Who was the Greatest Founding Father?

Who was the Greatest Founding Father?


  • Total voters
    216
You keep bringing this up. By your standards it would appear a treaty to become a gun free world would be lawful. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Treaty law is not supposed to exceed the constitution.

It has already been pointed out that Article 4, Section 3 enumerates powers to government regarding territories. Acquisition is not one of them. Even John Woo, "the man who thinks its OK to torture people", wrote the power is not in the constitution. Are you suggesting the founders did not know what they were doing and just forgot to include acquisition along with the powers enumerated for territories? I seriously doubt Jefferson swallowed any "strong drink" as John Woo suggested. I am quite confident Jefferson was very aware not only was the power not in the constitution, but that a treaty can not supersede the constitution. See the highlighted bold section below. That is likely the reason he would have preferred a constitutional amendment.

I am not sure what is more ironic. That you criticized my citation of Woo. Or that you agree with the unenumerated powers contained in this premise included in his writing.



How many times does the word treaty appear in that statement? It is about the constitutional power government has because the government can only create treaty law within the limits of its constitutional power. Unfortunately the Supreme Court is partially to blame for unconstitutional treaty law because it has upheld power government asserts that is not enumerated in the constitution and has not done a good job upholding limits to the treaty power with regards for power reserved to the states.

It was broad exercise of power. The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional treaty law in as much as it was unconstitutional on its face.

Another freebie excerpt:

Article IV:

"Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

The Constitution says nothing specific about how to add new land, except only some restrictions on how to add new states. The Louisiana Purchase added no new states.

That's because new land has always been added throughout history by treaty. The Constitution does not enumerate the specific powers of treaty because it was part of the International common Law at the time, and still is.
 
Last edited:
One small step for man, one giant step for....

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature

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.



So the founding fathers just forgot to include it and the American Revolution was fought to maintain the status quo?

We're the founding fathers denouncing taxation without representation in one hand and conspiring to give this power to government with the other?

According to you... they must have.

The Founding fathers forgot to put anything specific into the Constitution regarding adding new land. Typically, new land is agreed to by treaty at the end of a war, like the Treaty of Paris.

Adding new land is not a legislative function, it falls under the jurisdiction of treaty making.

After the land is added, then congress can legislate it.
 
The presidents power, by and with the advice of the senate to make treaties law is limited by powers granted to the government in the constitution. Not the international status quo.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It is wrong to interpret the constitution in a manner that grants government power not delegated to government.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you know more than the founding fathers did to be able to suggest they forgot something?

I seem to recall you criticizing Lew Rockwell and/or others earlier for the exact same thing.

Below are a couple small excerpts from notes on the debates in the federal convention.



-But as the present situation of the States may probably alter in the number of their inhabitants, the Legislature of the U. S. shall be authorized from time to time to apportion the number of Reps.; and in case any of the States shall hereafter be divided, or enlarged by, addition of territory, or any two or more States united, or any new States created with [FN3] the limits of the U. S. the Legislature of the U. S. shall possess authority to regulate the number of Reps. in any of the foregoing cases, upon the principle of their number of inhabitants, according to the provisions hereafter mentioned, namely [FN4]- provided always that representation ought to be proportioned according to direct taxation; and in order to ascertain the alteration in the direct taxation, which may be required from time to time by the changes in the relative circumstances of the States-

Sect. 3. All controversies concerning lands claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions, as they respect such lands shall have been decided or adjusted subsequent [FN10] to such grants, or any of them, shall, on application to the Senate, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding controversies between different States.
[/B]

Mr. MERCER should hereafter be agst. returning to a reconsideration of this section. He contended, (alluding to Mr. Mason's observations) that the Senate ought not to have the power of treaties. This power belonged to the Executive department; adding that Treaties would not be final so as to alter the laws of the land, till ratified by legislative authority. This was the case of Treaties in Great Britain; particularly the late Treaty of Commerce with France.

Col. MASON. did not say that a Treaty would repeal a law; but that the Senate by means of treaty [FN4] might alienate territory &c, without legislative sanction. The cessions of the British Islands in [FN5] W. Indies by Treaty alone were an example. If Spain should possess herself of Georgia therefore the Senate might by treaty dismember the Union. He wished the motion to be decided now, that the friends of it might know how to conduct themselves.

