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.
James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other people named James Madison, see James Madison (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
James Madison
James Madison.jpg
4th President of the United States
In office
March 4, 1809 March 4, 1817
Vice President
George Clinton (18091812)
None (18121813)
Elbridge Gerry (18131814)
None (18141817)
Preceded by
Thomas Jefferson
Succeeded by
James Monroe
5th United States Secretary of State
In office
May 2, 1801 March 3, 1809
President
Thomas Jefferson
Preceded by
John Marshall
Succeeded by
Robert Smith
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Virginia's 15th district
In office
March 4, 1793 March 4, 1797
Preceded by
District created
Succeeded by
John Dawson
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Virginia's 5th district
In office
March 4, 1789 March 4, 1793
Preceded by
District created
Succeeded by
George Hancock
Delegate to the
Congress of the Confederation
from Virginia
In office
March 1, 1781 November 1, 1783
Preceded by
Position established
Succeeded by
Thomas Jefferson
Personal details
Born
March 16, 1751
Port Conway, Virginia Colony
Died
June 28, 1836 (aged 85)
Orange, Virginia, U.S.
Resting place
Montpelier
Orange, Virginia
Political party
Democratic-Republican
Spouse(s)
Dolley Todd
(17941836; his death)
Children
John (Stepson)
Residence
Montpelier
Alma mater
Princeton University
Profession
Planter
College Administrator
Religion
Deist[1]
Episcopalianism
Signature
Cursive signature in ink
James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 June 28, 1836) was an American statesman, political theorist and the fourth President of the United States (18091817). He is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights.[2] He served as a politician much of his adult life.
Absolutely not.
I understand why it's tempting, to those of us opposed to the welfare state, but if we go down the path of limiting people's rights based on the government services they use - well, that seems like a dangerous slope. No matter how unfair or ill-conceived we might consider the services being rendered.
This is a similar issue to the idea of limiting welfare-recipients privacy rights (re: drug-testing) as a precondition of receiving of receiving benefits. Just seems like a bad idea to me, especially as more and more of the things we need are being tagged as government responsibility. If we go down this route we might some day be faced with forfeiting various rights to receive health care, for example.
Is taxation without representation wrong?
Is representation without taxation wrong?
It is. But two wrongs don't make a right. Throwing out equal protection, along with the loss of property rights inherent in welfare redistribution, simply adds insult to injury.
James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Madison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other people named James Madison, see James Madison (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
James Madison
James Madison.jpg
4th President of the United States
In office
March 4, 1809 March 4, 1817
Vice President
George Clinton (18091812)
None (18121813)
Elbridge Gerry (18131814)
None (18141817)
Preceded by
Thomas Jefferson
Succeeded by
James Monroe
5th United States Secretary of State
In office
May 2, 1801 March 3, 1809
President
Thomas Jefferson
Preceded by
John Marshall
Succeeded by
Robert Smith
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Virginia's 15th district
In office
March 4, 1793 March 4, 1797
Preceded by
District created
Succeeded by
John Dawson
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Virginia's 5th district
In office
March 4, 1789 March 4, 1793
Preceded by
District created
Succeeded by
George Hancock
Delegate to the
Congress of the Confederation
from Virginia
In office
March 1, 1781 November 1, 1783
Preceded by
Position established
Succeeded by
Thomas Jefferson
Personal details
Born
March 16, 1751
Port Conway, Virginia Colony
Died
June 28, 1836 (aged 85)
Orange, Virginia, U.S.
Resting place
Montpelier
Orange, Virginia
Political party
Democratic-Republican
Spouse(s)
Dolley Todd
(17941836; his death)
Children
John (Stepson)
Residence
Montpelier
Alma mater
Princeton University
Profession
Planter
College Administrator
Religion
Deist[1]
Episcopalianism
Signature
Cursive signature in ink
James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 June 28, 1836) was an American statesman, political theorist and the fourth President of the United States (18091817). He is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights.[2] He served as a politician much of his adult life.
We have a Democratic Party so we must be a Democracy!
