Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Mason University, Much More Than Basketball
FoxNews ^ | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 | Radley Balko

Posted on 03/30/2006 1:30:33 PM PST by elc

The George Mason University basketball team's ascendance to the NCAA Final Four this weekend may well be remembered as the most improbable run in the college basketball tournament's history.

Only one other eleventh-seeded team has made the Final Four. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a school with so low a profile and from so small a conference to have made it through the tournament's first two weekends.

In addition to the great basketball the team has given us (the Connecticut game was in instant classic), it would also be nice to see the school's success inspire some discussion about its namesake. Few people know much about George Mason. In fact, even GMU point guard Tony Skinn, asked about Mason, told the Houston Chronicle, "I heard somebody say he was President, but I know that's not true. Did he sign the Constitution? I have no clue."

Mason was never president. Nor did he sign the Constitution. But he was enormously influential in helping craft it. In fact, George Mason was probably early America's most eloquent defender of individual liberty. Principled and uncompromising, Mason was a man who loathed politics but understood the urgency of the times in which he lived, and engaged in politics to help ensure his new country put a premium on freedom.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; basketball; founders; foundingfathers; georgemason; gmu; highereducation; lsuwillwinitall; ncaa; virginiahistory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 03/30/2006 1:30:36 PM PST by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: elc
Mason was one of the 55 men who wrote the Constitution but also one of the 13 who would not sign it because of the 3/5ths clause. That my friends is principal.
2 posted on 03/30/2006 1:32:01 PM PST by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
That my friends is principal.

No, that is principle.

3 posted on 03/30/2006 1:34:12 PM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elc

Doesn't Walter Williams teach there?


4 posted on 03/30/2006 1:34:51 PM PST by Crawdad (So the guy says to the doctor, "It hurts when I do this.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
Principal...


5 posted on 03/30/2006 1:35:58 PM PST by socal_parrot (Pass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
Actually, as the article goes on to explain, his biggest beef with the Constitution (and the ONLY beef for which he REFUSED to sign it) was the fact that there was no enumerated Bill of Rights! This is quite understandable, considering he practically invented the construct!

The notion that he somehow refused to sign it because of slavery is patently dishonest, and vastly overlooks the true legacy he left us (namely, strict constructionism).

6 posted on 03/30/2006 1:39:31 PM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elc

Gator Bait


7 posted on 03/30/2006 1:41:50 PM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

IMO, I'd say they are both accurate descriptions of why he didn't sign it. I wouldn't make the argument that it was one reason over the other, but after disagreeing with the 3/5ths compromise, the lack of a Bill of Rights was the nail in the coffin for him.


8 posted on 03/30/2006 1:42:20 PM PST by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

Geaux Gators Geaux Tigers , I am sorry so say but the slipper is about to come off this story


9 posted on 03/30/2006 1:42:56 PM PST by catholicfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crawdad

Don't know actually. I go to the campus in Arlington, and if they don't teach in the School of Public Policy, I wouldn't know them.


10 posted on 03/30/2006 1:43:09 PM PST by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Crawdad

I want George Mason to win just because I love Walter Williams so much. Yes, he is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason.


11 posted on 03/30/2006 1:43:56 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The purpose of this forum is to fight socialism (see FR homepage), not to defend Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

Oh it's great to be a Gator hater...

I don't follow basketball, but I'm definitely pulling for GMU here for 2 reasons:

1) I'm a part-time GMU grad student
2) I did my undergrad at FSU


12 posted on 03/30/2006 1:45:14 PM PST by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elc
Bad Headline ~ at the moment GMU IS basketball.

Did you see how the most rabid fans stood there politely and applauded their team's efforts?

Bet ya don't see that every day.

And the fans themselves? You can't take a picture of a group of GMU basketball fans without also taking a picture of every major type of human being on the planet, or member of a major world religion.

GME is like Fairfax county ~ everybody is here ~ everybody! My little neighborhood of but 110 homes has residents from 35 nations.

We have a grade-school around here not too far away with kids whose parents hale from 112 nations, not counting tribal groups at all.

13 posted on 03/30/2006 1:48:21 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
I want George Mason to win just because I love Walter Williams so much. Yes, he is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason.

Same here. I've never followed college basketball much, but I began pulling for George Mason after reading the profile in National Review a few issues back (I'd link to the article but it's only in the print version).

14 posted on 03/30/2006 1:50:44 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elc
Check out Elliot's Debates, the de-facto record of the Constitutional Convention. According to a brief scan of the indices,

Volume 5: MASON, GEORGE. ... Thinks that blacks should, in justice, be counted equally in proportioning representation, but will not insist on it, 302.

By that description alone, it doesn't sound like he's all that upset by it. Instead, he argues a lot over navigational rights, the establishment of courts, the proper jurisdiction of Federal laws, and the like, but he doesn't seem to advocate very strongly for the removal of the three-fifths compromise.

15 posted on 03/30/2006 1:51:13 PM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT
Oops, that link should be:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html

16 posted on 03/30/2006 1:52:23 PM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

Thanks. I'll have a read over it tomorrow.


17 posted on 03/30/2006 1:54:46 PM PST by elc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

"recognized the absurdity of a country founded on individual rights giving a de facto imprimatur to slavery in its founding and governing document." Maybe not because of slavery specifically, but rather any one of a number of practices contrary to the original document being left legal in the US despite the document.


18 posted on 03/30/2006 1:56:23 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elc
No problem! Please don't take my testiness on the topic personally, by the way. I'm not irritated at you in the least, but rather at our tendency in modern society to rewrite history to "fit" modern political ideals. If there's no direct evidence for the assertion that "Mason didn't sign the Constitution because he didn't like slavery," what valid reason would anyone have to make that statement?

I'm gonna scour through the Virginia debates over the ratification of the Constitution as well—Geo. Mason was very vocal in the General Assembly on the rejection of the Constitution, as I recall, so hopefully his words there will shed more light on the topic. Perhaps I stand to be corrected on that evidence... we shall see.

Regards,
~dt~

19 posted on 03/30/2006 1:58:01 PM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CIDKauf
Are you familiar with one of the practices in particular that he spoke of?

One that I've seen is his insistance that the new Federal government not be a "Confederation," but rather assume the form of a "National" government. Perhaps this is one of those things he was concerned about being "left legal?"

Regards,
~dt~

20 posted on 03/30/2006 2:00:13 PM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson