURPOSE of the Document to was to LIMIT Federal Power. We need to be more aggressive on our demands that the Courts and Congress over turn illegal laws and regulations.

You just want to give up.

No, I want to return to a document that actually limited government: the Articles of Confederation.

The purpose of the Constitution was to increase federal power from what they had under the Articles. Alexander Hamilton kept talking about how we need an "energetic" government. If its purpose was to limit the federal government then there was no reason to get rid of the Articles in the first place, which were much more successful in limiting the government.

The Constitution keeps getting violated because it's useless at limiting the federal government. It gives the federal government too much power in the first place to be any kind of effective check on that power.

 

[daws101]

Your view is exactly why the Constitution keeps getting violated. Because you are willing to simply give up.

The entire PURPOSE of the Document to was to LIMIT Federal Power. We need to be more aggressive on our demands that the Courts and Congress over turn illegal laws and regulations.

You just want to give up.

What is the Purpose of the Constitution of United States
The Constitution of the United States of America was drafted in 1787. The Judicial, Executive and Legislative segments of the government came into effect in 1789. The main purpose of the US Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American citizens...
History of the US Constitution:

The US Constitution was officially adopted on September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This decision by the Constitutional Convention has been amended twenty-seven times. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the draft, relating to the first ten amendments. The draft, as it is known today, is actually the refined version of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The US Constitution was initially ratified by only nine states. The final draft was engrossed by Jacob Shallus, and is still on display at the National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.

Importance of the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America defines a framework for the country's law and order. It addresses the need for the integration of the various states, initially the thirteen colonies, within unified legal paradigms. The Constitution is the supreme law enforcer of the United States. It is not only the shortest, but also one of the oldest written constitutions in world history. It's main purpose is clearly determined in the Preamble. This draft establishes:
The foundation of legal authority, along the governance of which the citizens of the United States of America can design individual contributions.
Framework of the Federal Government of the United States.
The US Constitution provides the government with the framework for the organization of the government. The draft clearly defines the responsibilities of:
The bicameral Congress governance within the legislative branch of the government
The President as head of the government's executive branch
The Supreme Court as head of the judicial branch of the government
What is the Purpose of the Constitution of United States?

The primary purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America is to provide a sense of direction to the organization of the three branches of the US Government. The draft outlines the individual and combined powers of each branch, while reserving the rights of each individual state. It defines the importance of jury trials, civil liberties and duties and the accountability of the government. The Preamble establishes the importance of the Union and the need for a common line of defense to ensure general welfare of the American community. The Constitution of the United States of America also very clearly defines that the federal government does not enjoy authority outside the established clauses in the Preamble.

The Constitution of the United States of America also spells out the following civil liberties:
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Speech
Freedom to Media Access
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Petition
It specifies the following rights of individuals:
Right to possess firearms
Right to question arrests and property seizures, without a warrant
Right to a public trial for criminal offenses
Right to question excessive bail or unusual punishment
The Constitution describes the legislative paradigms of the Congress' bicameral body, qualifications of representatives and the duties of the Senate and House of Representatives. Similarly, in the judicial specifications, it emphasizes on the role of the United States Supreme Court in the enactment of laws. The Presidency is defined in the segment that highlights the Executive branch of the government. The oath, powers and duties are enumerated, alongside disqualification on the grounds of impeachment. The draft describes the desired interdependency and extradition between the states, civil privileges and immunities, taxation limitations and the process by which the Constitution could be amended or altered in the future.
By Gaynor Borade
Last Updated: 9/23/2011


nothing said about limited government

 

[Intense]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

I personally don't blame the Constitution for what we have done or had done to us.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

It did limit, and it still does in many ways. Some conflicts are just a Court Reversal, or an Amendment away from resolution.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Let's assume We are right instead. We have Rule Of Law, Due Process, Right of Appeal, Government by the consent of the Governed. Can We question Authority, and force it to show cause? Yes.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

I think the Tyrant is more concerned with what People believe, perception, rather than reality. That leaves allot of open holes and vulnerability to the perceived platform or foundation for these constructed powers. Look at some of the arguments by Alexander Hamilton here, and his tone to some of his peers. I would argue that Hamilton was not a Federalist at all, but the First Progressive, using Federalism, as bait, to fertilize his Kingdom. He took part in Trumping the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government with the General Welfare Clause, He went from 3 Equal Branches arguing that the Supreme Court might actually be the weakest, to giving it power over the Legislative and Executive, all, after ratification. Here he is arguing for the National Bank, the Power to Incorporate for the Fed, and limitless bounds for expansion. It just hit's me with allot of red flags, tell me your impression.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

I'm not a fan of his at all. Be it the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Whiskey Rebellion, he just comes off as a great manipulator. I think Washington was blind to him, and Adams caught on, a bit late, but he did see the light. Madison and Jefferson saw him for what he was.

