True or False....?

[Uncensored2008]

No... that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. If Mob Democracy wants to ban a religion or a lifestyle, does the Constitution not overrule that ban, despite it's popularity?

Barack Obama is not constrained by any Constitution. You will bake the cake or go to prison. Obama Akbar

 

[g5000]

True. Read Federalist No. 51, idiot.

Federalist 51 is part of the Constitution, Comrade?

The things one learns from Communists....

The Federalist Papers were written by the architects of the Constitution to explain its purposes to the citizens who would be deciding upon its ratification, retard.

I'm sorry your education is so severely lacking.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Federalist Papers were written by the architects of the Constitution to explain its purposes to the citizens who would be deciding upon its ratification, retard.

I'm sorry your education is so severely lacking.

Really Jake? So the Federalist papers were an official government publication?

Is that your claim, you ignorant troll?

Or were they rather letters to the editor expressing opinions with no weight of law? Were they not answered by men such as George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, George Clinton, and other giants in the Founding fathers in what are called the "anti-federalist" papers?

Seriously Jake, turn off MSNBC, navigate away from ThinkProgress, and try to learn something.It was the Anti-Federalists who pushed through the Bill of Rights, two and a half centuries later, your ilk is STILL trying to end it...

 

[g5000]

The Federalist Papers were written by the architects of the Constitution to explain its purposes to the citizens who would be deciding upon its ratification, retard.

I'm sorry your education is so severely lacking.

Really Jake? So the Federalist papers were an official government publication?

Is that your claim, you ignorant troll?

Or were they rather letters to the editor expressing opinions with no weight of law? Were they not answered by men such as George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, George Clinton, and other giants in the Founding fathers in what are called the "anti-federalist" papers?

Seriously Jake, turn off MSNBC, navigate away from ThinkProgress, and try to learn something.It was the Anti-Federalists who pushed through the Bill of Rights, two and a half centuries later, your ilk is STILL trying to end it...

The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution. Their system was not enacted. The system explained in the Federalist Papers was.

James Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution. James Madison wrote Federalist 51 to explain what the Constitution was intended to do. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have upheld this position.

Are you now going to go full retard and say that Madison had no idea what he was talking about with respect to the Constitution being designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority"?

Madison is the authority on the Constitution. What he had to say about this subject is far more valid then your retarded denials.

You lose.


So sorry for your deliberate ignorance, willfully blind monkey.

 

[g5000]

The Founders like Jefferson and Madison and Thomas Paine were far more radical than I think many of the retards here realize.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are a ridiculous fool.

Their system was not enacted. The system explained in the Federalist Papers was.

That must explain those first 10 amendments that you and your party fight so hard to destroy..

I don't know if you're being a hack, or if you are actually this uneducated and ignorant.

The Constitution is a compromise hammered out between federalists and anti-federalists. Madison made many concessions to the anti-federalists.

To claim otherwise is merely ignorant.

James Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution. James Madison wrote Federalist 51 to explain what the Constitution was intended to do. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have upheld this position.

Are you now going to go full retard and say that Madison had no idea what he was talking about with respect to the Constitution being designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority"?

Madison is the authority on the Constitution. What he had to say about this subject is far more valid then your retarded denials.

You lose.


So sorry for your deliberate ignorance, willfully blind monkey.

You are an ignorant troll basing your views on some whackjob Soros site no doubt. Tell me this Comrade, how long did the Constitution take from initiation to final ratification? A day? A week? More?

Do you really think you can rewrite history to serve your party, or are you actually this ignorant?

 

[norwegen]

The Federalist Papers were written by the architects of the Constitution to explain its purposes to the citizens who would be deciding upon its ratification, retard.

I'm sorry your education is so severely lacking.

Really Jake? So the Federalist papers were an official government publication?

Is that your claim, you ignorant troll?

Or were they rather letters to the editor expressing opinions with no weight of law? Were they not answered by men such as George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, George Clinton, and other giants in the Founding fathers in what are called the "anti-federalist" papers?

Seriously Jake, turn off MSNBC, navigate away from ThinkProgress, and try to learn something.It was the Anti-Federalists who pushed through the Bill of Rights, two and a half centuries later, your ilk is STILL trying to end it...

The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution. Their system was not enacted.

On the contrary, it was. Their "system" was a product of the founding. In its eleventh year (tenth?), the Constitution and the new government replaced it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

On the contrary, it was. Their "system" was a product of the founding. In its eleventh year (tenth?), the Constitution and the new government replaced it.

So you are claiming that the anti-federalists sought to retain the Articles of Confederation as the governing document of the United States?

 

[g5000]

The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are a ridiculous fool.

It's a fact. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Read a book once in a while.

Their system was not enacted. The system explained in the Federalist Papers was.

That must explain those first 10 amendments that you and your party fight so hard to destroy..

The Bill of Rights were put there to placate the anti-Federalists, but were considered superfluous since the Constitution was already considered a limiting document.

Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this discussion about whether the Constitution was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

The Federalist Papers were written three years before the Bill of Rights, and Madison made it very plain the Constitution, sans any amendments, was intended to protect the rights of minorities.

