- So, did Ben Franklin and others - it was not just Hamilton
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hamilton proposed a new government based on a model he and the other delegates knew well, perhaps all too well: that of theBritish monarchy and parliament.Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty, noting that as long as there was power to be had in the states, people would aspire to acquire that power, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. His plan featured:
- A bicameral legislature
- The lower house, the Assembly, was elected by the people for three year terms
- The upper house, the Senate, elected by electors chosen by the people, and with a life-term of service
- An executive called the Governor, elected by electors and with a life-term of service
- The Governor had an absolute veto over bills
- A judiciary, with life-terms of service
- State governors appointed by the national legislature
- National veto power over any state legislation
Hamilton reported his plan to the Convention on June 18, 1787.
- Permalink Reply by on
- just ran across another nice Goldwater quote.. and it pretty well fits principle 1 (5k-leap)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here's the one I'd probably choose as my favorite;
- Permalink Reply by on
- I just posted this on another site regarding the appeals court review of the healthcare issue - tow of the Judges asked the governments lawyer for cases on the issue?I have concerns when the issue is one of the Constitutionality of a law and the Judges ask for CASE LAW references - read the Constitution Judge and tell me where it is permitted or where it is not permitted. CASE LAW does not change - alter - or amend the Constitution. Just get it correct. No "SETTLED LAW PRECEDENT" NEEDED.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If any of you like to learn about the economics of the tax system then you will enjoy these videos and article.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I’m posting this audio file with the expectation that it will demonstrate just how depraved the Federal Government is and how far it will go in distorting our Constitution to rationalize the extension its power over our lives.These are the oral arguments made before the SCOTUS in the U.S. vs Lopez case. It involves the use of the commerce clause to try to justify the regulation of gun possession.As I listened to the Federal Government’s lawyer I kept thinking of my God somebody stop this guy! If you’ve ever pondered how far the Fed’s would go, how dangerous they could be, listen to this argument. It repulsed me.
- Attachments:
United States vs. Lopez.mp3, 12.5 MB
- Permalink Reply by on
The Declaration of Independence I always considered as a Theatrical Show. Jefferson ran away with all the stage effect of that; i.e. all the Glory of it.I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization. – Letter to François Adriaan van der Kemp (16 February 1809)
- Permalink Reply by on
These Names of Virtues with their Precepts were1. TEMPERANCE. Eat not to Dulness. Drink not to Elevation.2. SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or your self. Avoid trifling Conversation.3. ORDER. Let all your Things have their Places. Let each part of your Business have its Time.4. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.5. FRUGALITY. Make no Expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e. Waste nothing.6. INDUSTRY. Lose no Time. Be always employ’d in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.7. SINCERITY. Use no hurtful Deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.8. JUSTICE. Wrong none, by doing Injuries or omitting the Benefits that are your Duty.9. MODERATION. Avoid Extremes. Forbear resenting Injuries so much as you think they deserve.10. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no Uncleanliness in Body, Clothes, or Habitation.11. TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at Trifles, or at Accidents common or unavoidable.12. CHASTITY. Rarely use Venery but for Health or Offspring; Never to Dulness, Weakness, or the Injury of your own or another’s Peace or Reputation.13. HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates. [Part II, pp. 67-68]
- Permalink Reply by on
- The American people were assigned to be the world’s dreamers. The United States was built on nothing more then a vision and a dream. The American people from its very inception were not a nation in the conventional sense of the word. Standing at Plymouth Rock with no land, no army, no government and no national treasury, all they had was a passionate idealism, a burning faith, an intense devotion, a powerful sense of mission and an unyielding commitment.I can remember when I was a boy and dreamed of the conquest of space the , Wernher Von Braun rotating wheel space station. Dick Tracy and his video wrist watch telephone, robots, flying cars, flying saucer,s and cities under the sea. The problem is America has lost the dream. What made Ronald Reagan such a great President was the dream the love for country his vision of the greatness of American that shining City on a Hill. What we need is that dream again the excitement that inspires and excites the nation to be better, to be the greatest nation on earth, to be proud, to dream once again.
- Permalink Reply by on
- “We talk of liberty and property, but, if we cut up the law of self defense, we cut up the foundation of both, and if we give up this, the rest is of very little value, and therefore this principle must be strictly attended to…”What is the “law of self defense” referred to?“If there had been no other means of getting rid of them, the inhabitants would have had a right by that law of nature, which supersedes all other laws, when they come in competition with it - the law of self-preservation…”This author argues the basis for self defense is the Law of Nature and if we lose sight of or allow the Law of Nature to be destroyed we destroy the foundation of our “liberty and property”. In other words game over.Is it any wonder we and our children are taught and constantly reminded of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence instead of the first? Where would we be if we understood the “foundation” of our liberty?You might be wondering who this author is and what is the context of these quotes?John Adams; and the quotes are his from his notes of the trial in which he successfully defended the Soldiers who killed Americans in what we call the Boston Massacre. He won that case arguing self defense based on the foundational Law of Nature which he declared to be a fact in law that supersedes ALL other laws. That trial took place in 1770. Five years later he was still sighting the Law of Nature just before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.So was the first paragraph of the DOI just a bunch of funny words, or do they mean more than that still today? Elaina Kagen says she doesn’t know if we have any natural rights. She says we have only the Constitution and at that only the court’s interpretation of the Constitution. No foundation, just whatever they say the law is.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jon and group,I have been searching for this quote for a long time here is the source - interesting from this case?
Marbury vs. Madison Quote 
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
No comments:
Post a Comment