On [FN5] question for postponing Sec: 12. it passed in the affirmative.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay Ct. no. N. J. no Pena. no. Del. no Maryd. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. - [FN6]

Mr. MADISON moved that all acts before they become laws should be submitted both to the Executive and Supreme Judiciary Departments, that if either of these should object 2/3 of each House, if both should object, 3/4 of each House, should be necessary to overrule the objections and give to the acts the force of law- [FN7]

Mr. L. MARTIN, urged the unreasonableness of forcing & guaranteeing the people of Virginia beyond the Mountains, the Western people, of N. Carolina, & of Georgia, & the people of Maine, to continue under the States now governing them, without the consent of those States to their separation. Even if they should become the majority, the majority of Counties, as in Virginia may still hold fast the dominion over them. Again the majority may place the seat of Government entirely among themselves & for their own conveniency, [FN12] and still keep the injured parts of the States in subjection, under the guarantee of the Genl. Government agst. domestic violence. He wished Mr. Wilson had thought a little sooner of the value of political bodies. In the beginning, when the rights of the small States were in question, they were phantoms, ideal beings. Now when the Great States were to be affected, political societies were of a sacred nature. He repeated and enlarged on the unreasonableness of requiring the small States to guarantee the Western claims of the large ones. -It was said yesterday by Mr. Govr. Morris, that if the large States were to be split to pieces without their consent, their representatives here would take their leave. If the Small States are to be required to guarantee them in this manner, it will be found that the Representatives of other States will with equal firmness take their leave of the Constitution on the table.

It was moved by Mr. L. MARTIN to postpone the substituted article, in order to take up the following. "The Legislature of the U. S. shall have power to erect New States within as well as without the territory claimed by the several States or either of them, and admit the same into the Union: provided that nothing in this constitution shall be construed to affect the claim of the U. S. to vacant lands ceded to them by the late treaty of peace. which passed in the negative: N. J. Del. & Md. only ay.

On the question to agree to Mr. Govr. Morris's substituted article as amended in the words following,

"New States may be admitted by the Legislature into the Union: but no new State shall be hereafter formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any of the present States without the consent of the Legislature of such State as well as of the General Legislature"

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN13]

Mr. DICKINSON moved to add the following clause to the last- "Nor shall any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts thereof, without the consent of the Legislatures of such States, as well as of the Legislature of the U. States." which was agreed to without a count of the votes.

Mr. CARROL moved to add-"Provided nevertheless that nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to affect the claim of the U. S. to vacant lands ceded to them by the Treaty of peace." This he said might be understood as relating to lands not claimed by any particular States, but he had in view also some of the claims of particular States.

Mr. WILSON was agst. the motion. There was nothing in the Constitution affecting one way or the other the claims of the U. S. & it was best to insert nothing leaving every thing on that litigated subject in statu quo.

Mr. MADISON considered the claim of the U. S. as in fact favored by the jurisdiction of the judicial power of the U. S. over controversies to which they whould be parties. He thought it best on the whole to be silent on the subject. He did not view the proviso of Mr. Carrol as dangerous; but to make it neutral & fair, it ought to go farther & declare that the claims of particular States also should not be affected.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the proviso harmless, especially with the addition suggested by Mr. Madison in favor of the claims of particular States.

Mr. BALDWIN did not wish any undue advantage to be given to Georgia. He thought the proviso proper with the addition proposed. It should be remembered that if Georgia has gained much by the cession in the Treaty of peace, she was in danger during the war, of a Uti possidetis.

Mr. RUTLIDGE thought it wrong to insert a proviso where there was nothing which it could restrain, or on which it could operate.

Mr. CARROL withdrew his motion and moved the following. "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to alter the claims of the U. S. or of the individual States to the Western territory, but all such claims shall be examined into & decided upon, by the Supreme Court of the U. States."

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to postpone this in order to take up the following.

"The Legislature shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the U. States; and nothing in this constitution contained, shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims either of the U. S. or of any particular State." -The postponemt. agd. to nem. con.

Mr. L. MARTIN moved to amend the proposition of Mr. Govr. Morris by adding- "But all such claims may be examined into & decided upon by the supreme Court of the U. States."

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. this is unnecessary, as all suits to which the U. S. are parties, are already to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Mr. L. MARTIN, it is propor in order to remove all doubts on this point.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

I do not think they forgot anything as you suggest. Nor do I subscribe to the treaty making power void of legislative authority.

This is interesting reading.

However, the power to make treaties WAS delegated; to the president and the senate.
 
My wife wanted to vote for Richard Henry Lee, which was not on the list.


Granted, she is voting mostly on the basis of the Musical 1776.
 
alex hamilton is the reason there was a hole in the constitution so that the fed could be established
 
I'm liking Ben Franklin the more I read about him, but he's not my fave at the moment.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005[/FONT]​
:D:cool:
 
Even though me and Ben Franklin share birthdays I jave to go with Thomas Jefferson. I think he was right about the whole agrarian society thing.
 
Let's get real. How important can ANY of these guys have been??!! I mean, as far as I can determine, not one of them ever won the NOBEL prize!

So there you have it.:D
 
Alright - who voted for Hamilton?

I have a friend who is a Hamiltonian libertarian. Seems like a contradictory position, but I can see it. He makes it make sense.

I'm liking Ben Franklin the more I read about him, but he's not my fave at the moment.

Ben Franklin was pretty statist, but he had the best insight I think into how things work. He recognized the Constitution would fail just as any other government would.

I voted for Paine, Madison, and Franklin.
 
Back
Top