Groucho
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 933
- Location
- Pocono Mountains, PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote them. Madison is considered to be the Father of the Constitution and comments on the absurdity of the modern liberals interpretation of the so-called general welfare clause, in Federalist 41, and a portion of which I already quoted. A lengthier passage follows here:
"The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision." -Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufacture
So my right to keep and bear arms should include thermo-nuclear arms, by your logic.They swear to uphold the constitution, not the additional/other writings of the founding fathers. And, the constitution is a fluid document that has been amended over time, as the founding fathers intended.
Try again.
So my right to keep and bear arms should include thermo-nuclear arms, by your logic.
Try again.
Was he specific?Great, you know what Madison's view was. What was Hamilton's?
We should not treat the Founding Fathers as if they were gods whose opinions cannot be disagreed with, but it's not a bad idea to read what they had to say.
After all, even the FFs didn't agree on everything.
The problem is that many people who should know better (including posters here) think that whenever there is a controversy over the Constitution, all you have to do is see what the FFs say and an answer will magically appear. That concept is ridiculous, of course.
No one is treating them as gods, that's just loading the debate with nonsense.
Wow. Epic strawman failure.
Not at all. Since the Constitution is fluid, as you assert, then it must encompass the ever-changing definition of Arms.
Actually, I've seen many authors, particularly from the lunatic religious right, who want to use quotes from the Founding Fathers as a basis to shift our society over into a much more theocratic stance, with the misguided claim that the founding fathers wanted this to be a strictly Christian nation.
Great, you know what Madison's view was. What was Hamilton's?
Was he specific?
The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. -Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
They are using an appeal to authority as a mean of making their argument.
That does not mean that they are treating the FF as gods.
In the sense that they treat them as superhumans whose opinions are more important than those of average Americans, yes, they are.
Such people treat the founding fathers as if they were unified, saw themselves as superhuman, and were incapable of error. The founding fathers would have been appalled to be treated in that way. They saw themselves as average men.
Compared to the rest of the U.S. their ideas were definitely more important, in my opinion.
They were very intelligent people, capable of all sorts of natural human errors.
Compared to the rest of the U.S. their ideas were definitely more important, in my opinion.
Specifically? Amendment II.Where is the right to keep and bear arms addressed? See if you can tell me.
Specifically? Amendment II.
Why? They never used a computer, flew on an airplane, or fought a war in another country across the ocean. They were farmers and silversmiths and country lawyers.
I would say that their ideas weren't more important. Their ideas were more original and important for the time in which they lived. I'm not sure if a group of original thinkers, who also had the ability to put their thoughts into practice has existed before or since. The FF's great attribute was that their ideas had not been though of previously and/or they were able to enact these thoughts. They were not gods. They were very smart people at the right time in history.
I think you're getting close to my opinion, which is that they were original thinkers, your term not mine and I like it, implementing their ideas and publishing their thoughtful opinions about it in the Federalist Papers, The Federalist Papers were of course published in New York periodicals to bring to public the thinking behind the compromise and balance of the Constitution.
What makes these writings so important is that they are the first thoughtful arguments made in favor of the Constitution. They have already had many of the discussions that you all will recycle. Between the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers you get a good picture of the issues that are still as pertinent today.
From this report:You can read his report here:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
Why? They never used a computer, flew on an airplane, or fought a war in another country across the ocean. They were farmers and silversmiths and country lawyers.
Were they important? Sure. But they never intended the government of this nation to be set in an unchanging stasis dictated by the mores and beliefs of the early 19th century.
From this report:
Therefore Hamilton agrees with me, that much of what Congress has done since FDR has been a usurpation of the Constitution.
How can it be usurpation if we, the people, using the process provided by the Constitution, have changed it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?