If Rangel, Geithner, Waters or anyone else are guilty of breaking the law they should be prosecuted. To cite these as examples of the corruption of the Democratic party is just plain naive and misleading. There are plenty of bad eggs in politics. Here is a few more:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/crookedcandidates2010

Tit for tat. When the Dems reclaimed Congress, they did so by citing a culture of corruption among those of the GOP. The chickens have come home to roost.

Bigdogg;442622 wrote:If Rangel, Geithner, Waters or anyone else are guilty of breaking the law they should be prosecuted. To cite these as examples of the corruption of the Democratic party is just plain naive and misleading. There are plenty of bad eggs in politics. Here is a few more:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/crookedcandidates2010

They are in the current party that holds power. They hold or held great positions of power in Washington. Their scandals are at the top in current news media. And Nancy Pelosi promised to end the culture of curruption. So it is relavent to cite them.

Did you even bother to read the whole OP or any following post. I railed on both parties and the culture of curruption the have allowed to develop in washington. I was pointing out that once again we were fooled by one party seeking power claiming the other party was playing dirty. So the cycle will continue.

I clearly pointed out what I thought the problem was. The bloated federal government and the need to shrink it and devolve power out of it. Where lobbying firms can't build offices fast enough so they can feed at the trough and join the parasite economy. Did you read the link from the CATO institute I cited. It railed on the republicans for their hypocracy. Here I'll post it again. Maybe next time you will try comprehending a point before making blind accusations.

Here is another exerpt from the article.

Yes, in the fifth year of Republican control of Washington, Washington is booming.

Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 by promising "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." A look out my window says that isn't happening.

A review of the federal budget confirms it. Federal spending was up 33 percent in President Bush's first four years, making Bush the fastest spender of taxpayer dollars since President Johnson. Between the pork-filled highway bill, the emergency spending bills for the war in Iraq and now the blank-check plans for Hurricane Katrina, he's breaking that record now.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5073

isadore;442255 wrote: Our early leaders were elitist, they considered themselves better than the common man. Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison none trusted the common man, all believed in a deferential society where the governing class was composed of an elite. The idea the common man should play an active political role does not come into effect until the Age of Jackson and then its only for white men.

I agree as I said in my previous post (#20) the framers were a distinct group. Well educated well trained. The elite of their time. Technically that is correct. But as I explained in my previous post I am talking about the political elite. This is were we part ways. I would admit that no doubt some of the framers fit my definition of political elite, but the vast majority did not. You claim that they did not trust the common man. You say they did not want the common man to play an active roll in government. Yet you don't offer any real evidence to support that it was the framers concurrence.

Lets look at the evidence. We all know that in the political realm there is a need for well educated and well versed individuals. If you are an elitist in the political sense, where you look down in self righteous distrust of the common man, it ends there. The respect for the will of the common man would not be taken into consideration.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks at the constitutional convention was how to form a legislature that respected the will of the common man, yet understood that the common man would not have the time and energy to educate himself on all matters of governance. Especially the high levels such as treaties, judicial appointments, etc. Nor does the common man expect to have a direct role in such decisions.

The will of those that wished the common man to play a major role in the new government prevailed. The great compromise between the two factions was made. It allowed for the the common man to play a major role through the house of representatives. Popularly elected directly by the people. They would serve short 2yr terms so the changing winds of the populous would weigh heavily upon them.

They were granted the power of the purse. The power to finance the government. By default the house alone can shut down any act or function of the federal government by refusing to fund it. I wonder why the framers chose to vest this power in the portion of government that was closest to the will of the common man?

The senate (at the time appointed by the state legislatures to represented the political wills of the states) was granted the power to handle the higher levels of governance. Approval of treaties, judicial appointments, cabinet appointments, etc. They were also given longer terms of 6yrs.

One last piece of evidence and the most damning. The 2nd amendment. No political elitist that would distrust the common man would ever allow the common man the right to keep and bear arms, much less codify that right in the constitution. With this respect for the common man our framers preserved for them the right to do just what they had done. Throw off their government if need be and have the power to fight them if necessary.

