# Think Tank > History >  Citizens for a James Madison Memorial

## Galileo Galilei

*Citizens for a James Madison Memorial*

James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, is the single most important figure for the idea of religious freedom in America. He is the father of the constitution; he helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, instituted the Bill of Rights, and stopped religious tests being mandatory for taking public office.

Washington has a monument. Lincoln has a memorial. And Adams has a show on HBO, but the key figure for our current way of life is often ignored.

No other founding father has done more for religious freedom in America, including the worldviews of humanists, than President Madison. He is a fascinating figure that has been overlooked and should have recognition. He is the most responsible for the religious freedom that our society has today.

I encourage all of you to join the Facebook group here. Share this post and the Citizens for James Madison Memorial on your Facebook. Right now it is about awareness. The goal down the road is to have a memorial designed, funded, and built. Thanks for your support.

http://thecuriouschristian.wordpress...ison-memorial/

WHY WE NEED THIS

*Historted Science: Galileo*

It's the Inquisition and that means it's time for Galileo to have a friendly chat with a cardinal and his thug, Guido the monk.

YouTube - Historted Science: Galileo

----------


## erowe1

So get a bunch of people who feel the same way you do to contribute funds voluntarily and buy a plot of land somewhere and erect a monument to Madison on it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> So get a bunch of people who feel the same way you do to contribute funds voluntarily and buy a plot of land somewhere and erect a monument to Madison on it.


Why not just follow the Constitution, and the example of Ron Paul.

One Congressional Hero Votes Against Plaque Honoring Slaves
http://gawker.com/5310355/one-congre...onoring-slaves

Ron Paul understands that putting a monument or plaque up on private land is not the same as an official memorial at the nation's capital.

In fact, the lack of a James Madison monument is probably the prime reason why few in America know the Constitution.  That will change.

Here is the clause in the US Constitution that authorizes the monument.

Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to .... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States"

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/consti...iclei#section8

People who pay taxes have the right to have the federal government spend the money constitutionally for items in the best interests of the American people.

----------


## brandon

Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 6'4" 245lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know.

----------


## erowe1

First of all, there are probably plenty of memorials to James Madison on public lands all over the country, including at least one in Washington DC (the Madison building).

Second of all, don't pretend Ron Paul is on board with this. If he were, he'd be a cosponsor of the Madison Memorial Commission Act, whose only sponsor is the liberal democrat congressman from my own state, Baron Hill.

Third of all, it doesn't matter if the Constitution says it's ok. That doesn't make it so. The Constitution was wrong when it discriminated between Indians, slaves, and freemen. It was wrong when it prohibited alcohol. It's wrong in plenty of other things. And it's wrong when it claims that Congressmen have the right to spend money that doesn't belong to them.

I don't have any problem with you supporting a Madison memorial, as long as it's funded 100% by voluntary contributions and 0% by stolen money. And it's hard for me to see how anyone can have a problem with that.




> People who pay taxes have the right to have the federal government spend the money constitutionally for items in the best interests of the American people.


No they don't. They have a right to determine how their own money is spent. They don't have a right to determine how anyone else's money is spent.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> First of all, there are probably plenty of memorials to James Madison on public lands all over the country, including at least one in Washington DC (the Madison building).
> 
> Second of all, don't pretend Ron Paul is on board with this. If he were, he'd be a cosponsor of the Madison Memorial Commission Act, whose only sponsor is the liberal democrat congressman from my own state, Baron Hill.
> 
> Third of all, it doesn't matter if the Constitution says it's ok. That doesn't make it so. The Constitution was wrong when it discriminated between Indians, slaves, and freemen. It was wrong when it prohibited alcohol. It's wrong in plenty of other things. And it's wrong when it claims that Congressmen have the right to spend money that doesn't belong to them.
> 
> I don't have any problem with you supporting a Madison memorial, as long as it's funded 100% by voluntary contributions and 0% by stolen money. And it's hard for me to see how anyone can have a problem with that.
> 
> 
> ...


Ron Paul just voted for the federal government, using taxpayer funds, to put up a monument in DC honoring slaves who helped build the nation's capital.

As you call it, it is stolen money.

But the money for this plaque was also duly stolen, according to your logic.  So is the money that pays Ron Paul's salary, it was stolen according to your logic.  Why does Ron Paul not have private citizens pay his salary and his staff and his legitimate expenses with "non-stolen money"?

Because Ron Paul is not a moron, he follows the Constitution.  This is a site for those who support the Constitution, not for anarchists and other enemies of the Constitution.

I think your real agenda is that you don't like James Madison, the Architect of the American Republic.

And no, there are not enough statues and monuments of James Madison.  Even if a statue of Madison were erected on every piece of federal land in the nation, it still would not be enough.  And if this were done, it would be a lot cheaper than bailing out Bank of American or Goldman Sachs.

----------


## erowe1

> Ron Paul just voted for the federal government, using taxpayer funds, to put up a monument in DC honoring slaves who helped build the nation's capital.
> 
> As you call it, it is stolen money.
> 
> But the money for this plaque was also duly stolen, according to your logic.  So is the money that pays Ron Paul's salary, it was stolen according to your logic.  Why does Ron Paul not have private citizens pay his salary and his staff and his legitimate expenses with "non-stolen money"?
> 
> Because Ron Paul is not a moron, he follows the Constitution.  This is a site for those who support the Constitution, not for anarchists and other enemies of the Constitution.


FWIW, I'm not an anarchist. But just because something's in the Constitution doesn't make it right. Stealing is wrong. That's not the result of some kind of idiosyncratic logic of mine. It's a matter of absolute morality. The Constitution is not God's word. It's a tool we should use against the federal government. I think it can go a long way in doing that, since legislators take oaths promising not to exercise any powers beyond what the Constitution enumerates. But that doesn't mean that they should necessarily exercise every power that it does enumerate, or that something wrong becomes right for them just because it's in the Constitution. Nor does it mean that they are breaking their vows when they vote no on something that is allowed by the constitution. So there's nothing unconstitutional about opposing a Madison memorial. But there is something immoral about supporting it. So we have two options: either support doing something that is evil and constitution (voting yes on a Madison memorial), or support doing something that is not evil and that is also constitutional (voting no on it). I prefer the latter.

I don't know anything about the slave plaque. But if it's as you say, then RP got that one wrong. He slips up sometimes. At any rate, you'll notice he's not on board with your Madison memorial. So don't try to make it look like he is.




> I think your real agenda is that you don't like James Madison, the Architect of the American Republic.


You conclude this from my belief that a Madison memorial should be built at the expense of people who voluntarily contribute rather than by using lethal force to take money from people who don't want it spent that way?




> And no, there are not enough statues and monuments of James Madison.  Even if a statue of Madison were erected on every piece of federal land in the nation, it still would not be enough.  And if this were done, it would be a lot cheaper than bailing out Bank of American or Goldman Sachs.


Anyone who feels this way should have no problem with working toward the goal of erecting all those Madison memorials at their own expense and the expense of other like minded people. I think that your real agenda is that you don't really like Madison that much, and you only want a memorial for him when someone else is paying for it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> FWIW, I'm not an anarchist. But just because something's in the Constitution doesn't make it right. Stealing is wrong. That's not the result of some kind of idiosyncratic logic of mine. It's a matter of absolute morality. The Constitution is not God's word. It's a tool we should use against the federal government. I think it can go a long way in doing that, since legislators take oaths promising not to exercise any powers beyond what the Constitution enumerates. But that doesn't mean that they should necessarily exercise every power that it does enumerate, or that something wrong becomes right for them just because it's in the Constitution. Nor does it mean that they are breaking their vows when they vote no on something that is allowed by the constitution. So there's nothing unconstitutional about opposing a Madison memorial. But there is something immoral about supporting it. So we have two options: either support doing something that is evil and constitution (voting yes on a Madison memorial), or support doing something that is not evil and that is also constitutional (voting no on it). I prefer the latter.
> 
> I don't know anything about the slave plaque. But if it's as you say, then RP got that one wrong. He slips up sometimes. At any rate, you'll notice he's not on board with your Madison memorial. So don't try to make it look like he is.


Putting up a statue in Washington DC of James Madison is not "wrong".

You have taken a principle in favor of lower taxes way too far, so you have become a fanatic.

Under your logic, all statues and histroical markers in the US that were were either put up with public funds, or are maintained by public funds, or are on public land, should be torn down on principle.

You have taken a good principle and made it self-destructive.

----------


## erowe1

> Under your logic, all statues and histroical markers in the US that were were either put up with public funds, or are maintained by public funds, or are on public land, should be torn down on principle.


I don't know if they should be torn down. They certainly shouldn't be torn down using means that are funded with stolen money. But if they were put up using such means, then it was wrong to do so.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you keep saying, "using your logic." I'm not presenting anything here in the way of some special logic. I simply believe that stealing is wrong. I believe this because I'm a Christian and that's what the Bible tells me. I'm aware that some do not believe that stealing is wrong. But I haven't said anything here to argue the point using logic or anything else.

----------


## brandon

The problem is you're focusing on the things in life that don't really matter. When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams. We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter, even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?". I don't mean to be rude but people like you I really pity. So maybe you could use the few brain cells you have and take advantage of the knowledge I have given you now. Good luck.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I don't know anything about the slave plaque. But if it's as you say, then RP got that one wrong. He slips up sometimes. At any rate, you'll notice he's not on board with your Madison memorial. So don't try to make it look like he is.


You haven't provided any evidence that Ron Paul opposes the Madison monument.  He has not voted against it.  He did vote for another bill that is almost exactly the same.




> You conclude this from my belief that a Madison memorial should be built at the expense of people who voluntarily contribute rather than by taking money from people who don't want it spent that way?


If everthing the government did had to be agreed by everyone, you would have anarchy, and people with private armies would simply take over.




> Anyone who feels this way should have no problem with working toward the goal of erecting all those Madison memorials at their own expense and the expense of other like minded people. I think that your real agenda is that you don't really like Madison that much, and you only want a memorial for him when someone else is paying for it.


No, the people who ratified the Constitution and pay federal taxes want the money spent in ways authorized by the Constitution and in the best interests of the American People.  You have not made an argument against this.

----------


## erowe1

> No, the people who ratified the Constitution and pay federal taxes want the money spent in ways authorized by the Constitution and in the best interests of the American People.  You have not made an argument against this.


Like I said, I believe stealing is wrong. I'm not going to provide an argument for that. If you disagree, then so be it.

----------


## SL89

First of all RP returns his portion allotted to him after legitimate expenses are taken out. No net profit to him. Second, this may constitutionally be allowed but, in light of the current economic situation, I doubt Madison would approve of a static monument at the expense of the people at this time. We are in crises and resources are better spent elsewhere. The founders did not do what they did for fame or fortune. As you know a good chunk of them ended up poor and infamous. Pretty statues do not educate idiots and ignoramuses.  When you can fix the education system to a point where you can show that a monument educates and keeps people on the path of LIBERTY, then I may support it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *
> If everthing the government did had to be agreed by everyone,* you would have anarchy, and people with private armies would simply take over.


You've described a form of mass democracy, not anarchy.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Like I said, I believe stealing is wrong. I'm not going to provide an argument for that. If you disagree, then so be it.


The statue of Madison can be funded with tariffs, the income tax is not necessary.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You've described a form of mass democracy, not anarchy.


No, democracy means only a majority must agree.  Anarchy is when everyone must agree.

----------


## erowe1

> The statue of Madison can be funded with tariffs, the income tax is not necessary.


A Madison memorial can also be funded 100% by contributions made voluntarily for that purpose. Neither a tariff, nor an income tax, nor any other form of theft euphemistically described by such terms is necessary. If we're going to say that coercive taxation of any form (tariff or otherwise) is a good thing if it's being used for a cause like this, then that would undermine our other much more morally defensible cause of getting rid of those taxes.

It's hard for me to understand the mindset that supports this project but only if it's funded involuntarily. It really does suggest that you don't like Madison that much and only want a memorial for him when other people are paying for it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> First of all RP returns his portion allotted to him after legitimate expenses are taken out. No net profit to him. Second, this may constitutionally be allowed but, in light of the current economic situation, I doubt Madison would approve of a static monument at the expense of the people at this time. We are in crises and resources are better spent elsewhere. The founders did not do what they did for fame or fortune. As you know a good chunk of them ended up poor and infamous. Pretty statues do not educate idiots and ignoramuses.  When you can fix the education system to a point where you can show that a monument educates and keeps people on the path of LIBERTY, then I may support it.


So what is your position on paying congressional salaries for democrats?  Should their paychecks be cut off?

The purpose of the statue is to remind everyone in this nation of the principles of limited, Constitutional government, that our Founding Fathers founded this nation upon.  It is a very low budget item.

