|
Real0ne -> RE: What Commie-Pinko-Socialist-Liberal American Politician Said This? (7/24/2011 12:34:34 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
then he was not eligible for office, and that circumvents and does an impass around the fact they had no authority to do ANYTHING beyond amend the articles of confederation in the first place.
Hence the whole CONstitution is bullshit on its face.
Well, I have read the arguments that you are referencing, and the drafting of the current Constitution was somewhat questionable, as to it's legality.
Unfortunately for your conclusion, that really doesn't matter, as the ratification by the States made it legal, regardless.
for whom?
the States never have included the inhabitants beyond establishing a large enough dominion to enforce peonage!
the "p"eople as in the inhabitants NEVER voted on any State matters the People as in Delegates, as in *originally* franchised [by the king] OWNERS of "the soil" did all the voting,
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the CONstitution took away states power and the 14th took away the peoples power.
No to both. It was the 17th amendment which pretty much destroyed the political balance between the States and the Federal Government, and has been the greatest cause of the loss of the peoples' power and rights in the US.
Firm
not true, the opening line establishes People, not people.
If you look at the Declaration of independence you will see the word people used not "People".
If you did not see my patrick henry thread take a look, he said it at the virgina convention.
quote:
Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?
[if the grammar is correct, then it begs the question how, in the constitution it came to be "People" instead of "people as Henry's speech goes.......as a side note I did not evaluate the accuracy of the transcriptionist of Henry's grammar, but in his manner of usage and the context of his allegations it appears to be correctly transcribed]
States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, [contract] it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.
I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. [attorneys represent, once hired they become a trustee, you have no say in the matter and they are not or are very little accountable for their actions] But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. [IOWs: WTF do they think they are doing!]
Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: <--[Muse Washington was in violation of parliamentary rules] that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen <--[nobility] here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this
The rights of the people are established by the declaration of independence and the articles of confederation and the constitution take them away. They control both sides of the contract.
we can take his word for it or do it the hard way like I did and get to that same conclusion by reading mountains of law.
I presume patrick henry even you would consider a legitimate source?
Funny story how I came upon that..... I was arguing con law and laying out my proofs and one of the debators said we know all that already its all old hat. Patrick Henry said all that at the time and it was ignored. (sound familiar)
|
|
|
|
