[Publius]

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1

[hosepipe]

To change or diminish the Constitution you must first Dumb Down the populace..
Then, "they" don't even know or care that its been or is being changed..

1) take civics and american history out of school curriculum.. and/or make it elective..
2) hijack teaching and journalism school administration..

** after that is done.. the weight of those changes will squash any dissent..

[zeugma]

BFL

[zeugma]

BFL

[Billthedrill]

One bump for the afternoon crowd.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening. T'is cold outside. And getting colder. I'm so done with winter.

Yes, many on this forum know where I live, and would probably say, quit your belly aching. Especially, if they couldn't dig out the drive way.

That a Constitution for the United States does not require a bill of rights, when it is considered that a constitution for an individual state would, I cannot conceive.

Many of the Founders debated this point. Actually, it's still being debated today...even with the incorporation of the BOR, and state constitutions.

To tell the truth, I'm surprised we have had only one Revolution and one "Civil" war to date.

5.56mm

[whodathunkit]

Discussion Topics

•At 23 through 27,... DeWitt insists on nailing down the specific language now before those favoring more flexible language deploy the weasel words. This is a New England attorney pointing out that the reputation of the great men at the Convention does not necessarily justify a quick decision without thorough consideration. How correct was he? Was his suspicion justified, and why?

I wonder if he had ever been involved in taking a deposition that was sidetracked by trying to parse the word 'is'. He was correct in his understanding that, although the authors were men of honor, it would be incorrect to assume that future office holders would be of the same caliber.

•At 37 through 50, there is the bill of particulars that reads like an indictment or a plaintiff’s list for causes of action. One can imagine proponents of the Constitution reading this text and squirming. Taking these points as particulars, to what degree was DeWitt right or wrong?

I would like to make an observation at this point. The discussion is about the origin of our Constitution and also the implementation of it. Form and function if I may borrow from an earlier chapter. I find it somewhat difficult to separate the two in order to analyze the pertinent points being made. We have the advantage of over two hundred years of hindsight, the effect is sure to skew our perspective. These men, if they somehow appeared today, might not be as quick to condemn our current form of government, instead looking to the failure of 'We the People' to pursue the 'perfection of government'. Their assumption seems to be that it is human nature to want to control your own life. Observation of todays society seems to show that people are more interested in controlling others than themselves.

[Billthedrill]

And a BTT for the evening crowd as well.

[Bigun]

At 23 through 27, the New England lawyer emerges. In the South, a man’s word and reputation were his bond, but New Englanders had a long and honored tradition of written contracts, and Massachusetts was the home of the written contract. DeWitt insists on nailing down the specific language now before those favoring more flexible language deploy the weasel words. This is a New England attorney pointing out that the reputation of the great men at the Convention does not necessarily justify a quick decision without thorough consideration. How correct was he? Was his suspicion justified, and why?

He was entirely correct and we should have listened to him! Why? For the very reasons you pointed out with this:

Thus began a whole argument which, to a certain extent, was bogus. Few took the side of loose construction versus strict construction on the basis of high principle. It was always based on a specific issue, and politicians would cross from the one side to the other in a manner than was perfectly hypocritical – and with straight faces and protestations of innocence. What developed over time was the belief that is was easier to read something into the Constitution than to amend it. Thus was born, even at this early date, the concept of the Living Constitution.

WE the unwashed need to insist upon one more amendment to the Constitution which says something to the effect that there are no "implied" powers and strict construction based on the plain language of the document itself is required in ALL cases.

[Bigun]

In 1939, the Supreme Court heard Coleman v. Miller, a case involving a constitutional irregularity in the Kansas Legislature, and it had the opportunity to address the events of 1867. The Court decided to keep that can of worms welded firmly shut.

And we the people need to cut open that can and settle the issues therein once and for all or our great republic is done for!

[JDoutrider]

Missed this yesterday, Thanks for the Ping!