Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 32404142
Results 411 to 414 of 414

Thread: Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

  1. #411
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    10,196

    Re: Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    Madison ,Federalist #40
    "The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation" The Constitution was supposed to simply be an extension of the Virginia Compact and the Annapolis Convention which were primarily designed to promote free trade among the states.

    :
    Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution and secured a
    peace treaty with land all the way to Mississipi, state govts were established, voting franchise greatly extended, freguent elections, separation of church and state, beginning of abilition of slavery in northern states, expansion of education and literacy, establishment of State Bills of Rights, patterns of expansion with NW Ordinances established, ( all westen land to Fed was to be divideded and sold for $1 per acre, self rule, and admission to union when population was 60,000, freedom of worship, trial by jury, no slavery, trade opened with Europe and Asia, loans secured to US from foreign powers.

    Additionally, many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.
    In post #391, I responded with the following words, along with a lot of other words, that jimmie has ignored as they showed just how in error his earlier post was.
    The Articles of Confederation were a near complete failure in regards to forming a new and effective nation. Ever hear of Shays' Rebellion?
    His response was as follows.
    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    who cares??? to liberals the Constitution is a complete failure too. That's why they treasonously want it to be a living communist Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    jimmie - you are beginning to lose track of the discussion, apparently, because I and others have demonstrated your near total ignorance of history. Please do some reading.

    When you attack liberals for wanting a "living communist Constitution", you tell us that you know nothing about the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson for one, though not one of those who composed the Constitution, understood that societies change as time marches on and as a consequence governing documents such as the Constitution should be revised every 20 - 25 years.

    One might also mention that you appear to be running away from your earlier comment in regards to the Articles of Confederation.
    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    jimmie - you are beginning to lose track of the discussion, apparently, because I and others have demonstrated your near total ignorance of history. Please do some reading.
    of course if true the liberal would not be so afraid to present your best example for whole world to see. What does your fear teach you?
    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    When you attack liberals for wanting a "living communist Constitution", you tell us that you know nothing about the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson for one, though not one of those who composed the Constitution, understood that societies change as time marches on and as a consequence governing documents such as the Constitution should be revised every 20 - 25 years.
    Actually Jefferson was the only one who said it; accordingly, it was not in any way in the Constitution, and he said it on assumption the succeeding generations would want to opportunity seek even more freedom from govt, not the communist govt that modern liberals seek.
    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    One might also mention that you appear to be running away from your earlier comment in regards to the Articles of Confederation.
    what comment????
    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Post #384
    what comment? others are not going on a liberals wild goose chase
    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    Originally Posted by Somerville

    What is the origin of your obsession with this delusion that "modern liberals" want a "communist govt"?
    they spied for Stalin in secret now Obama and Sanders are in the open modern liberal communists
    who run the Party. 1+1=2

    Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
    I and others on the left are not the ones shaking in fear.

    The Norman Thomas 'quote', by the way, is a fake, he never said it, though lots of 'conservatives' have used it in their attacks on liberals and the un-educated.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  2. #412
    User Vadinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    57

    Re: Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by James972 View Post
    obviously in a strict legal sense it is Constitutional, but in an intellectual sense it is very unconstitutional which is what Madison explained when he said charity is no part of the Constitution. Makes sense now?
    You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of human nature, history and the constitution. You apparently believe that whatever Madison said at any time in his life is paramount. Wrong. He was one man, nothing more or less and once they ratified the document, it fell upon the courts to make sense of it. Madison was an incredible person but he was not the only voice, his alter ego Hamilton was just as important. We want a good life, none of us want to live like anyone in 1790, do you? If so, get your ass on a plane, ditch the phones, ditch the ATM card and move to the Third World. Hell, even the Third World has better living standards than we did in 1790.

  3. #413
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    278

    Re: Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    You seem to understand the constitution yet then you claim that the welfare state is unconstitutional? Is that what you are saying? If so, you are wrong. We can legally vote in single payer health care if we wanted. As long as the Supreme Court says its constitutional, it is constitutional. You want them to vote your way? Steal a pick or pack the court, that is the American way of making sure whatever you want is likely to become legal sooner or later. Sure precedent matters but as we saw in Heller, nothing will stop a partisan court from making stuff up out of whole cloth. Personally, none of us would want to swap our lives for those of anyone in 1790 so lets move on, its 220 years later.
    The point I was making was connected to the original intent of the Constitution. Original intent, like modern intent, is geared toward the voter demographics. The original voter demographics were male freeholders. The needs of these original freeholders was different based on the nature of the beast. Modern times has more people who can vote who may or may not have any iron in the fire. The freeholder was self sufficient and looking to make that easier in the long term. The with no iron in the fire; some modern voter demographics, are looking for the quick fix, since they are not thinking long term. The Constitution was not originally geared that way. The original Constitution assumed grown men, not dependent children.

    When you judges appointed based on politics, instead of wisdom and freeholder self sufficiency, things will get perverted. If you were a freeholder, your home is your castle and you are king. You don't want an over bearing government trying to micromanage you with a bloated bureaucracy. This is not original since this would make no sense to those voters. If you have people who can vote, who want to be dependents and not work so hard, you might prefer large big brother government. This was not the original that was tailored to the needs of the self sufficient.

    America was/is an experiment in 1776. The rest of the world was under various forms of monarchy rule, with top heavy government. This was true for most of human history. This arrangement discouraged human potential, out of fear that human potential would challenge monarchy rule and alter the blood line criteria. The freeholders in America were kings of their own castles. This was very unique to history and they were shaping the Constitution to protect this experiment and not revert back to the old way.

    The modern left would prefer the old way. They love third world dictators, who can make things happen by fear. The Democrats have their self important royalty roots in the hay day of slavery, where one could act as king over others; slaves. The slav owner had the divine right of kings; life or death. Ending slavery sent the royalty mentality back decades.

    It is not coincidence that the John Kennedy years was dubbed Camelot, which is connected to royalty. When Obama was president, many wanted to change the Consitiution so he could not be replaced; King Obama. One way back to the monarchies of the past, was to change voter criteria to leverage change against the goals of the freeholders; regression backwards. This can be done with shady judges. It can also be done by turning intelligence agencies against its own people.

    The modern freeholders are the middle class, upwards. The middle class was on decline and the rich got richer and more people returned to the peasant class, just like in monarchies. The right believes in originals intent, which is freeholders; American dream.

  4. #414
    User Vadinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    57

    Re: Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

    Quote Originally Posted by wellwisher View Post
    The point I was making was connected to the original intent of the Constitution. Original intent, like modern intent, is geared toward the voter demographics. The original voter demographics were male freeholders. The needs of these original freeholders was different based on the nature of the beast. Modern times has more people who can vote who may or may not have any iron in the fire. The freeholder was self sufficient and looking to make that easier in the long term. The with no iron in the fire; some modern voter demographics, are looking for the quick fix, since they are not thinking long term. The Constitution was not originally geared that way. The original Constitution assumed grown men, not dependent children.

    When you judges appointed based on politics, instead of wisdom and freeholder self sufficiency, things will get perverted. If you were a freeholder, your home is your castle and you are king. You don't want an over bearing government trying to micromanage you with a bloated bureaucracy. This is not original since this would make no sense to those voters. If you have people who can vote, who want to be dependents and not work so hard, you might prefer large big brother government. This was not the original that was tailored to the needs of the self sufficient.

    America was/is an experiment in 1776. The rest of the world was under various forms of monarchy rule, with top heavy government. This was true for most of human history. This arrangement discouraged human potential, out of fear that human potential would challenge monarchy rule and alter the blood line criteria. The freeholders in America were kings of their own castles. This was very unique to history and they were shaping the Constitution to protect this experiment and not revert back to the old way.

    The modern left would prefer the old way. They love third world dictators, who can make things happen by fear. The Democrats have their self important royalty roots in the hay day of slavery, where one could act as king over others; slaves. The slav owner had the divine right of kings; life or death. Ending slavery sent the royalty mentality back decades.

    It is not coincidence that the John Kennedy years was dubbed Camelot, which is connected to royalty. When Obama was president, many wanted to change the Consitiution so he could not be replaced; King Obama. One way back to the monarchies of the past, was to change voter criteria to leverage change against the goals of the freeholders; regression backwards. This can be done with shady judges. It can also be done by turning intelligence agencies against its own people.

    The modern freeholders are the middle class, upwards. The middle class was on decline and the rich got richer and more people returned to the peasant class, just like in monarchies. The right believes in originals intent, which is freeholders; American dream.
    That was a lot of words covering a core statement of pure malarkey. Sorry bud, America has supported dictators whenever it suited our purposes. To claim that the left wants a monarchy is hilarious. Camelot? Dude, you must be young or a conspiracy nut.

Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 32404142

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •