CDZ Why my beliefs may have changed

[Votto]

So yesterday I posted in a thread about hyper partisanship destroying us. I replied with something about John Adams and him being known as a "suppressor" because he signed a law that forbid negative talk towards the govt. His competition couldn't even point out his flaws..
Anyways, I didn't really know much about it beyond that so I started to read and think about it.. This is what started it..
Here is the law :Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison was still in his prime when this happened(wrote the first amendment). What did he think about it? The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, James Madison
I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Some things I wish weren't in there but they are and I accept that. They made that thing for a reason.. or did they? I mean, the SECOND President of our country shitting on our law like that? Don't get me wrong, I understand some things will take precedent over other things but you cant throw away the rule of law for what you think is better. If so, then whats the fuckin point? Why not just be a dictatorship? Whats the difference?
If someone was allowed to throw away the COTUS, shortly after its inception, that makes me question the integrity of the intent, honestly. The Federalists were on a decline so they shut everyone up.
That isn't America. That isn't our Constitutional Republic! Or is it?!

The Federalists were all about a large centralized government whom if you spoke out against them you would be imprisoned. They were the first thought police in America.

Why they later changed their name to the Democrat party remains but a mystery.

Actually no party ever changed its name to the "Democrat Party" -- that name has never existed.

The Federalists were about big strong he-man gummint, but they dried up. That banner was taken up by the Whigs, and when they dried up, it shifted to a new up-and-coming outfit called the Republican Party. Lincoln had been one. The Democrats at the time were the home of local power and "states rights". Reconstruction was all Big Gummint.

Break down and buy a history book one of these daze. Limblob ain't gonna cut it. All he cuts is da cheeze.

The irony here is that Jefferson started the Democrat party and opposed the Federalists.

Jefferson was all about limited government.

These power hungry collectivists never go away, they just keep changing their names.

First communist, then socialists, then liberals, then Progressives.

They are all collectivists, which is a disease in mankinds nature. There is no extinguishing it.

Jefferson didn't start the Democratic Party -- that would be Jackson (1828 -- after Jefferson was already dead). And again, there has never been a "Democrat Party". Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" Party isn't related to either of its modern namesakes.

Are you an immigrant here or what?

Is that what your conservative hating teachers taught you in school?

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became The Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

 

[Votto]

So yesterday I posted in a thread about hyper partisanship destroying us.

I missed that thread -- could you link it? TIA.

Hyper-Partisanship Is Destroying America | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The hyper-Partisan culture is an illusion.

Politicians must create such an atmosphere in order to survive.

After all, if you thought that whoever you voted for would treat everyone the same and treat them fairly, then you would never vote.

The key to politics is trying to vote for someone who will give you a leg up on your fellow citizen or fellow man while opposing those who would knock you down a peg or two. Then all of a sudden, you find yourself going door to door trying to get you politician elected.

The sad part is, the notion that these politicians are helping you is largely an illusion.

You will be fed a steady diet from Democrats that they are the poor folk representing poor folk and the GOP claims that they oppose collectivists who want to make everyone poor and equal, like most third world countries.

In the end, both are full of poo.

 

[Pogo]

So yesterday I posted in a thread about hyper partisanship destroying us. I replied with something about John Adams and him being known as a "suppressor" because he signed a law that forbid negative talk towards the govt. His competition couldn't even point out his flaws..
Anyways, I didn't really know much about it beyond that so I started to read and think about it.. This is what started it..
Here is the law :Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison was still in his prime when this happened(wrote the first amendment). What did he think about it? The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, James Madison
I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Some things I wish weren't in there but they are and I accept that. They made that thing for a reason.. or did they? I mean, the SECOND President of our country shitting on our law like that? Don't get me wrong, I understand some things will take precedent over other things but you cant throw away the rule of law for what you think is better. If so, then whats the fuckin point? Why not just be a dictatorship? Whats the difference?
If someone was allowed to throw away the COTUS, shortly after its inception, that makes me question the integrity of the intent, honestly. The Federalists were on a decline so they shut everyone up.
That isn't America. That isn't our Constitutional Republic! Or is it?!

The Federalists were all about a large centralized government whom if you spoke out against them you would be imprisoned. They were the first thought police in America.

Why they later changed their name to the Democrat party remains but a mystery.

Actually no party ever changed its name to the "Democrat Party" -- that name has never existed.

The Federalists were about big strong he-man gummint, but they dried up. That banner was taken up by the Whigs, and when they dried up, it shifted to a new up-and-coming outfit called the Republican Party. Lincoln had been one. The Democrats at the time were the home of local power and "states rights". Reconstruction was all Big Gummint.

Break down and buy a history book one of these daze. Limblob ain't gonna cut it. All he cuts is da cheeze.

