Who was the Greatest Founding Father?

[Truth Warrior]

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

How about Article VII?

Thanks!

 

[Galileo Galilei]

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

so the Constitution isn't perfect. Brilliant.

it is not perfect, but the best ever yet created by man.

 

[Uriel999]

Where was Richard Henry Lee! He was incredibly important.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1537946&postcount=109

So does Ron Paul fall under that? He's a congressman?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Where was Richard Henry Lee! He was incredibly important.

He was a late cut. He introduced the resolution for Independence.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Truth Warrior]

so the Constitution isn't perfect. Brilliant.

it is not perfect, but the best ever yet created by man.

I would say that NOT PERFECT is anywhere even close to being NEAR to being on the table.

Have you read the Constitution of the NOW DEFUNCT USSR?

How many others have you compared it to?

You're sadly reminding me of the captured squad in "The Manchurian Candidate" reciting their programmed responses.

 

[Truth Warrior]

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.

Doesn't that seem just a bit "fishy" to you for some reasons?

The D of I was required to be unanimous.

Thanks!

 

[mconder]

I say Thomas Jefferson, because he makes the case for liberty better than any other in his writings. I can forgive him for some of his person and public failings based on that. Well...more than that, I really have no right to make judgment on his personal life. Thomas Paine was great as well, but the fact that revolution was kind of a profession for him, not as impressed.

 

[Truth Warrior]

So does Ron Paul fall under that? He's a congressman?

He does for me. But Ron doesn't seem to have caused the House too much trouble over his now eleven terms. I like Ron the individual.

BTW, Lew likes LeFevre too.

Thanks!

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Galileo Galilei]

That is the great thing about Article V. Just in case something was fishy.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This was Madison's idea. Believe it or not, most Constitutions to that date had no way to amend them.

 

[Truth Warrior]

That is the great thing about Article V. Just in case something was fishy.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Article V had NO effect until AFTER the whole thing was ratified.

BTW, it wasn't ratified or even voted on buy the state legislatures. The Federalists didn't report it back to them, as they were authorized and instructed to do. They set up "conventions" instead.

That's what makes Article VII "fishy" to me.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Crowish]

Robert Morris is one of my gr-gr...grandfathers.

 

[Truth Warrior]

That is what is so nice about Article V, anything that seemed fishy can be corrected by amendment... hmmm ponders whether to post it again.... yes, I think I will because you seem to still be debating the merits of the constitution. I can confidently say by any manner of logic that Article V nullifies your whole argument. Maybe I can fit this into my signature.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

House: 435 * 2/3 = 290
Senate: 100 * 2/3 = 67

So you only need 357 people in congress. Do I need to run the math on 75% as well to illustrate we are not talking about a lot of people to change it?

But it wasn't and here we are 220 years later. The anti-feds got it right.<IMHO>

[h1]Revolution of 1800[/h1]
[h3]Politics and Public Service[/h3]
Some observers have regarded Jefferson's election in 1800 as revolutionary. This may be true in a restrained sense of the word, since the change from Federalist leadership to Republican was entirely legal and bloodless. Nevertheless, the changes were profound. The Federalists lost control of both the presidency and the Congress.

By 1800, the American people were ready for a change. Under Washington and Adams, the Federalists had established a strong government. They sometimes failed, however, to honor the principle that the American government must be responsive to the will of the people. They had followed policies that alienated large groups. For example, in 1798 they enacted a tax on houses, land and slaves, affecting every property owner in the country.

Jefferson had steadily gathered behind him a great mass of small farmers, shopkeepers and other workers; they asserted themselves in the election of 1800. Jefferson enjoyed extraordinary favor because of his appeal to American idealism. In his inaugural address, the first such speech in the new capital of Washington, D.C., he promised "a wise and frugal government" to preserve order among the inhabitants, but would "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and improvement." Jefferson's mere presence in The White House encouraged democratic behavior. White House guests were encouraged to shake hands with the president, rather than bowing as had been the Federalist practice.

Guests at state dinners were seated at round tables, which emphasized a sense of equality. He taught his subordinates to regard themselves merely as trustees of the people. He encouraged agriculture and westward expansion. Believing America to be a haven for the oppressed, he urged a liberal naturalization law.

Federalists feared the worst. Some worried that Jefferson, the great admirer of the French, would set up a guillotine on Capitol Hill.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html

 

[max]

love it...not even one vote for alexander hamilton.....what a smart bunch u ron paul fans are!

hamilton was a central banker tool

 

[JaylieWoW]

I recently did an article for my company's newsletter (we are an environmental consulting firm) on Benjamin Franklin. After researching the article, my esteem of Franklin put him up just above Jefferson. Franklin really did some rather AMAZING things in his lifetime.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I recently did an article for my company's newsletter (we are an environmental consulting firm) on Benjamin Franklin. After researching the article, my esteem of Franklin put him up just above Jefferson. Franklin really did some rather AMAZING things in his lifetime.

I tend to still hold being a Freemason honcho against old Ben, FWIW.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

but it wasn't and here we are 220 years later. the anti-feds got it right.<imho>

+9999999