How stupid can you be?
You have been shown link after link proving we are a Constitutional Republic but you cannot force yourself to admit you are wrong.
I got to go feed my horses which I believe have a higher IQ than you do.
I don't disagree with any of that. I simply do not think that denying one group over another is a legitimate means to curing a problem that can be solved by simply making the case for a return to the rule of law.I am always an advocate of the Constitution. Even if it is at My own personal expense. I understand the long term win over the short term personal gain.
However, I needed to clarify what was being asked. Far to many people on this forum, and in this country, advocate that the right or even the GOP should not be permitted to vote.
My contention is simple. If you cannot vote the way that you feel best fits your personal beliefs and needs, then no one would be permitted to vote at all.
What would be the point of having a Constitution if that were the case?
I simply require that people act within the rule of law and the framework of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties and the powers of the federal government are the basic powers necessary to both secure those negative liberties and provide services that the states cannot under a federal system. That is all. The problem is that the electorate has been corrupted and that is no longer the role of the US constitution. It is no longer an objective document but a subjective document that can magically change without so much as an amendment. If leftists want to change the constitution they should amend it. They don't do that. They give freebies for votes and then make up the powers they deem necessary so as to gain more votes along with implementing justices who think there are virtually no limits to the powers of congress. It's a death spiral whereas the constitution means nothing and everything all at the same time. It has corrupted politics both on the individual and corporate levels by expanding the limited powers of congress well beyond the confines of the Constitution. Therefore, you question is valid, but not for the reason you think it is.
Not any one of us is so mighty that we can say, "Those who take welfare cannot vote for their self interest", while we continue to vote for our self interest simply because we are productive and pay our way.
To Me, it distills down to this. The weakness of the argument is in the poorly argued and oft quoted need to "promote the general welfare'. Clearly, there is no room to provide the general welfare, so the answer does not lie in denying liberty to the citizens, but restricting power of the Fed.
Types of Government Democracy | eHow
Direct Democracy
Direct democracy operates without government representatives, and places the decisions directly in the hands of the people. Instances of direct democracy can be seen throughout the history of America, such as town hall meetings and voting. Direct democracy is a double-edged sword; on the one hand, it places the power entirely in the hands of the people, but on the other hand it can easily turn into a mere numbers game. (See Reference 2) Switzerland is an example of a country that uses many elements of direct democracy. (See Reference 3)
Presidential Democracy
Presidential democracy is a form of representative democracy. Unlike direct democracy, presidential democracy employs representatives to maintain order and ensure fairness of government issues. America is an example of a presidential democracy. The people elect members of the executive branch, such as the president and vice president, as well as the legistlative branch, such as Congress members. Members of Congress are elected at a different time than the president, and only have the power to remove the president from office if a criminal offense is committed. The president cannot introduce new legislation, although he can veto laws that Congress tries to pass.
Parliamentary Democracy
Parliamentary democracy is another form of representative democracy. It is a common form of democratic government, and examples include the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Unlike a presidential democracy, a parliamentary system is run by the parliament and a prime minister, who is usually also a member of the parliament. In a parliamentary democracy, there is less distance between the executive and legislative branches. Additionally, parliamentary democracy usually works in cooperation with a head of state, such as a monarch, who handles state matters, while the parliament handles legislature. (See Reference 3)
Read more: Types of Government Democracy | eHow
Is taxation without representation wrong?
Is representation without taxation wrong?
It is. But two wrongs don't make a right. Throwing out equal protection, along with the loss of property rights inherent in welfare redistribution, simply adds insult to injury.
We don't have taxation without representation. We do have representation without taxation. there is only one wrong there. Equal protection is not affected. All laws must be implemented as to provide for the "general welfare." I.e equal protection was long in our constitution before the 14th Amendment.
It is. But two wrongs don't make a right. Throwing out equal protection, along with the loss of property rights inherent in welfare redistribution, simply adds insult to injury.
We don't have taxation without representation. We do have representation without taxation. there is only one wrong there. Equal protection is not affected. All laws must be implemented as to provide for the "general welfare." I.e equal protection was long in our constitution before the 14th Amendment.
