dmcoco84

You should turn in your firearms then...

That is Absurd. And so is this...

That is not a yes or no answer... ...and involves discussion on the Two Treatises of Government; which with those I have asked if they have read it, go silent.

Completely...? We do still have the Electoral College, Yes? However yes, many things have unwisely changed. Like the 17th Amendment... The point is, the Electoral College is being said to be a problem, outdated and so on ...people seem to agree... yet those same people don't even know its original structure, or the ideas and reasons behind its structure, clear from their arguments against it. I am absolutely against ending the Electoral College.

Ok... so lets address that. If I am correct... you are saying that premise is ridiculous, because there is no God. Right? Have you not contradicted yourself? Is the premise ridiculous and false, or have you changed your stance that the only reason those words are in the DOI, is because they were addressing the King, in relation to where he stated HIS power was derived.

That's not what he was arguing.

So, I'm thinking there might be a little tweaking needed with how [on topic] threads work, or at least, are monitored... Off topic I perceived, is more so the issue of threads being taken over by other topics, pointless arguing, or by the regular blame games over presidents and (progressive) D V R talking points. There are a few posts I don't think needed to, or should have been deleted. Not a big deal, but if those should be deleted, there are some others that should also be deleted. Will be interesting to see how this "progresses"... and with other topics, if I continue to use the thread type.

Yes, Hamilton is correct in that the Bill of Rights did not grant any rights. They already existed. But many still wanted these core rights clearly enumerated as to leave no doubt. Your answer to your question (that yes, people would still have free speech) is more a historical one than one founded in reality. Bear in mind how far lost the 9th and 10th are. The whole argument is silly - no one has proposed removing the 1st, though plenty did want a no flag burning amendment stuck on it. But presuming your scenario - you're wrong. You are off on several things... and you have completely missed the point of the thread. Additionally, given what Hamilton argued, this doesn't make sense...."is more a historical one than one founded in reality"

Hit it.

The answer is... YES. Without the First Amendment, under the Constitution, American Citizens still have Freedom of Speech. In fact, all, the rights under the Bill of Rights, whether or not it had ever been ratified. The Case Against a Bill of Rights Is it hard to imagine that someone could actually make a compelling case against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution? After all, principles like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and the right to a speedy trial are synonymous with our freedoms. If you're appalled that someone could be against listing those simple rights, then you might be surprised to find out who was making that case: Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton's case may be counterintuitive, but it had merit for two main reasons. First, our rights come directly from God. They are endowed by our Creator. Listing them as part of a document that lays out the power the people are lending to their government implies that somehow the government has control over these basic rights. Second, Hamilton argued in Federalist 84, the Constitution's scope was to be so narrow, and the powers it granted government so few, that "a detailed Bill of Rights is not required." By including one, people might interpret that the Framers were intending the Constitution to control "all sorts of personal and private matters." That was obviously not the case. Hamilton strongly believed that the minute you attempted to create a list of rights, you by default implied that anything not on the list was excluded. To think of it another way, it's the difference between telling your kids the five specific things they cannot do while you're away, versus telling them the five specific things they can do. Listing what they are restricted from (no alcohol, no driving the car, no playing the stereo loud) implies that anything not on that list is fair game. Look, Mom and Dad forgot to say that we can't play with the handgun! On the other hand, telling them what they can do (which is akin to the Constitution granting specific powers to the government) does not allow them to claim that you implied they were allowed to play with the Glock. Hamilton had another reason for not including a Bill of Rights as well: He worried that some power-lusting politician might "regulate" the rights that were listed, under the guise of "protecting" them. (This, of course, is exactly what has happened in many instances. Yes, FCC, I'm looking at you.) While Hamilton's argument worked during ratification, the people quickly demanded a Bill of Rights be included. Ironically, it was Hamilton's writing partner, James Madison, who introduced them. They became law, in the form of the Constitution's first ten amendments, just two years later.

Absolutely Not. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4409083#4409083

The method of appointing the President of the United States is seemingly the only important part of the Constitution that has not been severely criticized by opponents of the document. In fact, it received the slightest amount of approval from critics who have begrudgingly admitted that the election of the President is fairly well protected. (1) I would go even further and note that if the method is not perfect, it is at the very least excellent as it, in a rather noteworthy fashion, combines all the advantages we could possibly desire in the process. (2) Obviously, it was desirable that the People have a large role in choosing the person who will be delegated a public trust as important as the Presidency. This has been accomplished by giving the right to make such a decision not to any pre-existing body, but to men chosen by the People at the right time for this specific and unique purpose. It was equally desirable that the election of the President be made by men who are capable of analyzing the qualities needed for such an office, and who are able to cast their votes under circumstances favoring both a discussion and thoughtful consideration of the reasons and motives affecting their choice. It would be likely that a small number of people who had been selected by their fellow citizens to carry out such a complicated investigation will possess the information and wisdom required to do so. It was also desirable to protect the process (as much as possible) against turmoil or disorder, considering it is the process that picks an Executive who plays a vital role in the administration of government. Fortunately, the new Constitution combines many precautions to protect this process against potential problems: The election of several people, who make up an intermediate body of Electors will elect the President, and this group will be less likely to arouse violent or tumultuous reactions in the community than the direct election of a single person. And since these Electors will be chosen in each state, and will cast their votes in the state in which they are chosen, the election of the President will be detached and sprawled out to help protect the Electors against the reactions or the violence of the People more effectively than if they were all in the same place at one time. Nothing, however, is more desirable than placing every practical obstacle possible in the way of secret plotting, intrigue, or corruption. While it might be expected that the dangerous adversaries of republican government would reveal themselves from more than one place, the primary danger would come from the desire of foreign powers to gain an inappropriate level of influence in our government. How could they achieve this goal any better than by raising one of their own citizens to the Presidency of the United States? But the Convention guarded against such dangers with the wisest and most appropriate foresight and attention. Instead of referring the appointment of the President to pre-existing bodies of men, whose votes could have been tampered with beforehand, they have referred the choice to the People of America first, who will decide for themselves specific people whose temporary and sole purpose is to appoint the President. Thus, without corrupting the People, those elected to carry out the appointment of the President will begin their task without any corrupt bias. They will only exist for a short time, and they will be spread out throughout each of the states, both of which give us satisfactory reasons to believe that the Electors will complete their task without falling under the influence of any bias. The task of corrupting large numbers of men would require both time and means, and it would be difficult (with all them dispersed over 13 states) to convince them to take one side or another. This may not technically be "corruption," but nonetheless it distracts them from carrying out their duty. Just as important, the President will be in a position to rely on everyone except the People for continuing in his office. Otherwise, he might be tempted to sacrifice his duty for the sake of pleasing those who elected him into office in the first place. This will be avoided by making his reelection dependent on the same special body of representatives (the Electors) who will be chosen by society for the sole purpose of making this important choice. The Plan devised by the Convention combines all of these advantages together by requiring that each state choose a particular number of people as Electors, equal to the number of Senators and Representatives of that state in the Federal government. They will then assemble within that state and vote for the person they believe is most qualified to be President. (3) Once their votes are cast, the votes will be sent to the seat of the Federal government (the Capital), and whoever happens to have a majority of the votes will become President. Since one man might not always receive the majority of votes, and since it might be unsafe to allow less than a majority to make the final decision, the House of Representatives, in such a contingency, would be required to choose from among the candidates with the five highest numbers of votes the man who, in their opinion, would be best qualified for the office of President. (4) This process of election will provide us with a moral certainty that the Presidency will seldom be occupied by anyone not eminently qualified for it. It may be possible, and even sufficient, for someone who has a gift for political maneuvering and intrigue, as well as the petty desire to be popular, to rise to the highest office of a single state (i.e., governor); but it will require completely different talents and different kinds of qualities in order to earn the necessary respect and confidence of the whole Union (or of a large enough portion of it) in order to become a viable candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that this office is likely to be filled by men of superior ability and virtue, and this should be considered no small accomplishment on the part of the Constitution, which recognizes how important a role the Executive has in the administration of every government, either for good or bad. While we cannot accept the political heresy of the poet who declares: For forms of government, let fools contest... That which is best administered, is best (5) we can at least safely conclude that the true test of a good government is its ability and tendency to produce a good administration. The Vice President will be chosen in the same way as the President, with the only difference being that the Senate will do the same thing with respect to the Vice President as the House of Representatives does with the President (should that ever happen). (6) One of the useless and mischievous objections to this proposition is that an unusual person will be chosen as Vice President. It has also been alleged that it would have been preferable for the Senate to elect one of its own to fill the position of Vice President. However, two points seem to justify the ideas that the Convention used in this respect. The first is that in order to secure a conclusive decision by the Senate, it would be necessary for the president of the Senate to cast a vote, not a tie-breaking vote. (7) And making the Senator of one state the president of the Senate would be the same as that state exchanging a constant ability to vote with only the occasional and contingent ability to vote. The second point is that as the Vice President may occasionally act as a substitute for the President, all of the reasons that support the method of election used for the President should apply with great, if not equal, force to the election of the Vice President. (8) Again, it is simply remarkable that in this example, as well as in most of the others, the objections made against the proposed Constitution could just as easily have been made against the constitution of New York. For example, we have a lieutenant-governor who is chosen by the People at large, who presides over the state's senate, and acts as the constitutional substitute for the governor in situations which are similar to the ones which, under the new Constitution, would authorize the Vice President to exercise the authorities and carry out the duties of the President. - Publius NUMBER 68 http://constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm 1. This is a reference to the admission on the part of "Federal Farmer," which was the pen name of an Anti-Federalist writer who wrote an important and methodical examination of the proposed Constitution. The assessment consisted of two pamphlets, the first of which was published in November 1787, and the second in May 1788. They were addressed to "The Republican" (which was most likely New York governor George Clinton), and some scholars have suggested that the "Federalist Farmer" was possibly either Richard Henry Lee (1732-94), Virginian statesman who was most famous for calling for a resolution of independence during the Second Continental Congress, which resolution ultimately became the Declaration of Independence; or Melancton Smith (1744-98), a New York delegate to the Continental Congress who made many of the same arguments as the Federal Farmer to the New York state ratification convention at Poughkeepsie in 1788. (Ultimately, Smith voted in favor of the Constitution with amendments.) 2. A reference to the Electoral College system; United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clauses 2-4. 3. United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clause 3. 4. Ibid. 5. Alexander Pope (1688-1744), An Essay on Man. The original reads: "For forms of government let fools contest / whate'er is best administer'd is best" (Epistle 3, lines 303-4). 6. United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clause 3. 7. United States Constitution: Article I, Section 3, clause 5. 8. United States Constitution: Article II, Section 1, clause 6.

