# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  U.S. Constitution: Preamble, Article 1

## Pauls' Revere

A little project I would like to start is to discuss the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps we can all learn something from it and get a better understanding of what the founders were thinking when they put this living document together. So from the Emory Law School website we start with the preamble and Article 1 sec1.

Preamble


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

Article 1: The Legislative Branch
Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

----------


## Matt Collins

It shouldn't say "We the People" it should really say "We the States". The federal government is a creation of the States not the People. The States that created the Constitution were indeed sovereign at the time.

----------


## Truth Warrior

In the spirit of accuracy and *TRUTH*, I think it should say, *"We the Federalist party wannabes".* 

So basically, the first three words are a *LIE*! 

Not an auspicious beginning nor encouraging portent of things to come, at all.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> It shouldn't say "We the People" it should really say "We the States". The federal government is a creation of the States not the People. The States that created the Constitution were indeed sovereign at the time.


I found this:

Under the terms of the Preamble, “We the People,” not the states, “ordain and establish” the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison said that the difference between a government established by state legislatures and one founded on the people directly was “the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution.”  But Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the convention because he “smelt a rat,” took exception to the Preamble’s language. He argued that the convention had exceeded its power by abandoning the Articles of Confederation. Asked Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention: “Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States?... The people gave them no power to use their name.”

But as specified in Article VII, (to be covered by us at a later date) the Constitution was ratified by the people through state conventions, not by the state legislatures. The Supreme Court pointed to this fact in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the unanimous Court: “The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people.... Its powers are granted by them and are to be exercised directly on them and for their benefit.” However, Justice Clarence Thomas and other members of the Rehnquist Court have disagreed with Marshall’s analysis. According to Thomas, the “source of the Constitution’s authority is the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the nation as a whole.” In this view, the states retain significant power over the national government.

I am already learning much, thanks for your excellent point.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Hunh, the government rules that the government is valid.  No surprise there.  What else are they going to say? 

How many of *"We the People"* actually voted to accept the Constitution?  How many voted, No?  A coup by any other shenanigans is still just a coup.


*The Constitution of no Authority.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER*
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Hunh, the government rules that the government is valid.  No surprise there.  What else are they going to say? 
> 
> How many of *"We the People"* actually voted to accept the Constitution?  How many voted, No?  A coup by any other shenanigans is still just a coup.
> 
> 
> *The Constitution of no Authority.
> BY LYSANDER SPOONER*
> http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6


Article VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. 
      Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, 
Go. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia 

Delaware
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom 

Maryland
James McHenry
Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer
Danl Carroll 

Virginia
John Blair-
James Madison Jr. 

North Carolina
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson        South Carolina
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler 

Georgia
William Few
Abr Baldwin 

New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman 

Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King 

Connecticut
Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman        New York
Alexander Hamilton 

New Jersey 
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley
Wm. Paterson
Jona: Dayton 

Pennsylvania
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouv Morris  



Attest William Jackson Secretary 

Found this:

When the framers signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787, they still faced the arduous task of persuading the American people to agree with them. And the framers did not even agree among themselves. Only thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention signed the final version of the Constitution. The nation quickly divided into two factions: the Federalists, who supported ratification of the Constitution, and the Antifederalists, who opposed it. Eventually the Federalists prevailed, once they had promised Americans that a bill of rights would be added to the Constitution as soon as the new Congress convened.

----------


## Truth Warrior

How were the Article VII *"convention"* delegates selected?

And the adult population of *"We the People"* of the "United States" in 1789 was?

*"Official" history is written by the winners.*

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> How were the Article VII *"convention"* delegates selected?
> 
> And the adult population of *"We the People"* of the "United States" in 1789 was?
> 
> *"Official" history is written by the winners.*


Hell if I know but I'll find out for us so we all know and learn this together! Dam if I'm going fill my head with more $#@! from MSM...you guys/gals are much better at it.

LOL

Can part one of this question wait til we get to artile VII? Please? I beg...

----------


## Theocrat

> A little project I would like to start is to discuss the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps we can all learn something from it and get a better understanding of what the founders were thinking when they put this living document together. So from the Emory Law School website we start with the preamble and Article 1 sec1.
> 
> Preamble
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 
> 
> Article 1: The Legislative Branch
> Section 1
> ...


