The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[Procrustes Stretched]

actually not. Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.

The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights. Learn your history before posting

Actually not what? Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.

...
the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.

Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So -- drum roll please ......................
\
......................


/..............

? = a cymbal .......... / There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy

Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.

Lack of substance? Try and challenge Dante in the Bull Ring -- you'd get your pathetic little butt handed to you on a roll with mustard

 

[Liminal]

Actually not what? Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.

...
the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.

Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So -- drum roll please ......................
\
......................


/..............

? = a cymbal .......... / There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy

Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.

Lack of substance? Try and challenge Dante in the Bull Ring -- you'd get your pathetic little butt handed to you on a roll with mustard

You have yet to demonstrate your amazing debate skills.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...
the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.

Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So -- drum roll please ......................
\
......................


/..............

? = a cymbal .......... / There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy

Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.

Lack of substance? Try and challenge Dante in the Bull Ring -- you'd get your pathetic little butt handed to you on a roll with mustard

You have yet to demonstrate your amazing debate skills.

Bull Ring

 

[norwegen]

The self evident rights? Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary

What self evident rights are those? There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution. I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

actually not. Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.

The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights. Learn your history before posting

Actually not what? Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.

...
the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

Dante's a bleeding-heart, revisionist, baby-killing, useful-idiot, brown-shirt, Trotskyite, man-hating, granola-munching, brainless liberal who never knows what he's talking about, but in this case, he knows what he's talking about.

The Constitution is not independent of the Declaration of Independence. It was not created in a vacuum. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the war, the building of a uniquely American society in all the decades previous: in this revolution, people realized once for all the reality of the natural law and the rights therein. Common knowledge among Americans was that certain unalienable rights were self-evident. This view was so shared among the people that nary a comprehensive list of these rights was necessary.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante's a bleeding-heart, revisionist, baby-killing, useful-idiot, brown-shirt, Trotskyite, man-hating, granola-munching, brainless liberal...

Dante doesn't like granola

 

[Liminal]

What self evident rights are those? There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution. I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

actually not. Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.

The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights. Learn your history before posting

Actually not what? Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.

...
the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point

Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ? Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?

Dante's a bleeding-heart, revisionist, baby-killing, useful-idiot, brown-shirt, Trotskyite, man-hating, granola-munching, brainless liberal who never knows what he's talking about, but in this case, he knows what he's talking about.

The Constitution is not independent of the Declaration of Independence. It was not created in a vacuum. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the war, the building of a uniquely American society in all the decades previous: in this revolution, people realized once for all the reality of the natural law and the rights therein. Common knowledge among Americans was that certain unalienable rights were self-evident. This view was so shared among the people that nary a comprehensive list of these rights was necessary.

Common knowledge doesn't codify law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

norwegen the weenie

. The American revolutionists were liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,

you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..

Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's

Epstein’s most recent book, The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.

see why we say slow??

They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy

Another simplistic, liberal, i.e., progressive, assumption. Americans were quite well off and happy. They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century. The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east. It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists. American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.). The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers. They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.

actually, it is rooted in the natural law tradition which is a liberal and NOT a conservative tradition

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually, it is rooted in the natural law tradition which is a liberal and NOT a conservative tradition

100% stupid and liberal !! natural law is the conservative immutable law that exists in nature while liberal law is the new creative progressive law made up by HItler Stalin Mao and Obama manifested by powerful new central govt with powerful new ideas.

Do you understand now?

 

[regent]

When the scientists tied the knot on the solar system with natural laws, that led to the question, is their a natural law for people, for governments, and the Age of Enlightenment may have had its first birth. The Declaration of Independence reeks of that new age, and a new nation was born using the Declaration's theme song. Incidentally Jefferson made the Declaration into a logical syllogism--and its real purpose was propaganda.

 

[Templicon]

Now it is merely an illusion. The constitution began to cease to exist under Dictator Lincoln. In 2002 it was pretty much relegated to the "fiction" section. But it was a gradual process that installed the modern US Police State in the shadow dictatorship of the president.

All it will take is the proper set of "national emergency" events to bring that shadow US Dictatorship to the light. Everything is perfectly situated now for the absolute removal of the US constitution made official for that of the world government constitution of world union.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

agree with one caveat:

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far

Madison underwent a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts). Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).

in bold: so very Dante!

Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.

What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.

It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?

They were Republicans. Libertarians, we might even say. They created a radical new government, a limited, innocuous government seated in a new city, set apart from society not to shape it but rather to preserve it.

The Democratic-Republican party did NOT create the USA

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

idiot EdwardBaiamonte norwegen

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

Neither the Republican party of today nor the Democratic party of today have any true roots traced back to the creation of the USA

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison

Madison and Jefferson were blood brothers and both especially Jefferson hated Hamilton for his big govt ideas. Liberal versus conservative was the theme of the revolution and indeed the theme of human history.

American liberal ideology and conservative ideology come out of the same thing: Liberalism

they are branches of the same tree

D'Oh!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

idiot EdwardBaiamonte norwegen

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

Neither the Republican party of today nor the Democratic party of today have any true roots traced back to the creation of the USA

you're obviously a total 100% liberal illiterate. The conflict between freedom and government was defined by Plato and Aristotle 2500 years ago and was carried forward by Cicero Jesus Bacon Locke Jefferson and Friedman. Jefferson and Madison started the Republican Party in 1793 to carry on the Aristotelian ideology of freedom from big liberal govt.

Welcome to your class in political history. What else would you like to now?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

idiot EdwardBaiamonte norwegen

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican. That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.

Neither the Republican party of today nor the Democratic party of today have any true roots traced back to the creation of the USA

you're obviously a total 100% liberal illiterate. The conflict between freedom and government was defined by Plato and Aristotle 2500 years ago and was carried forward by Cicero Jesus Bacon Locke Jefferson and Friedman. Jefferson and Madison started the Republican Party in 1793 to carry on the Aristotelian ideology of freedom from big liberal govt.

Welcome to your class in political history. What else would you like to now?

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.

you speak much of Locke but are totally ignorant of people like Thomas Gordon


you're an idiot and a lightweight one at that

---

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

EdwardBaiamonte thinks he knows American history? From what, Wikipedia?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 Constitution is like the Bible. They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.

In government, no one believes in either.

I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

3 branches? While Obama claims he can act without the Courts or the Congress and you people applaud him?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Oh, now you want to attend Dante's school?

We don't accept remedial learners

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution is like the Bible. They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.

In government, no one believes in either.

I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.

dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.

too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r

3 branches? While Obama claims he can act without the Courts or the Congress and you people applaud him?

Obama doesn't quite say that and the reason he remains popular and often has more support than you would think, is because of people like you -- you are Obama's secret weapon.

President Obama has never claimed to be above the Courts, nor has he claimed he doesn't have to respect the powers of the Congress