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

Skip to comments.

Trashing the Constitution
FAME (Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education) ^ | 6-16-03 | Edwin Vieira

Posted on 06/16/2003 2:08:01 PM PDT by Misterioso

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: Jason_b
You are misreading Article 1 Section 10. Try again.
61 posted on 06/17/2003 10:04:33 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Very few are capable of understanding the constitution. Even a lifetime of effort is some times insufficient. Where do you see these people capable of such sustained intellectual endeavors? Where were they ever? Why are they incapable of understanding anything else of such complexity?

Being to read the words does not mean one can understand what they are saying. Like a great poem by Shakespeare there is a wealth of meaning in the simple words and phrases little of which is gleaned by an ordinary reader.

In fact, I would wager that a good punishment for most of our fellow Americans would be to force them to read the constitution. They would claim to do so would be unConstitutional itself.
62 posted on 06/17/2003 10:11:42 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Oh, yeah. Patrick Henry and Roger Sherman vs. Alexander Hamilton, George WAshington, Madison, Wilson, Marshall and Adams. Sorry I go with the latter bunch when it comes to wisdom. The State hacks opposing them to protect their petty fiefdoms don't measure up in any degree.
63 posted on 06/17/2003 10:17:06 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
The Constitution was not created to "limit government" at least not the federal government. It was created to protect property rights and make a more perfect Union by limiting the power of the State governments. The government flowing from it was a limited government but it was designed to be stronger than the far more limited government of the Confederation. It was designed to draw governmental power from the States to the federal government. This is why the leaders of the State political machines like NY under Clinton, Virginia under Henry, Mass. under Sam Adams and Hancock were opposed to it. Not for any real principle (though these were pretended to) but because it would diminish THEIR power.

But you are right in that the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper and without the moral people it cannot stand. Hamilton noted this on many occasions and was one of the reasons he doubted its ability to be maintained having witnessed the accession to power of the demagogic democrat-republicans through a campaign of Lies and deception.
64 posted on 06/17/2003 10:27:14 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
Bump for a later long read.
65 posted on 06/17/2003 10:31:49 AM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I can see why someone would think I am an anti-Federalist from my replies above but I'm not. Merely pointing out that Federalists were naive in believing a Bill of Rights would protect states and citizens from the Federal government for very long. Or maybe they were not naive. They knew but there was no other reasonable alternative. What ever the case, the fears of the anti-Federalists have proven to be well founded.

I do have a hidden motive here. Libertarians and some conservatives like to scurry down into their "Where is that in the Constitution?" burrow when the debate is at its best. Flushing them out by suggesting their beloved Jefferson and Constitution were flawed is fun.

66 posted on 06/17/2003 10:41:31 AM PDT by DPB101 ("I confess that through most of my childhood I was in a fog."--Don "Pinch" Sulzberger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
bump fer later
67 posted on 06/17/2003 11:38:24 AM PDT by jmc813 (After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Actually it was the anti-Federalists who thought the BoR important and fought ratification because of the lack of one in the constitution. Federalists like Madison (at the time) and Hamilton both thought the BoR irrelevent since the constitution did not give the federal government the power to attack those rights in the first place. But they agreed to have it included by amendment after ratification.

I do not agree that the anti-Federalists were correct about anything and much of their writing against it is sheer rubbish. A.f.#1 speaks of the "Aristocratik Combination" paranoid nonsense. #8 "The Power Vested in Congress of Sending Troops for Suppressing INsurrections Will Always Enable them to Stifle the First Struggles of Freedom." more nonsense. #59 The Danger of Congressional Control of Elections- still more laughable nonsense. #74 The President As Military King- more high comedy. All the papers can be ripped to shreds without much effort.

As far as Jefferson goes he was ready to ditch the constitution as soon as it started being explained to him by Hamilton and Marshall.
68 posted on 06/17/2003 12:06:09 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
The plain words & concepts of the constitution itself clearly state its meaning. Many here refuse to believe its basic simplicity. - They want it to support their particular agenda. - Damn shame.
-20-

Very few are capable of understanding the constitution. Even a lifetime of effort is some times insufficient. Where do you see these people capable of such sustained intellectual endeavors? Where were they ever?

For the first hundred years or so there were few misunderstandings about constitutional basics, except for 'states rights' & slavery. And non-intellectuals certainly understood those issues.

Why are they incapable of understanding anything else of such complexity? Being to read the words does not mean one can understand what they are saying. Like a great poem by Shakespeare there is a wealth of meaning in the simple words and phrases little of which is gleaned by an ordinary reader.

You see 'penumbras', perhaps? -- You protest-eth too much, imo.
Your agenda wants to find it complex, in order that it may be interpreted in your way of thinking..
Our constitution simply promotes individual freedoms. -- 'Laws' that infringe on these freedoms are repugnant to its principles.

