Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During Washington's 1st term divisions arose between Jefferson, Madison, etc and Adams, Hamilton, Washington, etc. as to the proper role of the federal government. Those with the more expansive view of the powers of the federal government united behind Adams while those who correctly held the more limited view united behind Jefferson and the two party system was born.
And to fast forward about a dozen years or so, once Jefferson attained high office, he then abandoned his ideal of limited government and favored an expansive view albeit on his terms.
I agree the two party system was born in the 1790s, but various other parties cropped up, namely the Whigs, the Jacksonian Democrats, and the Know-Nothings. I'd venture to say the two-party system similar to what we have today didn't really solidify until after the Civil War with a few hiccups here or there between the 1890s to 19teens.
It doesn't go into specifics so that we can interpret it the way we want to. We're not supposed to be concerned with how exactly did James Madison feel about this or Thomas Jefferson think about that.
The constitution is not "vague" at all. What is "vague" is the level of intelligence of the modern reader.
The second amendment is very clear .... " ..... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is very clear .. . the problem is a "vague" understanding of what "shall not be infringed" means.
What should they have said? "Hey You Pompous Authoritarian Ner-Do-wells, Keep your friggin hands off the people's guns?
And to fast forward about a dozen years or so, once Jefferson attained high office, he then abandoned his ideal of limited government and favored an expansive view albeit on his terms.
I agree the two party system was born in the 1790s, but various other parties cropped up, namely the Whigs, the Jacksonian Democrats, and the Know-Nothings. I'd venture to say the two-party system similar to what we have today didn't really solidify until after the Civil War with a few hiccups here or there between the 1890s to 19teens.
It doesn't go into specifics so that we can interpret it the way we want to. We're not supposed to be concerned with how exactly did James Madison feel about this or Thomas Jefferson think about that.
Do you know that Madison took little part in discussion while helping formulate the Constitution? He was busy taking notes each day to work on that night and although he is called the Father of the Constitution because of his book reporting the discussions and near fist fights he took little part in the formulation. And, of course, Jefferson wasn't there, at all, since he was busy being the ambassador to France.
You are right about the wording of the Constitution but trying to make the words that were written into it say something other than what they say someone is pulling a trick, or at least, trying to.
Do you know that Madison took little part in discussion while helping formulate the Constitution? He was busy taking notes each day to work on that night and although he is called the Father of the Constitution because of his book reporting the discussions and near fist fights he took little part in the formulation. And, of course, Jefferson wasn't there, at all, since he was busy being the ambassador to France.
You are right about the wording of the Constitution but trying to make the words that were written into it say something other than what they say someone is pulling a trick, or at least, trying to.
Madison had a strong role in crafting the Bill of Rights after ratification of the Constitution.
If you want to understand more specifics as to the proper powers of the federal government you should study Madison's notes and the Federalist Papers and ,for that matter, anti-Federalist papers. In these notes and papers the original contract the states and our citizens agreed upon is pretty clearly spelled out.
To paraphrase Judge Bork, a man too principled to be a Supreme Court Justice, no one studies the Constitution just the judicial opinions on the Constitution which tend to be partisan crockery.
Let me explain something. During the ratification process those who favored ratification were labeled Federalist those who opposed anti-Federalists. Neither the Federalist or the Democratic-Republican Party existed. During Washington's 1st term divisions arose between Jefferson, Madison, etc and Adams, Hamilton, Washington, etc. as to the proper role of the federal government. Those with the more expansive view of the powers of the federal government united behind Adams while those who correctly held the more limited view united behind Jefferson and the two party system was born.
To put it simple Madison was a Federalist during the ratification process. Madison, Hamilton and Jay were the authors of the Federalist papers.
After the government was formed Washington tended to listen to Hamilton much more than Jefferson and Jefferson, as the Sec. of State thought he should have been the main advisor since the State office was considered by most to have been first and foremost. Jefferson was very unhappy about Hamilton being the main advisor and was against Washington completely before Washington left for home.
Madison had a strong role in crafting the Bill of Rights after ratification of the Constitution.
If you want to understand more specifics as to the proper powers of the federal government you should study Madison's notes and the Federalist Papers and ,for that matter, anti-Federalist papers. In these notes and papers the original contract the states and our citizens agreed upon is pretty clearly spelled out.
To paraphrase Judge Bork, a man too principled to be a Supreme Court Justice, no one studies the Constitution just the judicial opinions on the Constitution which tend to be partisan crockery.
In what way was British rule of the colonies tyrannical?
Compared to what we got today, or the way Spain treated their colonies, it was not.
Our founding fathers did not have near the tolerance for government that we have today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.