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.
Yes, Paine did all that but he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention and I consider those 55 men to be our founders. Many of the founders weren't a part of the framing of the Constitution. Jefferson, both Adams, and many others just weren't there.
The fact that YOU don't consider Paine to be one of the Founding Fathers is pretty irrelevant. It took a lot more than just the Constitutional Convention to forge America.
However, Madison may well have had more to do with the writing of the bill.
I must say that because of who he was George Washington has to the the most important of all. Many want Madison to be the top dog because he is called the Father of the Constitution. He got that name because he took notes all day and then wrote his book at night from his notes. That book he wrote is not really very interesting reading but he does mention some of the fights and near fights that occurred.
The Constitution started out with Madison's outline.
As Madison wrote to Washington on April 16,1787, having "formed in my mind some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology, to your eye."
The outline for the Constitution first began when Madison wrote "Vices of the Political System of the US" and gave it to Washington in 1787. Later that same Year - Washington and other delegates prepared the "Virginia Plan of Government" which was based on Madison's outline. After debate and adding a preamble written by Morris; a New Constitution was presented and approved in 1787.
It was not until 15 years after the Constitution was enacted that Madison got the nickname "Father of the Constitution"
of which he didn't like.
He's top dog in my book The Intellectual Founding Father
Last edited by pollyrobin; 01-14-2010 at 10:22 PM..
The Constitution started out with Madison's outline.
As Madison wrote to Washington on April 16,1787, having "formed in my mind some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology, to your eye."
The outline for the Constitution first began when Madison wrote "Vices of the Political System of the US" and gave it to Washington in 1787. Later that same Year - Washington and other delegates prepared the "Virginia Plan of Government" which was based on Madison's outline. After debate and adding a preamble written by Morris; a New Constitution was presented and approved in 1787.
It was not until 15 years after the Constitution was enacted that Madison got the nickname "Father of the Constitution"
of which he didn't like.
He's top dog in my book The Intellectual Founding Father
Why did John Randolph introduce and back the Virginia plan if Madison wrote it? I imagine those at the summer meeting, without AC, wished it had been as simple as you try to make it sound. Do you think that the 3/5 Compromise was in the original you mention? Do you not know that the large states, Virginia the largest, didn't try to make it so they would control because they had more people in the Congress? How about the New Jersey plan that was for small states? I think you have missed out on most of what Madison wrote in his book about the Convention. Your suggestion isn't about the document I have loved so much all my life.
I must apologize for thinking of the Framers as the Founders. I always think it was that group of 55 men who met in Philadelphia and spent some very hot days ironing out that greatest of governmental documents the world has ever seen. It was the Constitution that the great British jurist, Gladstone, was talking about when he marveled at what had come from their hands.
I will go ahead thinking the Framers are the real founders although it is not what most of you were thinking about.
I must apologize for thinking of the Framers as the Founders. I always think it was that group of 55 men who met in Philadelphia and spent some very hot days ironing out that greatest of governmental documents the world has ever seen. It was the Constitution that the great British jurist, Gladstone, was talking about when he marveled at what had come from their hands.
I will go ahead thinking the Framers are the real founders although it is not what most of you were thinking about.
An apology is not necessary, but you must realize that your particular view regarding who are the Founding Fathers is FAR more narrow than the commonly accepted "definition". While the writing of the Constitution is without a doubt a watershed moment, it's not the ONLY watershed moment in the creation of America.
An apology is not necessary, but you must realize that your particular view regarding who are the Founding Fathers is FAR more narrow than the commonly accepted "definition". While the writing of the Constitution is without a doubt a watershed moment, it's not the ONLY watershed moment in the creation of America.
Ken
No other has been as important up to the last year while people are trying to trash and destroy they old document.
Why did John Randolph introduce and back the Virginia plan if Madison wrote it? I imagine those at the summer meeting, without AC, wished it had been as simple as you try to make it sound. Do you think that the 3/5 Compromise was in the original you mention? Do you not know that the large states, Virginia the largest, didn't try to make it so they would control because they had more people in the Congress? How about the New Jersey plan that was for small states? I think you have missed out on most of what Madison wrote in his book about the Convention. Your suggestion isn't about the document I have loved so much all my life.
I stated there was debate - A LOT of IT. To imply Madison was no more than a note taker is simple as well. James Madison had more to do with the conception of the Constitution than anyone else, in my opinion. And for me, that's not debatable
My favorite founding father wasn't what Washington is to you, or Jefferson is to somebody else, or Paine is to another. It's my favorite founding father and it happens to be James Madison
I stated there was debate - A LOT of IT. To imply Madison was no more than a note taker is simple as well. James Madison had more to do with the conception of the Constitution than anyone else, in my opinion. And for me, that's not debatable
My favorite founding father wasn't what Washington is to you, or Jefferson is to somebody else, or Paine is to another. It's my favorite founding father and it happens to be James Madison
I take it you don't know about Gourverneur Morris of New York of Patterson of New Jersey. They did much more of the compromising than Madison had any part of but it doesn't make a lot of difference.
Not so, Gary. John Jay wasn't at the Convention although and no decision was made by the Supreme Court as to what natural born entailed. Until the 14th Amendment was passed there was never any definition of how citizenship was attained. The Constitution does mention citizens of both the United States and the states but says nothing about natural born. You might find that the 14th amendment created citizenship according to where born which is know as jus soli and was put in there to cover ex-slaves who had been born in the US.
Nope, John Jay wasn't at the convention and therefor didn't sign it and he never created natural born status. The 14th Amendment did that.
"Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Part of Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion United States vs Ark
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.
The Intellectual Founding Father
All who are writing here
