- First, let me say I truly enjoy our conversations here. I find nothing even approaching the level, nor breadth, of knowledge and comprehension on display here anywhere else. It's a pleasure gentlemen!
Pody,
The creation of our Constitution was not unique in its formation. Only unique in its end result. A group effort was achieved. No group has walked the face of the planet without direction of leadership.
Well stated, sir, and I wholeheartedly agree.
..I would place Madison and Jefferson as the torch bearers leading the way.
I certainly place them among the leadership [even if Jefferson was not a part of the convention, his influence was considerable nonetheless; especially on Madison] but feel there are others who should be recognized as torch bearers as well. While I understand that historians have much more material to work with regarding those members who subsequently became Presidents, I feel the body of work that has been produced by them may have placed an undue emphasis on certain members to the detriment of others; albeit largely unintentional.
Just the humble thoughts of an amateur historian.
TJE,
I'm no fan of newt either, but have long believed he's often the smartest man in the room.
My sentiments as well.
Is the idea a good idea, and constitutional?
That, I will have to contemplate for awhile before responding to.
Every future swing in ideology results in mass elimination of federal judges? Is that bad?
Definitely bad.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If interested in digging into the documentary material on ratification
[and you have some cash to spare. Most volumes are $95.00] I have found this material to be invaluable:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/ratification/
This material is, quite simply, astounding.
I purchased this book based solely on the fact that the author used the DHRC extensively in writing it Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier. I have no regrets about making this purchase.
I would also recommend Madison and Jefferson by Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg
- Permalink Reply by on
- TJE I watched a hand full of the related video’s last night. Thanks for clarifying your question.“Is the idea a good idea, and constitutional? I tend to think it may be great to get rid of the 9th circuit... but what would the ongoing residual effects be? Every future swing in ideology results in mass elimination of federal judges? Is that bad?”Constitutionality I leave to others much better suited than I. Whether it is a “good idea” or not depends on what problem we are trying to solve. As Newt pointed out if Congress were to begin eliminating judges it would have I think two affects.
- Selective elimination of judges as Newt indicated and as you suggest unending eliminations based on ideologically power shifts
- It would further consolidate federal power in Congresses hands
Do either of these have the effect of neutering federal violations of Constitutional limits? I would think not.I admire Newt’s intellect and even more so his political skills. He is a genuine master at crafting a message as he indicated in the video. Does he believe in the message or does he believe the message will get him elected. Now there is a question. Threatening judges isn’t a solution to limiting government; in this case I’m afraid it’s simply a means to an end, winning an election.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "... but feel there are others who should be recognized as torch bearers as well. While I understand that historians have much more material to work with regarding those members who subsequently became Presidents, I feel the body of work that has been produced by them may have placed an undue emphasis on certain members to the detriment of others; albeit largely unintentional."Agreed, sometimes the light of some will out shine or envelope others. We are fortunate that these few, the writers of the Declaration, Articles and Constitution, were men of their stature, and not what was put forth by the Communism or Nazism.Because of the group effort we celebrate the greatest day on earth.
JULY 4th, 1776
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have not been, nor am I, arguing with you; I'm not saying you think I have been, just that my way of expressing an opinion is sometimes misconstrued as argumentative and I felt it wise to state that it is not my intention to be so.
Ms. Maier express' many of the reasons I hold the opinion I do far better than I can:
[From the introduction to her book]
'The DHRC also helps historians avoid the pitfall of repeating the Federalists' version of the story and their descriptions of their opponents uncritically. Let me be clear on this: I have no doubt that we need to understand the Federalists' understanding of the Constitution. In many ways they provide the intellectual foundations of American government. For that and several other reasons, good and bad, we tend to believe everything they said. From a certain perspective, they won, and winners generally tell the stories. The Federalists were intelligent and articulate, the kind of people with whom historians tend to identify and so to trust. After two hundred years of stable constitutional government (with one notable and very bloody exception), it's hard to find fault with those who supported ratification of the Constitution as written. What they said seems wise and persuasive, which is to say true.
But the Federalists also controlled the documents on which historians depend. They owned most of the newspapers. They sometimes paid those who took notes on the convention debates or subsidized the publication of their transcripts. In some places, above all Connecticut, Federalists forcibly blocked the circulation of literature critical of the Constitution. In Pennsylvania, as one little-known letter in DHRC proves, they even tried to suppress evidence that anyone had anything negative to say about the Constitution, and so to suggest that everyone was simply shouting "huzzzah." They were not trying to distort history. They were struggling to win a very tough fight on behalf of what they understood as the nation's welfare in a world where the rules of the political game were different from those of today.
And sometimes what they said was questionable at best-that those who opposed ratifying the Constitution as written simply continued an older opposition to central government, for example; or that they were mostly state officeholders worried for their jobs; or that they opposed the Constitution for some other personal reason, not from a commitment to the public good. That's getting ahead of the story, but it helps explain why I decided to use the word "Antifederalist" for critics of the Constitution only where it appears in quotations, almost all by Federalists, or where the designated persons willingly accepted the name, as in the upper Hudson Valley of New York. The words we use, especially names, shape the stories we tell, and "Antifederalist" was a Federalist term. To use the Federalists' language-to tell the story in their terms-tends to give them the game, or at least to tip the story further in their direction.'
- Permalink Reply by on
- I will have to say back at you regarding what I have posted in response to yours.You have presented a very forthright discussion that has value and merit to it. It is well worth the time and read and nothing in it, IMO, has come across as argumentative or negative at all. I thank you for your input.Happy 4th of July my fellow Patriot and friend.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I am sorry if I offended you, but there are Christians and then there are those that call themselves Christan, who feel that they are doing their duty to G-d, and their fellow man by advocating their responsibilities to the government in the name of charity compassion and love. I am sorry but that is how many justify their support of this government. look at this link then tell me it is not true.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ann - the Newt presented but did not pursue. He failed to address the Constitutional authority used to pass laws. Just as the current crops of B@@@ S@@@@@@ - The very first bill they said here is the Constitutional authority - Necessary and Proper clause, General Welfare, Commerce clause, I never read anywhere in any of those that authorized the government to make welfare payments - food stamps - medicaid - College Grants - research grants - foreign aid - funding for the UN.Oh well, just the same old S@@@ - they lie and we are expected to say oh they are doing such a good job for all the people. Well this old guy is not going there anymore - article I section 8 and no more.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If you think a balanced budget amendment does any good to protect the citizens - go to California and tell me how it saved them from excess taxes and borrowing/spending. check off budget items in the USA national budget - same with the States that have them they just use new creative accounting to distort the issue of balanced.It just gives cover to the Political class - they will always cut the things like street lights, parks, schools, hospitals, medical treatments, police and fire, street and highway maintenance. Only cut what hurts the middle class while they can continue to pay off the Unions and other factions that elect them. IMO it is just BS.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Oh that it was that simple - first we must "TEACH THEM" the Constitution as they believe what they have been told by the Law Professors and the Usurping Justices. They need to be re-educated with what the Constitution actually says not what has been rewritten and twisted like the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare statement. We must keep in mind that the Preamble of the Constitution is not the law it is to introduce the laws.
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, doordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Constitutional Topic: The Preamble
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns The Preamble. The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context for the Constitution — the "why" of the document.
The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.The newly minted document began with a grand flourish &mdash the Preamble, the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.We the People of the United StatesThe Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.in Order to form a more perfect UnionThe Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.establish JusticeInjustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so — only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.insure domestic TranquilityOne of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.provide for the common defenceThe new nation was fearful of attack from all sides — and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.promote the general WelfareThis, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our PosterityHand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty — something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of AmericaThe final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons — it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here — not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before — the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).Article I follows the above and that is the first part of the Constitution and its limits on government. IMO the Preamble has no force of law but is introductory to the law of the land and the establishment of the RULE - BY - LAW AND NOT RULE - BY - MAN that a democracy would use.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "If you think a balanced budget amendment does any good to protect the citizens - go to California and tell me how it saved them from excess taxes and borrowing/spending."True Lock,You can pass all the rules and laws and Constitutions you want. If they are not followed or adhered to....Here in CO we passed the TABOR Amendemnt to the State Constitution. Special Districts and such are putting it back on the ballot to be expempt from. What a crock.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Just so much smoke and mirrors!
No comments:
Post a Comment