H.R. 992 has been introduced to build this important memorial to James Madison.

James Madison's accomplishment's stagger the imagination. Among them:

1) Author of the Bill-of-Rights.

2) Did all the work to get it through congress and ratified.

3) Father of the US Constitition.

4) Author of Madison's _Notes on the Federal Convention_, a unique document in all of human history.

5) Co-author of the _Federalist Papers_, including # 10 and # 51.

6) Oldest member of Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829/1830.

7) Auther of the _Report of 1800_, a brilliant _tour de force_.

8) Youngest member of Continental Congress in 1780.

9) Secretary of State for 8 years under Thomas Jefferson.

10) Learned to read French, Spanish, Italian, ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew when he was 8 years old.

11) Graduated form college in two years, graduated from graduate school in one year.

12) James Madison is the only president in history to follow the Constitution during a major war. During the War of 1812, Madison set precedent after precedent on haow war should be conducted in the Constitutional Republic:

a) congress declared war

b) no trials for treason

c) no arrests of political opponents or opposititon newspapers

d) no invention of new executive powers

e) no orchestrated event to begin conflict

f) low casualties

g) attempted sincere negotiation to end war from the first day fo the war

h) Christian Just War principles followed

James Madison is the most profound political thinker who has ever lived. He is also the best test case of all time to judge the realities of theory as they conflict with reality.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> A Madison memorial can also be funded 100% by contributions made voluntarily for that purpose. Neither a tariff, nor an income tax, nor any other form of theft euphemistically described by such terms is necessary. It's hard for me to understand the mindset that views voluntarily rather than involuntarily funding as a deal breaker for the whole endeavor. It really does suggest that you don't like Madison that much and only want a memorial for him when other people are paying for it.


You can make that claim regarding everthing the federal government spends money on, including Ron Paul's paycheck.  So either you don't support the Constitution or you are an anarchist, or both.

----------


## erowe1

> You can make that claim regarding everthing the federal government spends money on


Of course I would make that claim for everything the federal government spends money on. Why wouldn't I?

And I say that neither as an anarchist nor a hater of the Constitution (though I do believe it to be wrong in certain important respects). I just happen to agree with the Declaration of Independence when it says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, democracy means only a majority must agree.  Anarchy is when everyone must agree.



What anarchist told you this?  I've never heard an anarchist of any variety even hint at such a collectivist notion.

----------


## NYgs23

> [B][SIZE="4"]It's the Inquisition and that means it's time for Galileo to have a friendly chat with a cardinal and his thug, Guido the monk.
> 
> YouTube - Historted Science: Galileo


This is an extremely simplistic and one-sided portrayal of the Galileo affair. I understand it's meant to be comical, but it's still misleading. Just for starters, no one in the 17th century was claiming that the Earth was flat. This is a total myth. Western civilization had been aware of the spherical Earth since the Hellenistic period.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> What anarchist told you this?  I've never heard an anarchist of any variety even hint at such a collectivist notion.


If every single person had to agree before the governemnt could do anything, then the government would do nothing and you have effective anarchy.

An if we have effective anarchy, then those with private armies will take over.

In a limited Constitutional republic, you need a consensus defined by the Constititon, but not a unanimous vote.

In a democray you need only a majority.

Pretty simple principles, have you ever studied these things?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Of course I would make that claim for everything the federal government spends money on. Why wouldn't I?
> 
> And I say that neither as an anarchist nor a hater of the Constitution (though I do believe it to be wrong in certain important respects). I just happen to agree with the Declaration of Independence when it says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.


So do you think that taxpayer money should be spent to pay the salaries of members of congress?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> This is an extremely simplistic and one-sided portrayal of the Galileo affair. I understand it's meant to be comical, but it's still misleading. Just for starters, no one in the 17th century was claiming that the Earth was flat. This is a total myth. Western civilization had been aware of the spherical Earth since the Hellenistic period.


Comedy is ususally simplistic when dealing with historical topics.

A lot of people still thought the earth was flat in the time of Galileo.  Most educated people did not believe that, but many uneducated people still thought it was.

It is a modern myth that no one in the time of Columbus and Galileo thought the earth was flat.

----------


## SL89

> So what is your position on paying congressional salaries for democrats?  Should their paychecks be cut off?
> 
> The purpose of the statue is to remind everyone in this nation of the principles of limited, Constitutional government, that our Founding Fathers founded this nation upon.  It is a very low budget item.


As for the Dems, They could follow RP's lead, minimizing waste.  

Look, no one is denying Madison's place in history. We just don't need it at this time. Over 20% of students can't find  America on a map.( http://www.chacha.com/question/what-...erica-on-a-map)  No monument is going to change that fact. I still stick to my previous post. If people don't know what they are looking at, the inanimate object cannot teach them.  The few educated people that actually make it to D.C. may be inspired by the monuments etc. I for one dream of seeing the Declaration of Independence in person. And I plan to be there when it is reinstated. 
Go to your local schools and teach about the founders. Both Federalist and anti-Federalist. Give them tools to lead this nation away from tyranny!

Shawn.

----------


## erowe1

> So do you think that taxpayer money should be spent to pay the salaries of members of congress?


If by your question you mean to ask if I believe it's ok to steal money if it's used for paying members of Congress, then no, I don't believe that's ok.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If by your question you mean to ask if I believe it's ok to steal money if it's used for paying members of Congress, then no, I don't believe that's ok.


So do you think the money used to pay Ron Paul's paycheck was stolen?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> As for the Dems, They could follow RP's lead, minimizing waste.  
> 
> Look, no one is denying Madison's place in history. We just don't need it at this time. Over 20% of students can't find  America on a map.( http://www.chacha.com/question/what-...erica-on-a-map)  No monument is going to change that fact. I still stick to my previous post. If people don't know what they are looking at, the inanimate object cannot teach them.  The few educated people that actually make it to D.C. may be inspired by the monuments etc. I for one dream of seeing the Declaration of Independence in person. And I plan to be there when it is reinstated. 
> Go to your local schools and teach about the founders. Both Federalist and anti-Federalist. Give them tools to lead this nation away from tyranny!
> 
> Shawn.


You minimize waste by confining spending to those items authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

If congress spends more time on low budget items, they spend less money.

Just another reason to support H.R. 992.

