Was the Constitutional Convention really a Coup?

[rocket88]

Jesus and Luther taught the 10 Commandments to billions thus creating creating morality and making Western Civilization possible. Liberals oppose the greatest civilization in human history but lack the IQ to know it.

Jesus didn't bring the 10 Commandments and Luther didn't invent them either. The 10 Commandments were long before either of them.

And what about Catholics? They had the 10 Commandments. In fact, that's where Luther learned them.

 

[Irwin Corey]

1) our subject is not whether or not it will happen
2) In wildest dreams we would make liberalism illegal as Founders promised in written Constitution by restricting federal govt to only enumerated powers

Really? How did they promise "Liberalism" would be illegal? They did provide for a Limited Federal Government, the ALSO made the Constitution a living breathing document that could be amended. The best years for all Americans were post WWII when there was a "relative" balance of Capitalism and Social Programs that bolstered the middle class; the middle class that is the engine of any economy. The founders would be shocked by Mitch McConnell's shenanigans and they way Corporations have taken over the government. The would also be shocked at the power fundamentalist christians have usurped.

 

[James972]

Really? How did they promise "Liberalism" would be illegal?

I just told you!!!! By limiting federal govt to only enumerated powers

 

[James972]

The best years for all Americans were post WWII when there was a "relative" balance of Capitalism and Social Programs that bolstered the middle class; the middle class that is the engine of any economy.

don't be silly Govt spends far more of GDP now than then. Do you understand? The more govt grows the worse things get until 120 million slowly starve to death as USSR Red China and 132 other countries indicate.

 

[James972]

they way Corporations have taken over the government. The would also be shocked at the power fundamentalist christians have usurped.

1) for 6 time do you have one example of corporation taking over? anything but giving us highest standard of living in human history??????
2) for 7th time do you have example of fundamentalist usurpation or just parroting what someone told you to say?

 

[SmartCat]

It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.

You have an unusual definition of "liberal." I define a liberal as one who sides with the people against the plutocracy. Big government is our only defense against big business.

 

[SmartCat]

The Articles of Confederation had been proven to be inadequate for a large democracy. Those who use the Constitution to advance their reactionary agenda maintain that the purpose of the Constitution was to restrict the power of the government.

I agree with the OP that the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to increase the power of the government. However, unlike the OP I think this was a worthy goal.

I would like a constitution that gave the government still more power, and which was more democratic. However I believe that our present polarized political environment would be a bad time to call a Second Constitutional Convention. I do not think we should call a Second Constitutional Convention until there is a broad, general consensus of what the government should be like, and what it should be doing. I hope I live long enough to see that time.

I am encouraged by the growing popularity of democratic socialism, and by the probability that Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/2020-trump-biden-sanders-winfrey/index.html

President Trump is ruling as a plutocrat, but he ran as a populist. He won the Republican nomination because he was less supportive of the corporate establishment than his Republican rivals in the primary.

 

[JimHackerMP]

Not to get off topic but "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. I say that from the position of a moderate. I think a better term is "social democrat". In Europe there are social democratic parties. Not too many call themselves "democratic socialist parties".

Anywho, the purpose of the constitution was to CREATE a government and endow it with powers. The purpose of the BILL OF RIGHTS was to restrict it.

"Democracy" was a four-letter word in the 1790s. It wasn't until the era of Jacksonian Democracy (1830s) that "democracy" was actually flirted with, and the electorate began to expand (among white men at any rate) beyond just the property owners. The articles were deemed inadequate for preserving the Union. They were afraid of a disintegration of the USA into several regional confederacies of several states each. (Yet ironically each of these petty unions would have been rather "extended" on their own).

I'm afraid you're right about a second constitutional convention. It would have the same effect as did the convening of the Estates-General in 1789 in France. (e.g., the drop of the hat for a period of anarchy to ensue.)

 

[James972]

Big government is our only defense against big business.

Defense against big business when they are already our slaves thanks to Republican Capitalism?? If they don't provide us with the best jobs and products possible to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate they go bankrupt!

Is this over your head?

 

[James972]

However, unlike the OP I think this[increasing govt size] was a worthy goal.