The irony here is that Jefferson started the Democrat party and opposed the Federalists.

Jefferson was all about limited government.

These power hungry collectivists never go away, they just keep changing their names.

First communist, then socialists, then liberals, then Progressives.

They are all collectivists, which is a disease in mankinds nature. There is no extinguishing it.

Jefferson didn't start the Democratic Party -- that would be Jackson (1828 -- after Jefferson was already dead). And again, there has never been a "Democrat Party". Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" Party isn't related to either of its modern namesakes.

Are you an immigrant here or what?

Is that what your conservative hating teachers taught you in school?

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became The Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

-- and a "splinter" does not make a descendant. The modern Democratic Party sometimes claims that to make itself sound older, but it's not related to either.

And by the way --- nice link, not.

 

[Votto]

The Federalists were all about a large centralized government whom if you spoke out against them you would be imprisoned. They were the first thought police in America.

Why they later changed their name to the Democrat party remains but a mystery.

Actually no party ever changed its name to the "Democrat Party" -- that name has never existed.

The Federalists were about big strong he-man gummint, but they dried up. That banner was taken up by the Whigs, and when they dried up, it shifted to a new up-and-coming outfit called the Republican Party. Lincoln had been one. The Democrats at the time were the home of local power and "states rights". Reconstruction was all Big Gummint.

Break down and buy a history book one of these daze. Limblob ain't gonna cut it. All he cuts is da cheeze.

The irony here is that Jefferson started the Democrat party and opposed the Federalists.

Jefferson was all about limited government.

These power hungry collectivists never go away, they just keep changing their names.

First communist, then socialists, then liberals, then Progressives.

They are all collectivists, which is a disease in mankinds nature. There is no extinguishing it.

Jefferson didn't start the Democratic Party -- that would be Jackson (1828 -- after Jefferson was already dead). And again, there has never been a "Democrat Party". Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" Party isn't related to either of its modern namesakes.

Are you an immigrant here or what?

Is that what your conservative hating teachers taught you in school?

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became The Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

-- and a "splinter" does not make a descendant. The modern Democratic Party sometimes claims that to make itself sound older, but it's not related to either.

And by the way --- nice link, not.

Everything has a source, knowing it makes you smarter

 

[Pogo]

Actually no party ever changed its name to the "Democrat Party" -- that name has never existed.

The Federalists were about big strong he-man gummint, but they dried up. That banner was taken up by the Whigs, and when they dried up, it shifted to a new up-and-coming outfit called the Republican Party. Lincoln had been one. The Democrats at the time were the home of local power and "states rights". Reconstruction was all Big Gummint.

Break down and buy a history book one of these daze. Limblob ain't gonna cut it. All he cuts is da cheeze.

The irony here is that Jefferson started the Democrat party and opposed the Federalists.

Jefferson was all about limited government.

These power hungry collectivists never go away, they just keep changing their names.

First communist, then socialists, then liberals, then Progressives.

They are all collectivists, which is a disease in mankinds nature. There is no extinguishing it.

Jefferson didn't start the Democratic Party -- that would be Jackson (1828 -- after Jefferson was already dead). And again, there has never been a "Democrat Party". Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" Party isn't related to either of its modern namesakes.

Are you an immigrant here or what?

Is that what your conservative hating teachers taught you in school?

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became The Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

-- and a "splinter" does not make a descendant. The modern Democratic Party sometimes claims that to make itself sound older, but it's not related to either.

And by the way --- nice link, not.

Everything has a source, knowing it makes you smarter

And linking it might make it legitimate.
Or not.

 

[Votto]

The irony here is that Jefferson started the Democrat party and opposed the Federalists.

Jefferson was all about limited government.

These power hungry collectivists never go away, they just keep changing their names.

First communist, then socialists, then liberals, then Progressives.

They are all collectivists, which is a disease in mankinds nature. There is no extinguishing it.

Jefferson didn't start the Democratic Party -- that would be Jackson (1828 -- after Jefferson was already dead). And again, there has never been a "Democrat Party". Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" Party isn't related to either of its modern namesakes.

Are you an immigrant here or what?

Is that what your conservative hating teachers taught you in school?

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became The Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

-- and a "splinter" does not make a descendant. The modern Democratic Party sometimes claims that to make itself sound older, but it's not related to either.

And by the way --- nice link, not.

Everything has a source, knowing it makes you smarter

And linking it might make it legitimate.
Or not.

Can you not corraborate yourself?

I shy away linking any web sites that may counter your belief system, cuz if they do they are obviously uncredible.

 

[Pogo]

Jefferson didn't start the Democratic Party -- that would be Jackson (1828 -- after Jefferson was already dead). And again, there has never been a "Democrat Party". Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" Party isn't related to either of its modern namesakes.

Are you an immigrant here or what?