This link should help you in your project to better understand our Constitution from our Founders' perspective.

----------


## demolama

Patrick Henry's speech and the VA ratifying committee.  


> "We the People"? "Who authorized them to speak the language of We, The People, instead of We, the states?  States are the characteristic and the soul of the confederation. If the states are not the agents of this compact , it must therefore be one great consolidated government, of the people of all the states."


 Madison replied with 


> "not the people as composing one great body." rather it is "the people as composing thirteen sovereignties."  "Were it... a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment: and, as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it... But, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent."



For a good book on McCulloch v. Maryland  you should read Aggressive Nationalism by Richard Ellis

And I'm telling you if you really want to know the anti-federalist/ pro-state's right version of the story ... Read John Taylor of Caroline's "New Views of the Constitution of the United States."  He goes in detail about the convention itself, its outcome, and how the federalist used lies within the "Federalist Papers" to change the true outcome of the convention to shape their agenda.   The Federalist were made up of Monarchist and Nationalist that wanted to eradicate the states at all cost http://www.constitution.org/jt/jtnvc.htm

One of the best websites about the Constitution I've seen  *http://www.constitution.org/*  I has some obscure writings found within its site.  Such as John Taylor's,  Robert Yates, etc

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Hell if I know but I'll find out for us so we all know and learn this together! Dam if I'm going fill my head with more $#@! from MSM...you guys/gals are much better at it.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Can part one of this question wait til we get to artile VII? Please? I beg...


You really don't need to bother. 

FYI .....

*The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action*
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

The relevant part of the article to this thread is:

*"Beginning approximately in 1785, a couple of years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris which brought about our legal severance from England, a political party calling itself the "Federalists" was organized. This small but determined group put together the so-called Constitutional Convention of 1787 and managed to obtain a majority approval of the instrument they had designed as a new form of government. The delegates were bound to return their finding to the state legislatures which had authorized their sojourn in Philadelphia for the convention. But this was never done. The Federalists well knew that the instrument they had framed would be disapproved by every state legislature then in existence. Hence they wrote into the Constitution, Article VII, the process of ratification, specifying that the Constitution would obtain ratification from the conventions of nine states. This made it possible for the Federalists to avoid virtually certain rejection by the state legislatures and also placed control of the conventions in their hands. As the only organized political party, they carefully packed the separate conventions, making certain not to convene any of them until they were reasonably certain of a successful vote. This procedure, by itself, wipes out any possible assumption of legality or moral obligation.*

*The Constitution was drawn up by a single political faction, was subsequently read by fewer than 10,000 (that is a generous estimate — it probably fell far short of that number), and was approved by simple majorities with a total of fewer than 6,000 delegates participating in scattered conventions. Opposition was strong and the Constitution barely squeaked by in some states. Thus, the instrument was drafted and approved, in the main, only by a few people within a single political party. Yet the instrument purports to come from "we, the people of the United States."* 

*In view of the undeveloped communications system, the absence of roads, and the huge size of the rural population, it is probable that a vast majority of Americans of European, Asian, or African origins didn't even know that conventions had been held or that an instrument had emerged claiming to be a contract with them.* 

*At the time this was occurring, the total imported population was approximately three million people. By no stretch of the imagination can the deliberations of some six or seven thousand of that number be presumed to bind the total number within a contractual agreement.*

*In further support of this argument, the evidence shows that popular voting for presidents, beginning with George Washington, was so meager that no effort was made to preserve the figures. Thus, for the first ten presidential elections the only figures available are those showing electoral votes. However, in 1824, when no candidate obtained a majority of electoral votes and the election was decided in the House of Representatives, for the first time the popular totals were retained. The four candidates running that year polled an aggregate of 352,062, while the population of the United States according to the census of 1820 had reached a total of 9,638,453. Only slightly more than three per cent of the total population was voting even at this late date. The winning candidate in 1824, John Quincy Adams, received 105,321 votes, slightly more than one percent of the population of 1820. It is reasonable to assume that popular voting prior to 1824 was considerably less. There is no way these facts can be construed as evidence of a contract with the people of the United States."*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the convention because he smelt a rat, took exception to the Preambles language. He argued that the convention had exceeded its power by abandoning the Articles of Confederation. Asked Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States?... The people gave them no power to use their name.