In fact, I would wager that a good punishment for most of our fellow Americans would be to force them to read the constitution. They would claim to do so would be unConstitutional itself.

We require a constitutional test for natualization.. - I think the same type test should be required in order to vote..

69 posted on 06/17/2003 2:38:09 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
There were huge arguments about the constitution and even such illuminairies as Jefferson believed that States could determine constitutionality. That, of course, is nonsense.
Marshall's masterly explanations of its meaning managed to clear up many features much to Jefferson's fury. J. even believed the US had no constitutional ability to buy Louisiana. Madison finally convinced him to shut up about it.

I love the fanatasies of the all-knowing past when large portions of the population were totally illiterate and other portions had educations which barely allowed them to read more than a few words painfully and slowly. Where did this ability to divine such documents as the constitution come from?

Penumbras are irrelevent to my points as is the rest of that statement. My agenda is to actually understand the constitution and implement it not to pine over some Golden Age fantasy.

I agree about the voting but the fear is that any test would be manipulated. Like the literacy test given to Black voters in the past in the South. When given a Chinese newspaper to read one said "It say 'ain't no nigras votin' in this election.'"
70 posted on 06/17/2003 2:48:42 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

placemarker
71 posted on 06/17/2003 2:54:39 PM PDT by Dementon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
I do have a hidden motive here. Libertarians and some conservatives like to scurry down into their "Where is that in the Constitution?" burrow when the debate is at its best. Flushing them out by suggesting their beloved Jefferson and Constitution were flawed is fun.
66 -dpb-



How droll. I've seen no scurrying from any 'flushing' on your part. Perhaps you can point out some of your recent triumphs?

Our constitution isn't basically flawed, the political process is, - completely.

There are no 'checks & balances' for fed/state/local governments all completely controled by our socialistic RinoCrat political machine.
72 posted on 06/17/2003 2:57:36 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
same here
73 posted on 06/17/2003 3:06:18 PM PDT by american spirit (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION = NATIONAL SUICIDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You simply don't like how people vote. I don't either in large part. But so what? Not going to change anything by screaming about "Where is that in the constitution?"

The document is flawed. Or rather it is a pretense. People and congress can do whatever they want. And they do.

74 posted on 06/17/2003 3:31:52 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Whatever, -- apparently, you think there is some sort of big point to be made about early constitutional arguments.
'Huge' or not, after ratification they were not arguments on the basics, imo; -- with the 'states rights' exception, of course. - Damn shame that after that was settled by the 14th, - we still have large political groups that think government has the power to legislate infringements upon life, liberty & property.

They never learn.
75 posted on 06/17/2003 3:37:41 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
You simply don't like how people vote.

A baseless conclusion. As long as the laws and the politicians they vote for honor our constitution, why would I object? -- Get a grip on your emotions.

I don't either in large part. But so what? Not going to change anything by screaming about "Where is that in the constitution?"

Again, - show where I'm 'screaming'.. You are the one here hyping positions & and saying nothing can be changed..

The document is flawed.

Babble on. You've shown no 'flaw'.

Or rather it is a pretense. People and congress can do whatever they want. And they do.

Thats your loOser agenda, not mine. We can restore respect for our constitution, starting right here at FR, imo.

76 posted on 06/17/2003 3:57:02 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Trashing the Constitution, DPB101 wrote:

You simply don't like how people vote. I don't either in large part. But so what? Not going to change anything by screaming about "Where is that in the constitution?"
The document is flawed. Or rather it is a pretense. People and congress can do whatever they want. And they do.

What is the deal here?
I thought this forum wasn't designed -- to debate the merits of liberalism.
Thought we were here to get liberals out of the body politic.
_____________________________________


Methinks someone needs to get their story straight..
77 posted on 06/17/2003 4:19:56 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; nopardons
Glad you like what I say so much you feel compelled to search this forum for other comments I make. Most forums consider posting them on other threads bad form but not this one I guess.

There is no inconsistency in what I have said.

The fact is our Constitution is a living document. Do I have to explain why that is so to someone who is aware of how the courts have ruled so many times that what is clearly stated is not the supreme law of the land?

You can ignore it, you can castigate the left for using the term "Living Constitution" (I do all the time), but you are fooling youself if you think the constitution is not exactly as liberals describe.

Btw...that was a devious thing you just did to quote the last few words of my reply on another thread to suggest I am a liberal. You read my entire reply. You know I think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, environmentalism is a cover for theft, government unions are fascistic and Keyesian economics creates a corrupt government. Hardly the position of a liberal.

So adieu...after seeing how you operate, there is nothing left to discuss.

78 posted on 06/17/2003 4:34:20 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Apparently, there never was anthing to discuss..
- You've surrendered to the 'living document' crowd.


79 posted on 06/17/2003 5:24:49 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
Bump, because it's a GOOD one. :}
80 posted on 06/17/2003 5:51:57 PM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 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