Let's not confuse that with Madison like Federalism. The Lighter touch of the Federal Government. He may have lost some, maybe even on account of Hamilton corrupting the Court, but even though some wrongs may not have been made right yet, who's to say it cannot be done in time. It's all about the focus. Start the debate. Show cause, show harm, show damage, and seek Justice, Government can choose to Serve it or further obstruct it, that is true, but when brought to light reason will be plain for all to see, that in itself will effect change.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

I'll side with Madison Style Federalism, taking into account Hamilton's scheming, I would look for the types of Amendments that would lean us towards the impressions he falsely gave in the Federalist Papers, and away from the Traps he sprung after Ratification.

 

[Intense]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

Thanks, KevinKennedy, for your well reasoned statement. I happen to agree with your thesis. I believe Washington, Franklin, Madison, and 36 other signers would disagree with you that the Article of Confederation were superior. I imagine Jefferson and some others would agree with you.

Any government, such as that which ruled Poland until 1793, that can't defend itself own existence philosophically as well as forcefully will fall. I believe the Founders who signed the Document believed in that principle also. Madison said that the government would fall because of $$$ corruption, that only Civic Virture of the elecorate can make sure a government work.

We have a non-civic viirtuous electorate Left and Right as well as a government corrupted by Wall Street $$$$. The rich have won, and the average (wo)man is done.

Jefferson, unfortunately, supported the adoption of the Constitution.

Only because of Madison, and only in the end.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The idea of this thread can essentially be summed up by the quote in my signature.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm as strict a constructionist as anybody on this board, but the truth is that the Constitution does not limit the federal government in any way shape or form and you can take that statement any way you want to.

Let's assume that those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution are wrong. If this is the case then our "support" for the Constitution is unfounded and everything our government does and has done is perfectly constitutional. Therefore, if our goal is to limit government, the Constitution is certainly the wrong thing to put our trust into because it doesn't limit the government.

Now let's assume that we're correct in believing the Constitution was designed to strictly limit the federal government, and that much of what it does today is unconstitutional. Nothing changes. The federal government continues on as it always has in violation of the Constitution, and there's nothing we can do about it aside from a small victory here and there. In other words, we're correct but it doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't stop the government from expanding regardless. So if the Constitution can't limit government the way it's supposed to what good is it really? None whatsoever.

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

I personally don't blame the Constitution for what we have done or had done to us.


It did limit, and it still does in many ways. Some conflicts are just a Court Reversal, or an Amendment away from resolution.



Let's assume We are right instead. We have Rule Of Law, Due Process, Right of Appeal, Government by the consent of the Governed. Can We question Authority, and force it to show cause? Yes.



I think the Tyrant is more concerned with what People believe, perception, rather than reality. That leaves allot of open holes and vulnerability to the perceived platform or foundation for these constructed powers. Look at some of the arguments by Alexander Hamilton here, and his tone to some of his peers. I would argue that Hamilton was not a Federalist at all, but the First Progressive, using Federalism, as bait, to fertilize his Kingdom. He took part in Trumping the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government with the General Welfare Clause, He went from 3 Equal Branches arguing that the Supreme Court might actually be the weakest, to giving it power over the Legislative and Executive, all, after ratification. Here he is arguing for the National Bank, the Power to Incorporate for the Fed, and limitless bounds for expansion. It just hit's me with allot of red flags, tell me your impression.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

The problem with arguing on behalf of the Constitution the way we do, and I know Jillian has brought up this point if not in these exact words, is that the Constitution was essentially adopted to increase the size of government in the first place. It was a scheme of the Hamiltonians, who were essentially monarchists, to create a stronger national government. Now it's true Hamilton didn't get everything he wanted from the Constitutional Convention, but he basically did since the Constitution has been open to interpretation.

I'm not a fan of his at all. Be it the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Whiskey Rebellion, he just comes off as a great manipulator. I think Washington was blind to him, and Adams caught on, a bit late, but he did see the light. Madison and Jefferson saw him for what he was.