My guiding light amongst the founders and the reason for my "handle".

I'm waiting in this conversation until we get to "ex post facto" laws.

----------


## Truth Warrior

It *DIES* in the Preamble.

Lots of evidence for a real *rush job*, done in *"secret",* by the Federalist coup *CONSPIRATORS*.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> My guiding light amongst the founders and the reason for my "handle".
> 
> I'm waiting in this conversation until we get to "ex post facto" laws.


You may just want to chew on this while you're waiting. 

*Index to the Antifederalist Papers*
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Any of the issues look familiar or still relevant today?

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> I found this:
> 
> Under the terms of the Preamble, We the People, not the states, ordain and establish the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison said that the difference between a government established by state legislatures and one founded on the people directly was the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution.  But Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the convention because he smelt a rat, took exception to the Preambles language. He argued that the convention had exceeded its power by abandoning the Articles of Confederation. Asked Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States?... The people gave them no power to use their name.
> 
> But as specified in Article VII, (to be covered by us at a later date) the Constitution was ratified by the people through state conventions, not by the state legislatures. The Supreme Court pointed to this fact in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the unanimous Court: The government proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people.... Its powers are granted by them and are to be exercised directly on them and for their benefit. However, Justice Clarence Thomas and other members of the Rehnquist Court have disagreed with Marshalls analysis. According to Thomas, the source of the Constitutions authority is the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the nation as a whole. In this view, the states retain significant power over the national government.
> 
> I am already learning much, thanks for your excellent point.


Link to McCulloch v. Maryland:

http://exchanges.state.gov/EDUCATION...AmLnC/br10.htm

Interesting to that it discusses the very exisitence and "legality" (if you can call it that) of the Bank of The United States BUS (The FED?) Central Banking? Once they let it out they can't put it back in the cage can they?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Link to McCulloch v. Maryland:
> 
> http://exchanges.state.gov/EDUCATION...AmLnC/br10.htm
> 
> Interesting to that it discusses the very exisitence and "legality" (if you can call it that) of the Bank of The United States BUS (The FED?) Central Banking? Once they let it out they can't put it back in the cage can they?


*Alexander Hamilton was an agent of the Rothschilds and the "central" Bank of England.* 

*His "role" in the Constitution was what?*

----------


## Pauls' Revere

The Convention had been authorized merely to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation but, as Madison later wrote, the delegates, "with a manly confidence in their country," *simply threw the Articles aside and went ahead with the building of a wholly new form of government*. -(huh)

I have a question.

In reading and learning more I want everyones opinion on this question.

_Why did they toss out the articles of confederation?_

----------


## Pauls' Revere

Oh F&^%K I feel another Osama CIA Spook Headache coming on !!!
Where's the RED PILL!!
RED PILL!!

----------


## Matt Collins

> Justice Clarence Thomas and other members of the Rehnquist Court have disagreed with Marshalls analysis. According to Thomas, the source of the Constitutions authority is the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the nation as a whole. In this view, the states retain significant power over the national government.


Exactly; the States had to ratify the Constitution. 

Oh - and Justice Marshall was known for making up his own "interpretations" to the Constitution largely based upon British law and other irrelevant ideas. 




> I am already learning much, thanks for your excellent point.


I'm a wealth of knowledge

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> *Alexander Hamilton was an agent of the Rothschilds and the "central" Bank of England.* 
> 
> *His "role" in the Constitution was what?*


Of the Delegates at the Constitutional Convention how many signers were Federalist? or members of the Federalist Party?

----------


## Pauls' Revere

Artiles of Confederation:

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1

----------


## Matt Collins

The Preamble doesn't have any teeth, it has no legal effect. 

It is hortatory language which means it is simply statuary preamble. The words in the preamble are just predicate for the sections that follow.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> *Alexander Hamilton was an agent of the Rothschilds and the "central" Bank of England.* 
> 
> *His "role" in the Constitution was what?*


*Economic Hitman...*

Hamilton and the U.S. Constitution


In May 1787, the democratic government that had emerged from the American Revolution was only eight years old. But already, it threatened to crumble. Although the Articles of Confederation had organized the 13 states into a loose union, the Articles proved inadequate to the task of effectively governing that union. 

A better form of government was needed -- one that could unite the states and weigh their competing interests with justice, and stabilize the nation's finances. Delegates from each state had agreed to meet that May in Philadelphia to repair the Articles. But in the end, the articles would be thrown out altogether in favor of a new Constitution. That document, and the new government that emerged from it, would in large part owe their very survival to Alexander Hamilton. 

Hamilton, who served as one of three New York delegates to the Constitutional Convention, had spent years pondering the issues the delegates would confront. As an aide to Commander-in-Chief George Washington, Hamilton had seen firsthand the difficulties involved in funding and operating the Continental Army. In the army camps, Hamilton spent his spare time studying the ideas of European economists and copying ideas about government and economics into his personal notebooks.

At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton played little part in the writing of the Constitution itself, although he served on the committees that outlined convention rules and writing style. His proposal for the new government was modeled on the British system, which Hamilton considered the "best in the world." 

Under Hamilton's system, senators and a national "governor" would be chosen by special electors, and would serve for life. Members of an assembly would be elected directly by citizens; each member would serve a three-year term. State governors would be chosen by the national governor. 

Although his fellow delegates politely listened to Hamilton's proposal, it received endorsement from no one. But if the delegates rejected the extreme degree to which Hamilton's plan concentrated power at the federal level, they understood that giving more power to the central government was necessary for the nation's survival.

The solution adopted by the delegates was a constitution that balanced the powers of three branches -- executive, legislative, and judicial. And by clearly defining the relationships among the states, it allayed the fears of those who worried that certain states might become too powerful.

Hamilton, like most of the delegates, disagreed with many aspects of the final draft. But the existing government was on the verge of chaos. The monetary system was in collapse, and the military was dangerously weak. All but three of the delegates signed the document. 

Now it would be up to the states to ratify -- or reject -- the Constitution. Federalists such as Hamilton supported ratification. But Anti-Federalists, who feared that the document gave too much power to the federal government, worked to convince the states to reject it. 

In order for the Constitution to take effect, nine of the 13 states would have to ratify. But even if that minimum number were met without ratification by powerful states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New York, the new government would not hold. New York, in particular, appeared problematic. Of the three delegates from that state, only Hamilton had signed the Constitution. The other two delegates had fled the convention in anger. And in New York, Anti-Federalists such as Governor George Clinton held power. 

No one was better prepared to defend the Constitution than New Yorker Alexander Hamilton. In 1787-88 he worked with John Jay and James Madison to write series of 85 essays in support of the Constitution. Known as "The Federalist," these remarkable essays proved critical in achieving ratification of the document in New York, as well as the rest of the nation. The essays were published under the pen name Publius. Hamilton himself wrote more than two-thirds of them.

In the first of the essays, Hamilton set the stage for those that would follow, proclaiming that "the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty." The essays were churned out at a remarkable pace, especially considering the rational, learned, and eloquent defense of the Constitution that Hamilton and co-writers developed. Among the topics covered by Hamilton were "Dangers from Dissensions Between the States," "Defects of the Present Confederation," and the "General Power of Taxation." 

Today's scholars consider "The Federalist" classics of political literature. At the time, they proved effective in gaining allies for the Constitution. But perhaps nearly as remarkable as the writing of "The Federalist" feat was, was Hamilton's performance at the New York ratifying convention in Albany. 

By the time the convention met in June, 1788, several major states, including New York and Virginia, had not yet ratified. Hamilton and 19 other Federalist delegates faced a seemingly immobile and palpably oppositional group of 47 Anti-Federalists. Hamilton was outnumbered. Without New York, the new government would inevitably split into separate confederacies.

Over the next month, Alexander Hamilton presented the convention with his case for ratification. Day after day, hour after hour, the eloquent attorney spoke, hammering away at the Anti-Federalists' arguments. The ratification of the Constitution by Virginia bolstered his case, but the supreme logic and persuasive abilities of Hamilton proved critical as well. Opposition evaporated, and the Constitution was approved. 

Hamilton had helped to save the Constitution. But creating a government on paper and actually operating that government were two different matters. Hamilton had helped to ensure the Constitution's ratification. And now, as Treasury secretary under President George Washington, he would build the economic system that enabled the new nation to survive. 

Even before the Revolution began, Hamilton had recognized that the future of America lay in business and industry. And he understood that to develop into an industrial power, America would need a powerful economic system. But during the Revolution and the years that followed, the economy had been a shambles. The Continental Army had been nearly paralyzed by the Continental Congress' inability to collect taxes. The war had been funded largely by the issue of bonds, most of which went unpaid at war's end. And the new government lacked a revenue source to pay these debts -- or to pay for funding defense or other national projects.

In his position on Washington's cabinet, Hamilton worked assiduously to solve these problems. Again, he would have to overcome some skepticism. Taxes had been a major reason for throwing off British rule. But Hamilton understood taxes were a necessary evil. And he developed a plan that would pay off America's debts and set the nation on course for an economically prosperous future.

Hamilton's course of action, delivered to the House of Representatives in his "Report on Credit" of January 14, 1790, was threefold. First, the government should pay off the war bonds it had issued. To fail to do so, he argued, would establish the federal government as a bad debtor. Second, the government should assume the debts of the states. Although many argued that this was another unnecessary expansion of central government, Hamilton realized that to have all states manage their debts was inefficient. Finally, he proposed that the government establish a steady revenue stream by taxation of imported goods. 

For months, Hamilton's proposals languished in Congress. The final sticking point was the federal assumption of state debts. Some states had made good on their promise to pay off war debts, but others had not. If the debts of states that had failed to pay were shifted to the federal government, citizens in states that had paid their debts would end up paying twice. 

Alexander Hamilton had driven the Constitution through the New York convention with impeccably focused logic. But he would use a bit of old-fashioned horse trading to get his financial plan through Congress. Among the states opposed to assumption of state debts was Virginia. Virginians were also unsettled about the planned location of the federal capital in New York. Hamilton realized he could use this issue as leverage.

Late in June, Hamilton met in private with Virginia Congressman James Madison. A deal was struck: Virginians would support assumption of state debts, and President Washington's administration would support moving the capital to a location on the Potomac River. With the backing of Virginia, Hamilton's proposals were approved. 

Hamilton's economic wizardry was not yet finished. Later in 1790 he proposed the creation of a federal bank. When this, too, was approved, his vision was complete. America was on a solid footing and prepared for a prosperous future. In fact, Hamilton had probably saved the economy from ruin.

In a span of just under fourteen years, in his efforts to pass the Constitution and develop a sound monetary policy, Alexander Hamilton had provided invaluable service to his nation. But in this struggle, he had made powerful enemies. Demonized by the republicans as a would-be dictator or a promoter of monarchy, he saw political power slip from his grasp in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson became president and Aaron Burr vice president. Hamilton's decision to accept Burr's challenge was a last despairing attempt to stay in politics. It was an attempt that ended in tragedy.

----------


## Matt Collins



----------


## Pauls' Revere

Thanks for moving the thread.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Aaron Burr deserved the *"Medal of Freedom".*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The Preamble doesn't have any teeth, it has no legal effect. 
> 
> It is hortatory language which means it is simply statuary preamble. The words in the preamble are just predicate for the sections that follow.


 *AGREED!* The sections that follow are mostly just a proposed organization schema.  A slice and dice parceling out of *POWER*.

That's not what the Dems seem to think and act on. Where is the Supreme Court "check and balance" intervention and protection on behalf of *"We the People"*?

How much of the current Leviathan stems directly, and is justified on grounds from the *Preamble* "interpretations"?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The Convention had been authorized merely to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation but, as Madison later wrote, the delegates, "with a manly confidence in their country," *simply threw the Articles aside and went ahead with the building of a wholly new form of government*. -(huh)
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> In reading and learning more I want everyones opinion on this question.
> 
> _Why did they toss out the articles of confederation?_


 They wanted to consolidate and centralize *POWER* in a US Federal government, *run by the Federalists*.  

That's why I call it a coup.

Is that any problem for us now?

----------


## demolama

Hamilton was a monarchist.  He loved the British system but he just hated King George.  Knowing full well that monarchist would not have any influence in the federal convention he and his group joined with Nationalists who wanted to eradicate the states and consolidate power in the hands of the new government.  These guys were shut down in every attempt at the convention by what we refer today as anti-federalist who really were for a federal government.  No national education system, no internal improvements, no Supreme court having the ability to nullify state laws, no National legislature to make any law they want, no protectionism of manufacturing, no regulating of commerce within the states, etc.   These were all failed attempts at the federal convention that were forced upon the people by the Federalist Party as a part of Hamilton's American School the precursor to Clay's American System.  Ultimately a national government with states being nothing more than administration bodies for the national government was the intended result.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Oh F&^%K I feel another Osama CIA Spook Headache coming on !!!
> Where's the RED PILL!!
> RED PILL!!




Click my *"How Deep the Rabbit Hole Goes"* sig quote link below.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Of the Delegates at the Constitutional Convention how many signers were Federalist? or members of the Federalist Party?


*Not sure.* 

*SWAG, most of them ( and enough obviously )!*

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

> I found this:
> 
> ..." The Supreme Court pointed to this fact in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the unanimous Court: “*The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people.... Its powers are granted by them and are to be exercised directly on them and for their benefit.”* However, Justice Clarence Thomas and other members of the Rehnquist Court have disagreed with Marshall’s analysis... "




Wow, have things changed... The only actions many have witnessed, is the benefit of Government now, not the People.

Just shows you that government, will rule and law to the benefit of themselves. We have witnessed this, as our liberties and rights have continuously and systematically been altered and diminished for government favor.

Cynically, we can call this, "A Lesson in Futility"

----------


## dirknb@hotmail.com

> Click my *"How Deep the Rabbit Hole Goes"* sig quote link below.


That is really good.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That is really good.


Thanks!  That's why I made it a sig quote.

----------


## therealjjj77

> A little project I would like to start is to discuss the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps we can all learn something from it and get a better understanding of what the founders were thinking when they put this living document together. So from the Emory Law School website we start with the preamble and Article 1 sec1.
> 
> Preamble
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 
> 
> Article 1: The Legislative Branch
> Section 1
> ...


"in Order to form a more perfect Union," 

This would seem to indicate that:

A. There was a union already in place, and

B. The Constitution was simply an addition to what already existed.

Here's a really cool quote in the The Constitution Annotated 2002:



> Purpose and Effect of the Preamble
> Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department
> of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred
> to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.
> Its true office, wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries,
> is to expound the nature and extent and application of
> the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively
> to create them. For example, the preamble declares one
> object to be, provide for the common defense. No one can doubt
> ...


"to ourselves and our Posterity,"

Another part worth noting is to whom the federal government was instituted for.  This makes very clear that it's purpose is to do these various things "to ourselves and our Posterity,".  Not to foreigners, or even residents who have not been naturalized.  So our federal government has no business meddling in some other nation's affairs even if it is under the guise of "good will".  

"do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We find a power here stated that "We The People" possess to charter an institution with the ability to secure our rights.  Since there is no indication that by doing so we relinquished this power, then we still have the power and right to create entities equal in power if not greater in power than our federal government.  That is an eye-opener.  =P

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Wow, have things changed... The only actions many have witnessed, is the benefit of Government now, not the People.
> 
> Just shows you that government, will rule and law to the benefit of themselves. We have witnessed this, as our liberties and rights have continuously and systematically been altered and diminished for government favor.
> 
> Cynically, we can call this, "A Lesson in Futility"


Seems a bit cyclical as well..."The people are the governement, and the Government is the people"...We certainly need less reliance on Government for self-determination.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Seems a bit cyclical as well..."The people are the governement, and the Government is the people"...We certainly need less reliance on Government for self-determination.


Aren't self determination, reliance and government simply mutually exclusive concepts.

----------

