• 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?

Oozlefinch said:
What, are you Drax the Destroyer, and can only take things literally and missed completely what I said?

Go troll elsewhere, I have no more interest in this, you are boring and bring nothing at all of interest to this discussion.
Click to expand...

so you agree that the Constitution was, in effect, ratified in a coup?
 
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...

I assume your're talking about the idea that the convention was supposed to amend the Articles and not throw them out and that that alleged overstepping of their authority somehow invalidates the Constitution?

The states didn't have to ratify the Constitution. No one put a gun to their heads. Yet they did so no, it was not a coup.

If you wanted 13 separate polities with loose coordination the Articles worked. If you wanted an actual country they didn't. We'd be speaking the Kings English again, or maybe French or German, if the Articles weren't replaced.
 
James972 said:
so you agree that the Constitution was, in effect, ratified in a coup?
Click to expand...

A self-coup. What about that are you not comprehending?

A self-coup is peaceful, where the government changes itself. Very different form a coup d'état, which is a violent overthrow by force.
 
spud_meister said:
Pretty sure dynastic empires have gone a hell of a lot longer.
Click to expand...

Yes, and no.

The longest standing Dynasty to this day is that of Japan. Ruled by a single dynasty of Emperors, founded by Emperor Jimmu in 660 BCE.

To put that in perspective, when Jimmu was Emperor, Babylonia rose up and defeated the Assyrians, Manasseh was King of Judeah (2 Kings 21:1), the poet Sappho was born, and the Babylonians captured Jerusalem, starting the Babylonian Captivity (Ezra and Esther).

And Emperor Akihito is part of the same unbroken line of Emperors, stretching back over 2,600 years.

That however does not mean that the government has remained the same. During the over 2 millennium, the Emperor has bounced back and forth many times, from ruling directly, and as a puppet for other warlords who ruled in their name. Not unlike England, which has bounced between a King, a Constitutional Monarchy, a Republic, and now a Parliamentary Monarchy.

Yes, there has never been and likely will never be a dynasty that lasts as long as that of Japan. But that does not mean that the government has gone unchanged during that time.
 
Gaius46 said:
I assume your're talking about the idea that the convention was supposed to amend the Articles and not throw them out and that that alleged overstepping of their authority somehow invalidates the Constitution?
Click to expand...

That was actually the original intent. The Annapolis Convention of 1786 (Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government) was originally convened to simply propose finding a way to fix the Articled of Confederation. But the meeting did establish that there was need for a formal change to the AoC, so the Grand Convention at Philadelphia (now known as the Constitutional Convention) was called for the next year.

Ultimately, the proposal for change by James Madison (The Virginia Plan) was adopted as the new blueprint, and the idea went from simply modifying the AoC to creating an entirely new government.

And one of the biggest changes came in the creation of the Chief Executive. Under the AoC, the closest was the President of the United States in Congress, which today is closer to the Speaker of the House in the power he had (which was very little). This lack of a central individual who could make decisions for the nation was a major failing of the AoC. This was noticed during Shay's Rebellion, when Congress pulled General Washington out of retirement to put down the rebellion.
 
spud_meister said:
Pretty sure dynastic empires have gone a hell of a lot longer.
Click to expand...

You mean the ones where they kill you if you don't obey? Well maybe they did, but the US is probably one of the oldest (if not the oldest) currently in existence.
 
James972 said:
who said what from the start?
Click to expand...

They said a republic would only last with an educated and moral people, something the Left has been working to eliminate for years.
 
Things are easier to see if we place things in larger historical perspective. For most of human history, there were only two classes. There were the rich and powerful royal class and their inner circles of cronies. There was the poor peasant class, stuck where they were, unable to move upward. The US was unique in the history of the world, because it was a huge place of untapped resources which had room for the powerful and could also support a middle class. Europe and many other counties had been divided up for centuries, wth no room for a middle class.

The historical peasant class, through history was self sufficient, albeit poor and wretched. They were under natural selection due to the harsh conditions close to natural living; genetic advantages. The ruling class was a parasite that fed on the self sufficient peasant class, via taxes and a rigged system. Since the leadership was a parasite with a large appetite, it often needed violence and cruelty to maintain the host. It was also elite blue blood incestuous and lacked the same genetic advantages.

