Glenn wrote:
Even then there was no guarantee that the Constitution would be ratified by the states and the convention leaders went about launching a major campaign to sell it to the states. In the end at the states' ratification conventions, delegates from urban and eastern/coastal areas tended to vote for it while delegates from the rural and western/interior areas tended to vote against it. It took three years for the states to ratify the Constitution.
Trust me Glenn... I am well aware of the history. The Declaration of Independence was a wonderful document which the revolutionaries could "get behind". The Articles of Confederation were "loose" enough so that people weren't concerned with a Federal government overstepping it's bounds. The Constitution was too vague in many respects and even though it was written to create a stronger Federal bond/government, the wording was
supposed to keep that strength in check and limit the powers of the Federal government.
Even still, there were many observant people who saw how it could be subverted and they
demanded the Bill of Rights
before they would ratify the new Constitution. And yet... We have an out of control Federal government that has
not been contained as it should have been and which has used the "
Commerce Clause" as an excuse for every usurpation of individual rights that it possibly can. I used to be a minarchist... wanting to return to our
original Constitutional Republic and dispose of the corruption we're faced with now. Then I realized that doing so would only allow for things to slide back down the slope to where we are.
In short, the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was politics at its best and really no different from the process that led to the final product of the recent health care bill.
That is insulting to my intelligence. It is a wildly incorrect comparison... But I will respond by pointing out that the recent health care passage is
exactly the type of corruption and power grab that we have slid to which makes me feel that the best option is to remove the entire current system. In the 1790s, any "government official" who even tried to propose such a thing would not have been re-elected, may very well have been impeached/recalled, and might not have completed their current term in office! I say, Rightfully So!
Glenn wrote:
Panther wrote:
If the Government has it... We, The People should be able to have it... PERIOD
Well OK, but don't expect a nuclear bomb to help your homeowner insurance rates!
The government has debt and the people have debt, we do have some parity I suppose...
I don't care if you want a nuke... How do I know that you don't own a small un-inhabitable atoll in the Pacific somewhere and just want to see a really big bang. Awful waste of money in my opinion, but as long as you don't harm someone else or violate someone else unalienable Rights which they were granted by their Creator... that's fine by me. (Now if you want to do someone else harm, then I have a problem with you. In the "old days" if someone was incompetent to have a weapon their family, friends, neighbors {or Darwinism... reference just for Ian
} would keep them from having a weapon and hurting someone. If someone was trying to hurt someone or violate their Rights, then they were called "
criminals" and could be dealt with by anyone with the means accordingly. Now, the lawful victims and would-be victims are treated like criminals while the true criminals get to have a whole list of excuses... from "society made me do it" to "just doing my job"... And with those excuses in hand, they get to walk with a slap-on-the-wrist while the lawful end up deprived of their belongings and/or their freedom by the advocate judges we have.