Evidence that the Madisonian view is not different from the Hamiltonian one

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
First of all, Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, and the Antifederalists were disappointed with it.

First of all, there were 2 ways in which the 10th Amendment could have meant more, yet the weakest possible option was chosen. It could have been the only Amendment in the bill of Rights, by making it the 2nd of the Articles of Confederation; failing that, it could've had the word "expressly" added so it would read "all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states".

If he had chosen to use the 2nd of the Articles of Confederation, then basically, that would have made it much more difficult for the government to use the commerce, welfare, and necessary and proper clauses. It also would've made the states supreme, or at least equal to the federal government.

So, the fact that he didn't even put the word "expressly" as many demanded, is good evidence that he did endorse the living document view. While he did write that the Federal government's powers would be "few and enumerated" and that the States' powers would be numerous and indefinite, the fact that even Jefferson didn't believe the Bill of Rights to be radical enough also indicates that the true intentions of the Constitution were for a strong centralized government.

Further, when he was President, he had undeclared wars and finally, he signed into law the 2nd BUS which gave the government the power to issue fiat currency, which is prohibited by the letter, but not the spirit of the Constitution.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
First of all, Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, and the Antifederalists were disappointed with it.

First of all, there were 2 ways in which the 10th Amendment could have meant more, yet the weakest possible option was chosen.

Wait, so ...which one is first?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Who the fuck cares what men 250 years ago thought about how to run a country? Don't we have the oldest constitution in the world? Isn't time for an update?

I don't mean to disparage the founding fathers, but I'm sick to death of people bickering over the meaning of a document that was ratified before women and blacks could vote, when the privacy, intellectual property, and health care issues we face today were unimaginable, and when it was reasonable to believe that a militia could defend the people from a tyrannical government.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
Who the fuck cares what men 250 years ago thought about how to run a country? Don't we have the oldest constitution in the world? Isn't time for an update?

I don't mean to disparage the founding fathers, but I'm sick to death of people bickering over the meaning of a document that was ratified before women and blacks could vote, when the privacy, intellectual property, and health care issues we face today were unimaginable, and when it was reasonable to believe that a militia could defend the people from a tyrannical government.

This...
masi how? hami what?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Who the fuck cares what men 250 years ago thought about how to run a country? Don't we have the oldest constitution in the world? Isn't time for an update?

I don't mean to disparage the founding fathers, but I'm sick to death of people bickering over the meaning of a document that was ratified before women and blacks could vote, when the privacy, intellectual property, and health care issues we face today were unimaginable, and when it was reasonable to believe that a militia could defend the people from a tyrannical government.

That's what the amendment process is for.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Who the fuck cares what men 250 years ago thought about how to run a country? Don't we have the oldest constitution in the world? Isn't time for an update?

I don't mean to disparage the founding fathers, but I'm sick to death of people bickering over the meaning of a document that was ratified before women and blacks could vote, when the privacy, intellectual property, and health care issues we face today were unimaginable, and when it was reasonable to believe that a militia could defend the people from a tyrannical government.
Such a fail fucking post. Why do you care about the healthcare problems of today if in 200 years what we write down won't matter? Unless you think you have a better grasp on what the future holds than the founding fathers. Not to mention we HAVE to bicker over the meaning of said document so we can understand what needs to be ratified and changed for modern times. The idiocy of your post and the moron below you "this"ing it is quite sad when you came into an Anarchist420 thread and post such fail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.