The middle class in the USA, stemming from the peasants, offered a new self sufficient class, who could enjoy a better standard of living. The middle class also had a path to the top. Anyone could become president; Lincoln. This unique path to the top added self made people to the highest leadership roles. These people had an impact on the blue bloods, who were accustomed to the divine right of kings and to parasitic entitlement; blood lines and old money.

The division between the middle class spawned leaders, and the blue blood elites, altered how leadership behaved, since many of the new leaders could relate to the needs of the peasants and the middle class, different from the needs of a parasite. The Constitution was there to protect the middle class and limit the power of the entitled parasitic ruling class.

After the Revolutionary War, although independence from England had been won, most people were not that far removed from the trends of history; long standing tradition versus the new. Many wished to go backwards, especially if you were part of the elite ruling class. Backwards meant placing stresses on the middle class to block the upward path to the top. For example, Under Obama, the middle class declined and the peasant class grew as the government grew. This led to an entitlement mentality, which even involve deep state crimes against the people. This was happening in early America, but was moderated by the middle class path to power.

The Bill of Rights was designed to maintain the evolutionary middle class path, and avoid a regression back to forms of government dominated by a parasitic and entitled ruling class; Royalty, Communism and Socialism. These would all try to enslave the middle class with petty laws designed to undermine. Hillary was entitled to win. However, the middle class from both parties did not agree with the regression backwards. The result then and now was a movement to original intent.
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
totally wrong of course!! Constitution barely passed because most thought Articles were superior because they limited liberal govt more . Further, Constitution only passed when anti-federalists insisted on Bill of Rights to further limit big liberal govt. Most importantly, 200 years later we know they were right. The Constitution failed to limits govt power as communists like Sanders Obama Warren stand poised to take over our country.
Click to expand...

LOL, another idiotic liberals are poopyheads trolling thread.Christ almighty the dumb on this forum is astounding. You can at least attempt some semblance of intelligence
 
Sampson Simpson said:
LOL, another idiotic liberals are poopyheads trolling thread.Christ almighty the dumb on this forum is astounding. You can at least attempt some semblance of intelligence
Click to expand...

of course if it was idiotic the liberal would not be so afraid to say why. What has the liberal learned from his fear ?
 
American said:
You mean the ones where they kill you if you don't obey? Well maybe they did, but the US is probably one of the oldest (if not the oldest) currently in existence.
Click to expand...

Well, due to colonialism, it is one of the oldest, but certainly not the oldest. The current form of Britain's constitutional monarchy dates back to the 1600's. I'm pedantic about history.
 
spud_meister said:
Well, due to colonialism, it is one of the oldest, but certainly not the oldest. The current form of Britain's constitutional monarchy dates back to the 1600's. I'm pedantic about history.
Click to expand...

I should have been specific. The UK and the US are two different styles of govt.
 
spud_meister said:
Well, due to colonialism, it is one of the oldest, but certainly not the oldest. The current form of Britain's constitutional monarchy dates back to the 1600's. I'm pedantic about history.
Click to expand...

That would be 1689 and then 1701.
 
American said:
They said a republic would only last with an educated and moral people, something the Left has been working to eliminate for years.
Click to expand...

yes. ghettos have the highest concentrations of liberal voters for sure but disaffected white lower class folks (Reagan Democrats) gave Reagan and Trump their victories.
 
Terryj said:
The Articles of Confederation had many problems, 1st, there was no trade agreement between the States. The States had the power to set up any trade agreement with other States and Foreign powers. This lead to an economic disaster for the newly appointed federal government, congress could not regulate trade. 2nd, Under article 9, the federal government had the power to coin money, but so did each State have the right to coin it's own money. This met that the United State government had no uniform system of currency which made trade between the states and foreign government very difficult. 3rd, The articles of confederation required the federal government to be responsible for all U.S. debt, however, it did not give the federal government the power to tax, the power to tax was left to the States. 4th, there was no federal judiciary, this meant that disputes between States were left up to those States to resolve, I bet you can guess how that worked out. These are just a few flaws of the Articles of Confederation. I'm not saying that the Constitution is the best government ever, but it did address a lot of these problems and also put into play a way to change the Constitution when needed. Has it been abused, yes, has it been ignored, yes, however, it is up to the States and the People to put an end to the abuses by the federal government, left to itself, it will continue to grow into a bigger monster that it already is.
Click to expand...

