Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    31 May '16 15:18
    “Signers of the United States Constitution the supreme law of the United States, include 39 of 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention, and the convention's secretary, William Jackson, who signed the document to authenticate the results of the Convention's sessions.[1] The Constitution, called the most important document in American history, describes the branches of the United States government and how the government should be operated.[2] It was signed on September 17, 1787, in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, with all of the original Thirteen Colonies members sending representatives, with the exception of Rhode Island.[3] Of the constitution's 39 signers, 23 were veterans of the Revolutionary War.[1] Jonathan Dayton was the youngest to sign the Constitution, at the age of 26, while Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81, was the oldest.[3] Connecticut's Roger Sherman also signed the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation, making him the only person to have signed all four documents.[4] Six other signatories' names are on the Declaration of Independence, while another four are on the Articles of Confederation….”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution
    ___________________

    Comments?
  2. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    31 May '16 16:06
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]“Signers of the United States Constitution the supreme law of the United States, include 39 of 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention, and the convention's secretary, William Jackson, who signed the document to authenticate the results of the Convention's sessions.[1] The Constitution, called the most important document in Americ ...[text shortened]... dia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution
    ___________________

    Comments?[/b]
    As governing documents go, it seems to have stood the test of time. No governing document pleases everyone, for all time, but with the amendment process in place those men allowed for the modification of the original.
  3. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    09 Jun '16 05:21
    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... .The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" ~Thomas Jefferson
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    09 Jun '16 13:32
    It is sobering do know that the exact same people who signed the Constitution into existence then passed the Unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts.

    Even though Jefferson was successful in snuffing out the majority of those Acts, he still used them while in place for his own benefit.

    Later, FDR used remnants of the Alien and Sedition Acts to then imprison Japanese Americans during WW2, simply because of their race.
  5. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    09 Jun '16 13:43
    Originally posted by whodey
    It is sobering do know that the exact same people who signed the Constitution into existence then passed the Unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts.

    Even though Jefferson was successful in snuffing out the majority of those Acts, he still used them while in place for his own benefit.

    Later, FDR used remnants of the Alien and Sedition Acts to then imprison Japanese Americans during WW2, simply because of their race.
    That's a very sophisticated post, whodey. I'm impressed.

    Though I'm not quite sure I'd agree that the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII relied on "remnants of the Alien and Sedition Acts."
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 Jun '16 14:29
    The United States constitution was way ahead of its time.

    Unfortunately, the time it was ahead of was the late 19th Century.
  7. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    09 Jun '16 16:58
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The United States constitution was way ahead of its time.

    Unfortunately, the time it was ahead of was the late 19th Century.
    They certainly made no provision for the rise of modern corporations and the exercise of corporate power. The state has been coopted and turned into a corporate enterprise, with personnel switching back and forth from government "service" to corporate positions, to reflect their shared interests (at the expense of the American people). Corporations even get treated like citizens, eliminating forever the principle of one man one vote.

    Also, where does the constitution invite the President to develop an armed force superior to the combined power of every other nation on earth? Is this the small state in practice?

    And which aspect of foreign imperialism is provided for in the constitution? Why is the US funding foreign military forces, including Israel and Egypt among others?

    Yep they did a great job. Archaic appeals to the Founding Fathers cheerfully bury their profound limitiations.
  8. Garner, NC
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    27885
    09 Jun '16 17:19
    Originally posted by finnegan
    They certainly made no provision for the rise of modern corporations and the exercise of corporate power. The state has been coopted and turned into a corporate enterprise, with personnel switching back and forth from government "service" to corporate positions, to reflect their shared interests (at the expense of the American people). Corporations even ...[text shortened]... great job. Archaic appeals to the Founding Fathers cheerfully bury their profound limitiations.
    It is not clear if you are criticizing the founding fathers, or criticizing the fact that the US is no longer following the Constitution established by the founding fathers.
  9. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    09 Jun '16 17:29
    Originally posted by techsouth
    It is not clear if you are criticizing the founding fathers, or criticizing the fact that the US is no longer following the Constitution established by the founding fathers.
    I am commenting on the fact that the sacred, valid for all time constitution fails to address modern requirements. There are ways to modernise it but it suits vested interests to keep things that way.

    I am not implying that it ought to have magically predicted the distant future. I am implying that appeals to the Founding Fathers and the sacred text of the constitution are a distraction because they cannot possibly be regarded as authoritative any more - being dead is a further disadvantage of course. Modern commentaries on the Constitution and the FFs are comparable to religious commentaries on old sacred texts. The archaic sources are a spurious hook on which to hang and conceal thoroughly modern propositions. You cannot go back to those times. The constitution that worked then cannot be expected to work now without radical change.

    Among the failings today is the loss of an independent judiciary as a check on executive power, since appointments are now partisan and ideological.
  10. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    09 Jun '16 18:441 edit
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... .The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" ~Thomas Jefferson
    http://www.britannica.com/event/Hundred-Flowers-Campaign
    “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”

    The right to bear arms should not be confused for a serious commimtment to democratic control over the elite.

    The gun lobby and its idiotic adherents pose no threat whatever to the elite interests running the US state. Far from calling the executive to account, that type of reactionary, macho, self indulgent illiterate, anti intellectual pseudo-protest movement ensures that the electorate remains totally distracted from issues that matter and obessed with secondary issues of cultural conformism. They fight against unwanted change while under the label of conservativism, the corporate elite are imposing an ever more radical and continual process of change that uproots every community and family in the land. They think they are fighting against an over mighty state, but are ecstatic in their support of America's superpower status, while allowing the systematic removal of all their social protections.
  11. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    10 Jun '16 12:04
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... .The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" ~Thomas Jefferson
    Thank You for the history lesson. So...why are you telling us this?
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 13:14
    Originally posted by sh76
    That's a very sophisticated post, whodey. I'm impressed.

    Though I'm not quite sure I'd agree that the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII relied on "remnants of the Alien and Sedition Acts."
    On December 7, 1941, responding to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the authority of the revised Alien Enemies Act to issue presidential proclamations 2525 (Alien Enemies - Japanese), 2526 (Alien Enemies - German), and 2527 (Alien Enemies - Italian), to apprehend, restrain, secure and remove Japanese, German, and Italian non-citizens.[37] On February 19, 1942, citing authority of the wartime powers of the president and commander in chief, Roosevelt made Executive Order 9066, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe military areas, and giving him authority that superseded authority of other executives under Proclamations 2525-7. EO 9066 led to the internment of Japanese Americans, whereby over 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry living on the Pacific coast were forcibly relocated and forced to live in camps in the interior of the country, 62% of whom were United States citizens, not aliens.[38][39]

    The precedent had already been established
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 13:151 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    Thank You for the history lesson. So...why are you telling us this?
    Right, the Constitution is sooo yesterday and the only people who care about it are the wing nuts on the right.

    In reality, we are a people by and for the government because Progressives have taught us that the Founders were dyslexic.
Back to Top