when I proposed the [on topic] tag to this forum, the intent was to focus discussions on a stated topic, free of the predictable divergence to Bush V Obama V Clinton V Iraq V blah blah blah. IOW, to avoid rehashes in topic drift. The hope in this experimental approach is that it will encourage higher participation, particularly from those who aren't interested in the long running beefs between frequent posters. If you believe no one is addressing your topic (imo, it's stayed quite on target), then you ask a mod to cull the bad postings. If we get bored of the game, we'll stop participating and it will die off. So...my suggestion to everyone else is to sit back until he clarifies whatever the fucking point has been.

I think you are going to agree that doesn't make any sense. It's kinda like you are grading the test with the wrong answer key...

Nice try, but no... that, doesn't make sense. Even more so with Kennedy's statement. If you want to use your example, the question would first have to be, who is placing or attempting to place a person in a cage with tigers. Do they have a right to do that; for the action will, clearly as you state, lead to death. Where then, said person has a right to self defense, and if person being placed in cage with tigers, shot/stabbed/tomahawked person doing the placing.... it is not homicide. But any more on that, and its off topic.

If the 1st Amendment were repealed or never ratified, would you not still be a citizen under the Constitution that WAS ratified?

Considering your past posting history, I'm guessing that the point you are trying to make (in your inimitably indirect style) is that fundamental rights come from God, and so they can't be taken away by any human action. Do I win a cookie? Don No cookie, yet... And I AM hoping to hear from Jakee... before I post.

Just to let you know, I'm stealing that. I've waited two years for a sig line, and that's it. Interesting... Are those two Dodge Vipers in your profile pic?

Wow... I would have hating having your dad as a professor if that's how he taught. And I'm not going to tell you to were right, because what you wrote is incorrect. What I am going to post is not going to be my opinion... and I'm not playing any games.

Good Notes That is a good comment, but it is more so significant, after, the question at hand is answered.

Hot or Cold... Very Cold.

I wouldn't categorize anything that has been posted in response so far, to be, off topic... however, the question at hand is not being addressed. There are two statements that are correct: This question is easily answered without discussing, "hate speech", blasphemy, "fire in a theater", and all the rest of that jazz... Freedom of Speech, for the purpose of Lawrockets quotes, can be defined as: what the Men of the Convention stated were the (speech) rights of an Englishman. So... if the First Amendment were repealed, today, unanimously, do I still have the freedom to call G.H.W Bush a Douche Bag Cock Sucker for signing the U.N. Agenda 21? Do I still have the freedom to call Obama an Antisemitic Douche Bag. If you believe I do... Why? If you believe I do not... Why?

Great Interview... with Allen West's opinion on the matter. And the interviewer clearly needs to read a book on Progressivism.... American Progressivism: A Reader would be a great start. http://www.npr.org/2012/11/30/166241059/what-allen-west-and-abraham-lincoln-have-in-common

Wow. Great Interview! Covers the original issue of this thread... and the interviewer clearly needs to read a book on Progressivism.... American Progressivism: A Reader would be a great start. Also covers the "Florida GOP voter suppression." This, is a Principled, and Honorable, Man. http://www.npr.org/2012/11/30/166241059/what-allen-west-and-abraham-lincoln-have-in-common

1) There were more new Tea Party backed Senate and House seats won than lost. 2) Considering Grayson is back... will be interesting to see if West gets his seat back; once the horrors of Progressivism are felt. Americans don't seem to wake up till the pain starts. 3) I would love to see him on MSNBC; like several of the Real News from The Blaze are. That would be fantastic.