Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Indeed...The State legislatures had a better sense of what was best for the State and therefore could represent the States and their interests apart from the popular vote...and that of the House that directly represented the people.I posted the Federalist papers aka Madison, because he was explaining why they picked a Republic. They were trying to give the rights of the many without taking away rights of the few.
Which is exactly why they compromised on the Senate. Originally they were going to allow Congressional Reps to select Senators, but decided on State Legislatures. Thus the State Gov't could be the watch dog of it's own Senators.
They were very careful to apply as many checks on Gov't as they could come up with. They were some very smart people.
For their time? They were Liberal as they wanted a new way to protect Liberty against tyranny that has plagued man throughout history...it was radical, and not widely supported...1/3rd of the people in the colonies wanted to be left alone (apathy), another 1/3rd were loyalists to tyranny...Rw you are full of poop if you think the founding fathers were liberals. a liberal runs from wars and puts daisys in gun barrels.
Guess where that places RW?
In the lap of tyranny as he claims what is going on has never been tried.
He FAILS at history and excels at being FOR Tyranny coming from that he supports.
You know......
Your side loses all credibility when you wrap yourself in the flag and throw terms around like tyranny, freedom and liberty. You have no concept of what real tyranny is. Millions of people today live under legitimate tyranny. I'm sorry, but nothing in the US today qualifies as tyranny
Guess what? Both sides cherish liberty and freedom and patriotism
The right wing does not have a patent on it
Rw you are full of poop if you think the founding fathers were liberals. a liberal runs from wars and puts daisys in gun barrels.
God, are you ever brainwashed
Liberals fought our American Revolution
Liberals led us in WWII
Never seen them run from a fight
What a brainwashing ATTEMPT RW...LIBERALS from WHAT TIMEFRAME?
YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR.
I have perfect concept of what it is.I explained it...YOU in a feeble way tried to twist it. It is YOU that portends to be for Mom, Apple Pie, The Flag...The Country...but YET YOU support those that ROB Liberty...and pretend it's NEVER been tried...and try to equate tyranny to the Conservative side that supports the Founders as to paint the Founders as something they weren't and TRY to even BE one of them...God, are you ever brainwashed
Liberals fought our American Revolution
Liberals led us in WWII
Never seen them run from a fight
What a brainwashing ATTEMPT RW...LIBERALS from WHAT TIMEFRAME?
YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR.
You have no concept of what a liberal is.....
Liberals evolve to meet the challenges of each generation. Liberalism is not frozen in time. A liberal looks at his society, examines what is wrong and tries to make it better
Our founding fathers were liberals, Lincoln was a liberal,FDR was liberal, JFK was a liberal
No it hasn't
Today's liberals have dragged conservatives out of their 19th century mindset kicking and screaming
Civil rights, women's rights, worker protections, environmental protections gay rights
It is the conservative mindset that doesn't work.....never has
Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?
At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time
All men created equal.....what a liberal concept
Precisely.Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?
At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time
All men created equal.....what a liberal concept
Modern day liberals would have supported the Monarchy in thde 18th century. Liberals believe in big government controlling everyone and dolling out special favors to privileged groups. That's exactly what monarchists believe. Liberals believe the government should micromanage the economy and choose winners and losers, just like the Monarchists believed.
For their time? They were Liberal as they wanted a new way to protect Liberty against tyranny that has plagued man throughout history...it was radical, and not widely supported...1/3rd of the people in the colonies wanted to be left alone (apathy), another 1/3rd were loyalists to tyranny...
Guess where that places RW?
In the lap of tyranny as he claims what is going on has never been tried.
He FAILS at history and excels at being FOR Tyranny coming from that he supports.
You know......
Your side loses all credibility when you wrap yourself in the flag and throw terms around like tyranny, freedom and liberty. You have no concept of what real tyranny is. Millions of people today live under legitimate tyranny. I'm sorry, but nothing in the US today qualifies as tyranny
Guess what? Both sides cherish liberty and freedom and patriotism
The right wing does not have a patent on it
My side? Really? What 'SIDE' is that specifically? Without equivocation...spit it out or get out of my face Mr. Tyranny supporter.
Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?
At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time
All men created equal.....what a liberal concept
Modern day liberals would have supported the Monarchy in thde 18th century. Liberals believe in big government controlling everyone and dolling out special favors to privileged groups. That's exactly what monarchists believe. Liberals believe the government should micromanage the economy and choose winners and losers, just like the Monarchists believed.
What? NO Label there Sewer monkey? I am so disappointed...but then YOU have YET to answer the question...You know......
Your side loses all credibility when you wrap yourself in the flag and throw terms around like tyranny, freedom and liberty. You have no concept of what real tyranny is. Millions of people today live under legitimate tyranny. I'm sorry, but nothing in the US today qualifies as tyranny
Guess what? Both sides cherish liberty and freedom and patriotism
The right wing does not have a patent on it
My side? Really? What 'SIDE' is that specifically? Without equivocation...spit it out or get out of my face Mr. Tyranny supporter.
Yes, your side
The side generally considered as extremist assholes
You represent them well
I have perfect concept of what it is.I explained it...YOU in a feeble way tried to twist it. It is YOU that portends to be for Mom, Apple Pie, The Flag...The Country...but YET YOU support those that ROB Liberty...and pretend it's NEVER been tried...and try to equate tyranny to the Conservative side that supports the Founders as to paint the Founders as something they weren't and TRY to even BE one of them...What a brainwashing ATTEMPT RW...LIBERALS from WHAT TIMEFRAME?
YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR.
You have no concept of what a liberal is.....
Liberals evolve to meet the challenges of each generation. Liberalism is not frozen in time. A liberal looks at his society, examines what is wrong and tries to make it better
Our founding fathers were liberals, Lincoln was a liberal,FDR was liberal, JFK was a liberal
I'd DARE to say YOU are the one that has some explaining to do as you try to weasel your way OUT of that web I ensnared YOU in.
Plod on sewerboy...This is getting comical.
And isn't working...YOU were saying again?
This represented the first time the Supreme court had determined whether the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution represented an independent grant of power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.[4] They found it did, thus setting the stage for massive increases in federal spending, and consequent power, during the latter half of the 20th century.
WRONG we ARE living IN IT and YOU support it...even applaud it.I have perfect concept of what it is.I explained it...YOU in a feeble way tried to twist it. It is YOU that portends to be for Mom, Apple Pie, The Flag...The Country...but YET YOU support those that ROB Liberty...and pretend it's NEVER been tried...and try to equate tyranny to the Conservative side that supports the Founders as to paint the Founders as something they weren't and TRY to even BE one of them...You have no concept of what a liberal is.....
Liberals evolve to meet the challenges of each generation. Liberalism is not frozen in time. A liberal looks at his society, examines what is wrong and tries to make it better
Our founding fathers were liberals, Lincoln was a liberal,FDR was liberal, JFK was a liberal
I'd DARE to say YOU are the one that has some explaining to do as you try to weasel your way OUT of that web I ensnared YOU in.
Plod on sewerboy...This is getting comical.
And isn't working...YOU were saying again?
We have actually had tyranny in this country. People officially denied full citizenship, given second class status, subjected to terrorism and having the terrorists protected by the government
Liberals fought that tyranny on the streets, through the courts and through the legislature
Your feeble claims of tyranny just don't measure up
Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal powers are few and defined[edit source | editbeta]
The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Alexander Hamilton relied on the same view when later arguing, in Federalist No. 84, against inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Hamilton was wary of articulating specific restrictions on federal power, for he felt it was clear that the default position of the federal government was an absence of power, and any specific power existed only by grant from the Constitution:
[A Bill of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Alexander Hamilton (1788), Federalist No. 84
These observations foreshadow passage of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified three years later, which codified the doctrine of enumerated powers:
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.
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 1791
The principle expressed in Federalist No. 45 was later echoed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:
The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.
Justice Joseph Story (1833)[1]
Perhaps vindicating Hamilton's opinion that, at least in the case of the Tenth Amendment (an original component of the Bill of Rights he rallied against), articulating restrictions of federal power were unnecessary, the Supreme Court found in United States v. Sprague (1931) that
The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified...
Justice Owen Roberts (1931)[2]
Nonetheless, the promise of limited federal power eventually succumbed to the pressures of expanding federal power in the 20th century, most notably during the New Deal era and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "court packing" scheme.[3] The turning point in Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject is widely seen as United States v. Butler (1936). Although that decision struck down provisions within the Agricultural Adjustment Act as violating the Tenth Amendment, the court found that
...the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
Justice Owen Roberts (1936)[4]
This represented the first time the Supreme court had determined whether the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution represented an independent grant of power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.[4] They found it did, thus setting the stage for massive increases in federal spending, and consequent power, during the latter half of the 20th century.
A literal interpretation of Federalist No. 45 would indict much of the federal government's activities at that point as unconstitutional.[3] Madison's view is all but unknown among Americans, although that could be said about many or most of the detailed positions presented in the Federalist Papers.[3]
Still mining with Criminals YOU deem as heroes? Whod'a thunk it?What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
JFK 1960
Levin is absolutely correct.
We are not now and we have never been a pure "democracy."
PART of installing a form of checks and balances is the indirect manner in which Senators were to be elected.
It gave more power to the STATES. In a FEDERAL system, that it self serves as a check and as a reminder to the centralized federal government that ITS authority IS limited.
Why does it give more power to the States? How is letting the People of the state directly pick who they want for their Senators taking power away from the state?
How can the State and the People be two different entities?
. . . .
Popular elections take power away from the State and award it directly to the People, making it more of a risk for mob-ocracy.
But if the People from divergent communities within a state elect their state legislators and they (the State's legislators) collectively install the STATE's representatives to the U.S. Senate, then it becomes the overall STATE government that has power over the Senators.
The people of the State is not synonymous with the People of that State BECAUSE of the lack of direct elections.
It is another check and balance. It is another form of filtering direct democracy.
. . . .
Still mining with Criminals YOU deem as heroes? Whod'a thunk it?What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
JFK 1960
Rightwingshitflinger (Sewerboy)...you just stay with your notion as old memories of the USSR creep into your psyche...the Roman Empire perhaps is more to your taste?
The Founders absolutely DID something untried...but here YOU are advocating old tired crap that has failed every time it's been tried.
Accept your failure and cease trying to make the Founders' experiment FAIL so you will feel at home.
Got it?
Sorry, but the United States has not failed
Starting after the Great Depression, we have established ourselves as a modern society. A society that cares about all Americans. Society that is not just for wealthy, white Christians.
