• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

Incisor said:
Madison's name isn't the only name that appears on the Constitution. 38 other people signed it.
Click to expand...

and if you would read, you would know Madison laid the foundation to the constitution, make more proposals that were accept to it, take the notes of the convention, work on the committee of style which put the constitution together, wrote part of the federalist, wrote other works concerning rights, and the constitution after its ratification.

you position in this thread has failed because you spent you time deflecting by stating, horse and buggy, references to trump.
 
jaeger19 said:
And the why isn't really of the utmost importance. that's what makes economics so interesting. Because on one day.. and event can cause people to feel a certain way and react one way. and the next day.. that same event can cause people to feel differently and act differently. What matters more is how people feel about the events.
Click to expand...

Cause and effect. Your argument is trying to focus on what goes on without knowing or understanding why it occurs. Without why, it has no power. The rest of your post is just repeat of what i've already addressed blended with denial so to maintain some semblance of your original statement. Therefore, it is unworthy of any further consideration.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
and if you would read, you would know Madison laid the foundation to the constitution, make more proposals that were accept to it, take the notes of the convention, work on the committee of style which put the constitution together, wrote part of the federalist, wrote other works concerning rights, and the constitution after its ratification..
Click to expand...

Right, but that still doesn't mean his opinion is the prevailing one. The whole point of our democracy is to prevent that sort of thing.
 
Incisor said:
Right, but that still doesn't mean his opinion is the prevailing one. The whole point of our democracy is to prevent that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

democracy:doh

Gene Owens
Constitutional Law
Back to Basics I

What is the Constitution? The Constitution is a contract. The Constitution/contract contains seven short articles, twenty-seven amendments and the Declaration of Independence is tied to the Constitution under article seven. The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 by delegates from twelve colonies. Rhode Island, the thirteenth colony, signed later.
In Article 4 Section 4 the Constitution directs: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,. . ." This article is not referring to any party. There is no party system outlined in the Constitution either in fact or in principle. The word republican is referring to the word republic, which comes from the Latin words res publica; res meaning thing and publica meaning public, the public thing is the law.

One of the most misunderstood and therefore harmful beliefs, to our freedoms, is that millions of American People falsely believe America is a democracy, with rule by majority vote. Article IV Section 4 clearly guarantees every State shall be a republic, there is nothing to argue about. Because Article IV Section 4 defines our form of government as a republic it will remain a republic until an Article V amendment changes that fact. Republic means to rule by law and in America our law is Constitutional Law. All of our representatives take an Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution and therefore Constitutional Law. When you read the Constitution you are actually studying Constitutional Law.
The misunderstanding, that our form of government is a democracy has been intentional to take freedoms, not to give freedoms. In reality our Founders set up a mixed-constitution, to check the powers of government, with elements of different forms of government in it. We have elements of monarchy or rule by one vested in the president to veto bills and to give pardons. We have elements of oligarchy or rule by few vested in federal and state legislatures to make laws. We have elements of democracy vested in the People to elect our representatives. However, all of these different forms of government must stay within the boundary (pale) and understanding (ken) of the republic, rule by law, or their actions are null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

Article VI Clause 2 directs that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all treaties and laws must be made within the pale and ken of the Constitution. This same article and clause also directs that all judges in every State shall be bound by the Constitution.
Another interesting fact is that the Constitution is a document or perfect distribution or perfect equipoise; meaning one clause cannot and must not be read as if to stand alone. When our representatives plan a redistribution of the Peoples money, for any reason, under pretense of the commerce clause or the welfare clause they must also look to Article I Section 1 and Section 8, the 5th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

Article I Section 1 does not allow Congress to do anything that is not an enumerated power; Section 8 list all the powers Congress can act upon; the 5th Amendment forbids the taking of the Peoples money (property) without just compensation; under the 9th Amendment the government has no no right to take property and under the 10th Amendment they have no power to take property.

The Declaration of Independence is not considered law; however, it does point out certain very important issues, such as: our Rights are unalienable and that our Rights are endowed by a Creator. It is fashionable among some Americans today to disregard this statement. To declare that there is no proof of a Creator; however, no man can disprove the existence of a Creator. The words unalienable and inalienable both mean that which cannot be changed, not by majority vote or by a dictator. This statement also directs that are our Rights are endowed by a Creator and not by man.
Clearly our Founding Fathers gave each of us religious freedom to believe as we chose; however, their point was not in what you personally believe but in the fact that man did not create existence. That Rights come from Nature and Nature's God, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence. No government can control Nature and change the course of our unalienable Rights.
 
