Federalist 46: Let's try it again.

[JakeStarkey]

We study the Founders for wisdom, enough wisdom to make sure we don't make the mistakes they did.

Specify their mistakes.................Oh wise one..............

As they created the Constitution. Unless you are very very very old, I don't think you created it.

No one has to answer anything to you, friend.

They weren't perfect, they are now dead, and it is our document.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We study the Founders for wisdom, enough wisdom to make sure we don't make the mistakes they did.

And what mistakes were those Fakey? Opposing King George? As WE oppose Obama and every other tyrant? IDIOT

One thing our Founders were very good at was to keep the rabble like you from power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Federalist Papers were specific to give We the People the intent of the Constitution itself. It was a comprehensive explanation to get the People and the States to Ratify the Constitution of the United States.

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We the Peopl are the power, the states merely our agents: they have no other inherent function than to do what We tell them to do.

Does that go for the Federal Gov't as well..............Of course it does, just as it does for a State or even local Gov't.................The intention was to keep the power local where the locals could address the problem where it occurs...........Not from someone across the country telling them how to fix a local problem.

The problems of New York City should be handled in New York City by the people of New York City. If I from Alabama tell them or order them to fix it my way they'd tell me to go to hell and rightfully so..............The same as I'd tell them to go to hell by ordering Alabama to fix the problem as they believe.............Again, as LOCAL AS POSSIBLE.........

Not the federalists. Madison at the convention, which I am sure he regretted later, Washington, Adams, Franklin, all the Federalists were not afraid of a strong, powerful government.

The anti-federalists were afraid of such government.

Your error is thinking the Founders were unitary in their thinking: they weren't.

 

[Listening]

Look at it rationally, the Federalist Papers were personal rants by Patriots having fun arguing about the future of the new American government. Who knows if Madison might have been chuckling as he took a few sips of excellent American whiskey when he wrote his anonymous "Publis" stuff? The Federalist Papers were arguments for and against the concepts of freedom and federal domination. The Founding Fathers finally hammered out the greatest document ever considered in the history of civilization and that is the only thing that counts. Maybe it's ignorance or political arrogance that compels people to try to rewrite the Constitution based on Federalist Papers but the Constitution is what it is.

No, this is ignorance.

The Federalist Papers were written to sell the idea of a stronger central government to the state of New York. They were in favor of a constitution that Madison (a key author of the Federalist) helped write.

They attempted to explain what it was and what it wasn't and it's functions. What do you use in place of their intent when you have nothing else.

Tell me. What does Harry "The Pond Scum" Blackmunn utilize when he has nothing on in the USC on abortion ?

"What do you use in place of intent when you have nothing else". "Nothing else"?.... but the greatest document ever written in the history of the human race? The Founding Fathers were not unaware of the Federalist papers. They considered the Papers when they sweated it out in that long summer when they hammered out the Constitution. The "Bill of Rights' were (was) intended as a limitation on the power of the federal government and trumps whatever rants were found in the Federalist Papers. You can't drag out a Federalist Paper and claim it has importance in of itself but it's reasonable to consider the Federalist Papers when reviewing the Constitutionality of a law.

The greatest document ever written does not address the subject of abortion. How did Harry "Pond Scum" Blackmunn write a decision ?

 

[Listening]

We study the Founders for wisdom, enough wisdom to make sure we don't make the mistakes they did.

Specify their mistakes.................Oh wise one..............

As they created the Constitution. Unless you are very very very old, I don't think you created it.

No one has to answer anything to you, friend.

They weren't perfect, they are now dead, and it is our document.

Translation : I can't specify anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Not that you've answered the question or even tried. You do nothing but show up, drop your little turds and (unfortunately) don't leave."

I surely did and your are merely projecting your turds elsewhere. Once again Madison's own words show you are wrong.

Madison's Big Government Plan link above: I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States, is utterly irreconcileable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think at the same time that a consolidation of the States into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.
Madison was a Big Government guy before he was a Little Government guy.

It is unfortunate that our society lets people like you potentially propagate their stupidity through their offspring (hopefully you don't have any).

Poor, poor little reactionary right wing fools. Madison believed originally the states were subordinate to the power of the nation state. Listening et al have seen their OP blown up and just can't handle, thus the melt down.

They are in the very small minority so they whine and pine all they want: watch the final collapse of the TP this fall, and the move of Boehner and the mainstream next year to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

You freaks don't get "just once more."

 

[Listening]

The Federalist Papers were specific to give We the People the intent of the Constitution itself. It was a comprehensive explanation to get the People and the States to Ratify the Constitution of the United States.

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We the Peopl are the power, the states merely our agents: they have no other inherent function than to do what We tell them to do.

Does that go for the Federal Gov't as well..............Of course it does, just as it does for a State or even local Gov't.................The intention was to keep the power local where the locals could address the problem where it occurs...........Not from someone across the country telling them how to fix a local problem.

The problems of New York City should be handled in New York City by the people of New York City. If I from Alabama tell them or order them to fix it my way they'd tell me to go to hell and rightfully so..............The same as I'd tell them to go to hell by ordering Alabama to fix the problem as they believe.............

Again, as LOCAL AS POSSIBLE.........

He's without the capability to comprehend. He can only recall the bedtime stories his mother and 2nd grade teacher taught him about things like government and he has to rely totally upon them since he can't reason for himself.

