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

Hamilton is so focused on the beauty of his new Constitution that he does not fully consider the dangers that would rise from the document's ambiguities. But he was correct in his assertion that the Bill of Rights would provide a foundation for rights not granted.
1 posted on 07/30/2009 5:02:28 AM PDT by Loud Mime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Loud Mime
But he was correct in his assertion that the Bill of Rights would provide a foundation for rights not granted.

The government does not grant rights. It recognizes them.

2 posted on 07/30/2009 5:07:47 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Vision; definitelynotaliberal; Mother Mary; FoxInSocks; 300magnum; NonValueAdded; sauropod; ...

Ping

When liberals claim they have a right to health care from the federal government, cite Federalist 84 and watch the deer in the headlights.


3 posted on 07/30/2009 5:08:36 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Change over to the F-Bulbs- Enjoy the toxins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime

Anytime I discuss the first ten amendments to the Constitution, I always refer to them as the “Bill of Prohibitions”. As correctly stated above, no government can grant rights. Governments often do their best to suppress natural rights, and the “Bill of Prohibitions” lists rights that our government is specifically prohibited from trampling upon.

I’d never thought about the dangers of specifically listing these prohibitions, but then again, I’m constantly amazed at how timeless the thoughts and actions of our founders were.


5 posted on 07/30/2009 5:23:21 AM PDT by ConservativeAtLast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime

If we had followed the Constitution any of our present socialists laws would of had to be done by amendment. How far Commie would we of gone if all this crap had to be ratified by 2/3 of State legislatures. No we had a good system. Unfortunatly it is history. None of this Communism would be possible if we had of stayed with the us Constitution. We are going to pay a terrible price. There is no good outcome possible at this point.


6 posted on 07/30/2009 5:23:53 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime

The Ninth and Tenth SHOULD have covered everything he was worried about.

Notice something in the present debates over health care and cap & tax -

NO ONE is arguing that the fedgov is not Constitutionally authorized to do these things. It’s as if the Constitution is now a dead letter... which, indeed, it is in the minds of the statists.


8 posted on 07/30/2009 5:32:21 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime

I’ve given this a lot of thought over the years, and I’ve concluded that we were screwed either way. The only safeguard against the gubmint is a populace that jealously and vigilantly guards and preserves its own freedom. Short of that, scheming politicians, lawyers, and thieves will always find a way to have their way.


10 posted on 07/30/2009 5:34:28 AM PDT by Huck ("He that lives on hope will die fasting"- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...
It appears some here need a refresher on the Constitution, folks



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
13 posted on 07/30/2009 5:37:30 AM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime
BFL. The Federalists were right when they claimed that by listing a subset of rights specifically to be guaranteed, that some would later claim that anything not listed is not a "right". (See some so-called 'conservatives' that argue against us having a right to privacy simply because the specific right isn't enumerated - even though the 4th and 5th certainly imply such a right) At the same time, You merely need look at Britain and Canada to see what happens when you don't specifically enumerate at least some rights. They have seriously discussed banning kitchen knives in Britain.
33 posted on 07/30/2009 8:12:57 AM PDT by zeugma (Will it be nukes or aliens? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98HxYbsdBM

everyone should watch this video

A soldier is telling his senator he wants an apology for supporting the health care bill.

he knows his stuff.

God bless this guy


36 posted on 07/30/2009 9:12:14 AM PDT by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime
I'm a Hamiltonian, but I have to admit that one of his reasons for opposing the Bill of Rights (they're not necessary because the Constitution doesn't expressly provide for the violation of anyone's rights) is specious, since he didn't believe in strict construction.

However, the other reason--a foundation for other rights--is right on target. An enumeration of rights could not but eventually be interpreted as a granting of rights, and if government grants these rights, why not more?

Plus the "Bill of Rights" has been for about sixty years or so the number one excuse for centralizing all power in the Federal Government--specifically the US Supreme Court, allowing it to sit in judgment on ever local ordinance in the country. And conservatives are at fault as well as liberals (though not so egregiously). But if a high school principal is "violating the First Amendment" by censoring the "f-word" out of a student newspaper, of course universities are "violating the First Amendment" by enacting speech codes. In other words, only the Federal Government can violate the "Bill of Rights." Conservatives who want to apply them to universities are as wrong as liberals who want to apply them to high school football prayers.

We'd have been much better off without a "Bill of Rights."

37 posted on 07/30/2009 9:23:46 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Ani hagever ra'ah `ani, beshevet `evrato!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Loud Mime

Hamilton was right on many points. He was wrong on some too. There has yet to be a man since Jesus who was always right.


45 posted on 07/30/2009 11:18:02 AM PDT by Danae (I AM JIM THOMPSON - Conservative does not equal Republican. Conservative does not compromise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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