.

So did Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals

 

[James972]

The Articles of Confederation had been proven to be inadequate for a large democracy.

If so they would have Amended the Articles to reflect that concern. Sorry to rock your world

 

[James972]

I'm afraid you're right about a second constitutional convention. It would have the same effect as did the convening of the Estates-General in 1789 in France. (e.g., the drop of the hat for a period of anarchy to ensue.)

Same effect as first Constitutional convention. We went from a free country under Articles to a country where communists like Obama Sanders Cortez can operate openly and legally!!

 

[James972]

President Trump is ruling as a plutocrat,.

100% absurd of course. He ran to build the wall and he cant do it. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

I define a liberal as one who sides with the people against the plutocracy. Big government is our only defense against big business.

absurd, Wm Buckley Jr. defined conservatism as "against govt", and liberals as " for government". You're definition has no connection to reality. Our Founders considered big govt as the source of evil in human history which is why they limited evil govt with a Bill of Rights and a few enumerated powers. Do you think HItler was the Germans only defense too?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Same effect as first Constitutional convention. We went from a free country under Articles to a country where communists like Obama Sanders Cortez can operate openly and legally!!

They are not communists. If you make this claim please provide a rationale as to why you think they are.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Defense against big business when they are already our slaves thanks to Republican Capitalism?? If they don't provide us with the best jobs and products possible to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate they go bankrupt!

Is this over your head?

1. No, they are not "our slaves"

2. No, they don't. They can offshore their jobs (as many have done), and they can make all sorts of products which do not raise our standard of living. They do have to make products that are either in demand or create a demand, but raising the standard of living is not a guarantee by any stretch.

 

[JimHackerMP]

Same effect as first Constitutional convention. We went from a free country under Articles to a country where communists like Obama Sanders Cortez can operate openly and legally!!

Really? A "free" country under the Articles? Interesting perspective. Slavery was legal under the Articles. All states required property thresholds to vote under the Articles, as under the present constitution. The unicameral Confederation Congress was appointed not elected. Let freedom ring!

Pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers or the convention debates or something.

 

[SmartCat]

Defense against big business when they are already our slaves thanks to Republican Capitalism?? If they don't provide us with the best jobs and products possible to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate they go bankrupt!

Is this over your head?

They have not been doing that. They have not been going bankrupt either.

 

[SmartCat]

So did Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals

Guilt by Association Fallacy. A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument.
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...264k1j0i3k1j0i131i67k1j0i10k1.184.PloTPpgWR4o

 

[SmartCat]

If so they would have Amended the Articles to reflect that concern. Sorry to rock your world

That did not happen because the Articles of Confederation were fundamentally deficient.

 

[SmartCat]

100% absurd of course. He ran to build the wall and he cant do it. Do you understand?

Trump cannot build the wall because the Mexicans won't pay for it. It was obvious to any intelligent person (including Trump) that they would not pay for the wall. Saying that they would pay for the wall was a preposterous campaign promise.

 

[SmartCat]

absurd, Wm Buckley Jr. defined conservatism as "against govt", and liberals as " for government". You're definition has no connection to reality. Our Founders considered big govt as the source of evil in human history which is why they limited evil govt with a Bill of Rights and a few enumerated powers. Do you think HItler was the Germans only defense too?

I am not surprised that William Buckley defined the difference between conservatism and liberalism in ways that made conservatism sound like a good idea to a large number of Americans.

 

[Harshaw]

You have an unusual definition of "liberal." I define a liberal as one who sides with the people against the plutocracy.

You say he has an unusual definition of "liberal"?

 

[James972]

I am not surprised that William Buckley defined the difference between conservatism and liberalism in ways that made conservatism sound like a good idea to a large number of Americans.

???liberals never objected because it was 100% accurate about conservatives and liberals. Do you understand? Liberals are for govt and conservatives/libertarians not. 1+1=2

 

[James972]

Trump cannot build the wall because the Mexicans won't pay for it. .

our subject is not why he cant build it but that he cant build it because he's not a plutocrat as you imagined before you thought about it. Make sense now?