 

[Listening]

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

*****************************

Madison was the man

 

[whitehall]

While 1st Amendment issues and the entire 2nd Amendment not to mention parts of the 5th Amendment are under constant assault by anti-American factions within our own government the post suggest s that we should consider Federalist Paper 46 as some sort of Constitutional issue by proxy. Forget the Federalist Papers. Under the current administration the real Constitution is in trouble.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

you appear to have issues with [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] how ironic

Doesn't really matter.

The US Constitution was ratified. Those battles were fought. Some won, some lost.


btw, can you post some more dribble out of context? I'm bored and need some entertainment

 

[Listening]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

you appear to have issues with [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] how ironic

Doesn't really matter.

The US Constitution was ratified. Those battles were fought. Some won, some lost.


btw, can you post some more dribble out of context? I'm bored and need some entertainment

Still can't turn on the the TV ?

Now would you please explain your post.

What is out of context and what is wrong with me asking what it is that he might be pointing at ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

you appear to have issues with [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] how ironic

Doesn't really matter.

The US Constitution was ratified. Those battles were fought. Some won, some lost.


btw, can you post some more dribble out of context? I'm bored and need some entertainment

Still can't turn on the the TV ?

Now would you please explain your post.

What is out of context and what is wrong with me asking what it is that he might be pointing at ?

Ted Cruz is engaged in the worst type of politics and he speaks to our basest instincts

 

[The T]

you appear to have issues with @Listening how ironic

Doesn't really matter.

The US Constitution was ratified. Those battles were fought. Some won, some lost.


btw, can you post some more dribble out of context? I'm bored and need some entertainment

Still can't turn on the the TV ?

Now would you please explain your post.

What is out of context and what is wrong with me asking what it is that he might be pointing at ?

Ted Cruz is engaged in the worst type of politics and he speaks to our basest instincts

Off topic as usual Dantoid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We study the Founders for wisdom, enough wisdom to make sure we don't make the mistakes they did.

And what mistakes were those Fakey? Opposing King George? As WE oppose Obama and every other tyrant?

IDIOT

Are you ready to die to remove Obama from office?

 

[LoneLaugher]

It sure seems like many of our USMB faithful have had enough. I wonder if any of them can motivate their state legislatures to start the secession ball rolling? I'd love to see their faces when they wake up after secession and realize that the "founding fathers" ain't theirs any more.

The nation of Texahomabama will have "founding fathers" with names like Perry and Cruz.

Knuckleheads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The funny thing about all these arguments that anti-federal government conservatives make using the Federalist Papers as their resource is that there were actually the Anti-Federalist Papers,

which, although less extensive and certainly less talked about, were in fact REBUTTALS of sorts to the Federalist Papers and it was that set of papers that more closely reflect the modern conservative view of federal government vs. state government power.

Conservatives are arguing using the wrong material to back up their arguments lol.

(I think the reason for this is that it's clear that back then the argument between Federalists and anti-Federalists was won by the Federalists.)

Let me give you a quick example of something from the Anti-Federalist Papers:

This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power 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 office thereof."

And by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. —

The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.

LINK BELOW

Get it? The above is classic conservative objection to both the so-called Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause,

objections we still hear today. BUT THEY ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, YES?

The anti-federalists lost. You conservatives lost. Get over it.

Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #1

 

[Listening]

The funny thing about all these arguments that anti-federal government conservatives make using the Federalist Papers as their resource is that there were actually the Anti-Federalist Papers,

which, although less extensive and certainly less talked about, were in fact REBUTTALS of sorts to the Federalist Papers and it was that set of papers that more closely reflect the modern conservative view of federal government vs. state government power.

Conservatives are arguing using the wrong material to back up their arguments lol.

(I think the reason for this is that it's clear that back then the argument between Federalists and anti-Federalists was won by the Federalists.)

Let me give you a quick example of something from the Anti-Federalist Papers:

This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power 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 office thereof."

And by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. —

The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.

LINK BELOW

Get it? The above is classic conservative objection to both the so-called Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause,

objections we still hear today. BUT THEY ARE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, YES?

The anti-federalists lost. You conservatives lost. Get over it.

Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus #1

Please tell us just what the Anti-Federalists lost.

To read your posts, state governments are meaningless.

The so called Necessary and Proper Clause and Supremacy Clauses were only to apply to those powers specifically granted to the Federal Government.

Now, nevermind that this isn't the subject of the OP....I'll probably start a new thread.

Would SOMEBODY please just look at the OP and venture a thought or two in that direction.

 

[Listening]

you appear to have issues with [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] how ironic

Doesn't really matter.

The US Constitution was ratified. Those battles were fought. Some won, some lost.


btw, can you post some more dribble out of context? I'm bored and need some entertainment

Still can't turn on the the TV ?

Now would you please explain your post.

What is out of context and what is wrong with me asking what it is that he might be pointing at ?

Ted Cruz is engaged in the worst type of politics and he speaks to our basest instincts

I don't recall mentioning Ted Cruz anywhere.

Would you please show me what I took out of context.

 

[Listening]

I thought this was interesting......

Bond v. United States (2011) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court gave this woman standing.

How conflicted can one group of idiots be ?

 

[g5000]

Sounds to me he's saying when you are finally fed up with the federal government sticking their nose in your business and trying to run the show, give them a swift kick in the ass.

Nope.

Try again.