Was the Constitution designed to make the states strong?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is a thread that got me thinking...

"The idea that private industry can always do something better than the government is false and sad and divisive," "People should know better." - so said a very brilliant and no nonsense man.

Is he a socialist or a leftie?

---

The right is always trying to own the idea that they and their masters in private industry are the only ones who can do things --well right. Myth vs reality. Sorta like the idea that Ronald Reagan was a conservative with principles.

Wait so we can only either trust corporations or trust government?

Oh we are SOOOOOOO screwed if thats the case.

Personally I like the constitution which was designed to keep the federal government weak and the local governments strong...in effect giving communities direct access to those that govern them and the laws/rules that will be used. Over the last few decades we have increasingly nationalized government power instead of keeping it localized, this is the true cause of the problems we see.


The federal government is not, from its track record, looking out for the people
The corporations, from their track record, are not looking out for the people.

Its the people that look out for themselves, as our founders knew governments and companies are not the answer.

What do you think?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course, otherwise the states wouldn't have ratified it. They didn't sever ties from one tyrannical government to create a new one in its place.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course, otherwise the states wouldn't have ratified it. They didn't sever ties from one tyrannical government to create a new one in its place.

The Constitution was designed to make the states strong? So were the states weak before hand?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course, otherwise the states wouldn't have ratified it. They didn't sever ties from one tyrannical government to create a new one in its place.

The Constitution was designed to make the states strong? So were the states weak before hand?

You're simply playing with words now. The Constitution was designed to keep the states strong.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Of course, otherwise the states wouldn't have ratified it. They didn't sever ties from one tyrannical government to create a new one in its place.

I agree. The federal government was to be the weakest link in the government chain. Perversions of the Constitution have turn that on its head.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course, otherwise the states wouldn't have ratified it. They didn't sever ties from one tyrannical government to create a new one in its place.

The Constitution was designed to make the states strong? So were the states weak before hand?

You're simply playing with words now. The Constitution was designed to keep the states strong.

NOpe, NOT playing with words. Not at all.


What existed before the Constitution? Why was there a need to design constitution in the first place?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution was designed to make the states strong? So were the states weak before hand?

You're simply playing with words now. The Constitution was designed to keep the states strong.

NOpe, NOT playing with words. Not at all.


What existed before the Constitution? Why was there a need to design constitution in the first place?

There wasn't. The mandate was to revise the Articles of Confederation and instead Madison, Hamilton, and Jay decided to create an entirely new form of government.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Thanks for the negative rep Devnell. You are so gracious for giving me -20 rep points because you disagreed with me.

I want people to be able to see the depth of your intellectual reasoning, which is clearly evident in the automated pm.

Comment:
another moron? geesh, where do you all come from?


I was not rude to you. I entered the thread to have an honest civil debate. It appears you can't handle that.

Intellectual coward.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Thanks for the negative rep Devnell. You are so gracious for giving me -20 rep points because you disagreed with me.

I want people to be able to see the depth of your intellectual reasoning, which is clearly evident in the automated pm.

Comment:
another moron? geesh, where do you all come from?


I was not rude to you. I entered the thread to have an honest civil debate. It appears you can't handle that.

Intellectual coward.

Yeah, I got yer back.

I got one from Dev awhile back too, with almost the exact same PM. When I asked in-thread for Dev to point out what was moronic about my post, there was never any reply.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're simply playing with words now. The Constitution was designed to keep the states strong.

NOpe, NOT playing with words. Not at all.


What existed before the Constitution? Why was there a need to design constitution in the first place?

There wasn't. The mandate was to revise the Articles of Confederation and instead Madison, Hamilton, and Jay decided to create an entirely new form of government.

Why the mandate? Maybe because there was a need to redesign something? So there was a need to design something. Were the states weak? If not then how can you say there was a need to make the states strong?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Thanks for the negative rep Devnell. You are so gracious for giving me -20 rep points because you disagreed with me.

I want people to be able to see the depth of your intellectual reasoning, which is clearly evident in the automated pm.

Comment:
another moron? geesh, where do you all come from?


I was not rude to you. I entered the thread to have an honest civil debate. It appears you can't handle that.

Intellectual coward.

Yeah, I got yer back.

I got one from Dev awhile back too, with almost the exact same PM. When I asked in-thread for Dev to point out what was moronic about my post, there was never any reply.

Thanks radio. It is appreciated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks for the negative rep Devnell. You are so gracious for giving me -20 rep points because you disagreed with me.

I want people to be able to see the depth of your intellectual reasoning, which is clearly evident in the automated pm.

