True or False....?

[Uncensored2008]

Confirmed: you're an Internet historian.

However, he is not a very accurate one.

"What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.


"[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:] 'A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

This is not to say Jefferson objected to placing more tax burden on the wealthy;

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied." --Thomas Jefferson to Gen. Kosciusko, 1811.

"Taxation is, in fact, the most difficult function of government and that against which their citizens are most apt to be refractory. The general aim is, therefore, to adopt the mode most consonant with the circumstances and sentiments of the country." --Thomas Jefferson: Introduction to Tracy's Political Economy, 1816.

In fact Jefferson abolished direct taxation (Income and Property) when he took office, stating in his inaugural address;

Direct taxation was to be avoided, this could be done by avoiding expense that are not necessary. when merely by avoiding false objects of expense we are able, without a direct tax, without internal taxes, and without borrowing to make large and effectual payments toward the discharge of our public debt and the emancipation of our posterity from that mortal canker, it is an encouragement, fellow citizens, of the highest order to proceed as we have begun in substituting economy for taxation, and in pursuing what is useful for a nation placed as we are, rather than what is practiced by others under different circumstances.

Jake5000 offers a false history meant to promote his party rather than relay the facts.

 

[norwegen]

Yes. They feared consolidation and a strong central authority. They thought the proposed constitution would be less “calculated to preserve the rights and defend the liberties” of the people than the present constitution had already proved itself capable of.*

*Centinel (probably Samuel Bryan or Eleazer Oswald)

It's true that there was concern that individual rights and particularly states rights would suffer under Madison's Constitution, particularly the 1784 version, but no one wanted the AoC to continue. The single vote per state offended all the various factions. Mason and Clinton were both anti-federalist, but hardly shared common views.

The anti-federalists sought, and succeeded, to force protections of civil and states rights. The concern that Washington, Franklin, and Madison intended a London style central authority was very real, and well founded. The view that escaping the British only to fall under the iron fist of a central government was unpalatable.

A "London style central authority" was mostly a Hamiltonian idea. Though Washington wasn't officially a Federalist, he allied with them. After Washington and Adams ended their terms as president, Jefferson reduced the size of the federal government considerably. He sparred hotly with Washington, and, like the other Antifederalists, preferred the Articles. They were agreeable to amendments, as the Articles did not provide for the regulation of interstate commerce, for retribution against foreign aggression, or for a way to balance the national budget, but they opposed ratification of a new constitution. They opposed the “new plan for consolidating the governments of the United States."*

Jefferson and the subsequent Republican presidents confounded somewhat the Federalist attempts to grow government. Jefferson, after all, was the consummate libertarian who understood as well as anyone our revolutionary principles.

*A Federalist (an Antifederalist who published in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal)

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was ratified in 1788 by a vote of the states.

With no need of or instance of a Constitutional convention?

Is that what you learned on ThinkProgress?

The Bill of Rights was ratified three years after the Constitution was ratified. As I said, it was added to placate some of the anti-Federalists.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not the Constitution was intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

In fact, that the Bill of Rights was added PROVES this. The minority was given a voice.

Dumb ass.

Again you rush to the straw man.

You might want to check how I voted in the poll, shit fer brains.

I took you to task for your blatant distortions of history, which I see are driven by a combination of ignorance and partisanship.

 

[norwegen]

Confirmed: you're an Internet historian.

However, he is not a very accurate one.

Correct. Calling someone an Internet historian is not flattery.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

False because the same majority it is suppose to protect individuals from can also amend the constitution to add or remove those protections so it is still mob rule. The true purpose of constitutions in general is to create a set of rules that the government has to abide by in the same way the same government creates rules we have to abide by. In some ways it is kind of democratic but in many ways it ain't since any individual could use it to protect his freedom from the democratic process. The same democratic process could also alter the constitution to allow the government to infringe on that same person's rights under the previous constituiton.

An example is a proposed fag marriage ban. The courts have said that this is a right but the majority can always amend to the constitution to ban this kind of God-forbidden crap!

A) The US Constitution is difficult enough to amend that the 27th amendment (which took 202 years to ratify) will most likely be the last.

B) Who is the Mob in 'Mob Democracy' if not the government? If The Constitution is there to protect us from the government, then the answer to the opening question is "True".

 

[rightwinger]

The job of The United States Constitution is to protect minority views and lifestyles from Mob Democracy.

​

Does the first amendment protect minority views?
Do our constitutional courts protect minority rights

I say yes