Posted on 06/09/2010 1:47:29 PM PDT by Whenifhow
Hope Rush has a food taster - it’s going to get lethal in the next few months.
LOL. He really believes that?
And you believe in... what?
I think that history has shown that the Anti-Federalists were indeed correct in most, if not all, of the arguments they made against the Constitution.
From what I've gleaned from readings Hucks posts he's a big fan of the Articles of Confederation.
Huck, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
bttt
I'm not even convinced it was all that admirable. The antifeds weren't right on every point, but the points that they were right about were decisive. The Constitution should have been rejected.
It certainly needs fixing, and is far from perfect.
What fixes would make it "perfect?"
Were we afforded the chance to make it more resistant to subversion, the compromises needed for current ratification would be so crippling that we would end up with a document far less resilient when measured by those that follow us by 220 years.
Paraphrasing the old bumper sticker, "Subversion Happens".
With a constrained view of mankind, with man being inperfectable, we as a nation can only be faulted for having too little fear of the weakness of our fellow men. I certainly hope that this fault of being hopeful about our countrymen will begin to bear fruit this election cycle. The new Henry, Washington and Adams cousins may be sitting around FR and the various Tea Parties as we talk -- we can always plan that it may be so.
Expressly delegated powers only--Constitution changed expressed powers to implied powers.
Federalism--Constitution created phony sham federalism.
Unromantic view of government--Preamble to Constitution reads like a love poem. Totally inappropriate aggrandizement of government.
Clear, precise language--there are numerous instances of vague generalizations that lead to expanded national power. I believe this was intentional on the part of the consolidators.
I don’t believe in perfection. I use that term because the article claims that the Constitution is perfect, and because the framers absurdly placed the word in the preamble as if perfection or near-perfection were a realistic goal of government.
With what would you replace the Constitution?
That's why the antifederalist essays are so important. (particularly #31, 39, 78-84.) They demonstrate that the most egregious aspects of the Constitution could be detected at the time and were detected at the time.
Were we afforded the chance to make it more resistant to subversion, the compromises needed for current ratification would be so crippling that we would end up with a document far less resilient when measured by those that follow us by 220 years.
I agree. I think the framers blew it. They were the ones with the golden opportunity. The consolidators, the empire-builders won. It's all ancient history now. I just have to laugh any time someone says the Constitution is perfect, when that is so obviously untrue.
With a constrained view of mankind, with man being inperfectable, we as a nation can only be faulted for having too little fear of the weakness of our fellow men.
I agree. I argue that the framers had too little fear.
"This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. "
Patrick Henry, June 5th, 1788
I would settle for fixing some of the more glaring errors.
And how would you specifically correct the errors?
I made a comment on the text of this thread. I’m not going to get into a whole red pencil session on the Constitution. I stand by my original comment that the idea that the Constitution is perfect is laughable. It flies in the face of reality and experience.
Ah. That makes your comment clear. There’s powerful material for discussion amongst all of us - one that needs to happen since it’s likely that we - those of us who survive the coming animated contest - will be called upon to restore our Republic after the worst and most barbaric times this nation has seen.
The question of course, is restore what, exactly? Is it the the inexactitude of the document itself that has led us to our present state of affairs? Or is it the will of men to make the most of it for their own ends that lies at the root of the problem?
More importantly, can we do a better job this next time around? I think we can. But we must first ALL pay a terrible price to arrive at that point. This I believe beyond a doubt.
Our Framers sought a more perfect union. They achieved their goal.
Do you think the Articles of Confederation were closer to a perfect government?
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.