Also, just a side note, I predict that Ron Paul votes for H.R. 992 if it comes to a vote.  Not only is it a wise Constitutional expenduture of money, it would seriousely damage his reputation if he voted against it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> So do you think the money used to pay Ron Paul's paycheck was stolen?


His congressional check, yes. (i know you weren't asking me, but i thought i'd answer anyways)

----------


## erowe1

> So do you think the money used to pay Ron Paul's paycheck was stolen?


Yes, of course it was stolen. Where did you think it came from?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Yes, of course it was stolen. Where did you think it came from?


willfull ignorance.

----------


## erowe1

> willfull ignorance.


So then correct my misinformation. Where did the money come from?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> *Citizens for a James Madison Memorial*
> 
> James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, is the single most important figure for the idea of religious freedom in America. He is the father of the constitution; he helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, instituted the Bill of Rights, and stopped religious tests being mandatory for taking public office.
> 
> Washington has a monument. Lincoln has a memorial. And Adams has a show on HBO, but the key figure for our current way of life is often ignored.
> 
> No other founding father has done more for religious freedom in America, including the worldviews of humanists, than President Madison. He is a fascinating figure that has been overlooked and should have recognition. He is the most responsible for the religious freedom that our society has today.
> 
> I encourage all of you to join the Facebook group here. Share this post and the Citizens for James Madison Memorial on your Facebook. Right now it is about awareness. The goal down the road is to have a memorial designed, funded, and built. Thanks for your support.
> ...


The reason for introductory classes in college is to straighten out misconceptions students have one being the socalled "religion versus science" argument that never happened between Galileo and the Catholic Church.  Simply put, Galileo wasn't persecuted because he went against God and the Catholic Church, no, not at all, rather, he was persecuted because he went against Aristotle.  It didn't help any when he wrote the Pope in as a silly character in the Platonic-like dialogue that he wisely wrote to challenge the science of and the faulty logic used by Aristotle.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The reason for introductory classes in college is to straighten out misconceptions students have one being the socalled "religion versus science" argument that never happened between Galileo and the Catholic Church.  Simply put, Galileo wasn't persecuted because he went against God and the Catholic Church, no, not at all, rather, he was persecuted because he went against Aristotle.  It didn't help any when he wrote the Pope in as a silly character in the Platonic-like dialogue that he wisely wrote to challenge the science of and the faulty logic used by Aristotle.


Aristotle had been synthisized into Catholic philosphy by St. Thomas Aquainas, so going against Aristotle was very similar to going against official church doctrine.

According to a book by Thomas Salusbury in 1660, a book lost for a few hundred years but just re-discovered, Galileo was persecuted by the Pope as retaliation against Florence as part of the 30 Years War.

The actions of the Pope actually make no sense, unless you consider Salusbury's thesis.  Salusbury had much informaton about Galileo that we today don't know about.  He was an Englishman who lived on the continent during the 1650s, and spent over 10 years trying to collect any information he could about Galileo.  He also translated all of Galileo's works into English and wrote the first book-length biography of Galileo.

The religion versus science argument did indeed take place, it is a counter-myth to claim it didn't.  The church vs. science argument took place in the years leading up to 1616, when the chuch put out a decree designed to silence Galileo.  The books and writings of Tomasso Campanella and Antonio Foscarini are clearly science vs. religion books.  So is Galileo's _Letter to Castelli_ and Galileo's _Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina_.

The decree of 1616 was used against Galileo in the 1633 trial.  The 1633 trial was about obedience to authority.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> So then correct my misinformation. Where did the money come from?


The 16th amendment = willfull ignorance.

----------


## erowe1

> The 16th amendment = willfull ignorance.


I may be ignorant, but not willfully. I still don't understand.

Is your point that it isn't stealing as long as the Constitution authorizes it?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I may be ignorant, but not willfully. I still don't understand.
> 
> Is your point that it isn't stealing as long as the Constitution authorizes it?


Its sort of like the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

----------


## Kludge

> Its sort of like the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.


What's involuntary about accepting the money? As I understand it, RP actually returns a portion of his pay to the Treasury Dep't.

----------


## erowe1

> What's involuntary about accepting the money? As I understand it, RP actually returns a portion of his pay to the Treasury Dep't.


I would rather Ron Paul have it than the treasury dept. Either way, it's still stolen money. And you're right, there's nothing involuntary about it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> What's involuntary about accepting the money? As I understand it, RP actually returns a portion of his pay to the Treasury Dep't.


Paying Ron Paul's salary is a low-budget expenditure authorized by the US Constitution, as is building a statue of James Madison in Washington DC.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Paying Ron Paul's salary is a low-budget expenditure authorized by the US Constitution, as is building a statue of James Madison in Washington DC.


So tiny amounts of theft approved by a document, is not theft?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> So tiny amounts of theft approved by a document, is not theft?


The small amount of theft authorized by the original US Constitution is a necessary evil.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The small amount of theft authorized by the original US Constitution is a necessary evil.


It's good that you admit that it's evil, it's bad that you think it's necessary. How can we trust that the constitution is the perfect amount of evil?  How do we know the "necessary" evil in the constitution isn't what enabled the unnecessary evil we see today?  The ends don't justify the means.

----------


## erowe1

> The small amount of theft authorized by the original US Constitution is a necessary evil.


I don't think that's true. But even if it were a necessary evil to steal money to pay legislators, particularly when we find ourselves in a situation such as we do now where that theft and payment of legislators is within an entrenched system that is difficult to change, that wouldn't make it also a necessary evil to build a monument that we have so far managed to get by without, and that after being built would only create another example of an entrenched item requiring future thefts (however small they may be) to continue paying for its maintenance.

Like I said above. The people who want this monument should determine among themselves how and where they can build it using entirely voluntary contributions. I don't see why you think that a theft-based monument is so necessary, whereas one built from voluntary contributions is so distasteful. And when it looks like you are about to explain yourself on this you just keep dodging the point by saying things like "If Ron Paul supported something similar then that makes it ok." or "If the Constitution allows it then that makes it ok." both of which are arguments that I don't think you can possibly actually believe.

