The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan!

[HVACTech]

If that was the idea, how did it fail so spectacularly?

ignorance and apathy..

was it to be a "federation" of the people AF?

(sorry to have to use such big words..:o)

 

[HVACTech]

is there ANY "thread hijacking" going on here?

"The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan!"

lulz..

ode to HB.. and his compatriots..

 

[Anti Federalist]

ignorance and apathy..

was it to be a "federation" of the people AF?

(sorry to have to use such big words..:o)

So it didn't work, again, because it failed to take that into account.

 

[Anti Federalist]

//

 

[heavenlyboy34]

ignorance and apathy..

was it to be a "federation" of the people AF?

(sorry to have to use such big words..:o)

The Pot calleth The Kettle black, as usual. How quickly you've forgotten how the anarchists and voluntaryists around here have to keep explaining concepts to you because you 1) have comprehension problems and 2) refuse to do outside study (the sort of opposition study which those of us who reject CONstutionalism did before coming to our conclusion)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

is there ANY "thread hijacking" going on here?

"The wisdom of federalism, our Constitution’s plan!"

lulz..

ode to HB.. and his compatriots..

Ooooh, another HVAC temper tantrum! Someone get This guy^^ a treat to calm him down.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL, are you kidding me?

I am enjoying watching your meltdown too much.

+1 haven't seen something like it outside observing spoiled rugrats going nuts in the grocery store.

 

[Anti Federalist]

//

 

[Ender]

well, I have now searched both yahoo and google for..

"monarchie masque."

and found nothing but BULLSHIT.



"there IS no spoon" heh,

Rocket Science:

The masque as a genre stemmed out of various court entertainments and folk customs, was most fully developed during the reigns of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs, and became almost immediately obsolete during the British Civil War as a result of the challenge to the monarchy. A masque was a spectacle performed at court or at the manor of a member of the nobility; its purpose was to glorify the court or the particular aristocrat. The masque included various elements at different stages in its development but invariably included choreographed dances by masqued performers; members of the nobility were often participants. These choreographed dances ended in the masqued dancers' "taking out" of audience members, making concrete the glorification of the court by meshing the symbolic overtones of the masque's praise with the reality of the attending court's presence.

While the monarchs had supported the masque form as a measure to further establish the authority of the monarch, it was not viewed as such in some corners. James I's favoritism and its connection to masquing seemed corrupt to certain members of the nobility; for some, "the court masque had come to be a symbol of the dissolution, rather than the defence, of the traditional hierarchical order" (Norbrook 102). With the downfall of the monarchy during the British Civil War, masques fell out of favor for a period of time. A form that was meant primarily to celebrate the monarch and the monarchy was no longer desired (Demaray 3). However, the 1650's saw the revival of the genre, as several masques were performed for official or "court" occasions, as the new government under Oliver Cromwell sought to establish its own authority (Norbrook 106-107). While masques continued to be revived and performed, on the whole the British Civil War marks the end of the masque's evolution as a genre.

http://mith.umd.edu/comus/cegenre.htm

 

[johnwk]

My goodness! I see our anarchist crowd is still at it and they continue to refuse to offer their solution to the Constitution which they reject.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

that is actually a pretty good point...

I really could just take a shower and brush my teeth..
vewry smart of YOU to hide what you do for a living. eh?

I was NOT as smart as YOU in 08.
I wanted to let the people know that I could help...

you? you just wanted to fuck with the "Federalists"
nevermind, that you STILL cannot comprehend the specific meaning of this word..
"Federation"

Seems to me they ought to review our founders' own words especially with regard to why the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution which in fact were adopted in the cause of establishing federalism, our Constitution's plan.


Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

Also, keep in mind of what Madison states regarding the adoption of the first ten amendments and “federalism“:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution


It is a waste of time discussing this issue with anarchists.


JWK

 

[tod evans]

My goodness! I see our anarchist crowd is still at it and they continue to refuse to offer their solution to the Constitution which they reject.

JWK

Good grief you're dense!

Nobody has rejected the constitution.

Way I read the general consensus is that in order to even attempt instituting any interpretation of the constitution the sitting government and it's puppet masters must be ripped from power.

Doesn't matter if you're a federalist or an anti-federalist there's a whole bunch of people standing in the way of anything more than banter.

HVAC keeps talking about voting, well I've been doing that since '75 and haven't noticed anything but a bigger and more intrusive government so I've concluded that voting doesn't have any affect that suits me, do you have any bright ideas or did you start this thread to talk about failed policy?

 

[johnwk]

Good grief you're dense!

Nobody has rejected the constitution.

Way I read the general consensus is that in order to even attempt instituting any interpretation of the constitution the sitting government and it's puppet masters must be ripped from power.

Doesn't matter if you're a federalist or an anti-federalist there's a whole bunch of people standing in the way of anything more than banter.

HVAC keeps talking about voting, well I've been doing that since '75 and haven't noticed anything but a bigger and more intrusive government so I've concluded that voting doesn't have any affect that suits me, do you have any bright ideas or did you start this thread to talk about failed policy?

So, you are a supporter of our Constitution and federalism, our Constitution's plan?

JWK

 

[tod evans]

So, you are a supporter of our Constitution and federalism, our Constitution's plan?

JWK

I am a supporter of unseating the sitting government.

If that ever occurs during my life I would be open to discussing the successes and the failures of the constitution and federalism.

I will not, under any circumstances, pledge allegiance to a system of government that has brought this country to where it is today.

Now I've asked you yet another unanswered question;

do you have any bright ideas or did you start this thread to talk about failed policy?

 

[johnwk]

So, you are a supporter of our Constitution and federalism, our Constitution's plan?

JWK

I am a supporter of unseating the sitting government.

If that ever occurs during my life I would be open to discussing the successes and the failures of the constitution and federalism.

I will not, under any circumstances, pledge allegiance to a system of government that has brought this country to where it is today.

So, is that your admission that you do not support our Constitution and federalism, our Constitution's plan? If so, what is your alternative?


JWK

 

[tod evans]

So, is that your admission that you do not support our Constitution and federalism, our Constitution's plan? If so, what is your alternative?


JWK

Is English a second language?

Reread what I wrote it's very clear, there's no room for ambiguity and there's absolutely nothing there to point towards your statements.

It is people of your ilk who have bastardized the constitution to the point it is, what with trying to ascribe sentiments not written in order to come to some wrong foregone conclusion.

do you have any bright ideas or did you start this thread to talk about failed policy?

 

[johnwk]

You fucking dumbass!

Is English a second language?

Reread what I wrote it's very clear, there's no room for ambiguity and there's absolutely nothing there to point towards your statements.

It is people of your ilk who have bastardized the constitution to the point it is, what with trying to ascribe sentiments not written in order to come to some wrong foregone conclusion.

I see you have resorted to more adolescent name calling.

I should have taken my own advice . . . It is a waste of time discussing this issue with anarchists.


JWK

 

[tod evans]

I see you have resorted to more adolescent name calling.

I should have taken my own advice . . . It is a waste of time discussing this issue with anarchists.


JWK

Now who's calling names?

There is nowhere on this site where I call myself an anarchist.

do you have any bright ideas or did you start this thread to talk about failed policy?

 

[phill4paul]

I see you have resorted to more adolescent name calling.

I should have taken my own advice . . . It is a waste of time discussing this issue with anarchists.


JWK

Perhaps you should answer his question? Seems like the only wasted time is on the part of those that believe you are actually capable of doing so.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Seems to me they ought to review our founders' own words especially with regard to why the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution which in fact were adopted in the cause of establishing federalism, our Constitution's plan.


Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

Also, keep in mind of what Madison states regarding the adoption of the first ten amendments and “federalism“:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution


It is a waste of time discussing this issue with anarchists.


JWK

Seems to me you ought to review our OTHER founders' own words especially the Anti Federalists, unless of course you are really happy with only the incomplete statist's version of history.


BTW, Hamilton, the coup leader, had married into the Rothschild family and had become a secret agent for the Bank of England.

What a guy. Arron Burr deserves the Medal of Freedom for killing that SOB traitor.