Kushinator said:
Cause and effect. Your argument is trying to focus on what goes on without knowing or understanding why it occurs. Without why, it has no power. The rest of your post is just repeat of what i've already addressed blended with denial so to maintain some semblance of your original statement. Therefore, it is unworthy of any further consideration.
Click to expand...

I accept your surrender. (you addressed my points with irrelevant tangents that had little or nothing to do with the points I made)

But it is too bad that you cannot see my point here. I find it disturbing because it appears that you may have some role in economics (hopefully I am wrong).

John.. well its a hobby for him.

What you miss is that they WHY IS NOT the most powerful thing.. the what is. What people feel is what causes them to do a certain behavior.

Heck.. many times THEY don't even know the why. Ask a hundred people how they feel about the economy and they say.." doesn't look good". then ask WHY they think that. You know what you get? Hundreds of different answers.. with probably a LOT of "I don't know I just feel"... thrown in there.

Now... you claim:
Without why, it has no power
Click to expand...

Wrong. Lets say you were an economist advising a company whether they should expand at this time. And you know that consumer confidence is at a low and peoples view of the future is at a low.

Would you advise the company to "go ahead and expand because we don't know why they feel that way so no big deal"?

I hope you wouldn't. Knowing what consumers feel has power... most certainly. You may never know why. nor do you really need to know why for it to have power.

the fact that you cannot seem to grasp this concept is quite unfortunate for you.

In my conversations with John.. its one of the biggest weaknesses of his premise. He fails to consider what people feel about the value of currency and also what they feel about debt and deficit has power.
 
Master PO said:
democracy:doh
Click to expand...

So here is a perfect example of you avoiding the subject choosing instead to jump to a non-sequitur. Also, nothing you posted above confirms what you were saying about how Madison's view is the predominant one. That's why he wrote the Federalist Papers...because the Constitutional Convention could not agree on putting what he wanted into the document. It's really that simple.
 
Master PO said:
you position in this thread has failed because you spent you time deflecting by stating, horse and buggy, references to trump.
Click to expand...

LOL! Wasn't aware you were the arbiter of debate. Anyway, the reason I brought up the horse-and-buggy was to illustrate a larger point: that you don't apply 18th-century thinking to other aspects of your daily life, so why would you apply it to government?
 
Incisor said:
So here is a perfect example of you avoiding the subject choosing instead to jump to a non-sequitur. Also, nothing you posted above confirms what you were saying about how Madison's view is the predominant one. That's why he wrote the Federalist Papers...because the Constitutional Convention could not agree on putting what he wanted into the document. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

really?

A Classical Republic, is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word)."What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements."


OUR AMERICAN FOUNDERS SPEAKING OF OUR ......MIXED CONSTITUTION.


As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.
 
Incisor said:
LOL! Wasn't aware you were the arbiter of debate. Anyway, the reason I brought up the horse-and-buggy was to illustrate a larger point: that you don't apply 18th-century thinking to other aspects of your daily life, so why would you apply it to government?
Click to expand...


when you deflect and talk of trump, horse and buggies, anyone can see you have failed
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
really?
Click to expand...

Yes, really. If the Constitution was supposed to be as Madison intended as you claim, then he wouldn't have had to write the Federalist Papers in the first place.
 
Master PO said:
when you deflect and talk of trump, horse and buggies, anyone can see you have failed
Click to expand...

Seems to me that you just don't want to answer the question. Which is fine. I get it. I wouldn't answer it either if the situation was reversed, because doing so would have to admit that I don't, in fact, use a horse and buggy to get around, or use leeches to treat cancer or whatever...that's all.

So if you don't live your daily life according to 18th-Century standards, why would you apply it to government??
 
Master PO said:
really?

A Classical Republic, is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word)."What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements."


OUR AMERICAN FOUNDERS SPEAKING OF OUR ......MIXED CONSTITUTION.


As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.
Click to expand...

You know a thread is in its death throes when Po starts to play Amateur Constitutional Scholar.
 
Incisor said:
Yes, really. If the Constitution was supposed to be as Madison intended as you claim, then he wouldn't have had to write the Federalist Papers in the first place.
Click to expand...