----------


## erowe1

Also, regarding that slave plaque, the only congressional action I could find on it was a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 135). So it wasn't even anything that involved allocating any new funds from the treasury, which I believe would require something with the force of law, which would have to be either a bill or a joint resolution. So whatever the staff of the Capitol bldg. had to spend to put that plaque up, as far as I can tell, had to come out of the budget they already had.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I don't think that's true. But even if it were a necessary evil to steal money to pay legislators, particularly when we find ourselves in a situation such as we do now where that theft and payment of legislators is within an entrenched system that is difficult to change, that wouldn't make it also a necessary evil to build a monument that we have so far managed to get by without, and that after being built would only create another example of an entrenched item requiring future thefts (however small they may be) to continue paying for its maintenance.
> 
> Like I said above. The people who want this monument should determine among themselves how and where they can build it using entirely voluntary contributions. I don't see why you think that a theft-based monument is so necessary, whereas one built from voluntary contributions is so distasteful. And when it looks like you are about to explain yourself on this you just keep dodging the point by saying things like "If Ron Paul supported something similar then that makes it ok." or "If the Constitution allows it then that makes it ok." both of which are arguments that I don't think you can possibly actually believe.


It can't be built by private initiative, because it is on public land.  It it is better to be paid for by the federal government, otherwise it will be seen as a partisan gesture by whoever paid for it.

The people who want this monument are already paying federal taxes, so the money can be spent on wise things, like statues of James Madison or Ron Paul's salary.

You "theft" argument is wearing thin.  You are basically calling Ron Paul a thief, since gets paid with tax money.

You seem to be an enemy if James Madison and the U.S. Constititon, and a freind of anarchy and private armies.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Also, regarding that slave plaque, the only congressional action I could find on it was a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 135). So it wasn't even anything that involved allocating any new funds from the treasury, which I believe would require something with the force of law, which would have to be either a bill or a joint resolution. So whatever the staff of the Capitol bldg. had to spend to put that plaque up, as far as I can tell, had to come out of the budget they already had.


The James Madison monument could be paid for with existing funds as well, I don't object to that.  It is a low budget item.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I don't think that's true. But even if it were a necessary evil to steal money to pay legislators, particularly when we find ourselves in a situation such as we do now where that theft and payment of legislators is within an entrenched system that is difficult to change, that wouldn't make it also a necessary evil to build a monument that we have so far managed to get by without, and that after being built would only create another example of an entrenched item requiring future thefts (however small they may be) to continue paying for its maintenance.
> 
> Like I said above. The people who want this monument should determine among themselves how and where they can build it using entirely voluntary contributions. I don't see why you think that a theft-based monument is so necessary, whereas one built from voluntary contributions is so distasteful. And when it looks like you are about to explain yourself on this you just keep dodging the point by saying things like "If Ron Paul supported something similar then that makes it ok." or "If the Constitution allows it then that makes it ok." both of which are arguments that I don't think you can possibly actually believe.


If Ron Paul votes against the James Madison monument, it will do serious damage to his reputation among those who value the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution.

But I'm pretty sure he will vote for it, a long as it is presented in a manner similar to the slave-plaque vote.

----------


## erowe1

> The James Madison monument could be paid for with existing funds as well, I don't object to that.  It is a low budget item.


Really?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.992:




> A BILL
> 
> To establish the James Madison Memorial Commission to develop a plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a James Madison memorial in Washington, DC, and for other purposes.
> 
>       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
> 
> SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
> 
>       This Act may be cited as the `James Madison Memorial Commission Act of 2009'.
> ...


So then why is this a bill and not a concurrent resolution like the slave plaque was?
Why does the bill have a section on appropriations?
And what does being low budget have to do with anything?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Really?
> 
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.992:
> 
> 
> 
> So then why is this a bill and not a concurrent resolution like the slave plaque was?
> Why does the bill have a section on appropriations?
> And what does being low budget have to do with anything?


I said I don't have a problem if the monument is paid for with existing funds.  Do you understand that?

----------


## erowe1

> If Ron Paul votes against the James Madison monument, it will do serious damage to his reputation among those who value the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure he will vote for it, a long as it is presented in a manner similar to the slave-plaque vote.


Voting against it may do damage to his reputation among those who think the Constitution was an improvement over the Articles of the Confederation, and who, because of that, admire Madison and the federalists more than they do other founders, such as Jefferson and the antifederalists. On the other hand, if he votes for it it will damage his reputation among those who prefer freedom to tyranny and don't like big centralized government, who think we'd be better off under the Articles than we are with the Constitution, and who thus resent what Madison did. It will also do damage to his reputation among those who believe that taxation is theft.

I guarantee that he won't.

----------


## erowe1

> I said I don't have a problem if the monument is paid for with existing funds.  Do you understand that?


Not really. Are you saying you are against the Madison Memorial Comission Act now?

If you are, then bravo.

But how would whatever you're proposing be paid for with existing funds? What existing funds? And how could Congress mandate that this memorial be built and maintained indefinitely into the future without appropriating funds to do so?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Not really. Are you saying you are against the Madison Memorial Comission Act now?
> 
> If you are, then bravo.
> 
> But how would whatever you're proposing be paid for with existing funds? What existing funds? And how could Congress mandate that this memorial be built and maintained indefinitely into the future without appropriating funds to do so?


You just said that Ron Paul voted for a plaque that was paid for with existing funds.  I said that I would not oppose paying for the James Madison memorial with existing funds.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Voting against it may do damage to his reputation among those who think the Constitution was an improvement over the Articles of the Confederation, and who, because of that, admire Madison and the federalists more than they do other founders, such as Jefferson and the antifederalists. On the other hand, if he votes for it it will damage his reputation among those who prefer freedom to tyranny and don't like big centralized government, who think we'd be better off under the Articles than we are with the Constitution, and who thus resent what Madison did. It will also do damage to his reputation among those who believe that taxation is theft.
> 
> I guarantee that he won't.


The Articles of Confederation were a disaster.  Even the anti-federalists didn't like them.

But if Ron Paul can vote for the James Madison statue, and piss off the AoC kooks, that will IMPROVE Ron Paul's reputation.

----------


## erowe1

> You just said that Ron Paul voted for a plaque that was paid for with existing funds.  I said that I would not oppose paying for the James Madison memorial with existing funds.


Yeah, but they're totally different things. The plaque was in the Capitol building, which both houses of Congress can control via concurrent resolutions without involving the executive branch. I assume the Capitol has ongoing appropriations for its annual maintenance which includes whatever cosmetic changes are made from time to time. And I also assume that every budget or bill that has been passed while Ron Paul was in Congress that included these appropriations was one that Ron Paul voted against. The plaque resolution had no appropriations (and as far as I know, concurrent resolutions can't ever have appropriations).

For your "Madison memorial" are you talking about something inside the Capitol building, like a statue or painting or plaque commemorating Madison? If so, it might be worth checking, I wouldn't be surprised if there already is one. Or are you talking about a memorial on the mall, like the other presidential memorials you mentioned earlier? If the latter, then that gets you back to my questions. How can you do that without appropriating funds for it? If there are already existing funds, then what existing funds are you talking about? Do you just want to change the name of the Vietnam Wall to the Madison Memorial or something like that?

----------


## erowe1

> The Articles of Confederation were a disaster.  Even the anti-federalists didn't like them.


They were certainly better than what we have now. They were more in the same spirit of liberty as the Declaration of Independence than the Constitution is. And the fact that politicians found the Articles inadequate for their interests is a point in their favor, not a point against them. Though, since the Articles did not empower the federal government to steal the way the Constitution does, I can see why you would prefer the Constitution.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> They were certainly better than what we have now. They were more in the same spirit of liberty as the Declaration of Independence than the Constitution is. And the fact that politicians found the Articles inadequate for their interests is a point in their favor, not a point against them. Though, since the Articles did not empower the federal government to steal the way the Constitution does, I can see why you would prefer the Constitution.


Sure, and you're smarter than all the Founding Fathers.  All of them.

----------


## erowe1

> Sure, and you're smarter than all the Founding Fathers.  All of them.


First of all, not all of the founding fathers were involved in the constitutional convention. Jefferson wasn't. And given the choice, I'd definitely align myself more with the freedom oriented point of view of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence than I would Madison's centralized government oriented Constitution. I plead guilty to that. I view the Constitution as a tool we should use against the politicians by demanding that they keep their promises not to exercise powers that it doesn't enumerate, not as some God breathed document that's perfect in all it says about the proper role of government.

Second of all, it's not about being smart. There are plenty of politicians who are smarter than I am who do things to accrue more power to themselves under false pretenses, such as what was done at the constitutional convention, and what would be done again if we ever had another one. I'm not disqualified from having a problem with them doing that just because I'm not smarter than they are.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Yeah, but they're totally different things. The plaque was in the Capitol building, which both houses of Congress can control via concurrent resolutions without involving the executive branch. I assume the Capitol has ongoing appropriations for its annual maintenance which includes whatever cosmetic changes are made from time to time. And I also assume that every budget or bill that has been passed while Ron Paul was in Congress that included these appropriations was one that Ron Paul voted against. The plaque resolution had no appropriations (and as far as I know, concurrent resolutions can't ever have appropriations).
> 
> For your "Madison memorial" are you talking about something inside the Capitol building, like a statue or painting or plaque commemorating Madison? If so, it might be worth checking, I wouldn't be surprised if there already is one. Or are you talking about a memorial on the mall, like the other presidential memorials you mentioned earlier? If the latter, then that gets you back to my questions. How can you do that without appropriating funds for it? If there are already existing funds, then what existing funds are you talking about? Do you just want to change the name of the Vietnam Wall to the Madison Memorial or something like that?


The statue of James Madison should be placed in a prominent location in Washington DC.  I will let the people voting for the bill decide where.

It hopefully will be in a location where tourists can see it.  But it would be nice if it were in a place where the US congress, the president, and the Supreme Court can see it as well.

The statue should be inscribed with great quotations of James Madison, that is the one part I worry about.  I was hoping that the people here could email their legislators with suggestions.

I also think the list of great accomplishments could be tweaked a little, that is also a place where the defenders of liberty here could help with this.

The statue is likely to get voted on in time for the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, the most just war ever fought under Christian Just war philosphy in the history of the world.

It is important that Ron Paul's input be heard on this subject.

----------


## erowe1

> The statue of James Madison should be placed in a prominent location in Washington DC.  I will let the people voting for the bill decide where.
> 
> It hopefully will be in a location where tourists can see it.  But it would be nice if it were in a place where the US congress, the president, and the Supreme Court can see it as well.
> 
> The statue should be inscribed with great quotations of James Madison, that is the one part I worry about.  I was hoping that the people here could email their legislators with suggestions.
> 
> I also think the list of great accomplishments could be tweaked a little, that is also a place where the defenders of liberty here could help with this.
> 
> The statue is likely to get voted on in time for the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, the most just war ever fought under Christian Just war philosphy in the history of the world.
> ...


You're being really slippery here. For a minute I thought you were saying you only supported a Madison memorial if it didn't include any appropriations, like the slave plaque resolution. Now it looks like you're back to supporting it no matter what and wanting appropriations to be made to pay for it. Or am I misreading you?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> First of all, not all of the founding fathers were involved in the constitutional convention. Jefferson wasn't. And given the choice, I'd definitely align myself more with the freedom oriented point of view of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence than I would Madison's centralized government oriented Constitution. I plead guilty to that. I view the Constitution as a tool we should use against the politicians by demanding that they keep their promises not to exercise powers that it doesn't enumerate, not as some God breathed document that's perfect in all it says about the proper role of government.
> 
> Second of all, it's not about being smart. There are plenty of politicians who are smarter than I am who do things to accrue more power to themselves under false pretenses, such as what was done at the constitutional convention, and what would be done again if we ever had another one. I'm not disqualified from having a problem with them doing that just because I'm not smarter than they are.


I said ALL of the Founding Fathers didn't like the Articles of Confederation.  Even Mason.

I never said that every Founding Father attended the Constitutional Convention.

You logic skills are telling.  Now I know why you oppose the James madison statue.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You're being really slippery here. For a minute I thought you were saying you only supported a Madison memorial if it didn't include any appropriations, like the slave plaque resolution. Now it looks like you're back to supporting it no matter what and wanting appropriations to be made to pay for it. Or am I misreading you?


No, I am being very clear.  I would not oppose the funding of the statue with existing funds.  However, the current funding plan is clearly Constitutional and I support that as well.

While you are arguing about how much a statue would cost, the federal government is spending trillions on unconstitutional bailouts and wars.

If I were in the Federal Reserve or a War Commander, I would send a paid agent like you into the Ron Paul ranks to divert attention and make the Ron Paul movement look stupid.

----------


## erowe1

> I said ALL of the Founding Fathers didn't like the Articles of Confederation.  Even Mason.
> 
> I never said that every Founding Father attended the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> You logic skills are telling.  Now I know why you oppose the James madison statue.


I don't claim to be a perfect logician. Perhaps I would be helped if you actually presented your case in the form of a logical syllogism that I could follow step-by-step, rather than leaping from your premise to your conclusion.

