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 Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
You have as yet failed to provide any laws contained in the Constitution....that is where the "and" comes inThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
I assume you understand the meaning of the word "and".
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I didn't say the constitution contained laws. I said that it is law, the supreme law of the land.You have as yet failed to provide any laws contained in the Constitution....that is where the "and" comes inThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
I assume you understand the meaning of the word "and".
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
like interracial marriage?If the legislation is unconstitutional someone should have noticed long ago.
mirror51% make their decisions based on 30 second TV commercials.
"rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson," actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his inputSpecial Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there
From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
5th Congress (1797-1799)
5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6th Congress (1799-1801)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th Congress (1801-1803)
Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Vacant: 2
Total Seats: 34
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6th Congress (1799-1801)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th Congress (1801-1803)
Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Vacant: 2
Total Seats: 345th Congress (1797-1799)a truly bizarre phenomena
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6th Congress (1799-1801)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th Congress (1801-1803)
Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Vacant: 2
Total Seats: 34
Democratic-Republican Party
Alternate title: Jeffersonian Republicans
Democratic-Republican Party, originally (1792–98) Republican Party, first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.
During the two administrations of President George Washington (1789–97), many former Anti-Federalists—who had resisted adoption of the new federal Constitution (1787)—began to unite in opposition to the fiscal program of Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury. After Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution formed the Federalist Party in 1791, those who favoured states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, who had served as Washington’s first secretary of state. Jefferson’s supporters, deeply influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution (1789), first adopted the name Republican to emphasize their antimonarchical views.
Notwithstanding the party’s antielitist foundations, the first three Democratic-Republican presidents—Jefferson (1801–09), James Madison (1809–17), and James Monroe (1817–25)—were all wealthy, aristocratic Southern planters, though all three shared the same liberal political philosophy. Jefferson narrowly defeated the Federalist John Adams in the election of 1800; his victory demonstrated that power could be transferred peacefully between parties under the Constitution. Once in office, the Democratic-Republicans attempted to scale back Federalist programs but actually overturned few of the institutions they had criticized (e.g., the Bank of the United States was retained until its charter expired in 1811). Nevertheless, Jefferson made a genuine effort to make his administration appear more democratic and egalitarian: he walked to the Capitol for his inauguration rather than ride in a coach-and-six, and he sent his annual message to Congress by messenger, rather than reading it personally. Federal excises were repealed, the national debt was retired, and the size of the armed forces was greatly reduced. However, the demands of foreign relations (such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803) often forced Jefferson and his successors into a nationalistic stance reminiscent of the Federalists.
Democratic-Republican Party political party United States Encyclopedia Britannica
actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his input
actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his input
if true why is the perfect idiot so afraid to provide evidence. What does he learn from his fear?
actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his input
if true why is the perfect idiot so afraid to provide evidence. What does he learn from his fear?
read a book -- or two. can't hurt
“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
Incorrect.
It is not 'my assessment.'
It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.
Look at it this way.Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
EXAMPLES:
Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
Your Thoughts ?
Look at it this way.Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
EXAMPLES:
Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
Your Thoughts ?
The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
The Constitution itself is the framework of our government. It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was. We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
And it isn't pretty.
you appear confused as to the meaning of the word "settled" in the context“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
Incorrect.
It is not 'my assessment.'
It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.
It's never settled though.
That is the fallacy of this argument.
Or else why is it that people march in defense of Roe on it's anniversary. Could it be because they don't want it overturned ????
you appear confused as to the meaning of the word "settled" in the context“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
Incorrect.
It is not 'my assessment.'
It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.
It's never settled though.
That is the fallacy of this argument.
Or else why is it that people march in defense of Roe on it's anniversary. Could it be because they don't want it overturned ????
Oh well...
Given how easy it is to read the DOI, your assertions are remarkably self serving, and wrong.Look at it this way.Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
EXAMPLES:
Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
Your Thoughts ?
The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
The Constitution itself is the framework of our government. It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was. We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
And it isn't pretty.
Error report:
"The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
"The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
you appear confused as to the meaning of the word "settled" in the context“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
Incorrect.
It is not 'my assessment.'
It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.
It's never settled though.
That is the fallacy of this argument.
Or else why is it that people march in defense of Roe on it's anniversary. Could it be because they don't want it overturned ????
Oh well...
Confused or simply incorrect.
I don't mind being wrong.
But I don't believe it changes my point.
Possibly I misunderstood CCJ.
Given how easy it is to read the DOI, your assertions are remarkably self serving, and wrong.Look at it this way.Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
EXAMPLES:
Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
Your Thoughts ?
The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
The Constitution itself is the framework of our government. It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was. We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
And it isn't pretty.
Error report:
"The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
"The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
I'd bet your wrong. Oh, I'm right about that too....Given how easy it is to read the DOI, your assertions are remarkably self serving, and wrong.Look at it this way.Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
EXAMPLES:
Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
Your Thoughts ?
The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
The Constitution itself is the framework of our government. It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was. We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
And it isn't pretty.
Error report:
"The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
"The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
I bet you walk around with a pocket constitution and attend meetings where like Bible study groups, you struggle to read and comprehend simple words
then you read the DoI
how many HIDDEN meanings have you found in the Declaration?
