|
Real0ne -> RE: What parts of the Constitution should we chip away at? (1/5/2015 1:33:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have been told that we should chip away "objectionable" parts of the Constitution.
What parts should we chip away at?
It seems to me that stop and search chips away at the fourth.
Pretending that it is freedom from religion not freedom of religion hits the first.
Hate speech law hit the first.
the whole damn thing since no debtor-corporation-contract was authorized by the people in the first place and henry knew it. Yesterday like today no one listens when there is money to be skimmed.
states and estates has the same meaning btw
quote:
Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence. While recognizing the need to augment the financial resources of the confederation congress, he was critical of the extensive of powers given to the central government by the Constitution of 1787. Patrick Henry's speech on June 4, 1788, was Henry's opening speech to the Virginia Convention that was debating whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States. This Convention met in Richmond from June 2 to June 27, 1788. By a vote of 79 to 88 on June 26 the Convention ratified the Constitution and recommended twenty amendments and a bill of rights based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government.
snip
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? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, 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. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: 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 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.
|
|
|
|
