The Demise of the American Consensus

Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.
The people who wrote it didn't have a consensus, which is why it almost wasn't signed. It's full of compromises but it's better than nothing they thought...

"September 17 of this week was the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787 at the close of the Convention. The speech of Benjamin Franklin on this occasion has always struck me as being chock full of wisdom. Here is the text of his address:

Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said “I don’t know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that’s always in the right — Il n’y a que moi qui a toujours raison.”

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument."


Benjamin Franklin’s Speech on Signing the Constitution – The American Catholic
 
Last edited:
How to explain the dramatic reversal in the views of the electorate, from that which made us great....individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, to the collectivism of the Sinister Sextuplets?


6. Steve Malanga of City Journal has written about it, and attributes much of same to the huge increase in the post-war population.

The explanation involves the numbers of individual coming of age at the time, who must be civilized by their families, schools, and churches. A particularly large wave swamped the institutions responsible for teaching traditions and standards.

a. “Rathenau called [this] ‘the vertical invasion of the barbarians.’” Jose Ortega y Gasset, “The Revolt of the Masses,” p. 53.


The baby boomers were a generation so large that they formed their own culture. The generation from 1922-1947 numbered 43.6 million, while that of 1946-1964 had 79 million.

Would it surprise anyone if this culture was opposed to that of their parents?

And, therefore, opposed to the creed by which their parents lived?

what "creed"? what consensus?

the only individualism you believe in is if the individuals share your limited and extreme radical right views..... as cut and pasted all day long for everyone's general amusement.

She's talking about the consensus in America's past that was so strong that it made such things as a civil war impossible.

you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.



Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

Who was right in their view of the Constitution in 1860?

The states rights view of Democrat Jefferson Davis, or the federal supremacy view of Republican Abraham Lincoln?
 
Who was right in their view of the Constitution in 1860?

The states rights view of Democrat Jefferson Davis, or the federal supremacy view of Republican Abraham Lincoln?
Gonna have to go with Lincoln on that. One Nation, Under God as they so love to say.

50 nations under God sounds like nothing special...
 
Who was right in their view of the Constitution in 1860?

The states rights view of Democrat Jefferson Davis, or the federal supremacy view of Republican Abraham Lincoln?
Gonna have to go with Lincoln on that. One Nation, Under God as they so love to say.

50 nations under God sounds like nothing special...

Want to bet PC won't answer?
 
Trying to make logical sense of the OP is a mistake.

PS, Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. I don't agree with those who believe he was correct that the founders envisioned states could secede though
 
How to explain the dramatic reversal in the views of the electorate, from that which made us great....individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, to the collectivism of the Sinister Sextuplets?


6. Steve Malanga of City Journal has written about it, and attributes much of same to the huge increase in the post-war population.

The explanation involves the numbers of individual coming of age at the time, who must be civilized by their families, schools, and churches. A particularly large wave swamped the institutions responsible for teaching traditions and standards.

a. “Rathenau called [this] ‘the vertical invasion of the barbarians.’” Jose Ortega y Gasset, “The Revolt of the Masses,” p. 53.


The baby boomers were a generation so large that they formed their own culture. The generation from 1922-1947 numbered 43.6 million, while that of 1946-1964 had 79 million.

Would it surprise anyone if this culture was opposed to that of their parents?

And, therefore, opposed to the creed by which their parents lived?

what "creed"? what consensus?

the only individualism you believe in is if the individuals share your limited and extreme radical right views..... as cut and pasted all day long for everyone's general amusement.

She's talking about the consensus in America's past that was so strong that it made such things as a civil war impossible.

you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.

Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

you should probably try learning about the constitution (and related caselaw) from someone who actually knows something about it.
 
Trying to make logical sense of the OP is a mistake.

PS, Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. I don't agree with those who believe he was correct that the founders envisioned states could secede though

no one ever envisioned succession. once they dumped the articles of confederation, they saw a strong central government.
 
Dude, your party is about to nominate a person who cannot speak intelligently about policy, yet chooses to conduct his job interview with the American People by defending the size of his genitals and engaging in school yard taunting.

The fact that voters like you are not stopping your party from devolving into vulgar anti-intellectualism when we desperately need to evaluate your side's policy proposals means that you have no credibility.

If you want the nation to change course from the most sustained job growth in over 30 years along with the extension of health care to 20 million people, you need to tell us what your policies are.

When your candidate for president is a vulgar moron who has not demonstrated the minimum level of policy literacy, the burden is on you.

Don't be a cheerleader for a know-nothing political movement. Show some courage. Clean up your own house before you start lecturing others.

FYI: I'd rather not vote for Hillary. I hate the Clinton's relationship to Wall Street. I'd consider voting for Kasich if you had the courage to criticize dear leader Trump and give us a real candidate.
 
Last edited:
Another day, another FAILED OP by the all knowing self-appointed Constitutional scholar and false prophet who disavows and discredits any real authority regarding Judicial Review as a Constitutional check and balance on power, et al.

Such is the depth of knowledge of yet another "originalism fruitcake" like Scalia!

1277ckCOMIC-scalia---beyond-the-grave.png
 
what "creed"? what consensus?

the only individualism you believe in is if the individuals share your limited and extreme radical right views..... as cut and pasted all day long for everyone's general amusement.

She's talking about the consensus in America's past that was so strong that it made such things as a civil war impossible.

you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.



Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

Who was right in their view of the Constitution in 1860?

The states rights view of Democrat Jefferson Davis, or the federal supremacy view of Republican Abraham Lincoln?


I lost count....how many lies did I catch you telling today???
 
what "creed"? what consensus?

the only individualism you believe in is if the individuals share your limited and extreme radical right views..... as cut and pasted all day long for everyone's general amusement.

She's talking about the consensus in America's past that was so strong that it made such things as a civil war impossible.

you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.

Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

you should probably try learning about the constitution (and related caselaw) from someone who actually knows something about it.


Caselaw is a scam that Progressives have put over on dopes don't know that the Constitution is the only document the people have agreed to be governed by.


Bet you don't even know who Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell were.

You don't, do you.
 
She's talking about the consensus in America's past that was so strong that it made such things as a civil war impossible.

you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.



Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

Who was right in their view of the Constitution in 1860?

The states rights view of Democrat Jefferson Davis, or the federal supremacy view of Republican Abraham Lincoln?


I lost count....how many lies did I catch you telling today???

Zero.

It's interesting that you fancy yourself knowledgeable about the Constitution but you're wholly incapable of articulating a coherent position on the above question.

Or, you don't dare admit that Lincoln was right, because it destroys all your foolish notions about federalism.
 
She's talking about the consensus in America's past that was so strong that it made such things as a civil war impossible.

you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.

Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

you should probably try learning about the constitution (and related caselaw) from someone who actually knows something about it.


Caselaw is a scam that Progressives have put over on dopes don't know that the Constitution is the only document the people have agreed to be governed by.


Bet you don't even know who Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell were.

You don't, do you.

Case law IS the Constitution.
 
Who was right in their view of the Constitution in 1860?

The states rights view of Democrat Jefferson Davis, or the federal supremacy view of Republican Abraham Lincoln?
Gonna have to go with Lincoln on that. One Nation, Under God as they so love to say.

50 nations under God sounds like nothing special...

Want to bet PC won't answer?

She didn't. I win.

She is virtually illiterate when it comes to the Constitution.
 
She's talking about the consensus in America's past that was so strong that it made such things as a civil war impossible.

you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.

Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

you should probably try learning about the constitution (and related caselaw) from someone who actually knows something about it.


Caselaw is a scam that Progressives have put over on dopes don't know that the Constitution is the only document the people have agreed to be governed by.


Bet you don't even know who Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell were.

You don't, do you.

Why do we have a Supreme Court?
 
Another day, another FAILED OP by the all knowing self-appointed Constitutional scholar and false prophet who disavows and discredits any real authority regarding Judicial Review as a Constitutional check and balance on power, et al.

Such is the depth of knowledge of yet another "originalism fruitcake" like Scalia!

1277ckCOMIC-scalia---beyond-the-grave.png

Ruben Bolling missed the phrase "...with the advise and consent of the Senate..." Just because there is a vacancy in an election year doesn't mean the Senate is obligated to rubberstamp anyone Obama puts forward, or even have hearings.
 
Another day, another FAILED OP by the all knowing self-appointed Constitutional scholar and false prophet who disavows and discredits any real authority regarding Judicial Review as a Constitutional check and balance on power, et al.

Such is the depth of knowledge of yet another "originalism fruitcake" like Scalia!

1277ckCOMIC-scalia---beyond-the-grave.png

Ruben Bolling missed the phrase "...with the advise and consent of the Senate..." Just because there is a vacancy in an election year doesn't mean the Senate is obligated to rubberstamp anyone Obama puts forward, or even have hearings.
Just how many years do you think they should not do what the Constitution says to do? If one year is okay is two, four, eight?
 
As long as the Senate feels necessary. If/when the voters get fed up with the Senate, there are always elections right around the corner to force the issue.

The system's a bitch when it works against you.
 
Another day, another FAILED OP by the all knowing self-appointed Constitutional scholar and false prophet who disavows and discredits any real authority regarding Judicial Review as a Constitutional check and balance on power, et al.

Such is the depth of knowledge of yet another "originalism fruitcake" like Scalia!

1277ckCOMIC-scalia---beyond-the-grave.png

Ruben Bolling missed the phrase "...with the advise and consent of the Senate..." Just because there is a vacancy in an election year doesn't mean the Senate is obligated to rubberstamp anyone Obama puts forward, or even have hearings.
They are obligated to advise. How can they advise if they do not even question the nominee? I understand they can refuse to consent and that is part of the advice portion of the amendment, but simply not holding a hearing is not offering advice.
 
you mean prior to 1865?

not so much......

and when, as the rabid right does, try to de-legitimize the federal government constantly, they are responsible for their own disrespect and inability to work with anyone who doesn't toe their radical line.

She's conjured up some mythical grand consensus that never existed.

Another dolt who's never read the Constitution.

you should probably try learning about the constitution (and related caselaw) from someone who actually knows something about it.


Caselaw is a scam that Progressives have put over on dopes don't know that the Constitution is the only document the people have agreed to be governed by.


Bet you don't even know who Roscoe Pound and Christopher Columbus Langdell were.

You don't, do you.

Case law IS the Constitution.


Gee whiz, I had no idea that SCOTUS could use their "interpretations" (wink, wink) to amend the Constitution (1787).

The dingleberries never cease to amaze me.

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top