No government in history has codified in their constitution the right of the common man to keep and bear arms. Say what you will, but the evidence is irrefutable. You can not distrust the common man and look down on him in disdain as a political elitist, and yet guarantee his right in the governing contract to arm himself.

isadore;440856 wrote:The purpose of my examples was not to degrade the founding generation, but rather to put in a little perspective. The Founders and Framers were not pristine.

I understand this statement and you pointing out imperfections that our founders had. I agree they are not gods to be worshiped and not void of criticism. What I don't understand is when their arguments go against your philosophy of governance you malign them personally. Its apparent in this thread as well as in others.

Just to point out a couple. In our argument on Madison's interpretation of the intent of the general welfare clause I provided several sourced quotes and a letter expounding on his beliefs and you claimed him to have written it in senility. Evan though it would be impossible for a senile person to compose such a well reasoned letter.

On another thread the abortion issue came up and I cited one of the framers (James Wilson) and you maligned him as being in support of a hateful institution.

I sense a pattern here . It is becoming quite apparent that you seem to be in disagreement with many of the framers of our government. That is fine. But have the courage to stand on the merits of your argument. Why resort to the unfounded personal attacks on their character. If you are going to call them senile or supporting a hateful institution you need to back it up. Really it looks like you have outright disdain for some of them.

It is my opinion that that most of the framers tried to prevent the concentration of power in one place. They had personal experience with it and sought to prevent its reoccurrence. Falsely accusations, fear mongering, provides fertile ground for the culture of corruption to grow.


.

majorspark wrote:I understand this statement and you pointing out imperfections that our founders had. I agree they are not gods to be worshiped and not void of criticism. What I don't understand is when their arguments go against your philosophy of governance you malign them personally. Its apparent in this thread as well as in others.

Just to point out a couple. In our argument on Madison's interpretation of the intent of the general welfare clause I provided several sourced quotes and a letter expounding on his beliefs and you claimed him to have written it in senility. Evan though it would be impossible for a senile person to compose such a well reasoned letter.

On another thread the abortion issue came up and I cited one of the framers (James Wilson) and you maligned him as being in support of a hateful institution.

I sense a pattern here . It is becoming quite apparent that you seem to be in disagreement with many of the framers of our government. That is fine. But have the courage to stand on the merits of your argument. Why resort to the unfounded personal attacks on their character. If you are going to call them senile or supporting a hateful institution you need to back it up. Really it looks like you have outright disdain for some of them.

It is my opinion that that most of the framers tried to prevent the concentration of power in one place. They had personal experience with it and sought to prevent its reoccurrence. Falsely accusations, fear mongering, provides fertile ground for the culture of corruption to grow.

My descriptions of Madison and Wilson are based on evidence. Madison after his experience in the War of 1812 with a nation nearly brought to defeat because of the inherent weaknesses of Jeffersonian states rights as applied to government he changed some of his long held stands. As President he accepted the necessity of a Hamiltonian national bank, an effective taxation system based on tariffs, a standing professional army and a strong navy. The creation of a strong national bank is not an expressed power found directly in the Constitution but based on the doctrine of implied powers.
“Late in life “Madison's financial troubles and deteriorating mental and physical health would continue to consume him. In his later years, Madison also became extremely concerned about his legacy. He took to modifying letters and other documents in his possessions: changing days and dates, adding and deleting words and sentences, and shifting characters During the final six years of his life, amid a sea of personal [financial] troubles that were threatening to engulf him...At times mental agitation issued in physical collapse. For the better part of a year in 1831 and 1832 he was bedridden, if not silenced...Literally sick with anxiety, he began to despair of his ability to make himself understood by his fellow citizens.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

He was mentally losing it.
James Wilson submitted the definition of a black as 3/5s a person that was put into our Constitution. A resolution of extreme continuing embarrassment to our nation. It was not removed the 14th Amendment making blacks citizens was ratified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson
You may notice three men I used as examples of imperfection on this thread were Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson. I have great admiration for two of those men. Washington and Hamilton. Both had exemplary physical courage, both sacrificed for our nation, both came to oppose slavery and do something about that opposition, and both believed in a strong national government, they were not states rights advocates
Neither was perfect as my examples pointed out. Gosh Washington inept military leadership provided the incident that started the French and Indian War, as a general he lost more battles than he won, he was not the brightest bulb and he was a slave owner, although he manumitted his slaves in his will and financially provided for them. But in total you can make a strong argument he did more for this country than any other man.
Oh I do have outright disdain for some of them, Jefferson in particular.

majorsparks wrote:I agree as I said in my previous post (#20) the framers were a distinct group. Well educated well trained. The elite of their time. Technically that is correct. But as I explained in my previous post I am talking about the political elite. This is were we part ways. I would admit that no doubt some of the framers fit my definition of political elite, but the vast majority did not. You claim that they did not trust the common man. You say they did not want the common man to play an active roll in government. Yet you don't offer any real evidence to support that it was the framers concurrence.

Lets look at the evidence. We all know that in the political realm there is a need for well educated and well versed individuals. If you are an elitist in the political sense, where you look down in self righteous distrust of the common man, it ends there. The respect for the will of the common man would not be taken into consideration.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks at the constitutional convention was how to form a legislature that respected the will of the common man, yet understood that the common man would not have the time and energy to educate himself on all matters of governance. Especially the high levels such as treaties, judicial appointments, etc. Nor does the common man expect to have a direct role in such decisions.

The will of those that wished the common man to play a major role in the new government prevailed. The great compromise between the two factions was made. It allowed for the the common man to play a major role through the house of representatives. Popularly elected directly by the people. They would serve short 2yr terms so the changing winds of the populous would weigh heavily upon them.

They were granted the power of the purse. The power to finance the government. By default the house alone can shut down any act or function of the federal government by refusing to fund it. I wonder why the framers chose to vest this power in the portion of government that was closest to the will of the common man?

The senate (at the time appointed by the state legislatures to represented the political wills of the states) was granted the power to handle the higher levels of governance. Approval of treaties, judicial appointments, cabinet appointments, etc. They were also given longer terms of 6yrs.

One last piece of evidence and the most damning. The 2nd amendment. No political elitist that would distrust the common man would ever allow the common man the right to keep and bare arms, much less codify that right in the constitution. With this respect for the common man our framers preserved for them the right to do just what they had done. Throw off their government if need be and have the power to fight them if necessary.

No government in history has codified in their constitution the right of the common man to keep and bare arms. Say what you will, but the evidence is irrefutable. You can not distrust the common man and look down on him in disdain as a political elitist, and yet guarantee his right in the governing contract to arm himself.

Please its BEAR arms not bare arms. From most of these guys I would just forget that error but from you major I expect a little more. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” it is a defense measure for a poor nation of over a million square miles, 3 million people, almost no standing army and surrounded by predatory imperial powers. A rather stupid one that almost caused us to lose the War of 1812.
Our government was structured by an elite who distrusted its people. Compare our national government and how its leadership is selected with our state government.
President chosen by electors that can be chosen in any manner the state legislature may select and who then may vote for President as they wish ignoring the will of the people.-Governor elected by direct vote of people.
Cabinet appointed by President, confirmed by Senate.- Many top executives auditor, treasurer, attorney general, secretary of state elected by people.
Federal Judges appointed by President, confirmed by Senate-State judges elected by people.
Senators before the 17th Amendment chosen by state legislatures- State senators chosen by people
House of Representatives chosen by the People national and state government.
All laws must be passed by US Congress- State some laws proposed and ratified directly by the people.
Also at the time the Constitution was written suffrage in most states was restricted to white male property holders, the elite.
The Federal government was structured by elite who distrusted the people. Luckily over the years federal government has gone through modifications that make the selection of the President and Senate more democratic. And of course suffrage as now been extended through federal efforts to almost all adult citizens. Much beyond anything envisioned by our founding elite.

isadore;443424 wrote:My descriptions of Madison and Wilson are based on evidence. Madison after his experience in the War of 1812 with a nation nearly brought to defeat because of the inherent weaknesses of Jeffersonian states rights as applied to government he changed some of his long held stands. As President he accepted the necessity of a Hamiltonian national bank, an effective taxation system based on tariffs, a standing professional army and a strong navy. The creation of a strong national bank is not an expressed power found directly in the Constitution but based on the doctrine of implied powers.