I'm skeptical that you know what ALL of the founding fathers thought about anything. But the question wasn't just about whether or not they liked the Articles, but about whether or not what we have now is an improvement over the Articles, which was the idea that I was disagreeing with, which you took as evidence that I must consider myself smarter than 100% of the founders. So, if you would be so kind as to condescend to someone of my rudimentary level in logic, please do provide that syllogism proving that 100% of the founders considered the federal government we have now an improvement over the kind authorized by the Articles.

----------


## erowe1

> While you are arguing about how much a statue would cost,


I'm sorry. You must have misread something I said. I never at any point argued about what your proposed statue would cost.

----------


## erowe1

> If I were in the Federal Reserve or a War Commander, I would send a paid agent like you into the Ron Paul ranks to divert attention and make the Ron Paul movement look stupid.


That probably wouldn't be necessary, since if this forum is any indication, Ron Paul supporters are already pretty overwhelmingly against your Madison Memorial proposal.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I don't claim to be a perfect logician. Perhaps I would be helped if you actually presented your case in the form of a logical syllogism that I could follow step-by-step, rather than leaping from your premise to your conclusion.
> 
> I'm skeptical that you know what ALL of the founding fathers thought about anything. But the question wasn't just about whether or not they liked the Articles, but about whether or not the Constitution was an improvement over the Articles, which was the idea that I was disagreeing with, which you took as evidence that I must consider myself smarter than 100% of the founders. So, if you would be so kind as to condescend to someone of my rudimentary level in logic, please do provide that syllogism proving that 100% of the founders considered the Constitution an improvement over the Articles.


Name one.

----------


## erowe1

> Name one.


Name one what?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> That probably wouldn't be necessary, since if this forum is any indication, Ron Paul supporters are already pretty overwhelmingly against your Madison Memorial proposal.


I didn't propose it.  It was proposed in congress.

I'm sure it will still pass, even without your support.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm sure it will still pass, even without your support.


Why are you sure that a bill that only has one sponsor (a liberal democrat) will pass? It seems unlikely to me.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Name one what?


Name a Founding Father that did not favor changing the Articles of Confederation.

The usual example put forward is George Mason.

But he voted for the Virginia Plan.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Why are you sure that a bill that only has one sponsor (a liberal democrat) will pass? It seems unlikely to me.


The bill is geared for the 200th anniversary of the beginning of the War of 1812.  That is still 2 1/2 years off, most congresspeople have not paid attention to it yet, nor has the media.

The liberal democrat support is a sure sign it will pass, because I know the conservatives and most of the republicans will support it.

Madison has great bi-partisan appeal:

He appeals to liberals because he wrote the Bill-of-Rights, and he appeals to conservatives because he is the Father of the Constitution.

----------


## erowe1

> Name a Founding Father that did not favor changing the Articles of Confederation.


Once again, that was not the point at issue. The point at issue was not just whether the Articles were perfect (which is what they would have to be in order for to oppose any and all changes made to them), but whether or not the Constitution was an improvement over them.

You first suggested that I must think I am smarter than 100% of the founding fathers because I believe that the Articles were better than what we have now, and then suggested that I must suffer some kind of logical handicap because I don't see how that is the case.

If my failure to follow you in this is indeed the result of my ineptitude at logic, then that means that there must be some logical syllogism that you have in mind that a person better than I at logic would be able to follow. And I have to admit, I still can't divine what that syllogism is supposed to look like, which I fully admit may very well result from my logical ineptitude. But if you would be so kind as to spell it out, I may get it.

From what I can tell, the syllogism goes something like this:

Premise 1) If erowe1 cannot name a founding father who did not want to change the Articles of the Confederation in some way, then there were no founding fathers who did not want to change the Articles of the Confederation in some way.
Premise 2) If there were no founding fathers who didn't want to change the Articles of the Confederation in some way, then all founding fathers preferred the Constitution to the Articles.
Premise 3) Erowe1 cannot name a founding father who did not want to change the Articles in some way.
Conclusion 1) Therefore, there were no founding fathers who did not want to change the Articles in some way.
Conclusion 2) Therefore, all founding fathers considered the Constitution an improvement over the Articles.

Is that the argument you were trying to make? If so, you must be right about my logical ability, because I still can't follow it. Premises 1 and 2 both strike me as wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> The bill is geared for the 200th anniversary of the beginning of the War of 1812.  That is still 2 1/2 years off, most congresspeople have not paid attention to it yet, nor has the media.
> 
> The liberal democrat support is a sure sign it will pass, because I know the conservatives and most of the republicans will support it.
> 
> Madison has great bi-partisan appeal:
> 
> He appeals to liberals because he wrote the Bill-of-Rights, and he appeals to conservatives because he is the Father of the Constitution.


I doubt that it will ever pass. And I doubt that it will ever get much support from either party, at least if it is to be on the DC mall. Even the WW2 memorial, which had a huge amount of bipartisan and public support was hard to pass because so many people and legislators thought we shouldn't keep adding more things to the mall. Same thing with the MLK memorial. The fact that the Madison Memorial commission act has so little support in Congress, and the fact that I'd never heard of it outside this forum, and the fact that most people know nothing about Madison except that they may vaguely remember his name in the list of presidents, all suggest to me that the Madison memorial idea will not get the steam it needs to overcome the opposition to more mall monuments that the WW2 and MLK ones managed.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Once again, that was not the point at issue. The point at issue was not just whether the Articles were perfect (which is what they would have to be in order for to oppose any and all changes made to them), but whether or not the Constitution was an improvement over them.
> 
> You first suggested that I must think I am smarter than 100% of the founding fathers because I believe that the Articles were better than what we have now, and then suggested that I must suffer some kind of logical handicap because I don't see how that is the case.
> 
> If my failure to follow you in this is indeed the result of my ineptitude at logic, then that means that there must be some logical syllogism that you have in mind that a person better than I at logic would be able to follow. And I have to admit, I still can't divine what that syllogism is supposed to look like, which I fully admit may very well result from my logical ineptitude. But if you would be so kind as to spell it out, I may get it.
> 
> From what I can tell, the syllogism goes something like this:
> 
> Premise 1) If erowe1 cannot name a founding father who did not want to change the Articles of the Confederation in some way, then there were no founding fathers who did not want to change the Articles of the Confederation in some way.
> ...


All of the Founding Fathers who lived a few years or so into the Washington administration supported the Constitution.

