Originally posted by normbenignThen I fail to see why I should pay any attention to your views as to what is "constitutional" or not; the Framers of that document most emphatically did believe that individuals had Natural Rights.
I didn't say it has natural rights, as I don't believe people do either.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSure, and most of them were deists also, but that doesn't mean atheists can't have opinions in the US, nor does it mean that natural rights exist.
Then I fail to see why I should pay any attention to your views as to what is "constitutional" or not; the Framers of that document most emphatically did believe that individuals had Natural Rights.
Natural rights only become actual rights when a government entity chooses to enforce them, as by adopting the US Constitution.
I fully expect you to ignore anything I say anyway.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, a corporation is a legal entity. It represents its owner who may be an individual, or a group in a common interest.
No, a corporation represents a legal entity. A law against rape doesn't "represent people" even though it involves and influences them.
Probably most corporations are individuals, represented by a corporation they formed. The individual and corporation are the same, except for where the State law defines them as differing.
Originally posted by normbenignThat is your belief, not their's. And it is not a peripheral matter but the central basis of the political philosophy upon which this country and its government was formed.
Sure, and most of them were deists also, but that doesn't mean atheists can't have opinions in the US, nor does it mean that natural rights exist.
Natural rights only become actual rights when a government entity chooses to enforce them, as by adopting the US Constitution.
Originally posted by normbenignOnly the State law even allows the creation of a corporation so your claim is nonsense. Even without a statute an individual exists; he is not dependent for his existence on positive law as an artificial entity like a corporation is.
No, a corporation is a legal entity. It represents its owner who may be an individual, or a group in a common interest.
Probably most corporations are individuals, represented by a corporation they formed. The individual and corporation are the same, except for where the State law defines them as differing.
Originally posted by no1marauder"And it is not a peripheral matter but the central basis of the political philosophy upon which this country and its government was formed."
That is your belief, not their's. And it is not a peripheral matter but the central basis of the political philosophy upon which this country and its government was formed.
Yet, African slaves were excluded from those natural rights. To them, they might as well not have existed.
And atheism is as much a religious belief as is Catholicism, and so is protected as much by the 1st amendment.
Natural rights are asserted by the DOI, but aren't a part of our law, and there is no way of knowing what "the founders believed" on this matter.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes Mason refused to sign the Constitution in the end. However, it is not like he was planning on not signing the Constitution from the outset. Mason participated at the Convention in good faith, and therefore, he is entitled to as much weight as the other delegates.
Congratulations; you managed to find one nitpick. Ellsworth did leave the Convention at the end of August...
Which brings me to my next point. For the past month or so you have operated under the premise that only the delegates that signed the Constitution count; thus, you wrote out the "Non-Signers" from history in typical prog fashion. I acquiesced to that premise without questioning it. However, after you made that ridiculous argument that Mason should not be given any weight, I reevaluated your premise. As it turns out, many of the delegates who did not sign the Constitution were key figures at the Convention. One of their key contributions was the inclusion of the Origination Clause (which is your favorite clause because it is the Clause that Obamacare violated and it is the Clause that allows Congress to shutdown the government). The Origination Clause was originally part of the Connecticut Compromise. However, soon after the Compromise the delegates voted the Clause out of the Constitution. The Non-Signers (Gerry, Strong, Ellsworth, Mason, Randolph, Luther Martin, among others) pushed for weeks for the Clause to be reinstated into the Constitution. They were obviously successful.
That was just one of the Non-Signers' contributions to the Constitution. Thus it follows that the Non-Signers should be considered in the Bank vote. I'll concede that, at least, William Churchill Houston and George Wrythe should not be counted since they left during the first days of the Convention. However, the other delegates should be counted until I am convinced otherwise. Stated differently, only 21 out of 53 delegates participated in the Bank vote.
I also take issue with the Bank vote as a method of interpreting the Framers' intent. This is because the delegates had less voting power at the Constitution Convention than they had while in Congress. Each State only had one vote at the Constitution Convention, and the State was not allowed to vote if its delegates did not have a quorum. Hamilton, in fact, was disenfranchised during the latter half of the Convention because New York's other delegates left the Convention early. In Congress, however, each delegate had one vote.
So look at it this way. If a delegate disagreed with the other delegates of his State at the Convention, his vote would not count. However, if a delegate disagreed with the other delegates of his State while in Congress, his vote would count. So you see the Bank vote tally is a flawed method to extrapolate the Framer's intent on the Bank issue since most of the Framers did not even participate in the vote, and only five States had a "quorum" in Congress during the Bank vote.
The best way to interpret the Constitution is to look at the primary sources, like Madison's notes from the Convention. As I cited earlier, the articles of incorporation power was voted on at the Convention and it failed 8 to 3. Thus, the Framers explicitly decided that Congress should not have that power. That is why Madison, who was actually for a strong central government while at the Convention, interpreted the Constitution the way he did during the Bank vote.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeLeaving those powers with the States or the people.
I will repeat my argument for the umpteenth time that the sample size is too small to be controlling...
Additionally, I provided a link to Madison's notes from the Constitution Convention earlier that you totally ignored. 🙄
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0914-2/
[quote]Docr. FRANKLIN moved15 to add after the words “post ...[text shortened]... and charters of incorporation. They ultimately decided not to grant Congress those powers. 🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeIt's quite amazing that you would continue to insist that the Corporation vote at the Convention supports the idea that "necessary and proper" powers must be explicitly stated. This was rejected by those stating their opinion at the Convention and by comparing some of the same person's votes on that matter and on the Bank bill.
Yes Mason refused to sign the Constitution in the end. However, it is not like he was planning on not signing the Constitution from the outset. Mason participated at the Convention in good faith, and therefore, he is entitled to as much weight as the other delegates.
Which brings me to my next point. For the past month or so you have operated unde ...[text shortened]... nment while at the Convention, interpreted the Constitution the way he did during the Bank vote.
EDIT: Madison interpreted the Constitution one way but most of the Framers interpreted it another way. If you are going to regard Madison's views as definitive then you are substituting the "Intent of Madison" for the "Intent of the Framers".
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs already shown, a shovel or toaster performs various chores for people. A corporation differs in that it represents a person or multiple people in specific ways.
A corporation is "devoid of people" in the same sense that a shovel is - it is an artificial, legal construct that sometimes serves a useful purpose to society.
It doesn't just dig holes or cook bread for people; it is those people in their business endeavours.
Originally posted by normbenignThere is no way of knowing what the Founders believed as regards Natural Rights?
"And it is not a peripheral matter but the central basis of the political philosophy upon which this country and its government was formed."
Yet, African slaves were excluded from those natural rights. To them, they might as well not have existed.
And atheism is as much a religious belief as is Catholicism, and so is protected as much by the 1st ...[text shortened]... t a part of our law, and there is no way of knowing what "the founders believed" on this matter.
What an astonishing assertion!