Let's not confuse that with Madison like Federalism. The Lighter touch of the Federal Government. He may have lost some, maybe even on account of Hamilton corrupting the Court, but even though some wrongs may not have been made right yet, who's to say it cannot be done in time. It's all about the focus. Start the debate. Show cause, show harm, show damage, and seek Justice, Government can choose to Serve it or further obstruct it, that is true, but when brought to light reason will be plain for all to see, that in itself will effect change.

This is why I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, and why I think the Constitution is essentially useless, regardless of which side is right, at limiting the government.

I'll side with Madison Style Federalism, taking into account Hamilton's scheming, I would look for the types of Amendments that would lean us towards the impressions he falsely gave in the Federalist Papers, and away from the Traps he sprung after Ratification.

Court reversals and amendments are essentially a pipe dream. The Court has never been a friend to limited government or strict constructionism, and an amendment that would actually be worthwhile can't be passed.

Do we have the rule of law and due process? I'm not so sure. The Patriot Act and the President being able to assassinate American citizens prove that's not true.

Hamilton was a liar, and essentially wanted to turn the U.S. into the mercantilist British Empire. That's why he wanted to dump the Articles in the first place, because it limited the government too much. He needed a new constitution to do all the things he wanted. So the Constitution was created to increase the power of the federal government, not limit it.

For 200 years the power of the federal government has grown nonstop. Even during Jefferson and Madison's administrations. When exactly is reason going to come to light for all to see to effect this change? I think after a while we have to acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't do what we want it to do, regardless of the reason as to why.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thanks, KevinKennedy, for your well reasoned statement. I happen to agree with your thesis. I believe Washington, Franklin, Madison, and 36 other signers would disagree with you that the Article of Confederation were superior. I imagine Jefferson and some others would agree with you.

Any government, such as that which ruled Poland until 1793, that can't defend itself own existence philosophically as well as forcefully will fall. I believe the Founders who signed the Document believed in that principle also. Madison said that the government would fall because of $$$ corruption, that only Civic Virture of the elecorate can make sure a government work.

We have a non-civic viirtuous electorate Left and Right as well as a government corrupted by Wall Street $$$$. The rich have won, and the average (wo)man is done.

Jefferson, unfortunately, supported the adoption of the Constitution.

Only because of Madison, and only in the end.

Regardless, Jefferson supported a document that increased the power of the government. He should have thrown in his lot with Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists, who essentially predicted that the Constitution would not and could not protect liberty.

 

[Intense]

Court reversals and amendments are essentially a pipe dream. The Court has never been a friend to limited government or strict constructionism, and an amendment that would actually be worthwhile can't be passed.

Do we have the rule of law and due process? I'm not so sure. The Patriot Act and the President being able to assassinate American citizens prove that's not true.

Hamilton was a liar, and essentially wanted to turn the U.S. into the mercantilist British Empire. That's why he wanted to dump the Articles in the first place, because it limited the government too much. He needed a new constitution to do all the things he wanted. So the Constitution was created to increase the power of the federal government, not limit it.

For 200 years the power of the federal government has grown nonstop. Even during Jefferson and Madison's administrations. When exactly is reason going to come to light for all to see to effect this change? I think after a while we have to acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't do what we want it to do, regardless of the reason as to why.

Court reversals and amendments are essentially a pipe dream. The Court has never been a friend to limited government or strict constructionism, and an amendment that would actually be worthwhile can't be passed.

The Nature of the Court is a Reflection of who sits on it. Time may be our friend here. What is needed is Clarity of Purpose, clear vision, and convincing argument. An educated Free Thinking, Constituency is our friend. Transparency and continuity support sound structure. It is time to question what does and doesn't belong. Precedent is not relevant, unless it is supported by sound reason, especially when constructing new powers. In such cases, the bar needs to be higher, not lower.

Under Present conditions Amendments are very difficult to pass, in part because of misinformation and manipulation. Good Communication Skills and convincing argument effect change. Baby Steps.

Hamilton was a liar, and essentially wanted to turn the U.S. into the mercantilist British Empire. That's why he wanted to dump the Articles in the first place, because it limited the government too much. He needed a new constitution to do all the things he wanted. So the Constitution was created to increase the power of the federal government, not limit it.

Personally, I have no love for him. I too, feel that he did allot of harm to the Republic, even aided Brittan, undermining our interests, because of his ambition and the design he had in mind. Injustice has to be addressed, specifically, before rectified. It is in the details.