You are making a claim that the AoC are better than the Constitution.  Such a claim is not backed by the Founding Fathers.

Hence: You think you are smarter than the Founding Fathers.

You are not.

----------


## erowe1

> All of the Founding Fathers who lived a few years or so into the Washington administration supported the Constitution [and considered it an improvement over the Articles].


I doubt this is true. And I wonder how you know it to be true. I also don't see why certain founding fathers should be excluded from the category "all the founding fathers" on the basis of their having died prior to a few years into the Washington presidency.




> Hence: You think you are smarter than the Founding Fathers.


I thought I already corrected this claim. I never said anything implying that I consider myself smarter than the founding fathers or anyone else. I reserve the right to disagree with people who are smarter than I.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I doubt that it will ever pass. And I doubt that it will ever get much support from either party, at least if it is to be on the DC mall. Even the WW2 memorial, which had a huge amount of bipartisan and public support was hard to pass because so many people and legislators thought we shouldn't keep adding more things to the mall. Same thing with the MLK memorial. The fact that the Madison Memorial commission act has so little support in Congress, and the fact that I'd never heard of it outside this forum, and the fact that most people know nothing about Madison except that they may vaguely remember his name in the list of presidents, all suggest to me that the Madison memorial idea will not get the steam it needs to overcome the opposition to more mall monuments that the WW2 and MLK ones managed.


James Madison is one of the best known Founding Fathers.  Only Washington, Jefferson and maybe Franklin and Adams are clearly better known.

Madison's name recognition is clearly on the rise.  500 years from now, he will be looked upon in world history as the most important Founding Father with Jefferson second.  To many, he is already considered the most influential Founding Father based on the hundreds of books that I have read.

Madison suffers some historical neglect for the following reasons:

1) His reputation went down after the Civil War, because he was a southerner.

2) The highly influential Henry Adams trashed his presidency in his book published in 1889.  Adams said that Madison did not spend enough on the military and labeled him a "weak" president.

3) Madison is not on any coins or money (he was on the $5000 bill).

4) He is not on Mt. Rushmore.

5) His authorship of the _Federalist Papers_ was not well known at first, and when it became known, he was at first only listed as the sole author of 14 of the papers (instead of 29).

6) His full work on the US Constitution was not known fully for at least 100 years.

7) He did not sign the Declaration of Independence and did not see combat as a soldier in the Revolutionary war.

8) He did not have as colorful a life or public personality as some of the other famous founders.

Historically, these things are being offset by:

1) His title as Father of the Constitution is being universally recognized.  The Constitution is well on its way to being universally recognized as the greatest political document of all time.

2) His authorship of the Bill-of-Rights is becoming better known.

3) His work as Secretary of State under Jefferson is becoming better know, Madison was essentially a "co-president" who many scholars believe was making almost all of the important foreign policy decisions, including the Lousiana Purchase.

4) He is starting to be recognized as the ONLY president to follow the Constitution during a major war.

5) More cities, towns and counties are named after James Madison than any other president.

6) He is on 2 of the three canonical list of US history (signed the Constitution, was president of the United States).

7) His authorship of the _Notes on the Federal Convention_ is becoming better known, thanks to the Internet.

8) His work at the Virginia Ratifying Convention is becoming better know.

9) He was the best friend of Thomas Jefferson, which is becoming better known.

Unlike Abe Lincoln, the more you read about Madison, the more you can become amazed at little details that will fill books for centuries:

1) He learned to read French, Spanish, Italian, ancient Greek, Latin, and hebrew when he was 8 yers old.

2) He graduated from college in two years.

3) He graduated from graduate school in 1 year.

4) He was the 2nd cousin of Zachary Taylor.

5) His wife Dolley was the hottest thing in Washington DC.

6) He was commissioned as a Colonel in the revolutionary militia, took part in military drills, and marched with the militia.

7) He organized the Mount Vernon Conference of 1785.

8) He was the star of the show at the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830.

9) He was the pivotal key player in defusing the Nullification Crisis of 1828-1834.

10) He never missed a single day of work in the Continental congress between 1780 to 1783, the only member to do so.  He also took notes of what waa going on, our best record of what the congress was doing at that time.

11) He wrote the brilliant _Report of 1800_.

12) He wrote the clause for religious freedom in the Virginia Bill-of Rights when he was only 25 years old.

13) He pushed the Virginia Statute of religious freedom through the state legislature.

14) He also got Jefferson's reform of criminal laws passed.

15) In 1800, he got the Virginia legislatue to pass an Electoral winner-take-all system, which ensured Jefferson's election as president.

16) He was heavily involved in planning the Lewis & Clark expedition.

17) The much maligned "Embargo Act" of 1807, is becoming more positively known as an alternative to war.  Madison was behind this, not Jefferson.

18) He was the co-founder of the University of Virginia, and served as Rector from 1826-1834.

19) He wrote the moderated clause at the Annapolis convention (1786) that called for a new Constitutional Convention.

20) He won every single election in his life; except one.  In 1777, his opponent Charles Porter bribed the voters with free whiskey.

21) He was modest.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I doubt this is true. And I wonder how you know it to be true. I also don't see why certain founding fathers should be excluded from the category "all the founding fathers" on the basis of their having died prior to a few years into the Washington presidency.


Name one.




> I thought I already corrected this claim. I never said anything implying that I consider myself smarter than the founding fathers or anyone else. I reserve the right to disagree with people who are smarter than I.


You didn't say it, but you implied it.

Go ahead.  Reserve the right to disagree with all the Founding Fathers on the most fundamental decision they ever made.

----------


## erowe1

> Name one.


Why? I don't get your argument? Are you using that syllogism I put up in post #73 that I already said I couldn't follow? Do you really think that if I decided to take you up on your challenge and if the few I might name as ones whom I doubt thought the Constitution was better than the Articles all turn out to be cases where you can prove me wrong and that they actually preferred the Constitution, this would constitute proof that every single one of the thousands (millions?) of founders of this country agreed on that point?





> You didn't say it, but you implied it.


Only one person can say whether or not I implied something, and that's me, and I didn't imply it. Just like when I disagree with Obama, I'm not implying that I'm smarter than he is. Or when I say I don't want another constitutional convention, it's not about whether I think I'm smarter than the self-serving politicians who would be in attendance there.




> Go ahead.  Reserve the right to disagree with all the Founding Fathers on the most fundamental decision they ever made.


What decision is that? I wasn't aware that there was any one decision that all the founding fathers ever made.

----------

