Stupid or subversive?

froggie said:
Absolutely! Especially since I am a woman, I believe I have the right to vote, the Founding Fathers didn't think so, so change is necessary!
Click to expand...

Actually when the Constitution was written women (and free blacks) were allowed to vote in some states. The only office in the federal government that the People vote for is U.S. representative U.S. Senator (since the 17th Amendment(?)). The qualifications for voting for these offices are whatever qualifications the individual states require for voters for the largest house of their state legislatures.
 
Whomever said:
I thought the Supremes were the ultimate interpreters of the constitution, not a bunch of politicians and their hacks.
This was defined in the constitution itself. So denying this is to deny the constitution yourself.
Click to expand...

You cannot tell libertarians this; I’ve tried, and they don’t understand either the Constitution or history. You will not be held up to merciless- and unwarranted – ridicule. Just ignore it.
 
Whomever said:
I thought the Supremes were the ultimate interpreters of the constitution, not a bunch of politicians and their hacks.
This was defined in the constitution itself. So denying this is to deny the constitution yourself.

Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

you, like most people, would be wrong. this is due to the decades of mis-teachings of the constitution.

the courts established by art 3 of the constitution have federal jurisdiction in all cases in law and equity. the only interpretation they must do is interpreting the laws of congress to determine if it oversteps the limits set forth in the constitution, via judicial review. Now, some people take this to mean that they must also have to interpret the constitution. this is incorrect.

the constitution was not written to be vague. this is a red herring used by those who wish to have an ideological court be given the leeway needed to rule such as to fit their ideological outlook. the constitution is fairly well defined and limits the federal government quite well, when applied with common sense and logic.
 
flaja said:
You cannot tell libertarians this; I’ve tried, and they don’t understand either the Constitution or history. You will not be held up to merciless- and unwarranted – ridicule. Just ignore it.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

ah, my young padawan. be mindful and watch. learn all you can.
 
flaja said:
The simple fact is that 2009 is not 1787. The country today is not the same as it was when the Constitution was written. Suppose there were a constitutional convention that proposed amendments that would give the federal government all of the powers you say it now has even though they were not granted by the original Constitution of 1787, and then suppose that all of the amendments were ratified so the that the federal government ends up doing exactly what you now complain about it doing. What would you do?
Click to expand...
Ratification would require 2/3 of the States, and I don't think it would pass, which is my point. The Feds have usurped the Constitution, and that is illegal.
 
flaja said:
Except that you keep harping on original intent, which has never existed. You are arguing against letting the Constitution be what it was designed to be- something that could be adapted to the times and thus be useable without a wholesale revolutionary revision.
Click to expand...
How can original intent not exist? That makes no sense.
 
flaja said:
Provide the documentation showing how many big farms in the South were owned by people with English ancestry, and then document that only this group of people had political power.

Ever heard of Judah P. Benjamin? This man was Jewish, not English, but he managed to hold several offices in the Confederate cabinet (David Levy Yulee, a U.S. Senator from Florida was also Jewish). And then Jefferson Davis’ paternal ancestry is (at least in part) were Welsh, not English. CSA secretary of the treasury, Christopher Gustavus Memminger was a native of Wuertenberg, Germany; he wasn’t English. The next CSA secretary of the treasure was named Trenholm- doesn’t sound like an English name and the one after him had the Irish name of Reagan. Jams Seddon, CSA secretary of war was a Scots.

So you see, people with English ancestry didn’t have the political power in the South that you think they did.
Click to expand...
Read some books by Southern authors on Southern history.
 
Southern Man said:
Ratification would require 2/3 of the States, and I don't think it would pass, which is my point. The Feds have usurped the Constitution, and that is illegal.
Click to expand...

If you are so certain that the American People do not want the federal government to have the power you complain about it having and are so certain that it is illegal for the federal government to have this power, why don't you go to court about it?
 
Southern Man said:
How can original intent not exist? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

If original intent does exist, where is it to be found? What tells you what original intent is?

Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings? And what do we do when Framers were not all of one mind?

What about Edmund Randolph, who proposed the Virginia Plan at the Convention, then refused to sign the document because he though the central government would have too much power and then ended up supporting ratification before serving in Washington's cabinet? What was Randolph's original intent?

What about Alexander Hamilton? He spoke only briefly at the Convention and then went home because New York's other two delegates always outvoted him. But Hamilton then returned to the Convention after those other delegates had left the Convention themselves. Hamilton played only a little role in writing the Constitution, but he had a major influence on how the Constitution was implemented.

And what about James Madison? Both Hamilton and Madison were authors of the Federalist Papers, but once the government was set up they joined opposing political factions- Hamilton a Federalist in favor of a strong government, Madison an Antifederalist in favor of a limited government.

And then there's George Washington who refused to exercise any presidential leadership (while also usurping the power of the federal courts) by refusing to veto any legislation he did not personally think was unconstitutional no matter how much he personally disagreed with the legislation.

So by and large original intent is a mirage since we have no concrete record of what original intent was.

The only real record of original intent is found in the Constitutional Convention's Journal and the notes James Madison took on the debates. But, the Journal was not published until 1818 and Madison's notes were not published until 1840. That means the nation did not know what the Framers really wanted the Constitution to mean for the first 50 years of the document's existence.

The Constitution itself is little help. The Framers left the Constitution intentionally vague in many places. For example, what does a term of "good behavior" mean? Does it mean a federal judge has lifetime tenure as long as he does not violate statutory law? Or does it mean, as many libertarians and a few right-wing types believe, that a judge can serve as long as he does not issue a ruling that certain segments of the population object to?

Also, what is cruel and unusual punishment? Why was hanging acceptable at one time, but not now?

And how can the Constitution say no religious test for federal office is allowed, but then say the Constitution was "done in convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." Just who is the Lord that the Constitution acknowledges?

If there is such a thing as original intent, then everybody would know where to find it and everybody would know that original intent always means the same thing. But the people that try to find it do not all agree on what it is.
 
flaja said:
If you are so certain that the American People do not want the federal government to have the power you complain about it having and are so certain that it is illegal for the federal government to have this power, why don't you go to court about it?
Click to expand...
I have a life and full time job.
 
flaja said:
How many college courses have you taken on southern history?
Click to expand...
I've lived in the region for 12 years, visited many of our fine museums, read several books by local authors and talked with many folks in the area about their opinions. That's a superior education than a college course taught by a Yankee. *shrug*
 
flaja said:
If original intent does exist, where is it to be found? What tells you what original intent is?

Some modern day politicians and pundits believe they can find original intent in the in the writings of the Framers of the Constitution. But, how do we do this when the Framers left so little in the way of writings? And what do we do when Framers were not all of one mind?
Click to expand...

There are three major documents, all of a quite sizable read, that give fairly straightforward information on what the framers intended. These are the federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, and the convention debates themselves. There are also numerous writings out there that gave straightaway explanations of the proposed constitution and bill of rights by scholars in that day and age so that the people of each state would know what it was they were ratifying.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
There are three major documents, all of a quite sizable read, that give fairly straightforward information on what the framers intended. These are the federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, and the convention debates themselves. There are also numerous writings out there that gave straightaway explanations of the proposed constitution and bill of rights by scholars in that day and age so that the people of each state would know what it was they were ratifying.
Click to expand...
'Oh but those books are old and dusty.' :rolleyes:
 
Southern Man said:
I've lived in the region for 12 years, visited many of our fine museums, read several books by local authors and talked with many folks in the area about their opinions. That's a superior education than a college course taught by a Yankee. *shrug*
Click to expand...

You've only lived in the region for 12 years and you think you understand the South? I am a native of the region with ancestry on both sides of my family going back to Jamestown. And I have studied the issue in a formal setting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top