Madison, and other Federalists were not under his spell. Federalism is sound in Principle. Look away from Hamilton. Look to Madison and Jefferson. Check out the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Jefferson
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Madison
Virginia Resolution of 1798

For 200 years the power of the federal government has grown nonstop. Even during Jefferson and Madison's administrations. When exactly is reason going to come to light for all to see to effect this change? I think after a while we have to acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't do what we want it to do, regardless of the reason as to why.

Through the Powers of the States, in number, we can effect change and Challenge Usurped and unjustified Federal Authority. It is already being done. Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is what We are Founded on. Without Just Cause, The Government is in violation of It's reason for existing. When It corrupts that cause, It is what needs to change, not us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Court reversals and amendments are essentially a pipe dream. The Court has never been a friend to limited government or strict constructionism, and an amendment that would actually be worthwhile can't be passed.

The Nature of the Court is a Reflection of who sits on it. Time may be our friend here. What is needed is Clarity of Purpose, clear vision, and convincing argument. An educated Free Thinking, Constituency is our friend. Transparency and continuity support sound structure. It is time to question what does and doesn't belong. Precedent is not relevant, unless it is supported by sound reason, especially when constructing new powers. In such cases, the bar needs to be higher, not lower.

Under Present conditions Amendments are very difficult to pass, in part because of misinformation and manipulation. Good Communication Skills and convincing argument effect change. Baby Steps.

Hamilton was a liar, and essentially wanted to turn the U.S. into the mercantilist British Empire. That's why he wanted to dump the Articles in the first place, because it limited the government too much. He needed a new constitution to do all the things he wanted. So the Constitution was created to increase the power of the federal government, not limit it.

Personally, I have no love for him. I too, feel that he did allot of harm to the Republic, even aided Brittan, undermining our interests, because of his ambition and the design he had in mind. Injustice has to be addressed, specifically, before rectified. It is in the details.

Madison, and other Federalists were not under his spell. Federalism is sound in Principle. Look away from Hamilton. Look to Madison and Jefferson. Check out the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Jefferson
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Madison
Virginia Resolution of 1798

For 200 years the power of the federal government has grown nonstop. Even during Jefferson and Madison's administrations. When exactly is reason going to come to light for all to see to effect this change? I think after a while we have to acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't do what we want it to do, regardless of the reason as to why.

Through the Powers of the States, in number, we can effect change and Challenge Usurped and unjustified Federal Authority. It is already being done. Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is what We are Founded on. Without Just Cause, The Government is in violation of It's reason for existing. When It corrupts that cause, It is what needs to change, not us.

Time isn't our friend, however. It's been over 200 years and things have only gotten worse and worse. We can't keep looking to the Constitution to be what we think it is. We need to look at the record of the Constitution, and it's record is terrible.

 

[Intense]

Court reversals and amendments are essentially a pipe dream. The Court has never been a friend to limited government or strict constructionism, and an amendment that would actually be worthwhile can't be passed.

The Nature of the Court is a Reflection of who sits on it. Time may be our friend here. What is needed is Clarity of Purpose, clear vision, and convincing argument. An educated Free Thinking, Constituency is our friend. Transparency and continuity support sound structure. It is time to question what does and doesn't belong. Precedent is not relevant, unless it is supported by sound reason, especially when constructing new powers. In such cases, the bar needs to be higher, not lower.

Under Present conditions Amendments are very difficult to pass, in part because of misinformation and manipulation. Good Communication Skills and convincing argument effect change. Baby Steps.



Personally, I have no love for him. I too, feel that he did allot of harm to the Republic, even aided Brittan, undermining our interests, because of his ambition and the design he had in mind. Injustice has to be addressed, specifically, before rectified. It is in the details.

Madison, and other Federalists were not under his spell. Federalism is sound in Principle. Look away from Hamilton. Look to Madison and Jefferson. Check out the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Jefferson
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Madison
Virginia Resolution of 1798

For 200 years the power of the federal government has grown nonstop. Even during Jefferson and Madison's administrations. When exactly is reason going to come to light for all to see to effect this change? I think after a while we have to acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't do what we want it to do, regardless of the reason as to why.

Through the Powers of the States, in number, we can effect change and Challenge Usurped and unjustified Federal Authority. It is already being done. Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is what We are Founded on. Without Just Cause, The Government is in violation of It's reason for existing. When It corrupts that cause, It is what needs to change, not us.