Comment:
another moron? geesh, where do you all come from?


I was not rude to you. I entered the thread to have an honest civil debate. It appears you can't handle that.

Intellectual coward.

grow up!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

NOpe, NOT playing with words. Not at all.


What existed before the Constitution? Why was there a need to design constitution in the first place?

There wasn't. The mandate was to revise the Articles of Confederation and instead Madison, Hamilton, and Jay decided to create an entirely new form of government.

Why the mandate? Maybe because there was a need to redesign something? So there was a need to design something. Were the states weak? If not then how can you say there was a need to make the states strong?

The mandate was because the states were resorting to protectionism against one another and this was seen as a problem so a special convention was called to revise the Articles, and authority was not given for the convention to completely scrap them and come up with the Constitution. The states were already strong, but the Constitution was meant to protect their sovereignty and independence while creating a stronger federal government than the Articles of Confederation had.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Thanks for the negative rep Devnell. You are so gracious for giving me -20 rep points because you disagreed with me.

I want people to be able to see the depth of your intellectual reasoning, which is clearly evident in the automated pm.

Comment:
another moron? geesh, where do you all come from?


I was not rude to you. I entered the thread to have an honest civil debate. It appears you can't handle that.

Intellectual coward.

grow up!

It is you that needs to grow up. Trying to debate you is a waste of time.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Oh looky:

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -20 reputation points from DevNell.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
asshole. talk about something else.

Regards,
DevNell

Seems that Dev doesn't like people talking about the cowardice that Dev displays on a regular basis.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I understand you must have had pressing business Dev, for you to sign off right away. No problem. We look forward to your replies next time you visit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There wasn't. The mandate was to revise the Articles of Confederation and instead Madison, Hamilton, and Jay decided to create an entirely new form of government.

Why the mandate? Maybe because there was a need to redesign something? So there was a need to design something. Were the states weak? If not then how can you say there was a need to make the states strong?

The mandate was because the states were resorting to protectionism against one another and this was seen as a problem so a special convention was called to revise the Articles, and authority was not given for the convention to completely scrap them and come up with the Constitution. The states were already strong, but the Constitution was meant to protect their sovereignty and independence while creating a stronger federal government than the Articles of Confederation had.

Why would people call to convene a convention to protect the sovereignty of states already exercising that very sovereignty in ways that weakened their....gulp..sovereignty?

Sovereign and independent states would form a weak coalition using your ideas. I would think it is implied that the very fact that a lose coalition had failed miserably (the Articles of Confederation) that a newer more stronger federation was in order.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks for the negative rep Devnell. You are so gracious for giving me -20 rep points because you disagreed with me.

I want people to be able to see the depth of your intellectual reasoning, which is clearly evident in the automated pm.

Comment:
another moron? geesh, where do you all come from?


I was not rude to you. I entered the thread to have an honest civil debate. It appears you can't handle that.

Intellectual coward.

grow up!

It is you that needs to grow up. Trying to debate you is a waste of time.

really? try to stop whining and maybe you'd have more time to do what it is you think passes for debate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh looky:

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -20 reputation points from DevNell.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
asshole. talk about something else.

Regards,
DevNell

Seems that Dev doesn't like people talking about the cowardice that Dev displays on a regular basis.

cowardice is highly underrated. it is an American tradition. just look at the facts of life. Was Nixon and Reagan cowards? Were not Cheney and the other chickenhawks cowards?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

grow up!

It is you that needs to grow up. Trying to debate you is a waste of time.

really? try to stop whining and maybe you'd have more time to do what it is you think passes for debate.

Yes, really. If you are going to accuse me of something, the least you could do is use the proper word in the proper context. According to the proper definition of whine, my posts does not resemble anything close to a whine.

Main Entry: 1whine
Pronunciation: \ˈhwīn, ˈwīn\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): whined; whin·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwīnan to whiz; akin to Old Norse hvīna to whiz
Date: 13th century

intransitive verb 1 a : to utter a high-pitched plaintive or distressed cry b : to make a sound similar to such a cry <the wind whined in the chimney>
2 : to complain with or as if with a whine <always whining about the weather>
3 : to move or proceed with the sound of a whine <the bullet whined…across the ice — Berton Roueché>transitive verb : to utter or express with or as if with a whine

— whin·er noun

— whin·ing·ly \&#712;hw&#299;-ni&#331;-l&#275;, &#712;w&#299;-\ adverb
Learn more about "whine" with Google Search:

All you have are insults to throw about. Facts would be good but it seems that is asking too much. Carry on with your insulting.