Spend a Lot of Time at Free Republic? Get a Lot of Information?
Haven't donated yet?
Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10
Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today
Posted on 04/16/2011 4:30:48 AM PDT by Jacquerie
There’s no debate about it. You got two different rebellions confused. You can have your own opinions, not your own facts.
Well, since this exchange has taken a turn towards the purely rhetorical, I believe the correct counter would be "whatever".
I confused nothing.
There are many who take the 9th and 10th quite seriously. And the 2nd.
The weird spelling happens - - it’s ok.
Thanks for your responses.
We don’t enforce our immigration laws, so we need reform.
We don’t enforce constitutional law, so we need a convention.
When rules mean nothing, why have ANY?
ML/NJ
Yeah like the guy who created penumbras.
It must suck to live among free men.
9th amendment:
10th amendment
The 9th is fine to a point. But it has come to be a blank slate that judges use to create newly encoded rights.
In short, the 9th has created more mischief than good, and the 10th has done nothing at all.
I have no patience with or use for anybody who's already given up.
Defend what? Liberty or the Constitution? They are not the same thing. The former is the end, the latter the means, and a faulty one at that. A little brutal honesty would be nice, but I recognize most people don’t have the stomach for it.
Everyone has to decide for himself which it will be.
To be brutally honest, if you think it's flawed you should be talking about why and what amendment would be need to correct it. Instead you just go around looking to start a pissing match over it.
Six year terms in the Senate “six years isolation from the people” was the original intent.
And wouldn’t election via State Legislature be further isolation from the people?
Someone came along with a faulty interpretation of the plain meaning of Madison's words (ironic, no?) and I corrected him.
In fact, I don't remember engaging you at all. I'm pretty sure YOU starting wagging your weenie around at me, not the other way around. I think you responded to me from a post that wasn't directed to you at all.
As for what I should or shouldn't propose, whatever. The first step is admitting there is a problem. I know that my comments here sometimes cause people to question things they take for granted. That's good enough for me.
The whole system is bad. A consolidated republic of this size leads to tyranny. End of story.
Being familiar with your views on the substantial effects doctrine and the New Deal Commerce Clause, and your past views of Madison’s writing WRT the Commerce Clause I found it odd to see you taking such a literal interpretaion in this case.
This letter is telling to me, because it shows Madison clearly demonstrating the same kind of disdain for the state governments that Hamilton displayed. Washington got his advice from these two men, but his inclinations put him in the centralizing camp anyway.
What's hard to understand is why Madison became a Jeffersonian after having been one of the most important Federalists ever. Strange. But then, he flip-flopped on a lot of things e.g., standing army, national bank.
As for me, I think the whole project of consolidating the union into one republic was the seed of our downfall. Anyone who cared about state sovereignty at the time opposed ratification.
My point is the Framers did not envision two popularly elected Houses, for good reason. Our three term congressman aka senators reflect popular passions without the humbling experience of semiannual elections.
Isolation from the people when not elected by the people is what the Framers sought and achieved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.