Is that what your conservative hating teachers taught you in school?

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became The Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

-- and a "splinter" does not make a descendant. The modern Democratic Party sometimes claims that to make itself sound older, but it's not related to either.

And by the way --- nice link, not.

Everything has a source, knowing it makes you smarter

And linking it might make it legitimate.
Or not.

Can you not corraborate yourself?

I shy away linking any web sites that may counter your belief system, cuz if they do they are obviously uncredible.

All righty then --

>> the modern-day Democratic Party was founded around 1828, making it the world's oldest active party.[8]
<< (Wikilink)

--- Sorry, no results found for "Democrat Party". Does not exist. But hey, if you can't even get the name right, yer not gonna find much to go on.

 

[Votto]

Is that what your conservative hating teachers taught you in school?

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians typically use the title "Republican Party". It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his friend James Madison in 1791–93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton.[2] The new party controlled the presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1825, during the First Party System. Starting about 1791 one faction in Congress, many of whom had been opposed to the new Constitution, began calling themselves Republicans in the Second United States Congress. It splintered in 1824 into the Jacksonian movement (which became The Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party).

-- and a "splinter" does not make a descendant. The modern Democratic Party sometimes claims that to make itself sound older, but it's not related to either.

And by the way --- nice link, not.

Everything has a source, knowing it makes you smarter

And linking it might make it legitimate.
Or not.

Can you not corraborate yourself?

I shy away linking any web sites that may counter your belief system, cuz if they do they are obviously uncredible.

All righty then --

>> the modern-day Democratic Party was founded around 1828, making it the world's oldest active party.[8]
<< (Wikilink)

--- Sorry, no results found for "Democrat Party". Does not exist. But hey, if you can't even get the name right, yer not gonna find much to go on.

For everyone else

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

-- and a "splinter" does not make a descendant. The modern Democratic Party sometimes claims that to make itself sound older, but it's not related to either.

And by the way --- nice link, not.

Everything has a source, knowing it makes you smarter

And linking it might make it legitimate.
Or not.

Can you not corraborate yourself?

I shy away linking any web sites that may counter your belief system, cuz if they do they are obviously uncredible.

All righty then --

>> the modern-day Democratic Party was founded around 1828, making it the world's oldest active party.[8]
<< (Wikilink)

--- Sorry, no results found for "Democrat Party". Does not exist. But hey, if you can't even get the name right, yer not gonna find much to go on.

For everyone else

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's exactly the same link I just posted.
It's really not necessary to post "Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia". I think we all know what Wiki is by now.

 

[depotoo]

He did what he wanted, Constitution be damned...

So yesterday I posted in a thread about hyper partisanship destroying us. I replied with something about John Adams and him being known as a "suppressor" because he signed a law that forbid negative talk towards the govt. His competition couldn't even point out his flaws..
Anyways, I didn't really know much about it beyond that so I started to read and think about it.. This is what started it..
Here is the law :Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison was still in his prime when this happened(wrote the first amendment). What did he think about it? The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, James Madison
I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Some things I wish weren't in there but they are and I accept that. They made that thing for a reason.. or did they? I mean, the SECOND President of our country shitting on our law like that? Don't get me wrong, I understand some things will take precedent over other things but you cant throw away the rule of law for what you think is better. If so, then whats the fuckin point? Why not just be a dictatorship? Whats the difference?
If someone was allowed to throw away the COTUS, shortly after its inception, that makes me question the integrity of the intent, honestly. The Federalists were on a decline so they shut everyone up.
That isn't America. That isn't our Constitutional Republic! Or is it?!

The Federalists were all about a large centralized government whom if you spoke out against them you would be imprisoned. They were the first thought police in America.

Why they later changed their name to the Democrat party remains but a mystery.

Actually no party ever changed its name to the "Democrat Party" -- that name has never existed.

The Federalists were about big strong he-man gummint, but they dried up. That banner was taken up by the Whigs, and when they dried up, it shifted to a new up-and-coming outfit called the Republican Party. Lincoln had been one. The Democrats at the time were the home of local power and "states rights". Reconstruction was all Big Gummint.

Break down and buy a history book one of these daze. Limblob ain't gonna cut it. All he cuts is da cheeze.

 

[Ravi]

So yesterday I posted in a thread about hyper partisanship destroying us. I replied with something about John Adams and him being known as a "suppressor" because he signed a law that forbid negative talk towards the govt. His competition couldn't even point out his flaws..
Anyways, I didn't really know much about it beyond that so I started to read and think about it.. This is what started it..
Here is the law :Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison was still in his prime when this happened(wrote the first amendment). What did he think about it? The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, James Madison
I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Some things I wish weren't in there but they are and I accept that. They made that thing for a reason.. or did they? I mean, the SECOND President of our country shitting on our law like that? Don't get me wrong, I understand some things will take precedent over other things but you cant throw away the rule of law for what you think is better. If so, then whats the fuckin point? Why not just be a dictatorship? Whats the difference?
If someone was allowed to throw away the COTUS, shortly after its inception, that makes me question the integrity of the intent, honestly. The Federalists were on a decline so they shut everyone up.
That isn't America. That isn't our Constitutional Republic! Or is it?!

props to you for doing your own research

 

[Elvis Obama]

So yesterday I posted in a thread about hyper partisanship destroying us. I replied with something about John Adams and him being known as a "suppressor" because he signed a law that forbid negative talk towards the govt. His competition couldn't even point out his flaws..
Anyways, I didn't really know much about it beyond that so I started to read and think about it.. This is what started it..
Here is the law :Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison was still in his prime when this happened(wrote the first amendment). What did he think about it? The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, James Madison
I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Some things I wish weren't in there but they are and I accept that. They made that thing for a reason.. or did they? I mean, the SECOND President of our country shitting on our law like that? Don't get me wrong, I understand some things will take precedent over other things but you cant throw away the rule of law for what you think is better. If so, then whats the fuckin point? Why not just be a dictatorship? Whats the difference?
If someone was allowed to throw away the COTUS, shortly after its inception, that makes me question the integrity of the intent, honestly. The Federalists were on a decline so they shut everyone up.
That isn't America. That isn't our Constitutional Republic! Or is it?!

Sure it is.

"Some things I wish weren't in there but they are and I accept that. "
Why should you accept anything in the Constitution on face value? That's religion, not government. If we wanted to we could call for a new Constitutional Convention and rewrite the whole thing. The FFs made the Constitution amendable because they knew they couldn't write a document that would anticipate all the changes that the passage of time would bring about.

The Constitution does not spell out a great many things that have come to be accepted. These things were power grabs. Marbury v Madison was a power grab between the three branches of government. SCOTUS became more powerful as a result. There is also a constant battle for power between the states and the federal government. The war powers act was supposed to make Congress more powerful. How many times has it been fudged? Why? Because with power comes responsibility and accountability, and the Congress is too cowardly to use the power they sought. Advantage, executive branch.

The Alien & Sedition Acts were a power grab that failed. It backfired. It was a failure, both strategically and philosophically. The FFs were great men, but they weren't saints. They wore many hats, and one of them was politician. You should never, ever, trust a politician. One of the jobs of an American citizen is to watch those people like a hawk.

 

[TNHarley]

Good post!

 

[Elvis Obama]

So Elvis Obama is your sock account?

What?

Nevermind, I thought you said that you posted the thread, you just responded to it.

Do you ever make a point? Or is this it? Sock puppet. Thousands and thousands of completely empty posts.

Good post!

May I ask why you posted this thread in this forum, rather than the main forum?

 

[Picaro]

So yesterday I posted in a thread about hyper partisanship destroying us. I replied with something about John Adams and him being known as a "suppressor" because he signed a law that forbid negative talk towards the govt. His competition couldn't even point out his flaws..
Anyways, I didn't really know much about it beyond that so I started to read and think about it.. This is what started it..
Here is the law :Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison was still in his prime when this happened(wrote the first amendment). What did he think about it? The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, James Madison
I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Some things I wish weren't in there but they are and I accept that. They made that thing for a reason.. or did they? I mean, the SECOND President of our country shitting on our law like that? Don't get me wrong, I understand some things will take precedent over other things but you cant throw away the rule of law for what you think is better. If so, then whats the fuckin point? Why not just be a dictatorship? Whats the difference?
If someone was allowed to throw away the COTUS, shortly after its inception, that makes me question the integrity of the intent, honestly. The Federalists were on a decline so they shut everyone up.
That isn't America. That isn't our Constitutional Republic! Or is it?!

It's a mistake to view the philosophies and moral views of people in that era through a modern lense. Their seeming contradictions are only apparent. It's better to try and look at them as part of an ongoing social and cultural evolutionary process, i.e. from past to present rather than from present to past. Modern people assume a moral and intellectual superiority over people in the past they don't actually have and didn't earn.

My favorite take on the study of history:

"And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play?" -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

 

[Picaro]

Some might like to read this compilation, a sort of 'diary' of the Constitutional Convention, or at least download it to have around. It might enlighten some, annoy others.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 1 - Online Library of Liberty

If the link doesn't work for you, it's to this, and may be over at archive.org as well, I don't know.

Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 1 [1911]
Part of:

• 
  
  
  • The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 3vols.
  
  

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't get the use of the term "believe in" when discussing the constitution. It's not a belief system. It's a legal system.

That said....the system is not infallible nor was it ever envisioned as such.