Time isn't our friend, however. It's been over 200 years and things have only gotten worse and worse. We can't keep looking to the Constitution to be what we think it is. We need to look at the record of the Constitution, and it's record is terrible.

Is it the fault of the Constitution, or the Hi-Jacking of Progressive Statists. Is there any system that we could trust on Auto Pilot? We need to be directly involved.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Nature of the Court is a Reflection of who sits on it. Time may be our friend here. What is needed is Clarity of Purpose, clear vision, and convincing argument. An educated Free Thinking, Constituency is our friend. Transparency and continuity support sound structure. It is time to question what does and doesn't belong. Precedent is not relevant, unless it is supported by sound reason, especially when constructing new powers. In such cases, the bar needs to be higher, not lower.

Under Present conditions Amendments are very difficult to pass, in part because of misinformation and manipulation. Good Communication Skills and convincing argument effect change. Baby Steps.



Personally, I have no love for him. I too, feel that he did allot of harm to the Republic, even aided Brittan, undermining our interests, because of his ambition and the design he had in mind. Injustice has to be addressed, specifically, before rectified. It is in the details.

Madison, and other Federalists were not under his spell. Federalism is sound in Principle. Look away from Hamilton. Look to Madison and Jefferson. Check out the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Jefferson
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Madison
Virginia Resolution of 1798



Through the Powers of the States, in number, we can effect change and Challenge Usurped and unjustified Federal Authority. It is already being done. Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is what We are Founded on. Without Just Cause, The Government is in violation of It's reason for existing. When It corrupts that cause, It is what needs to change, not us.

Time isn't our friend, however. It's been over 200 years and things have only gotten worse and worse. We can't keep looking to the Constitution to be what we think it is. We need to look at the record of the Constitution, and it's record is terrible.

Is it the fault of the Constitution, or the Hi-Jacking of Progressive Statists. Is there any system that we could trust on Auto Pilot? We need to be directly involved.

The problem is that the Constitution was crafted by statists, whether they were progressives or not I'll leave to your interpretation.

 

[Intense]

Time isn't our friend, however. It's been over 200 years and things have only gotten worse and worse. We can't keep looking to the Constitution to be what we think it is. We need to look at the record of the Constitution, and it's record is terrible.

Is it the fault of the Constitution, or the Hi-Jacking of Progressive Statists. Is there any system that we could trust on Auto Pilot? We need to be directly involved.

The problem is that the Constitution was crafted by statists, whether they were progressives or not I'll leave to your interpretation.

I don't view it that way. Hamilton and his lot, yes. Madison , Jefferson, Franklin, not at all. Without a clear objective, you risk a Hi-Jacking. Think Structured Liberty. Build up on what works, test it, prove it. You take down the defenses, the game is over before you know what hit you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is it the fault of the Constitution, or the Hi-Jacking of Progressive Statists. Is there any system that we could trust on Auto Pilot? We need to be directly involved.

The problem is that the Constitution was crafted by statists, whether they were progressives or not I'll leave to your interpretation.

I don't view it that way. Hamilton and his lot, yes. Madison , Jefferson, Franklin, not at all. Without a clear objective, you risk a Hi-Jacking. Think Structured Liberty. Build up on what works, test it, prove it. You take down the defenses, the game is over before you know what hit you.

Jefferson wasn't there for the crafting of the Constitution, and Franklin was most certainly a statist. Madison was as well. You pointed out Hamilton's opinion on a national bank, don't forget that Madison signed the bill establishing the Second Bank of the U.S.

The Constitutional Convention was full of statists, which is why they allowed the Hamiltonians to hijack the proceedings and trash the Articles of Confederation illegally.

 

[Intense]

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy. -Madison. Virginia Resolution.

Nope. Not a Statist. Madison was a true Federalist.

Hamilton was big on the National Bank, Incorporation, Monopoly, and Government being the Invisible Partner, picking winners and losers arbitrarily, and controlling Administrations.

