THE "YOU DON'T LOVE THE CONSTITUTION" CRAP IN THIS FORUM!

[PostmodernProphet]

the only time I speak the truth is when PMP writes what I say

I know, right?.....

 

[Flash]

I am calling attention to the fact that a significant minority of the people want not to be governed at all. They deplore government…the single most important ingredient in civilized society.

Do you have any support for the claim that "a significant minority of the people want not to be governed at all."

 

[Flash]

If you hate an article of the Bill of Rights, you might just hate the Constitution.

The framers were perfectly happy with the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. That is why they did not include it in the original document.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Another worthless “if/might” piece of feces.

I was being polite. You do hate an article of the Bill of Rights, and you do hate the Constitution.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The framers were perfectly happy with the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. That is why they did not include it in the original document.

No, neither the federalists nor the antifederalists were happy with the Constitution as it was. It was passed without for the purposes of expediency, desiring to replace the existing government as quickly as possible. A small handful of people didn't believe the federal government would pose a threat to the liberties eventually protected by the Bill of Rights, because they felt that state governments still wielded the vast majority of powers within the country.

 

[Flash]

No, neither the federalists nor the antifederalists were happy with the Constitution as it was. It was passed without for the purposes of expediency, desiring to replace the existing government as quickly as possible. A small handful of people didn't believe the federal government would pose a threat to the liberties eventually protected by the Bill of Rights, because they felt that state governments still wielded the vast majority of powers within the country.

The framers did not think the Bill of Rights were needed because the government was not given the power to restrict speech, press, etc. They were not left out in order to ratify the document quickly. They were left out because the framers thought they were not needed. The antifederalists feared the new constitution because it gave the central government much more power than it had under the Articles. The federalists agreed to add some amendments after the document was ratified if the antifederalists would support ratification (in NY). Turns out the antifederalists were right since the powers of the central government have been broadly interpreted.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

One sees lots of variations on the theme, "You don't love (respect) the Constitution and Bill of Rights" crap here in this forum...almost always including "warnings" about the danger of "government" overreach.

Well...I personally think there is MUCH LESS DANGER from government going amok...or from our government becoming tyrannical…than there is from our citizens being unwilling to be governed.

I doubt any of us right now, except perhaps Donald Trump, wants a dictatorship; I doubt any of us, except perhaps Donald Trump, wants governmental tyranny.

But THE REAL DANGER RIGHT NOW IN AMERICA does not come from the danger of dictatorship, even with that dictator wanna-be in office...or serious governmental overreach. It comes, rather, from the fact that a significant minority of the people want not to be governed at all. They deplore government…the single most important ingredient in civilized society.

I suspect a lot of that absurdity was started during the first inaugural address by Ronald Reagan. As chief executive, he unwisely endorsed the notion of hatred of “being governed” with his (just about always, unfortunately, quoted out of context), “…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

He was wrong…or at least, I sure as hell hope he was wrong, because if he was correct…democracy does not stand a chance of success. Democracy demands that government be a MAJOR FACTOR in the solution to problems…and there is no chance of democracy working if government truly is the problem.

And government requires that the people being governed...CONSENT TO BEING GOVERNED.

Just sayin’!

Just calm down - calm down.

At your age, you really need to be careful when you make the decision to climb on top of a soap box and begin ranting.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The framers did not think the Bill of Rights were needed because the government was not given the power to restrict speech, press, etc. They were not left out in order to ratify the document quickly. They were left out because the framers thought they were not needed. The antifederalists feared the new constitution because it gave the central government much more power than it had under the Articles. The federalists agreed to add some amendments after the document was ratified if the antifederalists would support ratification (in NY). Turns out the antifederalists were right since the powers of the central government have been broadly interpreted.

Only a small handful of men were naïve enough to believe that. The Bill of Rights was not left-out due to their content, but due to the time that it would have added to the convention to go through and debate each article. As it was, there were 12 articles proposed by the First Congress, and only ten of them passed.

 

[Flash]

Only a small handful of men were naïve enough to believe that. The Bill of Rights was not left-out due to their content, but due to the time that it would have added to the convention to go through and debate each article. As it was, there were 12 articles proposed by the First Congress, and only ten of them passed.

They weren't in that much of a hurry. They could have easily included those same provisions in the denied powers of Article 1, Section 9. There was no need to write and debate them separately.