:lamo

the federalist is by 3 people, not just Madison, the federalist explain the clauseS of the constitution, and the problems of the AOC
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
I accept your surrender. (you addressed my points with irrelevant tangents that had little or nothing to do with the points I made)

But it is too bad that you cannot see my point here. I find it disturbing because it appears that you may have some role in economics (hopefully I am wrong).

John.. well its a hobby for him.

What you miss is that they WHY IS NOT the most powerful thing.. the what is. What people feel is what causes them to do a certain behavior.

Heck.. many times THEY don't even know the why. Ask a hundred people how they feel about the economy and they say.." doesn't look good". then ask WHY they think that. You know what you get? Hundreds of different answers.. with probably a LOT of "I don't know I just feel"... thrown in there.

Now... you claim:

Wrong. Lets say you were an economist advising a company whether they should expand at this time. And you know that consumer confidence is at a low and peoples view of the future is at a low.

Would you advise the company to "go ahead and expand because we don't know why they feel that way so no big deal"?

I hope you wouldn't. Knowing what consumers feel has power... most certainly. You may never know why. nor do you really need to know why for it to have power.

the fact that you cannot seem to grasp this concept is quite unfortunate for you.

In my conversations with John.. its one of the biggest weaknesses of his premise. He fails to consider what people feel about the value of currency and also what they feel about debt and deficit has power.
Click to expand...

Jaeger : losing arguments :: Hiroo Onoda : WWII.
 
incisor said:
seems to me that you just don't want to answer the question. Which is fine. I get it. I wouldn't answer it either if the situation was reversed, because doing so would have to admit that i don't, in fact, use a horse and buggy to get around, or use leeches to treat cancer or whatever...that's all.So if you don't live your daily life according to 18th-century standards, why would you apply it to government??
Click to expand...
answer what? Horse and buggy, trump, they have nothing to do with my postings, but only deflection by you to try and make a point which failed.
 
Master PO said:
this of course is another deflection.
Click to expand...

You are the Great Deflector. This thread is about fiscal conservatism, and you turned it into yet another treatise on The Federalist Papers. How many times have you done this? Dozens, at least. NOBODY CARES. And nobody buys your goofy argument.

I asked you long ago to point to some evidence that debt and deficits are harmful - you know, something connected to this thread. Not only have you failed to answer, you took the opportunity to break into your usual spiel.
 
Master PO said:
:lamo, so the father of the constitution does not know the constitution.

you only thing you know about the constitution is what the media told you
Click to expand...

My rebuttal still stands. You need something better than whining about the media.
 
johnfrmclevelan said:
you are the great deflector. This thread is about fiscal conservatism, and you turned it into yet another treatise on the federalist papers. How many times have you done this? Dozens, at least. Nobody cares. And nobody buys your goofy argument.

I asked you long ago to point to some evidence that debt and deficits are harmful - you know, something connected to this thread. Not only have you failed to answer, you took the opportunity to break into your usual spiel.
Click to expand...

wrong, i talk about what's this thread was about...ITS PURPOSE, others drove the subject to a new direction, but its not a surprise you didn't see that..POST #93 BY ABSENTGLARE
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
answer what? Horse and buggy, trump, they have nothing to do with my postings, but only deflection by you to try and make a point which failed.
Click to expand...

The question I'm posing isn't a rhetorical one. You don't apply 18th-Century thinking to your daily life, so why would you apply it to government?
 
Incisor said:
The question I'm posing isn't a rhetorical one. You don't apply 18th-Century thinking to your daily life, so why would you apply it to government?
Click to expand...

Actually, we do apply 18th century thinking to our daily life, in fact, the United States is built on 18th Century thinking in the form of the Constitution, which dictates what our government can and cannot do, and is a basis for our legal system both criminal and civil.
 
Master PO said:
the federalist is by 3 people, not just Madison, the federalist explain the clauseS of the constitution, and the problems of the AOC
Click to expand...

No, it gives their opinion on the clauses. But if their opinion were fact, then there wouldn't have been a need for the Federalist Papers, would there?
 
Incisor said:
The question I'm posing isn't a rhetorical one. You don't apply 18th-Century thinking to your daily life, so why would you apply it to government?
Click to expand...

oh?... so the constitution of 18th century, can have a total different meaning in the 21st?

you line of reasoning is sad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom