- Come on Lock,Some of us are still wet behind the ears.Atlas & Hellraiser,Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United StatesHow does this phrase imply that the mother determines citizenship?Citizen mother, foriegn father and citizenship does not descend to the child. Indicates to me that the Fathers citizenship is determining factor. How do you get the opposite interpretation?Amendment XIX (Ratified August 18, 1920)The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.IMO, it was based on the nationality of the father. Women may have been Americans, but they were not voting citizens, women were considered second class. Thus, Irish father and American mother results in an Irish child regardless where the child is born.
- Permalink Reply by on
- who know where this post will land but all the debate about mother, jfather, sister, brother s or no s singular or plural is just blowing in the wind.The 14th amendment says they are citizens [BORN ON USA SOILS NATURAL CITIZEN BY JUST BEING BORN IN A NATURAL METHOD THE BABY LANDED IS THE NEW CITIZEN AND CAN BE ANYTHING THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS ANY INDIVIDUAL] - The courts have backed this reality and so now it is the laws -Old song I fought the law but the law won. give it break for it is all over, done, complete, finished and only tarnishes the image of our support of the Constitution and it's overriding freedoms.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I, for one, would put Mr. Adams several leagues above J.Cochran's abilities :) but I understand your meaning. Mr. Adams is not my favorite founder but I (grudgingly) have a tremendous amount of respect for the man.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Not mine either, but this guy took some crazy cases and won. He got the Red Coats that killed Crispus Attucks off. Not a small feat
- Permalink Reply by on
- Indeed Hell, A&S Acts and Midnight Judges affair. I would also add Adams' foreign policy, which necessitated the outrageous stamp and house taxes which in turn led to Fries Rebellion, and my complete disagreement with most of the Federalist Party. (for example, I still don't fully understand why Pinckney sided with the Federalist Party; whereas I completely understand why Hamilton and Adams did)
I guess I most respect Mr. Adams intellect and legal prowess. His political leanings are the area in which I lose some respect for the man not to mention his elitist, vain and narcissistic demeanor. A gifted man but just a man nonetheless.
- Permalink Reply by on
- My understanding of the events is that narcissism, is what created the A&S Act.Fries Rebellion, Pinckney, Manifest Destiny? Wow, you are a student of American history. (what a nerd) I'll leave those issues to another day, the two of us being such blowhards we could probably go on for pages and bore the group to tears. I think we share the same penchant for Jeffersonian Theory, rather than the cooperative federalism we have today.Which brings me back to the topic of the 16th...imagine if we get our way, how will that change the tax structure, and how do we maintain the federal agencies that are in place now? I think that as much as not having support, Reagan suffered from not having thought the entire issue through. What do you think?Mr Brunke brings up a good point abut sober assessment not being pessimism. I might also say that thinking the TP came into 15 years ago would have been more beneficial. I'm a fatalist, all things happen for a reason, usually at the right time. We might not agree with that assessment because we live in the present. Hindsight is not just 20/20, it's microscopic and over analogical.Post away, I'll be back tonight.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Wow, you are a student of American history. (what a nerd
LOL! I think the terms I hear the most are Asocial and bookworm.
I think we share the same penchant for Jeffersonian Theory,
We do, sir.
...the topic of the 16th...imagine if we get our way, how will that change the tax structure,
Well, we won't need the IRS :D
...and how do we maintain the federal agencies that are in place now?
Many agencies and Depts will fall to the dustbin of history. If we can repeal 16A it will largely be due to a resurgence of constitutional Republicanism. If that premise be correct then it would follow that shedding unconstitutional Depts and agencies, beyond no longer being able to fund their operation, would be part and parcel of the repeal process; one of the known consequences. It seems to me that if we were to restore the Fed to it's proper size there would be ample revenue to fund it with the provisions made for that purpose in the Constitution. I'm no Mises or Hayek, but I think it's doable. Granted this will require a fundamental shift in thinking on many different levels [econ/govt/banking/industrial/manufacturing] but I still say, doable.
I think that as much as not having support, Reagan suffered from not having thought the entire issue through.
I agree.
I'm a fatalist, all things happen for a reason, usually at the right time.
I think the same way. (I thought I was a Realist?) I also believe that challenging times bring out the very best in the individuals who are needed the most.
