Teaching Liberals Why Madison and Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights.

They opposed because the Constitution was very very clear about what power the federal govt was to have. It was to have only the few enumerated powers spelled in Article 1, Sec., 8. It had no power to, for example, limit freedom of speech; so why add a Bill of Rights to protect free speech when govt was to have no authority over the subject whatsoever. Further, they feared if it was added some would understand it to mean the federal govt had authority to protect speech and might use that authority to pervert and eliminate free speech.

In sum, Madison and Hamilton opposed even the Bill of Rights because they feared a big liberal govt would read as a Bill of Anti Rights. Little did they know that not even the specifically enumerated powers could contain the liberal Leviathan that was about to emerge, and that just 200 years later liberal socialists like Obama, Sanders and Warren would be are knocking on our door with undreamed of Anti American big govt schemes.

:lamo

It's sad that OP doesn't know or understand the history of his own country.

Moot said:

It's sad that OP doesn't know or understand the history of his own country.

Click to expand...

of course if true why are you so afraid to point out what is not understood? What do we learn from your fear?

James972 said:

of course if true why are you so afraid to point out what is not understood? What do we learn from your fear?

Click to expand...

Better yet, why don't you do some comprehensive reading on Constitutional history before making a thread about it?

Moot said:

Better yet, why don't you do some comprehensive reading on Constitutional history before making a thread about it?

Click to expand...

if there is something I don't know why are you so afraid to tell us what it is?? What did you learn from your fear??

James972 said:

They opposed because the Constitution was very very clear about what power the federal govt was to have. It was to have only the few enumerated powers spelled in Article 1, Sec., 8. It had no power to, for example, limit freedom of speech; so why add a Bill of Rights to protect free speech when govt was to have no authority over the subject whatsoever. Further, they feared if it was added some would understand it to mean the federal govt had authority to protect speech and might use that authority to pervert and eliminate free speech.

In sum, Madison and Hamilton opposed even the Bill of Rights because they feared a big liberal govt would read as a Bill of Anti Rights. Little did they know that not even the specifically enumerated powers could contain the liberal Leviathan that was about to emerge, and that just 200 years later liberal socialists like Obama, Sanders and Warren would be are knocking on our door with undreamed of Anti American big govt schemes.

Click to expand...

Correctly cited sources? Arguments in favor of this position?

You'll have a very hard time arguing this position as stated, since I:8 are the powers of Congress (which are not really limited in the sense you seem to mean--they're the powers most governments have, including even very tyrannical ones). The federal government includes the executive and legislative branches, each with their own powers that are not described in I:8. The powers of the President are described in Article II, and those of the Judiciary in Article III. Additionally, Articles (Amendments) 12, 13-16, 19-20, and 25-26 also grant powers to Congress.

James972 said:

They opposed because the Constitution was very very clear about what power the federal govt was to have. It was to have only the few enumerated powers spelled in Article 1, Sec., 8. It had no power to, for example, limit freedom of speech; so why add a Bill of Rights to protect free speech when govt was to have no authority over the subject whatsoever. Further, they feared if it was added some would understand it to mean the federal govt had authority to protect speech and might use that authority to pervert and eliminate free speech.

In sum, Madison and Hamilton opposed even the Bill of Rights because they feared a big liberal govt would read as a Bill of Anti Rights. Little did they know that not even the specifically enumerated powers could contain the liberal Leviathan that was about to emerge, and that just 200 years later liberal socialists like Obama, Sanders and Warren would be are knocking on our door with undreamed of Anti American big govt schemes.

Click to expand...

James

Liberals can’t comprehend it because they want big government. The liberals have gotten to the point where they want government run healthcare but, they cannot control the problem that we call the veterans administration! The whole thing about the single-payer system sounds perfect but, in reality, it’s a disaster and, how many examples do we need! Thus, those people who you have listed are not democrat ! It’s funny how president Obama was a constitution professor or he says! But he never lived up to the constitutional


Can’t censor this Patriot

James972 said:

if there is something I don't know why are you so afraid to tell us what it is?? What did you learn from your fear??

Click to expand...

Well, since you asked. What I learned from your threads is that you seem eager to learn about Constitutional history and to discuss what you learn...but that you poison the well with your partisan sophistry before a discussion can even begin ...and that you try to fit the facts to fit your bias, instead of your opinion to fit the facts...and that your condescending attitude doesn't warrant the low level of your knowledge and comprehension. So, it's not so much a fear as it is an instinct, that it would be an unpleasant waste of time and effort to have an evidence based, well reasoned, civil discussion with you. But if I do..it's probably because I'm bored and need something to chew on.

Moot said:

Well, since you asked. What I learned from your threads is that you seem eager to learn about Constitutional history and to discuss what you learn...but that you poison the well with your partisan sophistry before a discussion can even begin ...and that you try to fit the facts to fit your bias, instead of your opinion to fit the facts...and that your condescending attitude doesn't warrant the low level of your knowledge and comprehension. So, it's not so much a fear as it is an instinct, that it would be an unpleasant waste of time and effort to have an evidence based, well reasoned, civil discussion with you. But if I do..it's probably because I'm bored and need something to chew on.

Click to expand...

I try to fit facts to my bias?If this is true why are you so afraid to present your best example. What do you learn from your fear.

Moot said:

Well, since you asked. What I learned from your threads is that you seem eager to learn about Constitutional history and to discuss what you learn...but that you poison the well with your partisan sophistry before a discussion can even begin ...and that you try to fit the facts to fit your bias, instead of your opinion to fit the facts...and that your condescending attitude doesn't warrant the low level of your knowledge and comprehension. So, it's not so much a fear as it is an instinct, that it would be an unpleasant waste of time and effort to have an evidence based, well reasoned, civil discussion with you. But if I do..it's probably because I'm bored and need something to chew on.

Click to expand...

This is all personal attack presumably because you lack the knowledge to respond to the OP subject matter.

Who cares what they thought, the law is the law. Why do conservatives love to pretend they love the constitution and are all about it when people try to do things they disagree with, then constantly whine and crap on it all the time?

Oh, because they are giant hypocrites who often lack facts and intelligent arguments to support their position

Holy cow the dumb of so many right wingers are astounding.

Sampson Simpson said:

Who cares what they thought, the law is the law. Why do conservatives love to pretend they love the constitution and are all about it when people try to do things they disagree with, then constantly whine and crap on it all the time?

Oh, because they are giant hypocrites who often lack facts and intelligent arguments to support their position

Holy cow the dumb of so many right wingers are astounding.

Click to expand...

Of course if conservatives were dumb you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see. What do you learn from your fear?

James972 said:

Of course if conservatives were dumb you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see. What do you learn from your fear?

Click to expand...

Psst...I don't think they're so much afraid as they don't take you seriously.

Out of curiosity, what about driving division gives you that special little tingle? I mean, they are your fellow citizens...your neighbors. Do you think you're doing yourself any favors by going to war with them, let alone anyone else? Or are you just one of those unfortunate people that needs someone to hate?

OlNate said:

Psst...I don't think they're so much afraid as they don't take you seriously.

Out of curiosity, what about driving division gives you that special little tingle? I mean, they are your fellow citizens...your neighbors. Do you think you're doing yourself any favors by going to war with them, let alone anyone else? Or are you just one of those unfortunate people that needs someone to hate?

Click to expand...

Our founders thought liberalism had been the source of evil throughout human history. Therefore it is important to the survival of our country that we remain aware of the founders wisdom. Now do you understand?

James972 said:

They opposed because the Constitution was very very clear about what power the federal govt was to have. It was to have only the few enumerated powers spelled in Article 1, Sec., 8. It had no power to, for example, limit freedom of speech; so why add a Bill of Rights to protect free speech when govt was to have no authority over the subject whatsoever. Further, they feared if it was added some would understand it to mean the federal govt had authority to protect speech and might use that authority to pervert and eliminate free speech.

In sum, Madison and Hamilton opposed even the Bill of Rights because they feared a big liberal govt would read as a Bill of Anti Rights. Little did they know that not even the specifically enumerated powers could contain the liberal Leviathan that was about to emerge, and that just 200 years later liberal socialists like Obama, Sanders and Warren would be are knocking on our door with undreamed of Anti American big govt schemes.

Click to expand...

By your above statement, it would be constitutionally acceptable to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. (Or "Theatre" in a crowded firehouse.) But the constitution is not absolute. Nobody would argue that the literal words "he" and "his" in Article II doesn't preclude a president from being a woman.

Actually, the constitution is a vague short outline of a document that gives specified but broad powers to Congress. Examples:

Article I, Section 5.

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members... Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior..."

Article, I, Section 8

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

There are also contractions that could only be decided by the courts. Example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " where the line is drawn isn't stated. Can a city erect a Christmas scene? If my religion requires me to smoke marijuana, does that overrule state laws?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Courts have been wrestling with this one for centuries. Is it a personal right or a collective militia right?

Ok, I spent way too much time on this blather of a thread.

TheRepublican said:

James

Liberals can’t comprehend it because they want big government. The liberals have gotten to the point where they want government run healthcare but, they cannot control the problem that we call the veterans administration! The whole thing about the single-payer system sounds perfect but, in reality, it’s a disaster and, how many examples do we need! Thus, those people who you have listed are not democrat ! It’s funny how president Obama was a constitution professor or he says! But he never lived up to the constitutional


Can’t censor this Patriot

Click to expand...

I think the VA mess is bi-partisan. Might want to use another example.....

James972 said:

Our founders thought liberalism had been the source of evil throughout human history. Therefore it is important to the survival of our country that we remain aware of the founders wisdom. Now do you understand?

Click to expand...

No, I don't. You sound a little crazy, to be honest.

James972 said:

I try to fit facts to my bias? If this is true why are you so afraid to present your best example. What do you learn from your fear.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed you do. Take for instance, the first sentence in your OP..."They opposed because the Constitution was very very clear about what power the federal govt was to have."

That is false. The entire Constitution was a "bundle of compromises" from beginning to end...and none of the founders were fully satisfied with the result...so they wanted to make sure that the Constitution could be amended. By the end of the debates nearly all of the founders, including Madison and Hamilton, agreed to a compromise that there should be a BoR in order to get the constitution ratified. So the States wrote to Madison and listed the rights they wanted protected and Madison enumerated them, and the States debated them and when they were done...the first congress used the amendment process to pass it.

Interestingly enough, nearly all the states listed State and individual rights as their first priority. But Madison felt that the States had already listed many individual right protections in their State Constitutions and it would be redundant and too numerous to list them all in a federal document. So to keep things simple he enumerated a protection for individual and state rights in what became known as the ninth and tenth amendments.




The Constitution was not written in stone, James...it was simply written as a binding but amendable contract with the States who represented the people.


It's also interesting to note that Madison wrote the outline for the constitution called the Virginia Plan while he was waiting for the rest of the State delegates to arrive at the convention in Philadelphia.

James972 said:

This is all personal attack presumably because you lack the knowledge to respond to the OP subject matter.

Click to expand...

What are you afraid of...the truth?

James972 said:

They opposed because the Constitution was very very clear about what power the federal govt was to have. It was to have only the few enumerated powers spelled in Article 1, Sec., 8. It had no power to, for example, limit freedom of speech; so why add a Bill of Rights to protect free speech when govt was to have no authority over the subject whatsoever. Further, they feared if it was added some would understand it to mean the federal govt had authority to protect speech and might use that authority to pervert and eliminate free speech.

In sum, Madison and Hamilton opposed even the Bill of Rights because they feared a big liberal govt would read as a Bill of Anti Rights. Little did they know that not even the specifically enumerated powers could contain the liberal Leviathan that was about to emerge, and that just 200 years later liberal socialists like Obama, Sanders and Warren would be are knocking on our door with undreamed of Anti American big govt schemes.

Click to expand...

Question: Was Alexander Hamilton right?

He (along with John Jay and James Madison) didn't want a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution because he firmly believed that the natural rights such a bill outlined were already "the rights of the people". Moreover, he was concerned that if Congress began outlining specific rights to the people it would eventually begin to outline things the people could not do. Put another way: Hamilton feared the "heavy hand of government". As such, he believed that government already had all the powers it needed spelled out in the Constitution. However, what he failed to realize is once the one (Congress) giveth such rights, the one couldn't (easily) taketh said rights away once they were etched in stone as it were. Therefore, the compromised reached was a certainty that the natural rights of man (in America at least) would always be and that Congress could not infringe on same.

Personal Note: The premise of your debate was good until you closed with a partisan attack. There a many Democrats who have a healthy respect and deep understanding of the Constitution. It would be great if one day Republicans/Conservatives would stop talking as if they hold a monopoly on this native document (this goes for patriotism and Christianity as well). For the record, you haven't taught me anything I didn't already know.

Objective Voice said:

There a many Democrats who have a healthy respect and deep understanding of the Constitution. .

Click to expand...

of course that's little more than a lie. Democrats have always hated the Constitution and wanted it to be a living Constitution so it could be a commie Constitution. Imagine if the founders had gone to the people who were scared to death about federal power and said, "don't worry the new Constitution is a living documents, means anything we want, and you can totally ignore the enumerated powers!!" It would not have received one vote for ratification!!

Moot said:

That is false. The entire Constitution was a "bundle of compromises"

Click to expand...

obviously all agree it was a compromise, a compromise that gave the federal govt specific enumerated powers which the liberals then treasonously ignored.

Moot said:

Tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
.

Click to expand...

interesting. Founders were so afraid of liberalism that they feared the enumerated powers would just be ignored and govt would take want ever powers it wanted. That is why they wrote the 10th Amendment but liberalism is like a cancer it grew and grew anyway!! Now do you understand?

Rexedgar said:

I think the VA mess is bi-partisan. Might want to use another example.....

Click to expand...

VA is a typical huge liberal soviet bureaucracy and obviously very very inefficient. Republican capitalism is the solution