Was Constitutional Convention Really a Liberal Coup?

[usmbguest5318]

everyone who mattered and cared about the nation's enduring sovereignty, not just liberals, knew it; thus they were trashed.

if everyone knew it why did no one want to amend the Articles?? And why was there huge fight over radification? Did Patrick Henry matter?

why did no one want to amend the Articles??

Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented? The same forces that today impede implementation of myriad policies and statutes -- money and influence -- were at work then. All that differs is the specific policies, not how money and influence combine to produce inactivity or greatly watered down legislative action(s).

Times have changed, but the human condition and its manifestations have not. Consequently it was no less difficult then to overcome the "worst" elements of the human condition than it is now.

 

[Ringel05]

Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters). It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.

correct, but you mean antecedent of Republican Party- same name and philosophy

Not the modern Republican party per se.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The liberals of that time were not the "liberals" of our time. See "Classical Liberalism".

The Founders intentionally limited federal authority. Also, the "Democrat-Republican Party" was formed to oppose the Federalist Party, which favored a strong central government as do our current-day "liberals".

The Republican Party was not formed until 1854.

Supporters of TJ started the Republican party (also known as the Jefferson Republicans) in 1792, it was a relative loose affiliation of anti-federalists (the original states righters). It morphed into the Democratic-Republican party which was the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.

True enough the ancestral foundations of the Democratic Party; however, philosophically, D-Rs preferred a decentralized federal government. Additionally, it's very important to note that today's GOP isn't at all the GOP of the 19th century. Republicans of that era were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives.

While the party names go unchanged for ages, the high level political philosophy they've each embraced has shifted. It would not surprise me were they to shift again. To wit, some of Trump's social stances resemble those of 19th to mid-20th century Democrats and some of them resemble Republican stances from periods within the same era.

what is important is to identify which group supported freedom and which supported govt. This is main issue of human history. Republicans of 19th century changed a lot over century so your generalization is meaningless.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented?

because of liberals, they are the disease of human history, and???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not the modern Republican party per se.

Jefferson and modern Republicans support/supported limited govt. Bernie/Hillary/Elizebeth are opposite and communist,

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why add to the confusion? Most people these days have all the education of a fruit bat. Teach them.

by using today's definitions you prevent confusion. Make sense??

In a word, no.

if you use today's definitions the reader does not have to know definitions through times and places.

If the reader wants to participate in a discussion about history, it is incumbent on him/her to arrive well informed to the discussion. Moreover, insofar as the 18th century stances of Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, Madisonians, etc. -- Federalists and Anti-Federalists -- is the stuff of basic high school American history instruction in the U.S., one writing on political and governance matters of that period can reasonably assume that his/her audience has mastered the distinctions between them and compose his/her remarks in consequence of as much.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented?

because of liberals, they are the disease of human history, and???

Okay, fine. I see now you have as your aim for this thread the creation of a platform from which you can toss various castigatory remarks at liberals rather than to have have a substantive philosophical discussion about the in-/adequacy of the Articles, which, from the lack of rigor and accuracy in your OP, I should have sussed from square one. It's fine that you want to do that, but I don't care be to be party to such a discussion. Have fun with whomever is willing to echo your aspersions or who will trade opposing ones with you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the reader wants to participate in a discussion about history, it is incumbent on him/her to arrive well informed to the discussion. Moreover, insofar as the 18th century stances of Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, Madisonians, etc. -- Federalists and Anti-Federalists -- is the stuff of basic high school American history instruction in the U.S., one writing on political and governance matters of that period can reasonably assume that his/her audience has mastered the distinctions between them and compose his/her remarks in consequence of as much.

pompous ass air headed gibberish. Most cant name the current president and vice president. To save the country from liberalism we must teach them too.

 

[Ringel05]

Not the modern Republican party per se.

Jefferson and modern Republicans support/supported limited govt. Bernie/Hillary/Elizebeth are opposite and communist,

You're being much too generalized, both modern parties are a composite of earlier platforms to differing degrees. Yes the modern Democratic party is much more federalist but the Republicans aren't specifically heavily states rights/limited government except in certain issues, much past legislation is proof of that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

to have have a substantive philosophical discussion about the in-/adequacy of the Articles,

dear, issue about articles and Constitution was freedom versus govt. Once you learn that you are in a position to understand that history in context from Aristotle/Plato to today. Now do you understand?

 

[Ringel05]

Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented?

because of liberals, they are the disease of human history, and???

Okay, fine. I see now you have as your aim for this thread the creation of a platform from which you can toss various castigatory remarks at liberals rather than to have have a substantive philosophical discussion about the in-/adequacy of the Articles, which, from the lack of rigor and accuracy in your OP, I should have sussed from square one. It's fine that you want to do that, but I don't care be to be party to such a discussion. Have fun with whomever is willing to echo your aspersions or who will trade opposing ones with you.

He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit, he's more rdean in his approach.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why do policies that we all know should today be implemented not get implemented?

because of liberals, they are the disease of human history, and???

Okay, fine. I see now you have as your aim for this thread the creation of a platform from which you can toss various castigatory remarks at liberals rather than to have have a substantive philosophical discussion about the in-/adequacy of the Articles, which, from the lack of rigor and accuracy in your OP, I should have sussed from square one. It's fine that you want to do that, but I don't care be to be party to such a discussion. Have fun with whomever is willing to echo your aspersions or who will trade opposing ones with you.

He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit, he's more rdean in his approach.

I didn't know that, but I do know that he now no longer obtains my notice.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

but the Republicans aren't specifically heavily states rights/limited government except in certain issues, much past legislation is proof of that.

What?? William Buckely, Jr. voted for every Republican candidate because they were more for freedom from central govt. Even Trump passed a huge tax cut and deregulated to trim central govt!! This goes straight to back to Jefferson and Aristotle, the first Republican.Now do you understand?

 

[Ringel05]

but the Republicans aren't specifically heavily states rights/limited government except in certain issues, much past legislation is proof of that.

What?? William BUckely Jr voted for every Republican candidate because they were more for freedom from central govt. Even Trump passed a huge tax cut and deregulated to trim central govt!! This goes straight to back to Jefferson and Aristotle, the first Republican.

Issues....... Specific issues....... Individuals, specific individuals...... I said that.......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit,.

if true you would be so afraid to present an example of irrational to make your point. What does your fear teach you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Issues....... Specific issues....... Individuals, specific individuals...... I said that.......

what?????

 

[Ringel05]

He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit,.

if true you would be so afraid to present an example of irrational to make your point. What does your fear teach you?

That response is all the proof needed....... rdean.......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He's been like that since he joined, rational discussion is not his strong suit,.

if true you would be so afraid to present an example of irrational to make your point. What does your fear teach you?

That response is all the proof needed....... rdean.......

 

[Ringel05]

Issues....... Specific issues....... Individuals, specific individuals...... I said that.......

what?????

I see reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits either...... But I already knew that......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That response is all the proof needed....... rdean.......

for 3rd time: if true you would be so afraid to present an example of irrational to make your point. What does your fear teach you?