Please don't let my limited ability to convey my thoughts clearly lead you to believe I think our situation is hopeless. All I have to do is look at the situation in 1775 to know our odds now are better than the founders had. But the odds are against us.
Rest assured, everyone, I will never yield nor submit.
- Permalink Reply by on
- ’d say we’re in a pretty tough spot compared to the 1775.“Obsta principiia—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour.The revenue creates pensioners and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependants and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society.”NOVANGLUS, February 6, 1775“In order to form a rational judgment of the quality of this transaction, and determine whether it was good or evil, we must go to the .bottom of this great controversy. If parliament has a right to tax us and legislate for us, in all cases, the destruction of the tea was unjustifiable… All men will agree that such steps ought not to be taken, but in cases of absolute necessity, and that such necessity must be very clear.But most people in America now think, the destruction of the Boston tea was absolutely necessary, and therefore right and just.It is very true, they say, if the whole people had been united in sentiment, and equally stable in their resolution, not to buy or drink it, there might have been a reason for preserving it; but the people here were not so virtuous or so happy. The British ministry had plundered the people by illegal taxes, and applied the money in salaries and pensions, by which devices, they had insidiously attached to their party, no inconsiderable number of persons, some of whom were of family, fortune and influence, though many of them were of desperate fortunes, each of whom, however, had his circle of friends, connections and dependants, who were determined to drink tea, both as evidence of their servility to administration, and their contempt and hatred of the people. These it was impossible to restrain without violence, perhaps bloodshed, certainly without hazarding more than the tea was worth. To this tribe of the wicked* they say, must be added another, perhaps more numerous, of the weak ; who never could be brought to think of the consequences of their actions, but would gratify their appetites, if they could come at the means. What numbers are there in every community, who have no providence, or prudence in their private affairs, but will go on indulging the present appetite, prejudice, or passion, to the ruin of their estates and families, as well as their own health and characters! How much larger is the number of those who have no foresight for the public, or consideration of the freedom of posterity ? Such an abstinence from the tea, as would have avoided the establishment of a precedent, dependent on the unanimity of the people, was a felicity that was unattainable. Must the wise, the virtuous and worthy part of the community, who constituted a very great majority, surrender their liberty, and involve their posterity in misery in complaisance to a detestable, though small party of knaves, and a despicable, though more numerous company of fools ?”NOVANGLUS, February 27, 1775
- Permalink Reply by on
- "It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to enslave a people that wants to remain free." Machiavelli
- Permalink Reply by on
- Tis impossible to judge with much Præcision of the true Motives and Qualities of human Actions, or of the Propriety of Rules contrived to govern them, without considering with like Attention, all the Passions, Appetites, Affections in Nature from which they flow. An intimate Knowledge therefore of the intellectual and moral World is the sole foundation on which a stable structure of Knowledge can be erected. - Letter to Jonathan Sewall (October 1759) John AdamsFacts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials (4 December 1770)
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. – Notes for an oration at Braintree (Spring 1772) A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. - Letter to Abigail Adams (17 July 1775)I agree with you that in politics the middle way is none at all. – Letter to Horatio Gates (23 March Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies. - Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will triumph in that Days Transaction, even although We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. - Letter to Abigail Adams (3 July 1776)This is one forward thinking legal mind and a real Philosopher. He was the driving force in the actual Constitution and it's construction. There are many more great quotes but I believe these indicate the thinking and the man true brilliance.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is one forward thinking legal mind and a real Philosopher.
I tend to agree with that assessment.
Lock (and all),
Thought you might be interested in this link to the Adams Papers:
http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde/
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock thank you for those! Great stuff.My attention turned to Adams only very recently when I was reminded of a political maxim I learned long ago. When listening to a politician ignore what he said and take care to consider what he isn’t talking about.I adapted this maxim to my review of K12 curriculums. You can find plenty of material on Jefferson (a deist slave holder you know) and Hamilton (whom the Supreme Court agreed with over Madison).Over time I began to notice a distinct absence of curriculum regarding Adam’s. Perhaps because of his credentials as an unwavering Christian or his record regarding slavery. He wouldn’t fit the desired narrative very well with that record.Maybe it just boils down to our educators not wanting our kids to think about government as dangerous (the way he did) vs it being the answer to every problem in our kids lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment