Posted on 06/24/2011 3:38:29 AM PDT by lowbridge
Regular readers of Time magazine this week found in their mailbox yet another pile of leftist tripe in the vein of "the Constitution is a living document." This week's cover article by managing editor Richard Stengel is a freak show of anti-Constitutional babble including an assertion that the Constitution was not intended to limit government: "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so...The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S. for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I feel threatenied, stalked and unsafe by all of your posts to me. Please do not contact me again. This is Christian conservative site. Admin Mod, please note.
That’s something I hadn’t even thought of, and I have a 10/55 Agent/Broker license. Extremely good observation there.
I take it that the author didn’t actually read the document?
USA is clearly in trouble. We have raised a generation of people who don’t have even a small clue about what the USG charter (USConstitution) clearly says. They’ve been raised in public schooling which has turned every principle upside-down. USG has become god to a large percentage of USAians.
I had made a grand total of two posts to you in the entire history of FR, prior to my post calling you out on your inapropriate FReepmail. They are here at post #34 and on the current thread at post #46
“I am thrilled that Time and the rest of the MSM has taken on the mantle of the Supreme Court....this will save American taxpayers THOUSANDS of dollars per year, no longer having to pay the salaries of Supreme Court Justices...(is ‘sarc’ really necessary?)”
The hand picked Federal employees in black robes have no more final word on the Constitution then any other citizen. If they were to have any kind of final word, it would be the end of such constitution and the beginning of their own oligarchy.
Agreed, Hamilton had a lot of very, very serous problems in his argument. Of course we got to be fair not only is hine-site 20/20 Hamilton did not even seriously want a free republic Hamilton wanted a 2nd British empire. An empire in which he would be among the aristocracy.
There are those who have said that some who wanted George Washington to be their King, Hamilton was one of em.
So treating lying, cheating, and scheming Hamilton as one of the legitimate, wise, and “benevolent” founders is already a bit of a stretch on principle.
Needless to say I’m glad he was killed in a duel with Burr. The man was a power hungry aristocratic menace.
“I’ve heard that, too, from liberals -
“how can you oppose the government? the government is us!””
Seriously every-time i hear that from a liberal i feel compelled to ask them why they apposed the Policy of Bush, Reagan, Nixon, ect.. After all they were “us” as well.
Maybe liberals are right at the end of the day our enemy is not the Government but them who vote to make it destructive to our rights and interest.
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.
Federalist, no. 84, 575--81; 28 May 1788
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss7.html
You give them undeserved credit. Their treason is not born of ignorance. It is informed, willful and deliberate.
Quit bothering us.
Agreed. Too many pot smoking liberal secularists too.
When can we begin to deputize patriot conservatives and jail these jerks for usurping the foundation of the United States of America( ONE NATION UNDER GOD!), NOT the 57 states of islum( Obama Fruedian slip)?
We also need to clone Senator McCarthy and begin tossing these anti AMERICAN's on the shovel ready moat and borders that need to be built, begin drilling and building nukes. No tolerance for those that deserve a slow ETERNAL burn.
Might be best NOT to jail but have huge chain gangs to build the borders, and dismantle all that they've done to try and destroy America. More taxes? No, take THEIR money, use it to get America back on track.
Miserable SCUM! They want communism, give them a Haitian boat and send them sailing to China via the Pacific launching them from Sodomy Francisco.
The retread tattled on you twice via abuse report. She got zotted.
Called a 'variable APR', common as cat crap with credit cards
and not unlike emissions standards in that it is subject to change.
Which is part of this country's problems
A 'deal' isn't a 'deal' anymore.
I have a relative who has a master’s degree in history. He says “It doesn’t matter what Jefferson said.”
I responded “You’re living proof a college education does not neccessarily mean intelligence. You have a few degrees. A rectal thermometer has a lot of degrees.”
Hardly eleven years prior to the Constitutional Convention we fought for “the rights of Englishmen,” rights that existed under a monarchy. Monarchy is not synonymous with oppressive government as is often implied at FR. George III and Parliament betrayed the principles of a system we Americans admired. I am not aware of any colonial pamphlets prior to the Tea Party that espoused separation in order to form a republic. All Great Britain probably had to do was grant us some members to the Commons and House of Lords as was done for Scotland, Wales and the whole revolutionary mess could have been postponed if not avoided entirely. The Constitutional Convention was peppered with comments respectful of the British system.
But, despite the admiration, a parliamentary system would not do for Americans.
The gamut of dispositions at the Convention ran from tweaking the Articles of Confederation at one end to the establishment of a strong monarchical/aristocratic system at the other, as per Hamilton.
Speaking of the Articles, William Patterson (NJ)’s plan involved the grant of more power to Congress without solving the underlying structural problems of Confederacies. For instance, because some States refused to follow the peace treaty and not allow British creditors to sue in state courts, the Brits not only did not leave western outposts granted to the US under the terms, but fomented Indian attacks on American settlers. The Articles of Confederation were literally getting Americans killed.
IMO, the Articles were more of an affront and certainly more dangerous to life and property than Hamilton’s plan, yet for some reason, only Hamilton takes the barbs and insults at this forum.
Neither Monarchy nor Confederacy got very far. In fact, Hamilton's ideas got exactly nowhere, no debate whatsoever. We chose early on to establish a republic.
Given the historic record, it is illogical and simple minded to assign devious intent to establish an oppressive government to any of the Framers.
Without going into the various alternatives to a Constitutional convention some of which Hamilton and his elk actively conspired to sabotage.
The point I was making was Hamilton was not happy with the limited powers of the Federal Constitution of 1787. He to that end deliberately sought to undermined and/or ignore them limits. Hamilton was actually in no small part the cause of the Whiskey Rebellion. It is a testament to George Washington’s eternal shame that he aided in putting down that just rebellion.
Please explain further.
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.