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.
This article sums it up pretty well.
10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.
GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.
Prescription drugs
No Child Left Behind
TARP
A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.
I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.
Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.
I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.
Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.
But I digress....
If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.
I'll bring this forward in order to refocus the discussion.
Clearly the 10th amendment severely restricts the federal government. This has been demonstrated time and time again, both in the original writings of the Founding Fathers and in the behavior of the federal government and (most importantly) the SCOUTS up until the time FDR.
The GOP has been utilizing somewhat successfully a hedging strategy to pin in what they don't like.
What will it take for the GOP to step on the accelerator in that regard ?
The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
Take the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say the states shall make no law. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey. Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way. Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.
The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only. The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society. So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist. And no new theocracies developed.
Ditto the Second Amendment. It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote. The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms. Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved. The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.
And so forth. . . .
The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.
The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.
That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be. And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.
The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
Take the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say the states shall make no law. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey. Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way. Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.
The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only. The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society. So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist. And no new theocracies developed.
Ditto the Second Amendment. It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote. The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms. Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved. The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.
And so forth. . . .
The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.
The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.
That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be. And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.
Agreed.
Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.
As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe. There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.
However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.
I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do. They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).
We just need to start doing this more and more and more. They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.
The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
Take the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say the states shall make no law. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey. Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way. Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.
The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only. The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society. So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist. And no new theocracies developed.
Ditto the Second Amendment. It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote. The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms. Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved. The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.
And so forth. . . .
The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.
The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.
That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be. And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.
Agreed.
Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.
As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe. There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.
However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.
I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do. They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).
We just need to start doing this more and more and more. They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
Take the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say the states shall make no law. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey. Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way. Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.
The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only. The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society. So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist. And no new theocracies developed.
Ditto the Second Amendment. It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote. The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms. Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved. The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.
And so forth. . . .
The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.
The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.
That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be. And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.
Agreed.
Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.
As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe. There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.
However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.
I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do. They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).
We just need to start doing this more and more and more. They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
Take the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say the states shall make no law. In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey. Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way. Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.
The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only. The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society. So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist. And no new theocracies developed.
Ditto the Second Amendment. It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote. The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms. Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved. The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.
And so forth. . . .
The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.
The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.
That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be. And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.
Agreed.
Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.
As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe. There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.
However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.
I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do. They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).
We just need to start doing this more and more and more. They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
Agreed.
Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.
As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe. There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.
However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.
I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do. They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).
We just need to start doing this more and more and more. They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.
Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.
There are some suggested changes I'd never go for. And that might be why it would never change. But, again, well worth the discussion. Maybe we should start a similar thread !
I'd recommend the book as being O.K. There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.
Agreed.
Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.
As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe. There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.
However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.
I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do. They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).
We just need to start doing this more and more and more. They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
In truth, in today's gimme, instant gratification, and dependent society, with 50% of Americans dependent on the Federal government in some capacity, and with the American left's firm domination of the media, education, the courts, and scientific research, the idea of a Constitutional Convention really scares me. We have a huge percentage of our population that would completely dismantle what few checks and balances and protections that we have left and who would write a new Constituiton in the Marxist/socialist traditions. And they likely have the numbers to do that.
Much better to somehow manage to work an Amendment into the Constitution that take all ability from the Federal government to grant charity or benefits to ANYBODY unless they grant such to EVERYBODY. That would help us begin to regain our sanity and restore perspective in the upcoming generation so that we could then approach a Constitutional convention with a fine scalpel to update just what needs updating while leaving most intact.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.
Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.
There are some suggested changes I'd never go for. And that might be why it would never change. But, again, well worth the discussion. Maybe we should start a similar thread !
I'd recommend the book as being O.K. There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.
Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution.
A completely un-American concept.
Feel free. Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.
Agreed.
Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.
As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe. There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.
However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.
I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do. They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).
We just need to start doing this more and more and more. They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.
Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.
There are some suggested changes I'd never go for. And that might be why it would never change. But, again, well worth the discussion. Maybe we should start a similar thread !
I'd recommend the book as being O.K. There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.
In truth, in today's gimme, instant gratification, and dependent society, with 50% of Americans dependent on the Federal government in some capacity, and with the American left's firm domination of the media, education, the courts, and scientific research, the idea of a Constitutional Convention really scares me. We have a huge percentage of our population that would completely dismantle what few checks and balances and protections that we have left and who would write a new Constituiton in the Marxist/socialist traditions. And they likely have the numbers to do that.
Much better to somehow manage to work an Amendment into the Constitution that take all ability from the Federal government to grant charity or benefits to ANYBODY unless they grant such to EVERYBODY. That would help us begin to regain our sanity and restore perspective in the upcoming generation so that we could then approach a Constitutional convention with a fine scalpel to update just what needs updating while leaving most intact.
So, in order to stay true to the Constitution, we have to re-write it? This passes for rational thought in some circles?
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only.
Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution.
A completely un-American concept.
Feel free. Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.
While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.
Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.
There are some suggested changes I'd never go for. And that might be why it would never change. But, again, well worth the discussion. Maybe we should start a similar thread !
I'd recommend the book as being O.K. There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.
Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution.
A completely un-American concept.
Feel free. Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.
States have their own constitutions.
50 un-American entities.
This is too easy.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.
If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.
In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters. The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.
While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.
Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.
There are some suggested changes I'd never go for. And that might be why it would never change. But, again, well worth the discussion. Maybe we should start a similar thread !
I'd recommend the book as being O.K. There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.
I will check out the book. But you gotta admit, I added some kindling wood to the thread!
Your opinion. I am of another.
It passed for rational thought among the forefathers of the nation, above all else, by Thomas Jefferson himself. In fact, Jefferson himself assigned an EXACT number of years for a Constitution, it's use-date, so to speak:
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only.
Source:
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
In a letter to James Madison from Paris, Sept. 6, 1789
Why 19 years? Well, a generation was essentially 19 years. This shows clearly that the founding fathers well considered that not only was the Constitution an imperfect document, it had, for all intents and purposes, an expiration date.
Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution.
A completely un-American concept.
Feel free. Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.
Not at all. If it sounds like that to you, then only because you want it to sound that way. See the quote above from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of these United States, who penned the Declaration of Independence and the vast majority of the Virginia Constitution, which was the main basis for our national Constitution. If what I wrote was "un-American", then you must also accuse Thomas Jefferson of being un-american as well.
Gotcha!!!
While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.
Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.
There are some suggested changes I'd never go for. And that might be why it would never change. But, again, well worth the discussion. Maybe we should start a similar thread !
I'd recommend the book as being O.K. There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.
I will check out the book. But you gotta admit, I added some kindling wood to the thread!
Your opinion. I am of another.
It passed for rational thought among the forefathers of the nation, above all else, by Thomas Jefferson himself. In fact, Jefferson himself assigned an EXACT number of years for a Constitution, it's use-date, so to speak:
Source:
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
In a letter to James Madison from Paris, Sept. 6, 1789
Why 19 years? Well, a generation was essentially 19 years. This shows clearly that the founding fathers well considered that not only was the Constitution an imperfect document, it had, for all intents and purposes, an expiration date.
Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution.
A completely un-American concept.
Feel free. Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.
Not at all. If it sounds like that to you, then only because you want it to sound that way. See the quote above from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of these United States, who penned the Declaration of Independence and the vast majority of the Virginia Constitution, which was the main basis for our national Constitution. If what I wrote was "un-American", then you must also accuse Thomas Jefferson of being un-american as well.
Gotcha!!!
So you are saying that the founders thought our Constitution to be a temporary expedient to be replaced later by another?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.
Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.
There are some suggested changes I'd never go for. And that might be why it would never change. But, again, well worth the discussion. Maybe we should start a similar thread !
I'd recommend the book as being O.K. There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.
I will check out the book. But you gotta admit, I added some kindling wood to the thread!
Your opinion. I am of another.
It passed for rational thought among the forefathers of the nation, above all else, by Thomas Jefferson himself. In fact, Jefferson himself assigned an EXACT number of years for a Constitution, it's use-date, so to speak:
Source:
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
In a letter to James Madison from Paris, Sept. 6, 1789
Why 19 years? Well, a generation was essentially 19 years. This shows clearly that the founding fathers well considered that not only was the Constitution an imperfect document, it had, for all intents and purposes, an expiration date.
Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution.
A completely un-American concept.
Feel free. Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.
Not at all. If it sounds like that to you, then only because you want it to sound that way. See the quote above from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of these United States, who penned the Declaration of Independence and the vast majority of the Virginia Constitution, which was the main basis for our national Constitution. If what I wrote was "un-American", then you must also accuse Thomas Jefferson of being un-american as well.
Gotcha!!!
So you are saying that the founders thought our Constitution to be a temporary expedient to be replaced later by another?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
I will check out the book. But you gotta admit, I added some kindling wood to the thread!
Your opinion. I am of another.
It passed for rational thought among the forefathers of the nation, above all else, by Thomas Jefferson himself. In fact, Jefferson himself assigned an EXACT number of years for a Constitution, it's use-date, so to speak:
Source:
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
In a letter to James Madison from Paris, Sept. 6, 1789
Why 19 years? Well, a generation was essentially 19 years. This shows clearly that the founding fathers well considered that not only was the Constitution an imperfect document, it had, for all intents and purposes, an expiration date.
Not at all. If it sounds like that to you, then only because you want it to sound that way. See the quote above from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of these United States, who penned the Declaration of Independence and the vast majority of the Virginia Constitution, which was the main basis for our national Constitution. If what I wrote was "un-American", then you must also accuse Thomas Jefferson of being un-american as well.
Gotcha!!!
So you are saying that the founders thought our Constitution to be a temporary expedient to be replaced later by another?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
That is exactly what they thought. The expected that the majority of the ideas within would be pretty much immutable, but the parchment upon which they were written was never considered holy or completely unchangeable.
Alone the fact that they were forced to tack on 10 amendments immediately to the original document should tell you right away that they knew that that document was not to be forever. The very arguments that strict constitutionalists use for the absolute preservation of our Constitution (which I mostly revere, but not completely) are the arguments that speak even more strongly for it's complete renewal.
So you are saying that the founders thought our Constitution to be a temporary expedient to be replaced later by another?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
That is exactly what they thought. The expected that the majority of the ideas within would be pretty much immutable, but the parchment upon which they were written was never considered holy or completely unchangeable.
Alone the fact that they were forced to tack on 10 amendments immediately to the original document should tell you right away that they knew that that document was not to be forever. The very arguments that strict constitutionalists use for the absolute preservation of our Constitution (which I mostly revere, but not completely) are the arguments that speak even more strongly for it's complete renewal.
While I don't agree with how you arrived at this, I do think the fact that they included an amendment process says they expected things to change.
To claim the Constitution is just fine the way it is....has to be defined. Does that mean it should never be amended ?
Or does it mean that the amendment process is adequate for what we need to "renew" it ?
That is exactly what they thought. The expected that the majority of the ideas within would be pretty much immutable, but the parchment upon which they were written was never considered holy or completely unchangeable.
Alone the fact that they were forced to tack on 10 amendments immediately to the original document should tell you right away that they knew that that document was not to be forever. The very arguments that strict constitutionalists use for the absolute preservation of our Constitution (which I mostly revere, but not completely) are the arguments that speak even more strongly for it's complete renewal.
While I don't agree with how you arrived at this, I do think the fact that they included an amendment process says they expected things to change.
To claim the Constitution is just fine the way it is....has to be defined. Does that mean it should never be amended ?
Or does it mean that the amendment process is adequate for what we need to "renew" it ?
I will be much clearer about my thoughts on this when I open my thread on electioneering here in the CDZ, I will do that probably by Saturday.
Off to work now, will be on later. Good to hear from you.
I will check out the book. But you gotta admit, I added some kindling wood to the thread!
Your opinion. I am of another.
It passed for rational thought among the forefathers of the nation, above all else, by Thomas Jefferson himself. In fact, Jefferson himself assigned an EXACT number of years for a Constitution, it's use-date, so to speak:
Source:
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
In a letter to James Madison from Paris, Sept. 6, 1789
Why 19 years? Well, a generation was essentially 19 years. This shows clearly that the founding fathers well considered that not only was the Constitution an imperfect document, it had, for all intents and purposes, an expiration date.
Not at all. If it sounds like that to you, then only because you want it to sound that way. See the quote above from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of these United States, who penned the Declaration of Independence and the vast majority of the Virginia Constitution, which was the main basis for our national Constitution. If what I wrote was "un-American", then you must also accuse Thomas Jefferson of being un-american as well.
Gotcha!!!
So you are saying that the founders thought our Constitution to be a temporary expedient to be replaced later by another?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
That is exactly what they thought. The expected that the majority of the ideas within would be pretty much immutable, but the parchment upon which they were written was never considered holy or completely unchangeable.
Alone the fact that they were forced to tack on 10 amendments immediately to the original document should tell you right away that they knew that that document was not to be forever. The very arguments that strict constitutionalists use for the absolute preservation of our Constitution (which I mostly revere, but not completely) are the arguments that speak even more strongly for it's complete renewal.
While I don't agree with how you arrived at this, I do think the fact that they included an amendment process says they expected things to change.
To claim the Constitution is just fine the way it is....has to be defined. Does that mean it should never be amended ?
Or does it mean that the amendment process is adequate for what we need to "renew" it ?
I will be much clearer about my thoughts on this when I open my thread on electioneering here in the CDZ, I will do that probably by Saturday.
Off to work now, will be on later. Good to hear from you.
Hope you have a good day.
When you mentioned electioneering, I think (again) of process.
I have to wonder if the Constitution needs to be changed (rewritten) or if we just need an honest discussion about what we want government to do.
That is really at the heart of the 10th amendment. The left has figured out how to use the courts to push an agenda most of the country does not like. Look at the environmentalist movement. They do this constantly.
The right is guilty (and it is much more egregious IME) of not watching the store. They've let stuff go or have openly participated in an extraction of power from the states.