You probably know the story that one of the 2 proposed amendments that was not ratified originally was eventually ratified in 1992 to become the 27th amendment although it had basically become obsolete by the time it was ratified. Most of the credit for the ratification goes to a University of Texas student who took the task upon himself as part of a class paper for which he received a C. He recently returned to UT and his grade was change to A.

 

[Minister of Truth]

They weren't in that much of a hurry. They could have easily included those same provisions in the denied powers of Article 1, Section 9. There was no need to write and debate them separately.

You probably know the story that one of the 2 proposed amendments that was not ratified originally was eventually ratified in 1992 to become the 27th amendment although it had basically become obsolete by the time it was ratified. Most of the credit for the ratification goes to a University of Texas student who took the task upon himself as part of a class paper for which he received a C. He recently returned to UT and his grade was change to A.

Gotta love those spirited college kids! Interestingly, that is precisely how the Bill of Rights were written into the CSA constitution.

 

[Damocles]

If you don't know the history...

The Federalists were arguing that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, they believed that centralized government was a good thing while the Anti-Federalists believed that the centralized government should be limited. The argument was winning and Madison began changing articles in the Constitution to list the limitations, however Federalists argued that Congress had no power to change the constitution, therefore the Amendments came into being. 17 Amendments were proposed and voted on by the House, the Senate approved only 12 of them. The 10 that were about individual rights were quickly ratified, the last State to ratify those 10 was Virginia in 1791.

Anyway, the 2 other Amendments that passed both houses dealt with pay raises for the Congress, and with how the numbers would be apportioned. One is still out there unratified, but it is obsolete, the one ratified in 1992 dealt with Congressional pay raises making it so the Congress could vote for a raise but the raise wouldn't apply until the next Congress was seated.

The one about the how the House was apportioned is obsolete because it would be impossible with the current population, etc.

Anyway, the one that wasn't ratified:

Article I. After the first enumeration required by the first article of the constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred representative [sic] [the usual “nor less than one representative” is omitted either by mistake or for brevity’s sake] for every fifty thousand persons.

 

[Damocles]

Imagine if that first Amendment was suddenly ratified. We'd have a zillion Congresscritters.

 

[iewitness]

If you don't know the history...

The Federalists were arguing that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, they believed that centralized government was a good thing while the Anti-Federalists believed that the centralized government should be limited. The argument was winning and Madison began changing articles in the Constitution to list the limitations, however Federalists argued that Congress had no power to change the constitution, therefore the Amendments came into being. 17 Amendments were proposed and voted on by the House, the Senate approved only 12 of them. The 10 that were about individual rights were quickly ratified, the last State to ratify those 10 was Virginia in 1791.

Anyway, the 2 other Amendments that passed both houses dealt with pay raises for the Congress, and with how the numbers would be apportioned. One is still out there unratified, but it is obsolete, the one ratified in 1992 dealt with Congressional pay raises making it so the Congress could vote for a raise but the raise wouldn't apply until the next Congress was seated.

The one about the how the House was apportioned is obsolete because it would be impossible with the current population, etc.

Anyway, the one that wasn't ratified:

the idea was that the "law of the land' would not be subjected/ subjugated to "admiralty law" [ law of global commerce]. the free and living people set their roots down and proclaimed I shall not be moved. like a planting. a crop. is it or is it not ? speak. sorry. I am learning things I never knew.

 

[Ralph]

One sees lots of variations on the theme, "You don't love (respect) the Constitution and Bill of Rights" crap here in this forum...almost always including "warnings" about the danger of "government" overreach.

Well...I personally think there is MUCH LESS DANGER from government going amok...or from our government becoming tyrannical…than there is from our citizens being unwilling to be governed.

I doubt any of us right now, except perhaps Donald Trump, wants a dictatorship; I doubt any of us, except perhaps Donald Trump, wants governmental tyranny.

But THE REAL DANGER RIGHT NOW IN AMERICA does not come from the danger of dictatorship, even with that dictator wanna-be in office...or serious governmental overreach. It comes, rather, from the fact that a significant minority of the people want not to be governed at all. They deplore government…the single most important ingredient in civilized society.

I suspect a lot of that absurdity was started during the first inaugural address by Ronald Reagan. As chief executive, he unwisely endorsed the notion of hatred of “being governed” with his (just about always, unfortunately, quoted out of context), “…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

He was wrong…or at least, I sure as hell hope he was wrong, because if he was correct…democracy does not stand a chance of success. Democracy demands that government be a MAJOR FACTOR in the solution to problems…and there is no chance of democracy working if government truly is the problem.