Its funny how many times we have compromised the constitution because of our involvement in war. No man is perfect and is subject to the wiles of power. Because the amendment process is just too messy, many of our leaders have failed us and compromised the constitution. Even two of the best. Madison and Jefferson (Louisianna Purchase).

isadore;443424 wrote:“Late in life “Madison's financial troubles and deteriorating mental and physical health would continue to consume him. In his later years, Madison also became extremely concerned about his legacy. He took to modifying letters and other documents in his possessions: changing days and dates, adding and deleting words and sentences, and shifting characters During the final six years of his life, amid a sea of personal [financial] troubles that were threatening to engulf him...At times mental agitation issued in physical collapse. For the better part of a year in 1831 and 1832 he was bedridden, if not silenced...Literally sick with anxiety, he began to despair of his ability to make himself understood by his fellow citizens.’

There is no hard evidence that Madison had lost his mental capacity. You rely on nothing more than nearly 200 yr old conjecture. Here is a link to a letter he wrote to Andrew Stevenson. 27 Nov. 1830Letters 4:120--39. Does this sound like an insane man?
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s27.html

isadore;443424 wrote:James Wilson submitted the definition of a black as 3/5s a person that was put into our Constitution. A resolution of extreme continuing embarrassment to our nation. It was not removed the 14th Amendment making blacks citizens was ratified.

Someone with a knowledge of history like yourself should know why that compromise was made. It was the southern states that wanted to count slaves as a full person. This would grant them more power in the federal government. The northern states objected saying that slaves that would not be permitted to vote should not be counted.

Had this compromise not been struck, the union would never have been formed. Had the northern states caved and counted the slaves as a full person, Lincoln would never have been elected. The southern states would have had more power in congress and slavery would have endured far longer.

James Wilson did not personally believe a black man was less than a full person. His compromise brought the southern states signitures onto the constitutional contract. Lets not twist history.

isadore;443465 wrote:Please its BEAR arms not bare arms. From most of these guys I would just forget that error but from you major I expect a little more.

Sometimes that early in the morning my mental faculty can be compromised or maybe I am going insane like Madison. But thanks for pointing out my grammar/misspelling error. I will promptly go back an correct it. For once you are finally right about something. Enjoy the moment.

From now on can I send you a PM to proof read my posts befor I submit them? Sorry couldn't restist being a little bit of a smart ass.

isadore;443465 wrote: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” it is a defense measure for a poor nation of over a million square miles, 3 million people, almost no standing army and surrounded by predatory imperial powers. A rather stupid one that almost caused us to lose the War of 1812.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I see you conviently left off the last part. You know where the people have their right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. The founders and the people had a great distrust for the creation of a national army. Uderstandably so consdering what they just experienced with the British army's occupation.

They recognized that it would be necessary to have a military to protect t the security to the government. But to counter that the people themselves right to keep their own private arms can not be infringed. No political elitist who knows whats best for the common man would ever trust him with arms. Arms that could be pointed at the political elite if they dare go to far in "knowing what is best". That is why you can't refute it. The founders acknowledged the right of the common man to institute armed revolt against the very government they were creating.

isadore;443465 wrote:Our government was structured by an elite who distrusted its people. Compare our national government and how its leadership is selected with our state government.
President chosen by electors that can be chosen in any manner the state legislature may select and who then may vote for President as they wish ignoring the will of the people.-Governor elected by direct vote of people.
Cabinet appointed by President, confirmed by Senate.- Many top executives auditor, treasurer, attorney general, secretary of state elected by people.
Federal Judges appointed by President, confirmed by Senate-State judges elected by people.
Senators before the 17th Amendment chosen by state legislatures- State senators chosen by people
House of Representatives chosen by the People national and state government.
All laws must be passed by US Congress- State some laws proposed and ratified directly by the people.

The electoral college has little to do with a distrust of the people. It had to do with the power of the states. The individual states elect their cheif executive. The same goes for the 17th amendment's change to the original intent fo the framers. Originally who senators were chosen had to do with the balance of power the states held. At that point the state legislatures appointed their representation in the federal senate.

We are a rebublic. Not a direct democracy. The framers were wise and knew the government should not be totally subject to mob rule by the common man. But the commom man was given great responsiblilty in taking part in the government. The house, the closest representation of the common man was given the power of the purse. And default power to refuse to finance any act of the federal government. It the framers were so elitist and had such disdain for the common man, why not place that power into the hands of the more elite Senate?

As I stated in my previous post. The framers understood that some of the responsibilities of government, the common man would not have the time and energy to educate himself to that leve. Like I said the common man doe not expect to have a direct role in such decisions. They do however want the respect of playing a vital role in their government. That they got. We all have our roles, but the common man has a big seat at the table. And they got guns.

majorspark;443518 wrote:Its funny how many times we have compromised the constitution because of our involvement in war. No man is perfect and is subject to the wiles of power. Because the amendment process is just too messy, many of our leaders have failed us and compromised the constitution. Even two of the best. Madison and Jefferson (Louisianna Purchase).

You think the Louisiana Purchase was a bad idea?

I Wear Pants;443698 wrote:You think the Louisiana Purchase was a bad idea?

Jefferson believed the government was based only on powers directly stated in the Constitution. There is no expressed power to acquire land. So when presented with a great deal and being the hypocrite he was, he made up the concept of inherent powers. Powers the government has just because we are a sovereign nation.

Presidential selection is about power given to the electors. Whatever method the states used to select them ultimately the electors become independent agents able to vote for anyone who fits the qualification for President despite anything their states demand. The Framers expected a small select group to do the picking. That is pretty elitist.

majorsparks wrote:If you are an elitist in the political sense, where you look down in self righteous distrust of the common man, it ends there.

2nd Amendment
Oh and a political elite who does not want to pay taxes does allow them weapons, so they can do the dying in case of invasion. It is obvious from the opening clause that people are allowed to bear arms to provide for a national defense. It is away for cheap elitist to be defended.

majorsparks wrote:One of the biggest stumbling blocks at the constitutional convention was how to form a legislature that respected the will of the common man, yet understood that the common man would not have the time and energy to educate himself on all matters of governance. Especially the high levels such as treaties, judicial appointments, etc. Nor does the common man expect to have a direct role in such decisions.

majorsparks wrote:The framers understood that some of the responsibilities of government, the common man would not have the time and energy to educate himself to that levels Like I said the common man doe not expect to have a direct role in such decisions.

Now that is pretty elitist. I don’t know about treaties but at the state and local level in Ohio it is the people exercising their franchise that makes judicial appointments. I think they do as good a job as some people who end up on the federal bench.
And how do you describe giving power to the common people.

majorsparks wrote: totally subject to mob rule by the common man.

That is elitist.
We have become a representative democracy in which we expect the adult citizenry, not just white male property holders, to be involved in picking our leaders. It is non-elitist.

I Wear Pants;443698 wrote:You think the Louisiana Purchase was a bad idea?

No I don't. As Isadore said Jefferson violated his principles and the constitution to do so. He feared that through the amendment process the power could be rejected or would take too long and the deal would fall through.

I get that. I just think that it was the correct thing to do in that situation.

I Wear Pants;443774 wrote:I get that. I just think that it was the correct thing to do in that situation.

True, but moves like that set precedent, especially when coming from one of the framers who believed and argued the limited power of the federal government.

majorspark;443518 wrote:Its funny how many times we have compromised the constitution because of our involvement in war. No man is perfect and is subject to the wiles of power. Because the amendment process is just too messy, many of our leaders have failed us and compromised the constitution. Even two of the best. Madison and Jefferson (Louisianna Purchase).
There is no hard evidence that Madison had lost his mental capacity. You rely on nothing more than nearly 200 yr old conjecture. Here is a link to a letter he wrote to Andrew Stevenson. 27 Nov. 1830Letters 4:120--39. Does this sound like an insane man?
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s27.html
Someone with a knowledge of history like yourself should know why that compromise was made. It was the southern states that wanted to count slaves as a full person. This would grant them more power in the federal government. The northern states objected saying that slaves that would not be permitted to vote should not be counted.
Had this compromise not been struck, the union would never have been formed. Had the northern states caved and counted the slaves as a full person, Lincoln would never have been elected. The southern states would have had more power in congress and slavery would have endured far longer.

James Wilson did not personally believe a black man was less than a full person. His compromise brought the southern states signitures onto the constitutional contract. Lets not twist history.

Jefferson and Madison are hardly the best of Presidents for several reasons. One example would be their military policy almost destroyed America by leaving us completely unprepared to fight a war against Great Britain or just about anyone else.
The comments on Madison are hardly conjecture. Financially troubled, he suffered both a physical and mental collapse The man had cracked up. Based on some delusion he was trying to manufacture his own past, “ modifying letters and other documents in his possessions: changing days and dates, adding and deleting words and sentences, and shifting characters.” Hardly a dependable source of information or thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
So you are alright with blacks being described as 3/5s a person in our founding document.
Wilson put it in there. Wilson in a situation where it would not divide a country. In 1780 Pennsylvania passed a gradual emancipation act that ended future slavery but kept in enslavement all the present slaves and kept their children as indentured servants until they were 28. In 1790 there will still 3787 slaves in Pennsylvania. In 1790 the state passed it own Constitution, that Wilson is given primary credit for writing. It did not end slavery which lingered in the state until the 1840s. Slaves must not have counted to much to Mr. Wilson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Pennsylvania
http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/wilson_jas.html

isadore;443726 wrote:Presidential selection is about power given to the electors. Whatever method the states used to select them ultimately the electors become independent agents able to vote for anyone who fits the qualification for President despite anything their states demand. The Framers expected a small select group to do the picking. That is pretty elitist.

Incorrect. They are subject to state power. Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) This decision affirmed that constitutionally state electors are representatives of their respective states. Therefore they vote under the rules that their respective states define. They can vote independently only if their state allows it.

The SCOTUS ruled:
Presidential Electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state, which, in turn, receives its authority from the Federal Constitution.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/214/

Nearly all hold to a "winner take all" rule of the popular vote in their state. 24 states have laws punishing electors who betray their pledge.

Nebraska and Maine use the district method.
The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes. No elector in US history has ever overturned a US election.
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm

Recently some states have asserted their right to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington and now Massachusetts, have by their state legislatures enacted this power under each states defined rules.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/08/mass_governor_p.html

No elector in US history has ever overturned an election. Many that deviated in the past from their pledge did so because the election was a forgone conclusion. They used their vote to make some sort of political statement.

isadore;443726 wrote:2nd Amendment
Oh and a political elite who does not want to pay taxes does allow them weapons, so they can do the dying in case of invasion. It is obvious from the opening clause that people are allowed to bear arms to provide for a national defense. It is away for cheap elitist to be defended.

Now this is one of the craziest interpretations of the 2nd amendment I have ever heard. I would agree that one of the objectives of the 2nd amendment was to grant the individual with the personal right to defend himself from a foreign enemy. But that is not its primary purpose.

It is that of last resort defense against their own government. That's right the final check on unjust government power. The right of the people to turn their guns on their rulers if they deemed them to have usurped the constitution and are unjust rulers. The framers preserved the right of the people to keep arms and if necessary have the power to throw off their rulers just as they did.

But don't take my word for it lets hear from some of the founders. Starting with one of your favorites Alexander Hamilton.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

majorspark;444358 wrote:It is that of last resort defense against their own government. That's right the final check on unjust government power. The right of the people to turn their guns on their rulers if they deemed them to have usurped the constitution and are unjust rulers. The framers preserved the right of the people to keep arms and if necessary have the power to throw off their rulers just as they did.

This is quite correct and PRECISELY why Big Government leftists are working overtime to erode and eventually eliminate the Constitutional right to bear arms.

It's laughable for liberals to claim that their desire to control guns is to "protect the public" from "gun crime", etc. While this may be the benevolent aim of the common bleeding heart liberal, the insidious goal of the far more powerful elite inner circle is to remove the ability to defend ourselves from the tyranny of a rampaging intrusive centralized government.

The culture of corruption at work.

major & believer - Thanks for posting. The 2nd Amendment was put in exactly for the reasons you state; it's got nothing to do with hunter's rights nor any other liberal moniker they like to use to hide their real intent.

I would add that just a couple months ago, 44% of the Supreme Court justices thought that they knew better than the Constitution and voted to virtually abolish the 2nd Amendment. We are THAT close to tyranny, should the 2nd Amendment ever be abolished by the courts, much like the 10th Amendment already has been. In the Progressive's mind, that would be "2 down and 8 to go" from the Bill of Rights.

isadore;443793 wrote:So you are alright with blacks being described as 3/5s a person in our founding document.

Of course not. I am not ok with slavery period. But the fight to end slavery was not possible at the constitutional convention. You know damn well the slave holding states would not sign on. Like I said had that statement not been in their and the slave holding states got to count slaves as a full person, their powers in congress and to elect the president would have increased. Lincoln would have never been elected and slavery would have endured for decades longer than it did.

Its just the reality of the historical political landscape of the time. The 3/5 clause had nothing to do with measuring the humanity of the slaves. It had to do with political power. Like I said the northern states did not want to count them at all. If I was an abolitionist in this circumstance I would not want them counted either until they could vote as free men. Other wise the slave holding states would use their number to increase their power in government to continue to hold them as slaves.

I know it looks ugly but unfortunately it was necessary at the time to get the slave holding states to sign on.

majorspark;444622 wrote:Of course not. I am not ok with slavery period. But the fight to end slavery was not possible at the constitutional convention. You know damn well the slave holding states would not sign on. Like I said had that statement not been in their and the slave holding states got to count slaves as a full person, their powers in congress and to elect the president would have increased. Lincoln would have never been elected and slavery would have endured for decades longer than it did.

Its just the reality of the historical political landscape of the time. The 3/5 clause had nothing to do with measuring the humanity of the slaves. It had to do with political power. Like I said the northern states did not want to count them at all. If I was an abolitionist in this circumstance I would not want them counted either until they could vote as free men. Other wise the slave holding states would use their number to increase their power in government to continue to hold them as slaves.

I know it looks ugly but unfortunately it was necessary at the time to get the slave holding states to sign on.

This is an ironic reality when you stop to think about it. Northern Big Government leftists of that time wanted slavery abolished....but only as long as the "freed" slaves didn't count as a person for political purposes. Yet today blacks vote overwhelmingly for liberal Dems.

Today the left wants to grant illegal immigrants amnesty so those fine upstanding law abiding folks can be bussed to the local polling places each November.

believer;444714 wrote:This is an ironic reality when you stop to think about it. Northern Big Government leftists of that time wanted slavery abolished....but only as long as the "freed" slaves didn't count as a person for political purposes. Yet today blacks vote overwhelmingly for liberal Dems.

Today the left wants to grant illegal immigrants amnesty so those fine upstanding law abiding folks can be bussed to the local polling places each November.

I think the deportation should continue. I think that Obama has deported more illegals than the previous administration did. The shrinking economy has actually slowed down the immigration numbers. How sad is it that even the 3 bucks an hour under the table crowd can't find work?

In 1791
2nd Amendment, “A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Amendment as part of the needed steps to provide for a relatively inexpensive force under national control to defend our nation in it early poverty stricken days. This is just part of the process.
It began with the body of the Constitution.
1787
Article I, Section 8
Clause 15 “The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasion. “ We have this force under the control of Congress to carry out our laws and repress citizens with guns who refuse to obey those laws.
Clause 16 “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in Service of the United States….” Congress has the power to regulate these folks to discipline and government them for the use of the United States.
Article II, Section 2
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and the Militia of the several states when called into actual Service of the United States…..:“When this well regulated militia is needed we know who is the boss.
And to further enforce the governments power over this well regulated Militia
5th Amendment
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising among the land or naval forces or n in the Militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger….”\Public danger when nuts with guns are running around.
2nd Amendment just part of the process in setting up that military force.

Isa, I'm not understanding you. Reading through this whole thread, what is your ultimate point?
Surely, you're not defending corruption that goes on in DC - then or NOW, or only certain corruptness?