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.
Here is from Federalist 46.
RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.
I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.The fact that you confinue to refuse to present a sound argument in support of your positions says all that needs to be said.
- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude
- you know all of thse things to be true.
And so, I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.
"- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care"
That's the job of SCOTUS. Not me and not you. Read their decision
"- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive"
It's the nature of insurance that you pay for risk. If you are lucky, you won't need it. If you are unlucky, you'll save a ton.
"- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude"
All laws can be construed as involuntary servitude. There is no other way to get people who feel entitled to impose on others to reconsider.
- you know all of thse things to be true.
You can't present a sound argument.
Listening would not have done well as a founder. She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
Methinks she would have been forcefully ejected by the founders passion for debate and democratic decision making.
Listening would not have done well as a founder. She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
Methinks she would have been forcefully ejected by the founders passion for debate and democratic decision making.
Are you under the impression that the founders agreed with each other concerning every aspect of the Constitution?
.
Listening would not have done well as a founder. She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
Methinks she would have been forcefully ejected by the founders passion for debate and democratic decision making.
Are you under the impression that the founders agreed with each other concerning every aspect of the Constitution?
.
Listening would not have done well as a founder. She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
Methinks she would have been forcefully ejected by the founders passion for debate and democratic decision making.
Are you under the impression that the founders agreed with each other concerning every aspect of the Constitution?
.
The Founders not only did not all agree on every point but once the British surrendered all claim to the land that became the core of the USA, they took six long years from 1781 to 1787 to discuss it, debate it, work out compromises, and agree on wording that all would eventually agree to sign and/or promote. They did their damndest to get it right and they did it without a single one of them expecting to profit from it in any way other than to enjoy the blessings of liberty that the Constitution was intended to give to the people.
Listening would not have done well as a founder. She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
Methinks she would have been forcefully ejected by the founders passion for debate and democratic decision making.
Are you under the impression that the founders agreed with each other concerning every aspect of the Constitution?
.
The Founders not only did not all agree on every point but once the British surrendered all claim to the land that became the core of the USA, they took six long years from 1781 to 1787 to discuss it, debate it, work out compromises, and agree on wording that all would eventually agree to sign and/or promote. They did their damndest to get it right and they did it without a single one of them expecting to profit from it in any way other than to enjoy the blessings of liberty that the Constitution was intended to give to the people.
Not at all. They debated then decided democratically.
Not at all. They debated then decided democratically.
What democratic process did they use to settle their differences in desires regarding the writing of the Constitution?
Do you have the impression the founders voted on what was going in the Constitution?
.
Yes.
Yes.
So you are saying that the differences and debates they had were settled by votes on each issue?
.
Yes.
So you are saying that the differences and debates they had were settled by votes on each issue?
.
Here's history for you.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
So you are saying that the differences and debates they had were settled by votes on each issue?
.
Here's history for you.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
I know what it says ... But do you?
So you are saying that the differences and debates they had were settled by votes on each issue?
.
Not at all. They debated then decided democratically.
What democratic process did they use to settle their differences in desires regarding the writing of the Constitution?
Do you have the impression the founders voted on what was going in the Constitution?
.
Not at all. They debated then decided democratically.
What democratic process did they use to settle their differences in desires regarding the writing of the Constitution?
Do you have the impression the founders voted on what was going in the Constitution?
.
The main draft was written by the so-called "Committee of Five" (John Rutledge is probably the best known of those five) - but only after the Committee of the Whole, as it called itself, had hashed out most of the things in general and then sent it to the five to organize it into specifics. Essentially, the Constitution was mostly based on the Virginia constitution, which WAS written by Jefferson (mostly) and itself was a more refined revision of the Articles of Confederation, but Jefferson was not present when our current constitution was drafted. He was in Paris at that time. Instead, he exchanged letters often with both Madison and Monroe over the document itself. The most famous compromise was probably the Connecticut compromise, which saw for the election of representatives but the selection of senators by state committees.
11 state delegations were there, plus one lone representative from New York (Alexander Hamilton). In the end, as our 1st President, George Washington, recorded in his personal diary, the Constitution was passed unanimously, although virtually every one there was dissatisfied with one or more parts of it.
The main flaw of the original articles of Confederation was the lack of laws concerning currency. As Washington said, very curtly: "No money". That was actually the engine that drove the need for a new constitutional convention.