And government requires that the people being governed...CONSENT TO BEING GOVERNED.

Just sayin’!

This is the problem....no? Some people cannot seem to comprehend the fact that United States of America was constructed and guaranteed to be governed as a REPUBLIC...not a pure democracy or socialist state. Democracies have never worked in World History, thus as explained in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution and made unambiguous by Federalist No. 10. It must confuse the hell out the socialists (commie lights) as to why they cannot seem to change this nation into a Social Justice State. There are unbreakable restrictions in the negative document/Constitution (drafted and ratified to place scope and limits on the power of a federal government)......that simply will not allow these changes under the RULE OF LAW.

Thus: if you damn Alinsky radicals want to violently revolt as has every socialist state that has ever existed on planet earth has....go for it. But our founders...unlike SOME....realized that Government was a "necessary evil" and that evil should be maintained as small as possible.

 

[iewitness]

This the problem....no? Some people cannot seem to comprehend the fact that United States of America was constructed and guaranteed to be governed as a REPUBLIC...not a pure democracy or socialist state. Democracies have never worked in World History, thus as explained in Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution and made unambiguous by Federalist No. 10. It must confuse the hell out the socialists (commie lights) as to why they cannot seem to change this nation into a Social Justice State. There are unbreakable restrictions in the negative document/Constitution (drafted and ratified to place scope and limits on the power of a federal government)......that simply will not allow these changes under the RULE OF LAW.

Thus: if you damn Alinsky radicals want to violently revolt as has every socialist state that has ever existed on planet earth has....go for it.

hell yea. limit that beast. the beast is now global and who can make war against the beast ? this- http://biblehub.com/kjv/daniel/7.htm read it and understand it.

 

[goldkam]

One sees lots of variations on the theme, "You don't love (respect) the Constitution and Bill of Rights" crap here in this forum...almost always including "warnings" about the danger of "government" overreach.

Well...I personally think there is MUCH LESS DANGER from government going amok...or from our government becoming tyrannical…than there is from our citizens being unwilling to be governed.

I doubt any of us right now, except perhaps Donald Trump, wants a dictatorship; I doubt any of us, except perhaps Donald Trump, wants governmental tyranny.

But THE REAL DANGER RIGHT NOW IN AMERICA does not come from the danger of dictatorship, even with that dictator wanna-be in office...or serious governmental overreach. It comes, rather, from the fact that a significant minority of the people want not to be governed at all. They deplore government…the single most important ingredient in civilized society.

I suspect a lot of that absurdity was started during the first inaugural address by Ronald Reagan. As chief executive, he unwisely endorsed the notion of hatred of “being governed” with his (just about always, unfortunately, quoted out of context), “…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

He was wrong…or at least, I sure as hell hope he was wrong, because if he was correct…democracy does not stand a chance of success. Democracy demands that government be a MAJOR FACTOR in the solution to problems…and there is no chance of democracy working if government truly is the problem.

And government requires that the people being governed...CONSENT TO BEING GOVERNED.

Just sayin’!

I agree with that, all seem to be a common statement to excuse gun ownership.

 

[goldkam]

If you hate an article of the Bill of Rights, you might just hate the Constitution.

So if you hate a politician in the Republican party, you all of a sudden hate the whole Republican party???
So if you hate a piece of legislation, you all of a sudden hate all pieces of legislation??

 

[Minister of Truth]

So if you hate a politician in the Republican party, you all of a sudden hate the whole Republican party???
So if you hate a piece of legislation, you all of a sudden hate all pieces of legislation??

You cannot separate the single parts of the constitution out from the entire document. Not even the 3rd Amendment.

One shouldn't have that sort of allegiance to parties, anyway, so liking or disliking a particular politician is of no further consequence. The men who wrote the constitution feared political parties (except perhaps Hamilton, who could be stupidly fearless).

Your last bit about legislation is far too stupid to warrant a response.

 

[Nordberg]

So you think big government is infallable. Government is run by people and people make mistakes. An example is the scandal of the VA treatment of vets. Our government deciding what is best for you. No I love this country and wore the uniform for 24 years but I also know that no matter what our government isn't perfect.

Picture of the Alaskan Squidbilly.

 

[Nordberg]

I agree that the Constitution was designed to change with the times. The founding fathers agreed so much they put a provision in the Constitution on how it should be changed. It's your problem you don't like the process and think it can be ignored.

yeah. i remember saying that. Or you are nuts.