So sad, you lose. Again.

You are not an expert. You are a willfully ignorant denier of reality.

Madison is THE expert.

 

[norwegen]

On the contrary, it was. Their "system" was a product of the founding. In its eleventh year (tenth?), the Constitution and the new government replaced it.

So you are claiming that the anti-federalists sought to retain the Articles of Confederation as the governing document of the United States?

Yes. They feared consolidation and a strong central authority. They thought the proposed constitution would be less “calculated to preserve the rights and defend the liberties” of the people than the present constitution had already proved itself capable of.*

*Centinel (probably Samuel Bryan or Eleazer Oswald)

 

[norwegen]

The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are a ridiculous fool.

It's a fact. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Read a book once in a while.

Their system was not enacted. The system explained in the Federalist Papers was.

That must explain those first 10 amendments that you and your party fight so hard to destroy..

The Bill of Rights were put there to placate the anti-Federalists, but were considered superfluous since the Constitution was a limiting document.

Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this discussion about whether the Constitution was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

The Federalist Papers were written three years before the Bill of Rights, and Madison made it very plain the Constitution, sans any amendments, was intended to protect the rights of minorities.

So sad, you lose. Again.

You are not an expert. You are a willfully ignorant denier of reality.

Madison is THE expert.

Madison, eventually to abandon the Federalists to join Jefferson and the Republicans.

Ya' live; ya' learn.

 

[g5000]

James Madison, Constitutional architect. The authority on the Constitution and its purposes:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.



The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States.


So in Federalist 51, we find Madison explaining that the tyranny of the majority is an evil which must be mitigated. He says this very plainly. It is indisputable.

Madison then explains there are two ways this can be accomplished, and that the second method is the one which was built into the Constitution. That is, "comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable."


Many separate descriptions of citizens. Brilliant. By subdividing the populace into many different categories of people, it makes it harder for them to combine into a tyrannical majority.

Madison is actually encouraging multiculturalism.

 

[g5000]

The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are a ridiculous fool.

It's a fact. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Read a book once in a while.

Their system was not enacted. The system explained in the Federalist Papers was.

That must explain those first 10 amendments that you and your party fight so hard to destroy..

The Bill of Rights were put there to placate the anti-Federalists, but were considered superfluous since the Constitution was a limiting document.

Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this discussion about whether the Constitution was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

The Federalist Papers were written three years before the Bill of Rights, and Madison made it very plain the Constitution, sans any amendments, was intended to protect the rights of minorities.

So sad, you lose. Again.

You are not an expert. You are a willfully ignorant denier of reality.

Madison is THE expert.

Madison, eventually to abandon the Federalists to join Jefferson and the Republicans.

No, he and Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party, though they were often called "the Republicans".

This party formed after the ratification of the Constitution, and its main purpose was to oppose Hamilton's fiscal centralization and Hamilton's anglophile fetish. They preferred French Republicanism as the role model for the world, which Hamilton did not.

Madison and Jefferson also feared a banking conspiracy. You might say they were the first Occupy Wall Street movement.

Before you scoff, you should know that Jefferson and Madison and the Democratic-Republicans were big supporters of the French Revolution. And if you know anything about the French revolution, then you know the revolutionaries were extreme left radicals, and got more and more extreme left as time passed until they became what can fairly be called full blown communists.

Another big supporter of the French Revolution was Thomas Paine. Paine's Common Sense was an influence on Jefferson's writing. Paine also moved to France during the Revolution and stayed there until 1802. He vigorously defended the French revolution, to such a great extent he was sued for libel in absentia by Edmund Burke.

While living in France, Paine wrote Agrarian Justice. A communist manifesto if I ever saw one. He wrote that everyone over 21 should receive a government stipend (welfare) and everyone over 50 should receive an additional government payment (Social Security).

Jefferson wrote to Madison from France that America could not devise too many ways to prevent the concentration of wealth in a few hands, and that we should have a progressive income tax as one of the means to mitigate wealth inequality.


So as I said earlier in the topic, our Founders like Jefferson and Madison and Paine were far more radical than some of the rubes on this forum realize.

So it should not come as any surprise to any informed person that one of the aims of the architects of our Constitution was to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

 

[norwegen]

The anti-federalists were opposed to the Constitution.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are a ridiculous fool.

It's a fact. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Read a book once in a while.

Their system was not enacted. The system explained in the Federalist Papers was.

That must explain those first 10 amendments that you and your party fight so hard to destroy..

The Bill of Rights were put there to placate the anti-Federalists, but were considered superfluous since the Constitution was a limiting document.

Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this discussion about whether the Constitution was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

The Federalist Papers were written three years before the Bill of Rights, and Madison made it very plain the Constitution, sans any amendments, was intended to protect the rights of minorities.

So sad, you lose. Again.

You are not an expert. You are a willfully ignorant denier of reality.

Madison is THE expert.

Madison, eventually to abandon the Federalists to join Jefferson and the Republicans.

No, he and Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party, though they were often called "the Republicans".

This party formed after the ratification of the Constitution, and its main purpose was to oppose Hamilton's fiscal centralization and Hamilton's anglophile fetish. They preferred French Republicanism as the role model for the world, which Hamilton did not.

Madison and Jefferson also feared a banking conspiracy. You might say they were the first Occupy Wall Street movement.

Before you scoff, you should know that Jefferson and Madison and the Democratic-Republicans were big supporters of the French Revolution. And if you know anything about the French revolution, then you know the revolutionaries were extreme left radicals, and got more and more extreme left as time passed until they became what can fairly be called full blown communists.

Another big supporter of the French Revolution was Thomas Paine. Paine's Common Sense was an influence on Jefferson's writing. Paine also moved to France during the Revolution and stayed there until 1802. He vigorously defended the French revolution, to such a great extent he was sued for libel in absentia by Edmund Burke.

While living in France, Paine wrote Agrarian Justice. A communist manifesto if I ever saw one. He wrote that everyone over 21 should receive a government stipend (welfare) and everyone over 50 should receive an additional government payment (Social Security).

Jefferson to Madison from France that America could not devise too many ways to prevent the concentration of wealth in a few hands, and that we should have a progressive income tax as one of the means to mitigate wealth inequality.


So as I said earlier in the topic, our Founders like Jefferson and Madison and Paine were far more radical than some of the rubes on this forum realize.

Confirmed: you're an Internet historian.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's a fact. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Read a book once in a while.

Then however did the Constitution get ratified?

Oh that's right, Madison made concessions through the inclusion of the amendment process and the guarantee of support for the Bill of Rights.

Read a book for once, Jake.

The Bill of Rights were put there to placate the anti-Federalists, but were considered superfluous since the Constitution was a limiting document.

Considered by whom?

In fact, these amendments have proven the most critical elements of the Constitution.

Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this discussion about whether the Constitution was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

You attempted to portray federalist 51 as the guiding document of the nation, a notion that is absurd.

The Federalist Papers were written three years before the Bill of Rights, and Madison made it very plain the Constitution, sans any amendments, was intended to protect the rights of minorities.

So sad, you lose. Again.

You are not an expert. You are a willfully ignorant denier of reality.

Madison is THE expert.

You demonstrating your ignorance of American history hardly points to my loss.

Oh and sploogy, your straw man is proof of your failure. Nowhere did I claim that the constitution does not protect minority rights.

You are just another leftist moron attempting to force the Constitution to support your socialist views. (Rather those of your party masters.)

 

[g5000]

On the contrary, it was. Their "system" was a product of the founding. In its eleventh year (tenth?), the Constitution and the new government replaced it.

So you are claiming that the anti-federalists sought to retain the Articles of Confederation as the governing document of the United States?

Common knowledge:

In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights. The Anti-Federalists weren't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements.

The Debate for the United States Constitution


The Anti-Federalists sought a "fix" for the Articles of Confederation. That was supposed to be the purpose of the convention in Philadelphia.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

False because the same majority it is suppose to protect individuals from can also amend the constitution to add or remove those protections so it is still mob rule. The true purpose of constitutions in general is to create a set of rules that the government has to abide by in the same way the same government creates rules we have to abide by. In some ways it is kind of democratic but in many ways it ain't since any individual could use it to protect his freedom from the democratic process. The same democratic process could also alter the constitution to allow the government to infringe on that same person's rights under the previous constituiton.

An example is a proposed *** marriage ban. The courts have said that this is a right but the majority can always amend to the constitution to ban this kind of God-forbidden crap!

 

[g5000]

It's a fact. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Read a book once in a while.

Then however did the Constitution get ratified?

It was ratified in 1788 by a vote of the states.

Oh that's right, Madison made concessions through the inclusion of the amendment process and the guarantee of support for the Bill of Rights.

Read a book for once, Jake.

The Bill of Rights was ratified three years after the Constitution was ratified. As I said, it was added to placate some of the anti-Federalists.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not the Constitution was intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

In fact, that the Bill of Rights was added PROVES this. The minority was given a voice.

Dumb ass.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes. They feared consolidation and a strong central authority. They thought the proposed constitution would be less “calculated to preserve the rights and defend the liberties” of the people than the present constitution had already proved itself capable of.*

*Centinel (probably Samuel Bryan or Eleazer Oswald)

It's true that there was concern that individual rights and particularly states rights would suffer under Madison's Constitution, particularly the 1784 version, but no one wanted the AoC to continue. The single vote per state offended all the various factions. Mason and Clinton were both anti-federalist, but hardly shared common views.

The anti-federalists sought, and succeeded, to force protections of civil and states rights. The concern that Washington, Franklin, and Madison intended a London style central authority was very real, and well founded. The view that escaping the British only to fall under the iron fist of a central government was unpalatable.

 

[g5000]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

False because the same majority it is suppose to protect individuals from can also amend the constitution to add or remove those protections so it is still mob rule.

Nope. It is extremely difficult to amend the constitution. Thus making it extremely difficult for the mob to ride roughshod over the minority.

Just ask those people who want to amend the constitution to mob rule over homosexuals. They will never succeed.