There are no exact logs as to how the committee of five may or may not have voted on each provision that was written, but as it was presented to the convention, the committee of 5 was then unanimous.
Most don't know, but the Convention officially closed on the first day of the 1st congress, in March of 1789.
A constitutional convention of the 21st century would surely be held under other auspices, and other voting rules.
Hope that information helped.
What democratic process did they use to settle their differences in desires regarding the writing of the Constitution?
Do you have the impression the founders voted on what was going in the Constitution?
.
The main draft was written by the so-called "Committee of Five" (John Rutledge is probably the best known of those five) - but only after the Committee of the Whole, as it called itself, had hashed out most of the things in general and then sent it to the five to organize it into specifics. Essentially, the Constitution was mostly based on the Virginia constitution, which WAS written by Jefferson (mostly) and itself was a more refined revision of the Articles of Confederation, but Jefferson was not present when our current constitution was drafted. He was in Paris at that time. Instead, he exchanged letters often with both Madison and Monroe over the document itself. The most famous compromise was probably the Connecticut compromise, which saw for the election of representatives but the selection of senators by state committees.
11 state delegations were there, plus one lone representative from New York (Alexander Hamilton). In the end, as our 1st President, George Washington, recorded in his personal diary, the Constitution was passed unanimously, although virtually every one there was dissatisfied with one or more parts of it.
The main flaw of the original articles of Confederation was the lack of laws concerning currency. As Washington said, very curtly: "No money". That was actually the engine that drove the need for a new constitutional convention.
There are no exact logs as to how the committee of five may or may not have voted on each provision that was written, but as it was presented to the convention, the committee of 5 was then unanimous.
Most don't know, but the Convention officially closed on the first day of the 1st congress, in March of 1789.
A constitutional convention of the 21st century would surely be held under other auspices, and other voting rules.
Hope that information helped.
Your version is quite a bit different than Wikipedia.
The main draft was written by the so-called "Committee of Five" (John Rutledge is probably the best known of those five) - but only after the Committee of the Whole, as it called itself, had hashed out most of the things in general and then sent it to the five to organize it into specifics. Essentially, the Constitution was mostly based on the Virginia constitution, which WAS written by Jefferson (mostly) and itself was a more refined revision of the Articles of Confederation, but Jefferson was not present when our current constitution was drafted. He was in Paris at that time. Instead, he exchanged letters often with both Madison and Monroe over the document itself. The most famous compromise was probably the Connecticut compromise, which saw for the election of representatives but the selection of senators by state committees.
11 state delegations were there, plus one lone representative from New York (Alexander Hamilton). In the end, as our 1st President, George Washington, recorded in his personal diary, the Constitution was passed unanimously, although virtually every one there was dissatisfied with one or more parts of it.
The main flaw of the original articles of Confederation was the lack of laws concerning currency. As Washington said, very curtly: "No money". That was actually the engine that drove the need for a new constitutional convention.
There are no exact logs as to how the committee of five may or may not have voted on each provision that was written, but as it was presented to the convention, the committee of 5 was then unanimous.
Most don't know, but the Convention officially closed on the first day of the 1st congress, in March of 1789.
A constitutional convention of the 21st century would surely be held under other auspices, and other voting rules.
Hope that information helped.
Your version is quite a bit different than Wikipedia.
I didn't use wiki- I still have ithe basic details memorized since 1977, required for 7th graders in my school system.
Your version is quite a bit different than Wikipedia.
I didn't use wiki- I still have ithe basic details memorized since 1977, required for 7th graders in my school system.
I use multiple resources, but I've never found one as unbiased and concisely written and edited as Wiki.
At a time when formal education is falling behind the need, it has become the home of the curious.
I didn't use wiki- I still have ithe basic details memorized since 1977, required for 7th graders in my school system.
I use multiple resources, but I've never found one as unbiased and concisely written and edited as Wiki.
At a time when formal education is falling behind the need, it has become the home of the curious.
I will check it out.
Says he who continues to prove that he knows he has no sound argument to back his positions.I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions."- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care"
That's the job of SCOTUS. Not me and not you. Read their decision
"- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive"
It's the nature of insurance that you pay for risk. If you are lucky, you won't need it. If you are unlucky, you'll save a ton.
"- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude"
All laws can be construed as involuntary servitude. There is no other way to get people who feel entitled to impose on others to reconsider.
- you know all of thse things to be true.
You can't present a sound argument.
Pretty confident words for a loser.