Franklin retained a lifelong commitment to the Puritan virtues and political values he had grown up with, and through his civic work and publishing, he succeeded in passing these values into the American culture permanently. He had a “passion for virtue.”[88] These Puritan values included his devotion to egalitarianism, education, industry, thrift, honesty, temperance, charity and community spirit.[89]

The classical authors read in the Enlightenment period taught an abstract ideal of republican government based on hierarchical social orders of king, aristocracy and commoners. It was widely believed that English liberties relied on their balance of power, but also hierarchal deference to the privileged class.[90] “Puritanism ... and the epidemic evangelism of the mid-eighteenth century, had created challenges to the traditional notions of social stratification”[cite this quote] by preaching that the Bible taught all men are equal, that the true value of a man lies in his moral behavior, not his class, and that all men can be saved.[91] Franklin, steeped in Puritanism and an enthusiastic supporter of the evangelical movement, rejected the salvation dogma, but embraced the radical notion of egalitarian democracy.

Franklin’s commitment to teach these values was itself something he gained from his Puritan upbringing, with its stress on “inculcating virtue and character in themselves and their communities.”[92] These Puritan values and the desire to pass them on, were one of Franklin’s quintessentially American characteristics, and helped shape the character of the nation. Franklin's writings on virtue were derided by some European authors, such as Jackob Fugger in his critical work Portrait of American Culture. Max Weber considered Franklin's ethical writings a culmination of the Protestant ethic, which ethic created the social conditions necessary for the birth of capitalism.[93]

Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

The problem is that the Constitution was crafted by statists, whether they were progressives or not I'll leave to your interpretation.

I don't view it that way. Hamilton and his lot, yes. Madison , Jefferson, Franklin, not at all. Without a clear objective, you risk a Hi-Jacking. Think Structured Liberty. Build up on what works, test it, prove it. You take down the defenses, the game is over before you know what hit you.

Jefferson wasn't there for the crafting of the Constitution, and Franklin was most certainly a statist. Madison was as well. You pointed out Hamilton's opinion on a national bank, don't forget that Madison signed the bill establishing the Second Bank of the U.S.

The Constitutional Convention was full of statists, which is why they allowed the Hamiltonians to hijack the proceedings and trash the Articles of Confederation illegally.

Just curious what kind of Government you are advocating KK? The Constitution was Ratified. Why do you view it as Illegal. How about 3 points?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't view it that way. Hamilton and his lot, yes. Madison , Jefferson, Franklin, not at all. Without a clear objective, you risk a Hi-Jacking. Think Structured Liberty. Build up on what works, test it, prove it. You take down the defenses, the game is over before you know what hit you.

Jefferson wasn't there for the crafting of the Constitution, and Franklin was most certainly a statist. Madison was as well. You pointed out Hamilton's opinion on a national bank, don't forget that Madison signed the bill establishing the Second Bank of the U.S.

The Constitutional Convention was full of statists, which is why they allowed the Hamiltonians to hijack the proceedings and trash the Articles of Confederation illegally.

Just curious what kind of Government you are advocating KK? The Constitution was Ratified. Why do you view it as Illegal. How about 3 points?

What we call the Constitutional Convention wasn't a constitutional convention at all. It was a convention called to revise the Articles of Confederation. The states elected delegates to represent them, thus giving those delegates the authority to speak on behalf of their state regarding the revision of the Articles only. They were none of them given authority to craft an entirely new constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy. -Madison. Virginia Resolution.

Nope. Not a Statist. Madison was a true Federalist.

Hamilton was big on the National Bank, Incorporation, Monopoly, and Government being the Invisible Partner, picking winners and losers arbitrarily, and controlling Administrations.

Franklin retained a lifelong commitment to the Puritan virtues and political values he had grown up with, and through his civic work and publishing, he succeeded in passing these values into the American culture permanently. He had a “passion for virtue.”[88] These Puritan values included his devotion to egalitarianism, education, industry, thrift, honesty, temperance, charity and community spirit.[89]

The classical authors read in the Enlightenment period taught an abstract ideal of republican government based on hierarchical social orders of king, aristocracy and commoners. It was widely believed that English liberties relied on their balance of power, but also hierarchal deference to the privileged class.[90] “Puritanism ... and the epidemic evangelism of the mid-eighteenth century, had created challenges to the traditional notions of social stratification”[cite this quote] by preaching that the Bible taught all men are equal, that the true value of a man lies in his moral behavior, not his class, and that all men can be saved.[91] Franklin, steeped in Puritanism and an enthusiastic supporter of the evangelical movement, rejected the salvation dogma, but embraced the radical notion of egalitarian democracy.

Franklin’s commitment to teach these values was itself something he gained from his Puritan upbringing, with its stress on “inculcating virtue and character in themselves and their communities.”[92] These Puritan values and the desire to pass them on, were one of Franklin’s quintessentially American characteristics, and helped shape the character of the nation. Franklin's writings on virtue were derided by some European authors, such as Jackob Fugger in his critical work Portrait of American Culture. Max Weber considered Franklin's ethical writings a culmination of the Protestant ethic, which ethic created the social conditions necessary for the birth of capitalism.[93]

Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anti-Federalists were the only true federalists. The Federalists, Madison included, were statists. Madison was better than the rest, and was at the least not a mercantilist or a monarchist like Hamilton, but a statist nonetheless.

 

[Intense]

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy. -Madison. Virginia Resolution.

Nope. Not a Statist. Madison was a true Federalist.

Hamilton was big on the National Bank, Incorporation, Monopoly, and Government being the Invisible Partner, picking winners and losers arbitrarily, and controlling Administrations.

Franklin retained a lifelong commitment to the Puritan virtues and political values he had grown up with, and through his civic work and publishing, he succeeded in passing these values into the American culture permanently. He had a “passion for virtue.”[88] These Puritan values included his devotion to egalitarianism, education, industry, thrift, honesty, temperance, charity and community spirit.[89]

The classical authors read in the Enlightenment period taught an abstract ideal of republican government based on hierarchical social orders of king, aristocracy and commoners. It was widely believed that English liberties relied on their balance of power, but also hierarchal deference to the privileged class.[90] “Puritanism ... and the epidemic evangelism of the mid-eighteenth century, had created challenges to the traditional notions of social stratification”[cite this quote] by preaching that the Bible taught all men are equal, that the true value of a man lies in his moral behavior, not his class, and that all men can be saved.[91] Franklin, steeped in Puritanism and an enthusiastic supporter of the evangelical movement, rejected the salvation dogma, but embraced the radical notion of egalitarian democracy.

Franklin’s commitment to teach these values was itself something he gained from his Puritan upbringing, with its stress on “inculcating virtue and character in themselves and their communities.”[92] These Puritan values and the desire to pass them on, were one of Franklin’s quintessentially American characteristics, and helped shape the character of the nation. Franklin's writings on virtue were derided by some European authors, such as Jackob Fugger in his critical work Portrait of American Culture. Max Weber considered Franklin's ethical writings a culmination of the Protestant ethic, which ethic created the social conditions necessary for the birth of capitalism.[93]

Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anti-Federalists were the only true federalists. The Federalists, Madison included, were statists. Madison was better than the rest, and was at the least not a mercantilist or a monarchist like Hamilton, but a statist nonetheless.

Property

"This term in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.'

"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

"In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

"In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

"He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

"He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

"He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.

"Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

"According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just security to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

"More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or lettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

'That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials.*

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

"If there be a government then which prides itself on maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the inference will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

"If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments."

Founder's Concept of "Property"--Embracing All Rights--Not Merely Things Material

We are not going to agree on this issue KK. You have every right to your opinion, though.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Anti-Federalists were the only true federalists. The Federalists, Madison included, were statists. Madison was better than the rest, and was at the least not a mercantilist or a monarchist like Hamilton, but a statist nonetheless.

Property

"This term in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.'

"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

"In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

"In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

"He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

"He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

"He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.

"Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

"According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just security to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

"More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or lettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

'That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials.*

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

"If there be a government then which prides itself on maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the inference will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

"If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments."

Founder's Concept of "Property"--Embracing All Rights--Not Merely Things Material

We are not going to agree on this issue KK. You have every right to your opinion, though.

Of course under the Articles of Confederation people's property was far more secure than under the Constitution.

 

[Intense]

Property

"This term in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.'

"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

"In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

"In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

"He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

"He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

"He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.

"Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

"According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just security to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

"More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or lettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

'That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials.*

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

"If there be a government then which prides itself on maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the inference will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

"If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments."

Founder's Concept of "Property"--Embracing All Rights--Not Merely Things Material

We are not going to agree on this issue KK. You have every right to your opinion, though.

Of course under the Articles of Confederation people's property was far more secure than under the Constitution.

Agreed. I place the blame for that on Hamilton, who purposely misled.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We are not going to agree on this issue KK. You have every right to your opinion, though.

Of course under the Articles of Confederation people's property was far more secure than under the Constitution.

Agreed. I place the blame for that on Hamilton, who purposely misled.

And since he was one of the principle architects of the Constitution what does that say about the Constitution itself? In my mind it says that the Constitution is powerless to limit the government, and must therefore be abandoned.