Remembering why the Bill of Rights was not part of Constitution and why the income...

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are no "natural" rights.

maybe thats true for an idiot but for Aristotle Locke and our Founders there were natural rights, thank God!!!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights{natural rights}

Who is Aristole Locke?

I think he's related to Quantum Galileo?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The founding of this country was a liberal idea.

then it was a liberal idea about a country founded on very very tiny government!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The founding of this country was a liberal idea.

then it was a liberal idea about a country founded on very very tiny government!!!

That's not what the Federalists said

 

[Pheonixops]

The founding of this country was a liberal idea.

then it was a liberal idea about a country founded on very very tiny government!!!

It most CERTAINLY was Founded on the idea and ideals of Limited Government. Damn right!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The founding of this country was a liberal idea.

then it was a liberal idea about a country founded on very very tiny government!!!

That's not what the Federalists said

well they were slightly more liberal that is true, but as soon as Jefferson understood that(1792) he quickly formed the Republican Party to destroy them forever which he did, or at least until the communist inspired liberals of the 1930's.

 

[Pheonixops]

then it was a liberal idea about a country founded on very very tiny government!!!

That's not what the Federalists said

well they were slightly more liberal that is true, but as soon as Jefferson understood that(1792) he quickly formed the Republican Party to destroy them forever which he did, or at least until the communist inspired liberals of the 1930's.

What?

"The United States Republican Party is the second oldest existing political party in the US after its great rival, the Democratic Party. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy."

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

then it was a liberal idea about a country founded on very very tiny government!!!

That's not what the Federalists said

well they were slightly more liberal that is true, but as soon as Jefferson understood that(1792) he quickly formed the Republican Party to destroy them forever which he did, or at least until the communist inspired liberals of the 1930's.

please try to keep up...

Political parties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

They also believed Slavery was nifty and bleeding someone was a good medical treatment.

so did someone say they were write about everything?????? Strawman????? Was Einstein right about everything?????.

But that's exactly the point, Sonny. We need to evaluate them on whether it's a good idea today. Saying, "Well, the Founding Slave-rapists thought we should all have guns, so Adam Lanza should have one!" is just batshit crazy.

[

Reality - there is no god and there are no rights. There are privilages the rest of society decides you have.

too stupid!!! if Nazis decide Jews don't get the priviliage to live that doesn't change the Jewish right to live. Gods or natures laws must be obeyed in the end if we want to live peacefully. A natural law is one that must be obeyed to avoid liberal human guessing. Now you have the basis for Aristotle and Locke. .

There is no God, and frankly, the Germans had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles when they were throwing the Jews into the ovens. Until they were defeated by the Godless Red Army. All the babbling about God and Natural Law didn't stop Germany from doing what it did. The only reason they were "wrong" was because they lost.

Any moron who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans- 1942".

to stupid!! Germans Japanese and Italian Americans lost some rights then because they were potential spies during time of war. It turned out liberals were more likely to spy than Japanese.

.[/quote]

No, Japanese Americans lost ALL rights. (The Germans and Italians were mostly left alone unless they were outright fascists.) For no other reason that people were scared of them. Yeah, later on, everyone felt really bad about it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that society decided they had no right, so they had no rights.

 

[editec]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid by simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

Oh you want to talk history? GREAT!

Let's start with this...

Where did the FEDERAL government get most of its money until about 1860?

What was taxed and how were those taxes collected?

You're going to find this site a valuable tool if you're serious about having this discussion.

Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 1800 - Charts

Go to that site and it will inform you about where the FEDERAL government got its revues from 1792- to 2013.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But that's exactly the point, Sonny. We need to evaluate them on whether it's a good idea today. Saying, "Well, the Founding Slave-rapists thought we should all have guns, so Adam Lanza should have one!" is just batshit crazy.

too stupid but perfectly ignorant and liberal!!! Conservatives like to conserve the lessons of history, not history you idiot!! The major lesson on which they based this country was that government had been the source of evil, had always grown like a metastatic cancer, and so had to be limited in every way possible. So, no direct tax was allowed. It was too coercive.It made the central government look powerful and important, the exact opposite of what was intended.