Equal protection is sacrificed if some citizens lose the right to vote based on which services they do, or do not, use. Furthermore, no genuine 'consent' of the governed can be claimed if the governed can't vote. This is a cure worse than the disease. Should we take the same logic a bit further, and keep a ledger for each voter, such that if they 'take out' more than they 'pay in', in terms of a net accounting of the government services they use verses the taxes they pay, they also lose the right to vote?
I am not arguing both.I don't disagree with any of that. I simply do not think that denying one group over another is a legitimate means to curing a problem that can be solved by simply making the case for a return to the rule of law.The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties and the powers of the federal government are the basic powers necessary to both secure those negative liberties and provide services that the states cannot under a federal system. That is all. The problem is that the electorate has been corrupted and that is no longer the role of the US constitution. It is no longer an objective document but a subjective document that can magically change without so much as an amendment. If leftists want to change the constitution they should amend it. They don't do that. They give freebies for votes and then make up the powers they deem necessary so as to gain more votes along with implementing justices who think there are virtually no limits to the powers of congress. It's a death spiral whereas the constitution means nothing and everything all at the same time. It has corrupted politics both on the individual and corporate levels by expanding the limited powers of congress well beyond the confines of the Constitution. Therefore, you question is valid, but not for the reason you think it is.
Not any one of us is so mighty that we can say, "Those who take welfare cannot vote for their self interest", while we continue to vote for our self interest simply because we are productive and pay our way.
To Me, it distills down to this. The weakness of the argument is in the poorly argued and oft quoted need to "promote the general welfare'. Clearly, there is no room to provide the general welfare, so the answer does not lie in denying liberty to the citizens, but restricting power of the Fed.
All of the above depends on your premise of the functions of government in a democratically elected constitutional federalist republic. If you premise is that the federal government should promote negative liberty then you answer to the op is clear. If it is to promote positive liberty then your answer is likewise clear. You cannot have both.
We don't have taxation without representation. We do have representation without taxation. there is only one wrong there. Equal protection is not affected. All laws must be implemented as to provide for the "general welfare." I.e equal protection was long in our constitution before the 14th Amendment.
Equal protection is sacrificed if some citizens lose the right to vote based on which services they do, or do not, use. Furthermore, no genuine 'consent' of the governed can be claimed if the governed can't vote. This is a cure worse than the disease. Should we take the same logic a bit further, and keep a ledger for each voter, such that if they 'take out' more than they 'pay in', in terms of a net accounting of the government services they use verses the taxes they pay, they also lose the right to vote?
If your not paying for the services that are designed for everyone "generally" then you have no right to demand that others be taxed higher so as to fit your desires. The tax system is complicating enough. Make everyone pay 10% and call it a day while allowing everyone to vote. Don't tax corporations and businesses. No deductions, no tax breaks, and rule of law. Many problems solved.
No, but I wouldn't mind seeing Republicans banned from voting.
And the far left displays their true nature, one party with everyone subjected under the government.
You're a flaming imbecile, there's just no other way to describe you. I have no problem with other parties rising up to challenge the Democrat party. There have been other political parties fade away, that's what I would like to see happen to the Republican party since their policies are often devastating to America. Nor do I subscribe to your hallucination that everyone be "subjected under the government."
You truly are insane. Bush did not get bill to sign from Congress with oversight in it until his last two years in office after Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. You must be completely brain-dead to blame the majority party Democrats which delivered oversight during Bush's final two years while giving a pass to the majority party Republicans which failed to deliver oversight during the previous 4 years.Why would I deny that? I'm not a brain-dead rightie who denies reality. Plus, it's irrelevant to my point about the damage Republicans have done to the country.
But how about answering my question ... Are Republicans responsible for the legislation (or lack thereof) while they were in control of the government??
No.. you're a brain dead lefty with your head up Obama's ass..and yes, you obviously had forgotten when Harry and Nancy took over Congress.
Basically, Harry and Nancy allowed the financial/housing collapse by their lack of over-site and complicity during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency.
