Do most Americans still believe in the Constitution anymore?

Dec 2018
3,037
2,118
Indiana
Whose intent should be used to interpret and understand a Constitutional passage other than the intent of those who wrote it and ratified that passage? Please be specific.
Would Hamilton on the general welfare clause be specific enough?

... 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. 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. ...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Feb 2019
2,110
554
here and there
And that same Madison wrote this:

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: (1) by establishing political equality among us all; (2) by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by the immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; (3) by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort."

What you call "subversion" those who understand the Constitution as written call "original intent".
Subversion was not my term, it was Madison's term
 
Feb 2019
2,110
554
here and there
Would Hamilton on the general welfare clause be specific enough?

... 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. 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. ...

Hamilton was an all powerful Federal government cheer leader, which is why he is the darling of Progressives and the reason they recently did a play about him.

In fact, I wonder if Madison would sign a petition to do away with the entire Bill of Rights like they will in California, aka looney land?

 
Feb 2019
2,110
554
here and there
I'll agree with you to this extent: you can listen to the nation's leading Democrats for days on end and you're unlikely to hear them ever use the word "liberty" in any meaningful way.
Indeed. All you hear is what they want to ban.

The only rights Leftist care about is the rights regarding having sex, abortion, and illicit drug use. Everything else they want to dictate to the rest of the country.

Conversely, conservatives focus on restricting abortion and letting people decide everything else for themselves.

But at the end of the day, power corrupts and since the Left focus' on controlling all aspects of money, they are the natural candidates for power hungry dictators.
 
Dec 2018
5,576
1,480
New England
Would Hamilton on the general welfare clause be specific enough?

... 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. 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. ...

No, it's not.

Let's take a specific example. There's been much debate on what the term "well regulated" means in the Second Amendment. Whose intent, i.e. whose understanding of the meaning of those words, should a court look to when deciding whether a piece of federal law restricting gun access comes before the bench?
 
Dec 2018
5,576
1,480
New England
Indeed. All you hear is what they want to ban.

The only rights Leftist care about is the rights regarding having sex, abortion, and illicit drug use. Everything else they want to dictate to the rest of the country.

Conversely, conservatives focus on restricting abortion and letting people decide everything else for themselves.

But at the end of the day, power corrupts and since the Left focus' on controlling all aspects of money, they are the natural candidates for power hungry dictators.
I agree with you that, as a generalization, if you scratch the surface of a modern progressive you're almost certain to find a control freak beneath.
 
Dec 2018
3,037
2,118
Indiana
No, it's not.

Let's take a specific example. There's been much debate on what the term "well regulated" means in the Second Amendment. Whose intent, i.e. whose understanding of the meaning of those words, should a court look to when deciding whether a piece of federal law restricting gun access comes before the bench?


So, if the Court looks to Hamilton on the General Welfare Clause, you reject it?


Your hypocrisy and fussiness are boundless.
 
Sep 2019
2,649
1,006
Here
What is the US becoming?

Very good point and post.

America is no longer becoming divided. It is divided. That is, if you label yourself. Even on things that aren't political. Even trans people, who have fought for "equality," will bash a straight person just for not getting their gender right. Even those that can't pass in public as the gender they're trying to be (or have become) "It's ma'am."
I get told I'm not "manly" because I don't hunt. How ridiculous is that?


Yes sir, we have divided ourselves. And we're owned by the group we identify with. I try to shy away from groups and group thinking. But it's hard to do now a days. It's almost like you're sucked into it.