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.
If that were true, there would be a provision in the constitution stating so. Since the Constitution itself can be re-written en total via convention, your contention does not make much sense.
I would not trust the idiots in D.C. to re-write the constitution, they don't have half the brains our founding fathers had. Everything in it would benefit them only and would screw with our liberties and rights.
Liberty the definition....
1.
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
I would not trust the idiots in D.C. to re-write the constitution, they don't have half the brains our founding fathers had. Everything in it would benefit them only and would screw with our liberties and rights.
On the surface this statement sounds correct. And without much reflection I could understand why you would say it. But if you take a moment to really think through the entire situation. You would realize two things.
1) Whatever rights you have now, exist merely at the discretion of the Supreme Court. As long as the Supreme Court can take away our "rights" with a mere 5-4 "vote", then we already have no rights.
2) You are misunderstanding what would actually happen in the case of the drafting of the new constitution. You are imagining that the drafting of a new constitution would require the Congress agree to "grant" us rights. But in reality, the Congress would actually be fighting to grant the Constitution new rights.
To understand why the difference is important. You have to recognize that the approval of the new Constitution would require basically unanimous state support. Every single power granted to the Federal government in the new constitution would have to be approved by every single state in the country. It is highly unlikely that every single American state would agree to granting the Federal government much power at all.
Thus, the calling of a Constitutional convention can only have one of two outcomes. Either it would produce absolutely nothing(which is the most likely outcome). Or it would heavily restrict the federal government. While handing more authority to the individual states, and to the people.
Imagine it like this, what powers would the state of California, Texas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts all agree to grant the federal government? It would necessarily have to be less than what the federal government already has.
Even more, the calling of the Constitutional Convention would tend to greatly mobilize the people of America. This would give all people their first chance to achieve the government they really want. People aren't going to let that opportunity slip through their fingers.
The phones of every member of Congress in this country would be ringing off the hook. The News media would be going absolutely crazy. As time went on, the polarization of this country would increase. Thereby making any grant of power to the Federal government increasingly less likely.
It would be the most amazing spectacle in American history. And the thought of it fills me with immense hope.
Marbury v. Madison was a cutting rebuke of President Jefferson, while the judicial power was withheld. The sword of justice cuts both ways; and, we shall see the same yet again when Speaker John Boehner sues President Obama and jurisdiction is denied.
A cutting rebuke by whom? The fact that the Supreme Court handed itself a power not granted to it by the constitution or by the people, cannot be a rebuke either by the people or by the legislature. So where did such a rebuke derive itself? The only entity which "rebuked" Jefferson, was the Supreme Court. Keeping in mind that the entire Supreme Court had been appointed by "the federalists" who preceded the anti-federalists of the Jeffersonians.
Is it to be of any surprise that a federal court appointed by a federalist president, and which is completely unaccountable to the people, declared that it had a power not granted to it by the constitution?
I promise you, had the issue been handed to the people themselves, the outcome would have been drastically different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
- Benjamin Franklin (James Madison, Notes on the Convention for Monday, September 17, 1787)
I actually love this speech by Benjamin Franklin. I'm not sure exactly why you would post it? It doesn't seem to make your argument?
It basically states, the Constitution isn't perfect, but it is better than what we had before(the Articles of Confederation). Franklin states that we need a Constitution right now, so we should keep our mouths shut about its flaws and just get it into place. Because if we don't, our nation won't last. While also recognizing that because the Constitution is flawed, the only possible outcome of our constitution will be "despotism". Because the people will become so corrupted as to demand it.
What he means by despotic government, is basically "unconstitutional", "arbitrary", or "unlimited" government. Basically, the people will become so corrupted by their own power, that they will demand a government that just gives them whatever they want, regardless of its unconstitutionality.
In this sense, we will have the "tyranny of the majority", otherwise known as "democracy".
On the surface this statement sounds correct. And without much reflection I could understand why you would say it. But if you take a moment to really think through the entire situation. You would realize two things.
1) Whatever rights you have now, exist merely at the discretion of the Supreme Court. As long as the Supreme Court can take away our "rights" with a mere 5-4 "vote", then we already have no rights.
2) You are misunderstanding what would actually happen in the case of the drafting of the new constitution. You are imagining that the drafting of a new constitution would require the Congress agree to "grant" us rights. But in reality, the Congress would actually be fighting to grant the Constitution new rights.
To understand why the difference is important. You have to recognize that the approval of the new Constitution would require basically unanimous state support. Every single power granted to the Federal government in the new constitution would have to be approved by every single state in the country. It is highly unlikely that every single American state would agree to granting the Federal government much power at all.
Thus, the calling of a Constitutional convention can only have one of two outcomes. Either it would produce absolutely nothing(which is the most likely outcome). Or it would heavily restrict the federal government. While handing more authority to the individual states, and to the people.
Imagine it like this, what powers would the state of California, Texas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts all agree to grant the federal government? It would necessarily have to be less than what the federal government already has.
Even more, the calling of the Constitutional Convention would tend to greatly mobilize the people of America. This would give all people their first chance to achieve the government they really want. People aren't going to let that opportunity slip through their fingers.
The phones of every member of Congress in this country would be ringing off the hook. The News media would be going absolutely crazy. As time went on, the polarization of this country would increase. Thereby making any grant of power to the Federal government increasingly less likely.
It would be the most amazing spectacle in American history. And the thought of it fills me with immense hope.
I agree with this statement. But does that mean you don't have an opinion? Is the drafting of a new constitution a bad idea?
Wouldn't the drafting of a new constitution be appealing to all Americans? Wouldn't it basically give every state(and thus the people) the opportunity to have the government that they want?
Why would anyone oppose at least the attempt to draft a new constitution? Just because we draft a new constitution doesn't mean it will be adopted. What is there to be afraid of?
Something that says all citizens are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? What's not to like?
I know some people who would want a religious state as an example...
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.
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.