"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" -Jefferson

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, Japanese Americans lost ALL rights. (The Germans and Italians were mostly left alone unless they were outright fascists.)

actually 12000 Germans were interned

society decided they had no right, so they had no rights.

too stupid!! natural rights were not recognized till the enlightenment but this does not mean people did not have them or that they were not violated.

Is it really over your head?? A right denied does not mean the right does not exist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's not what the Federalists said

well they were slightly more liberal that is true, but as soon as Jefferson understood that(1792) he quickly formed the Republican Party to destroy them forever which he did, or at least until the communist inspired liberals of the 1930's.

What?

"The United States Republican Party is the second oldest existing political party in the US after its great rival, the Democratic Party. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy."

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dear Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792. Did you think he founded the Green Party then???????????

See why we say slow???????????

 

[regent]

The founding of this country was a liberal idea.

then it was a liberal idea about a country founded on very very tiny government!!!

It was liberal ideas the framers used but they created a much larger government, than they had, a government that took away states rights, gave the government power to tax, make war, rule on interstate commerce and all the rest.
But here is a question for the upper division students: Why did Jefferson change Locke's reference to property in Locke's life, liberty and property theme to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It was liberal ideas the framers used but they created a much larger government, than they had,

dear, larger is relative. The larger government they created was about 1% the size of todays but any measure!! Todays liberals should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why did Jefferson change Locke's reference to property in Locke's life, liberty and property theme to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Too Stupid as usual, Garry Wills argues that it was not Locks reference at all!!

More importantly, are liberal like goldfish, i.e, too stupid to understand why our founders created a very very limited government!!

 

[regent]

It was liberal ideas the framers used but they created a much larger government, than they had,

dear, larger is relative. The larger government they created was about 1% the size of todays but any measure!! Todays liberals should be made illegal as the Constitution intended.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

Of course larger government is relative, but the government the framers created is not relative to the government today but the government the framers were replacing. Not even a good try.

 

[regent]

Why did Jefferson change Locke's reference to property in Locke's life, liberty and property theme to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Too Stupid as usual, Garry Wills argues that it was not Locks reference at all!!

More importantly, are liberal like goldfish, i.e, too stupid to understand why our founders created a very very limited government!!

It is a difficult question and that's why it is not for lesser students.

 

[JoeB131]

But that's exactly the point, Sonny. We need to evaluate them on whether it's a good idea today. Saying, "Well, the Founding Slave-rapists thought we should all have guns, so Adam Lanza should have one!" is just batshit crazy.

too stupid but perfectly ignorant and liberal!!! Conservatives like to conserve the lessons of history, not history you idiot!! The major lesson on which they based this country was that government had been the source of evil, had always grown like a metastatic cancer, and so had to be limited in every way possible. So, no direct tax was allowed. It was too coercive.It made the central government look powerful and important, the exact opposite of what was intended.


"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" -Jefferson

what "conservatives" do is listen to whatever shit a corporation pays them to say on Hate Radio and pretend it is some kind of profound truth, when really, all you are advocating is selfishiness and mean-spiritedness, and you wonder why that loses elections.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

all you are advocating is selfishiness and mean-spiritedness,

dear that makes you a bigot. You think you are superior by advocating unselfishness and a loving spirit! If true why not give us your best policy example of your superiority, or, just admit to being a liberal bigot without a clue?

why not ask your mom to help back you out of the hole you dug??

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Remembering why the Bill of Rights was not part of Constitution....

...

GO AWAY!​

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized opposition. Only after two leading Anti-federalists, Adams and Hancock, negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for ratification on February 6, 1788 (187–168). Anti-federalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into force. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Dear Ed, go away.

sincerely
America