..and sure Republicans/Democrats ..the political class are more concerned with power and re-election than the American people..
You're what's referred to as one of them "low information voters."
Harry/Pelosi/Dodd/Frank were complicit in the housing collapse, the facts are there you simply can't allow yourself to acknowledge reality. The worse Bush looked the more promising the 2008 election was for Democrats. Democrat leadership and the rank and file Democrats in the House and Senate of the time are nothing more than traitors to the American people.
Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis. - YouTube
Your ignorance never ceases to astound me. "Harry/Pelosi/Dodd/Frank" were in the minority party when the vast majority of the toxic loans were being written.
4 members of the minority party did not prevent the majority party Republicans from passing the oversight of the GSE's which could have prevented the financial meltdown.
It's hysterical how you brain-dead righties continuously point a guilty finger at 4 members of the minority party while ignoring the majority party whose policies led to the collapse.
September 2003
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
October 2003
Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
October 2004
In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."
Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."
Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened
Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?
Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?
Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?
Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?
In your perfect world, only the wealthy get to vote on who should represent themShould welfare be a disqualification for voting?
Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?
Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?
Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?
In a perfect world, only those who pay taxes should have any say, including a vote, on who will determine what taxes they pay.
And no, there is no way to deny anybody, including corporations and unions, the right to donate to whomever they wish. In a perfect world, however, those in the federal government would not have any ability to reward or benefit themselves or anybody else with anything that didn't benefit all equally and therefore no benefit could come anybody's way regardless of how much he/she/it contributes to a political candidate or PAC. That would take care of any conflict of interest with public employee unions as there would be no advantage to the politicians to pay public employees any more than what they were worth for the jobs that they do.
Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?
Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?
Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?
Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?
In a perfect world, only those who pay taxes should have any say, including a vote, on who will determine what taxes they pay.
And no, there is no way to deny anybody, including corporations and unions, the right to donate to whomever they wish. In a perfect world, however, those in the federal government would not have any ability to reward or benefit themselves or anybody else with anything that didn't benefit all equally and therefore no benefit could come anybody's way regardless of how much he/she/it contributes to a political candidate or PAC. That would take care of any conflict of interest with public employee unions as there would be no advantage to the politicians to pay public employees any more than what they were worth for the jobs that they do.
You truly are insane. Bush did not get bill to sign from Congress with oversight in it until his last two years in office after Reid and Pelosi took over the Congress. You must be completely brain-dead to blame the majority party Democrats which delivered oversight during Bush's final two years while giving a pass to the majority party Republicans which failed to deliver oversight during the previous 4 years.No.. you're a brain dead lefty with your head up Obama's ass..and yes, you obviously had forgotten when Harry and Nancy took over Congress.
Basically, Harry and Nancy allowed the financial/housing collapse by their lack of over-site and complicity during the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency.
..and sure Republicans/Democrats ..the political class are more concerned with power and re-election than the American people..
You're what's referred to as one of them "low information voters."
I accept that you purposely miss the point, can't think with any form of critical thought, refuse to have a reasonable discussion and act like a spoiled child..you've wasted enough of my time.. moving on
Does your perfect world also allow for those who pay the most tax having more of a voice (perhaps more votes) than those who pay less tax (less votes)?Should welfare be a disqualification for voting?
Should corporations that receive government contracts, tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and favorable loans be barred from donating to political action committees?
Should public employee unions be allowed to donate to political action committees?
Do all of these amount to a conflict of interest with the American taxpayer?
In a perfect world, only those who pay taxes should have any say, including a vote, on who will determine what taxes they pay.
And no, there is no way to deny anybody, including corporations and unions, the right to donate to whomever they wish. In a perfect world, however, those in the federal government would not have any ability to reward or benefit themselves or anybody else with anything that didn't benefit all equally and therefore no benefit could come anybody's way regardless of how much he/she/it contributes to a political candidate or PAC. That would take care of any conflict of interest with public employee unions as there would be no advantage to the politicians to pay public employees any more than what they were worth for the jobs that they do.