Thank you, you know your history. The Articles would have resulted in chaos and likely war between neighboring states over trade, tariffs, debts, etc. The founders saw that it was doomed. That is why they created our current constitution.
 
Vadinho said:
Thank you, you know your history. The Articles would have resulted in chaos and likely war between neighboring states over trade, tariffs, debts, etc. The founders saw that it was doomed. That is why they created our current constitution.
Click to expand...

totally mistaken if doomed the greatest founders like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry would have thought so and there would have been support to amend Articles but there was no support for doing so. The current Constitution was created in secret and ratified with the lie that it would not greatly increase govt power. Had they told the truth it never would have passed in a million years.
 
James972 said:
totally mistaken if doomed the greatest founders like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry would have thought so and there would have been support to amend Articles but there was no support for doing so. The current Constitution was created in secret and ratified with the lie that it would not greatly increase govt power. Had they told the truth it never would have passed in a million years.
Click to expand...

I am unclear what you are saying here. The convention was not in secret, the colonies all sent representatives and it was a lengthy debate. Then, it went up for state by state votes to ratify it. Holdover states like New York forced Madison and Hamilton to write the Federalist Papers. As for the threat of central power, what they thought of as central power was a monarchy not a modern state like we have today. They had never seen anything like our forms of government, could not even imagine it.
 
Vadinho said:
I am unclear what you are saying here. The convention was not in secret, the colonies all sent representatives and it was a lengthy debate. Then, it went up for state by state votes to ratify it. Holdover states like New York forced Madison and Hamilton to write the Federalist Papers. As for the threat of central power, what they thought of as central power was a monarchy not a modern state like we have today. They had never seen anything like our forms of government, could not even imagine it.
Click to expand...
The constitutional convention was called to address deficiencies in the articles of the confederacy, not create a whole new government.
And they did fear a strong central government, hence the Mather Byles quote,
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"
Click to expand...
 
Vadinho said:
As for the threat of central power, what they thought of as central power was a monarchy not a modern state like we have today. .
Click to expand...

totally absurd of course Ratification debate was not about whether we would have monarchy here but a about if new govt would be slightly bigger than Articles provided. Federalists had to blatantly lie to get it passed. And as soon it it was passed they became monarchical. Jefferson and Madison then started the Second American Revolution against the Federalists liberal big govt.
 
Vadinho said:
They had never seen anything like our forms of government, could not even imagine it.
Click to expand...

total nonsense of course they saw and read about 1000's of governments in history and knew that powerful central govt had been the source of evil in human history. And that was without seeing Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals.
 
James972 said:
totally absurd of course Ratification debate was not about whether we would have monarchy here but a about if new govt would be slightly bigger than Articles provided. Federalists had to blatantly lie to get it passed. And as soon it it was passed they became monarchical. Jefferson and Madison then started the Second American Revolution against the Federalists liberal big govt.
Click to expand...

Madison wrote the Virginia Plan on which the constitution was based...and totally abolished the AoC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan


Btw...Madison was a Federalist....do the Federalist Papers ring a bell?
 
James972 said:
total nonsense of course they saw and read about 1000's of governments in history and knew that powerful central govt had been the source of evil in human history. And that was without seeing Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals.
Click to expand...

My lord, do I have to remind you that our government was the first of its kind with three equal branches? Sometimes I wonder how anyone could get through high school and not have a basic understanding of history and our nation's founding ideals and goals. There had never, ever been any nation in human history set up like ours, none. My point was that what they considered big government was in relation to a monarchy or dictatorship, English royalty or Julius Caesar. Athens itself had a very limited idea of how government could provide a collective benefit to all, it was 300 BC for christ sakes. We all enjoy a wonderful life if we are lucky because of our government. Repeat after me. We are all doing well because over time our government protected us from the powerful and each other. That is the lesson of history as it relates to governance. The extent of that protection from each other is what separates various forms of government.
 
Vadinho said:
My lord, do I have to remind you that our government was the first of its kind with three equal branches?.
Click to expand...

no idea why you think you have to remind me of that?? do you have any idea????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom