• 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!

Was the Constitutional Convention really a Coup?

SmartCat said:
That did not happen because the Articles of Confederation were fundamentally deficient.
Click to expand...

if they were they would have been amended and there would have been no need for Constitutional Convention.
 
SmartCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Liberals connected to Stalin when they spied for him and when they gave him the bomb as he was slowly starving to 65 million to death.
 
SmartCat said:
They have not been doing that.
Click to expand...

no, what company is not providing the best jobs and products possible?? Maybe you should start a business with second rate jobs and products. Do you know enough to tell us what would happen?
 
SmartCat said:
They[corporations] have not been going bankrupt either.
Click to expand...

oh? I thought it was 10,000 a month or so. How many did the liberal think it was?
 
Wow, we really seem to have drifted off topic...

What does any of this have to do with the constitutional convention of 1787 being a "coup"?

And I still am at a loss to understand how the Articles of Confederation guaranteed freedom. Can you quote from it to show us any clauses which would have done so?
 
JimHackerMP said:
Wow, we really seem to have drifted off topic...

What does any of this have to do with the constitutional convention of 1787 being a "coup"?
Click to expand...


Brits call it The Rebellion.

They are correct, of course. The colonies were largely self governing. When we rebelled the same guys were doing pretty much the same things, just without a guvnah..

Bit of a stretch to call that a coup.
 
late said:
Brits call it The Rebellion.

They are correct, of course. The colonies were largely self governing. When we rebelled the same guys were doing pretty much the same things, just without a guvnah..

Bit of a stretch to call that a coup.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about 1776; but the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. The OP seems to think that the Constitution of 1787 was an illegal seizure of power.

The problem with his argument, however, is that he used the term coup d'etat, which, by definition, is the infiltration of some key segment of the permanent state apparatus--the military, the intelligence services, the police--to displace the in situ government from its control of the state. The U.S. was a loose confederation of states, with no integrated military, intelligence services, or national police force, and certainly nothing whatsoever of a state bureaucracy. Also, there needs to be some sort of center of power in which it takes place to displace that power. The "United States" per se was little more than a shifting, unelected, unicameral Congress which was used to coordinate the activities of the thirteen independent states. It moved around constantly. The centers of power in 1787 were the state capitals.

In short, you cannot have an actual coup d'etat take place in the U.S.A. in 1787 in ONE location: it would need to be carried out thirteen times, in thirteen different locations, and involve force--or at least the threat of intervention by force--to be a coup. Of course, you could argue that the legality of the manner in which the constitution was approved was in violation of the Articles of Confederation. But it wasn't an illegal seizure of power, or really a seizure at all. All thirteen states approved it (eventually), and nobody ended up leaving the Union, or trying to leave the Union, for at least 71 years (1860) after its establishment. The states that were reluctant to ratify it still ended up doing so, since they were promised a bill of rights would be proposed by Congress within a few years--which of course it was, and all thirteen states ratified 10 of its 12 proposed articles within a year or two after its passage by Congress.

The worst you could call it is a Thermidorian Reaction. But such reactions are often necessary in revolutions to keep them from ending up in disaster.
 
JimHackerMP said:
And I still am at a loss to understand how the Articles of Confederation guaranteed freedom.
Click to expand...

the guarantee was a very very limited central govt, thus we had a guarantee of freedom from central govt. Now do you understand?
 
JimHackerMP said:
The problem with his argument, however, is that he used the term coup d'etat, which, by definition, is.
Click to expand...

1) no he didn't use that term
2) term used was coup:

a notable or successful stroke or move.

"it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract"
synonyms: success, triumph, feat, accomplishment, achievement, scoop, master stroke, stroke of genius
"a major publishing coup"
 
JimHackerMP said:
All thirteen states approved it (eventually),.
Click to expand...

Yes but only on the lie that it would not significantly enhance power of central govt. Had they told the truth we'd still be free today as we were under Articles!!
 
Harshaw said:
You say he has an unusual definition of "liberal"?
Click to expand...

Economic conservatives desire less government. Christian conservatives desire a government big enough to force everyone to live the way they think we should.
 
James972 said:
???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
Click to expand...

Christian conservatives want a government big enough to force everyone to live the way they think we should.
 
James972 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Plutocrats like Trump dominate the United States. They do not control it the way the political party of a totalitarian dictatorship would.
 
James972 said:
if they were they would have been amended and there would have been no need for Constitutional Convention.
Click to expand...

It is often better to buy a new car than to keep repairing the old one. It is often better to buy a new suit of clothes than to keep patching the old one. Constitutions are the same way.
 
James972 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just so ya know, it is not Libs interested in having another Constitutional Conversation, are those suggesting one now traitors?
 
James972 said:
Liberals connected to Stalin when they spied for him and when they gave him the bomb as he was slowly starving to 65 million to death.
Click to expand...

Those were not liberals but left wing radicals. Educated liberals like me have been influenced by our reading of Karl Marx. We do not agree with him about everything.
 
James972 said:
no, what company is not providing the best jobs and products possible?? Maybe you should start a business with second rate jobs and products. Do you know enough to tell us what would happen?
Click to expand...

Walmart for one. They keep prices low by keeping ages low.
 
SmartCat said:
Economic conservatives desire less government. Christian conservatives desire a government big enough to force everyone to live the way they think we should.
Click to expand...

That's got nothing to do with your freaky definition of "liberal."
 
SmartCat said:
Walmart for one. They keep prices low by keeping wages low.
Click to expand...

so the " smartcat" liberal wants Walmart to raise wages and go bankrupt faster at the hands of Amazon???
 
SmartCat said:
Those were not liberals but left wing radicals. Educated liberals like me have been influenced by our reading of Karl Marx. We do not agree with him about everything.
Click to expand...

so Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Cortez, Maxine Waters, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris are not left wing radical socialists who want far bigger govt then ever even when it is already far bigger than ever?? Liberals are useful idiots for their communist handlers. Sorry to break it to you!


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.
 
SmartCat said:
Karl Marx. We do not agree with him about everything.
Click to expand...

you may claim that you don't agree but your handlers are bringing you right along as if on a leash toward communism.
 
SmartCat said:
Plutocrats like Trump dominate the United States..
Click to expand...

so we have lots of presidents like Trump?? See why we say liberalism is based in ignorance?? What other conclusion is possible?
 
SmartCat said:
Christian conservatives desire a government big enough to force everyone to live the way they think we should.
Click to expand...

so you're anti-semitic and anti christian?? how do the evil Christians think you should live?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom