"We The People of the ...

[Meister]

United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let's consider the Sen. minority leader Mitch McConnell actions and comport them with the vision of our founders in several respects:

1. Has he worked toward making our nation a more perfect union, or has he worked to divide us?

2. He has worked to blocked all nominations by the President to fill the open seats of the judiciary.

3. Has his language in hoping the President of the United States twice elected by the people fails insured tranquility?

We might ask the same question of Speaker Boehner.

4. Has his efforts to derail the PPACA protected our citizens from disease?

5, Does he work to promote the General Welfare of all of us citizens, or is he focused only on those who 'donate' to the Republican Party?

6. As for liberty, what has he done to protect the freedom and liberty of anyone, except of course for those who own guns.

Shoulda hired an editor to peruse that before making it official. "...more perfect union..." Can't have something be 'more perfect.'

Perfect for who, government or its citizens?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm pointing out how far we've come from those founding principles you mentioned in your OP. The anti-federalists have been completely vindicated

The anti-federalists were instrumental in bringing the Bill of Rights to the table, but to suggest anymore is a reach. They were an 'ad hoc' collection opposed to a strong federal government and later many joined with Jefferson in the new Democratic-Republican Party.

I didn't know they needed to be vindicated, since for once you seem normal, I appreciate a non idiotgram. Tell me more why you think (that's a complement) the anti-federalist were maligned.

BTW, you know that the author of the Preamble was a strong centrist, even called a Monarchist by some. Yet his words were ratified, a couple of years before the Bill of Rights were.

The fear of the anti-Federalists was that eventually a central government would usurp them and tilt power away from the sovereign States and toward the central government. Life in America today vindicates their fears about giving the Central government too much power.

I watched the show "Sleepy Hollow" where Icahabod Crane wakes up after 250 years and I find it amusing that all he complained about was the 8% tax on a $4.50 Starbucks Latte. Wait until he finds out he has to sign up for ObamaCare

Anyone who pays for $4.50 for a latte and complains about the tax is strange indeed. Coffee will be pissed out in less than a day. $4.50 a day for a latte is $135.00 per month, pissed away - me, I'd rather pay for health care for my family.

Without the Federal Gov't IKE wouldn't have sent the troops to Arkansas and Brown v. Board of Ed. wouldn't be law. Notwithstanding it was the right thing to do, our nation would have no moral authority (if we ever did) had we continued separate but equal and allowed Jim Crow Laws to stand.

The hypocrisy on the right can never stand up to the light. The far right wants to pass an amendment to our Constitution taking away the right to marry by gays and lesbians, yet oppose any intervention by the Federal Government on issues such as civil and voting rights.

 

[Meister]

The anti-federalists were instrumental in bringing the Bill of Rights to the table, but to suggest anymore is a reach. They were an 'ad hoc' collection opposed to a strong federal government and later many joined with Jefferson in the new Democratic-Republican Party.

I didn't know they needed to be vindicated, since for once you seem normal, I appreciate a non idiotgram. Tell me more why you think (that's a complement) the anti-federalist were maligned.

BTW, you know that the author of the Preamble was a strong centrist, even called a Monarchist by some. Yet his words were ratified, a couple of years before the Bill of Rights were.

The fear of the anti-Federalists was that eventually a central government would usurp them and tilt power away from the sovereign States and toward the central government. Life in America today vindicates their fears about giving the Central government too much power.

I watched the show "Sleepy Hollow" where Icahabod Crane wakes up after 250 years and I find it amusing that all he complained about was the 8% tax on a $4.50 Starbucks Latte. Wait until he finds out he has to sign up for ObamaCare

Anyone who pays for $4.50 for a latte and complains about the tax is strange indeed. Coffee will be pissed out in less than a day. $4.50 a day for a latte is $135.00 per month, pissed away - me, I'd rather pay for health care for my family.

Without the Federal Gov't IKE wouldn't have sent the troops to Arkansas and Brown v. Board of Ed. wouldn't be law. Notwithstanding it was the right thing to do, our nation would have no moral authority (if we ever did) had we continued separate but equal and allowed Jim Crow Laws to stand.

The hypocrisy on the right can never stand up to the light. The far right wants to pass an amendment to our Constitution taking away the right to marry by gays and lesbians, yet oppose any intervention by the Federal Government on issues such as civil and voting rights.

Good grief.
The right wants the states to handle the marriage issue.
The left wants the feds to overturn what the states voted on with the marriage issue.

Wry, you being in Ca. know this.....why are you being disingenuous?

 

[Wry Catcher]

United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let's consider the Sen. minority leader Mitch McConnell actions and comport them with the vision of our founders in several respects:

1. Has he worked toward making our nation a more perfect union, or has he worked to divide us?

2. He has worked to blocked all nominations by the President to fill the open seats of the judiciary.

3. Has his language in hoping the President of the United States twice elected by the people fails insured tranquility?

We might ask the same question of Speaker Boehner.

4. Has his efforts to derail the PPACA protected our citizens from disease?

5, Does he work to promote the General Welfare of all of us citizens, or is he focused only on those who 'donate' to the Republican Party?

6. As for liberty, what has he done to protect the freedom and liberty of anyone, except of course for those who own guns.

Shoulda hired an editor to peruse that before making it official. "...more perfect union..." Can't have something be 'more perfect.'

Perfect for who, government or its citizens?

At first glance and without thinking your observation seems proper (for a grammar/syntax Nazi). However, consider glues, they held things together for a time, but modern glues make bonding more perfect, for they are stronger and longer lasting.

Analogous to the Preamble? I guess that's up to each of us. I suggest it is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The fear of the anti-Federalists was that eventually a central government would usurp them and tilt power away from the sovereign States and toward the central government. Life in America today vindicates their fears about giving the Central government too much power.

I watched the show "Sleepy Hollow" where Icahabod Crane wakes up after 250 years and I find it amusing that all he complained about was the 8% tax on a $4.50 Starbucks Latte. Wait until he finds out he has to sign up for ObamaCare

Anyone who pays for $4.50 for a latte and complains about the tax is strange indeed. Coffee will be pissed out in less than a day. $4.50 a day for a latte is $135.00 per month, pissed away - me, I'd rather pay for health care for my family.

Without the Federal Gov't IKE wouldn't have sent the troops to Arkansas and Brown v. Board of Ed. wouldn't be law. Notwithstanding it was the right thing to do, our nation would have no moral authority (if we ever did) had we continued separate but equal and allowed Jim Crow Laws to stand.

The hypocrisy on the right can never stand up to the light. The far right wants to pass an amendment to our Constitution taking away the right to marry by gays and lesbians, yet oppose any intervention by the Federal Government on issues such as civil and voting rights.

Good grief.
The right wants the states to handle the marriage issue.
The left wants the feds to overturn what the states voted on with the marriage issue.

Wry, you being in Ca. know this.....why are you being disingenuous?

Good point, bad example. Mea culpa.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I highly recommend reading beyond the first paragraph. It might profit you to understand how our Founders set up the Federal government, what they authorized it to do, and what authority they specifically denied it and held it reserve for the states and the individuals.

I have, but I haven't read it with the eyes of an 18th Century citizen, I read it with the eyes of a citizen who lived during the second half of the 20th Century and all of the 21st with a good idea of the history of all of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries.

Because if you do, I think it will be obvious that neither Republicans nor Democrats are following the Constitution as they swore they would. And you probably would be much wiser than you currently are.

I doubt I would be wiser if I read again the body of the Constitution with the myopia of those who believe the founders and signers of this great document were prescient.