Or Article 6 about Federal Supremacy and no religious test.
They are idiots. The Constitution was written by a bunch of FEDERALISTS, and the point of it was to cede power AWAY from the states and to a centralized federal institution.
Yup, then it was ratified by those states.
It was only ratified after inclusion of the Bill of Rights to insure limited government, a demand of the Anti-Federalists.
It is also interesting to read how Madison, the largest contributor to the Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights, changed his original thoughts on Federalism and began a campaign to reduce the power of government. Madison would shit the bed if he saw the state of government today.
Learn to read Doc.
He would also shit his pants if he saw a betamax vcr, a 1950s video camera, the internet or just the United States today. Point being its kinda silly to compare what a guy who died in 1836 would think about something he couldnt even comprehend without years of catching up.
Also most will say Madison went back to his origional view of the federal government by the time he was president and that the war of 1812 made him see the need for a strong national gov.
Only you would say that because it is bullshit.
Just me wikipedia and history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison#Opposition_to_Hamilton
And only you my friend would come up with such a pointless, dick reply.
It was a dick reply. I have a hard time keeping my patience with you. I will try to be gentle this time around. Did you read the entire wiki article? Have you read many historical accounts on Madison? If you did and you actually understood them, you would have found that, just as my original comment states, Madison held firm beliefs in limited government. Here, read for yourself. Just because Madison believed in a "strong central government" does not mean he was in favor of one with wide sweeping powers like we have today. If fact, if you read the wiki article it says:
"the War of 1812 caused Madison to appreciate the need for a strong central government to aid national defense. He then began to support a national bank, a stronger navy, and a standing army."
Those are limited powers. Madison believed in a strong government based only upon the powers granted by the Constitution. Creating a strong army and navy are powers delegated in the Constitution. To further my point here is perhaps my favorite quote of Madison:
""If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
And that my friend was exactly what I was saying in my original comment. Just about everything mentioned in this quote has come to pass. Madison would not be pleased with the current state of things. He might like the betamax VCR though.
I'm sorry you dont understand the difference in being a dick and being a functional member of a community still.. I am also sorry that you have all these passive agressive issues.
"Madison's politics remained closely aligned with Jefferson's until the experience of a weak national government during the War of 1812 caused Madison to appreciate the need for a strong central government to aid national defense. He then began to support a national bank, a stronger navy, and a standing army. However, other historians, led by Lance Banning and Gordon S. Wood, see more continuity in Madison's views and do not see a sharp break in 1792"
Was the full quote from wikipedia which says exactly as i did...Now i didnt say all thought Madison changed, or that they where right did i? No...
You in yet another self exalted moment of snobbish behavior assume you can make the throughts an ideas of another person and that no one else has room for a theory but the one you hold.
Now, am i right? Are you? Who knows... What we can say is Madison's actions hold water on both sides... He did have an initial change, then later in life his views did change again. Also later in life he did support issues he did not support when young. All that said i am not arrogent enough to jump in the mans head and say "this is what he thought and it must forever be truth!" I can only look at his actions and words and take a good guess.
Even so, keep in mind he was opposing George Washington also... Who has a little more pull in this politico whos who and right in the world.
Hopefully, some fair and balanced news source will have a live, running commentary pointing out every way the folks reading it have conflicted with it.
Or, as is often the case, imaginary conflicts with...
It occurs to me that this may, in fact, be the first time many of the tea party candidates have actually been directly exposed to the constitution...
I wish the new congress well. I find it hard that they could do any worse than the past congress dominated by the democrats. This last congress had the lowest approval rating and spent more of the people's money, and created more debt than the first 100 Congress's combined.
Can we say that again ... more debt than the first 100 Congress's combined.
Yeah, I hope they are serious about things. The problem is that the Republicans have a worse debt record than the Dems, I've even heard interviews with Rep operators who praised the national debt because it weakened the federal government. We will see if this group has a different attitude. At this point I still have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt given the crap he inherited, but again, we will see.
I heard part of an interview with a GOP Congressman from California that is going to be the new head of the government oversight committee. I was in my car listening to CNN on satellite and only heard a portion of the interview, which is probably available somewhere on the net.
The Congressman said he wanted to reduce waste fraud and abuse from the government, save the taxpayers dollars, bipartisan this, and very reasonable sounding that. The guy interviewing him asked about some extreme sounding stuff the Congressman had said and the guy denied it, saying the interviewer was misquoting him. So the guy rolled tape of this Congressman on the Rush Limbaugh radio show saying Obama was the most corrupt president in US history and that some event in Pennsylvania (never did get exactly what it was) was "Obama's Watergate" and "an Impeachable Offense."
The guy went into major backpedal mode, and did everything but admit the obvious, that the Conservative Media is an alternative reality where the stuff they say isn't necessarily part of the real world of observable fact and objective reality.
Then it turns out that the Bush people did the same thing as whatever was done in PA, and the Congressman then says he just recently found out, since his Rush appearance, that the Bushies thought that it was perfectly okay to do it and have admitted it openly.
Then the Congressman says he still thinks it is clearly against the letter of the law and that his committee should see to it that it never happens again.
Here my Bullshit Detector going off on screaming Pants on Fire mode; we go from Impeachable Offense to we need a bipartisan effort to make sure this won't happen in the future, and all that was needed to get the guy there was a bit of reality thrown in the guy's face.
So as long as guy's like this interviewer (I don't know who did it) are available to call bullshit when it comes up, maybe the new GOP dominated Congress will do fine.
I can't wait for the reading of the Constitution for when they get to the part with The Establishment Clause. Will they really read that part, or skip over it?
thebaron
Maybe the rest of the bums might learn something about our Limited Constitutional Government.