OMIGOSH........well-timed! States.....and people are actually clamoring for the Feds to make broad, sweeping decisions that would virtually dismiss the States' right to govern themselves. (face palm)
Charlie Kirk, put that guy "in his place" but that sort of browbeating is distasteful to me. Charlie Kirk lives, eats and breathes the constitution. He probably actually knows it quite well and could win a "trivia" contest.
What is important is not being able to memorize numbers and even a rough association of what that number stated. The essence of the constitution is what's important. How is the government designed? (at least roughly) What were the concerns and intents of the founding fathers? What is the purpose of government? Where to "rights" come from? (we hold that the government doesn't grant them yet 95% of the population would fail on comprehending that important point)
This has been a constant argument of mine. Especially when people are debating abortion or talking about “new” programs to help us. When I explain article 10, they say “the constitution was designed to be redone as time went on”
Talked to someone running for congress the other day. He wants to ratify the constitution to allow The House to be able to strike down a ruling of SCOTUS.
That person is an absolute stooge and I hope they don’t get voted in! Zero understanding of how the govt works. May I ask the age of this person? I’m willing to bet under 40.
Yes, there was so much more that could be said (and much more to read because much of what was publicly propounded was privately parodied). But you hit it - the confederation was collapsing, and the Congress had no teeth. They did want a "stronger" federal government, but not one which would rule over the union. As a matter of fact, in that same Federalist Paper I referenced (Number 45), Madison stated that the federal government would depend upon the states, but the states would have no dependence upon the federal government:
"The state governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is no wise essential to the operation or organisation of the former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will perhaps in most cases of themselves determine it.1 The senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the state legislatures. Even the house of representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the state legislatures. Thus each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the state governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious, than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the state governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little if at all, to the local influence of its members."
Unfortunately today it's been flipped around. Some might even say "corrupted".
Another important point to repeatedly point out is that not all of the people involved in creating the new constitution were in agreement. Quite the contrary, they were in bitter opposition with each other. The idea of a strong federal government was so appalling to Patrick Henry that he refused to even participate in drafting the constitution. While others were considering instituting a monarchy!
Yes, but there were shades of grey for "opposed". At the time there really wasn't clear agreement on how much power the federal government should have.
But the real problem, in my mind, isn't so much where we started, but where we have reached! Our government has become a huge monster. Nobody is in control, nobody is running it. Powerful forces manipulate it and use it to further their special interests.
AND AGAIN... we come back to the sad fact that MANY in our country are CLUELESS as to how our government is SUPPOSED to operate. Those MANY, I believe, actually want a HUGE government that is "going to take care of them" but they have NO IDEA how they will lose EVERY right and freedom they enjoy because of the existing Constitution and how it is written. These are the ones who believe "health care" is a RIGHT. These are the ones who clamor for the government to GIVE them THINGS when it is up to the individual to get those things for themselves. We have no right to THINGS.
And if my memory serves me, NOWHERE in the Constitution do the words "Federal Government" ever appear. There is mention of a "general government" or something to that effect. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
I honestly do not know why some WANT to have a BIG, controlling government looming over their heads.
To add to my earlier comment, I think the Federalist Papers should be in every curriculum across every state. To understand the context of WHY the Constitution was written is just as important as the document itself, maybe more so.
It is absolutely astonishing how often I point out it is because of the same reason- the lack of education on the Constitution in our government run “learning” institutions. Ask a junior high student about it and see what they know. Constitutional studies are almost non existent. And we wonder why the sheeple are clamoring to be governed, told what to do, how to think? Some will say, “ yeah, but the states run the education system.” Really??? Then why do the states rely so much on federal funding? If the federal government is funding the education system “run” by the states, don’t we think they will insist on having some control over the curriculum? Of course, this is my opinion. But it is based on seeing what has happened over the past half century in what students know today vs what we knew then. It’s pretty sad.
OMIGOSH........well-timed! States.....and people are actually clamoring for the Feds to make broad, sweeping decisions that would virtually dismiss the States' right to govern themselves. (face palm)
Charlie Kirk, put that guy "in his place" but that sort of browbeating is distasteful to me. Charlie Kirk lives, eats and breathes the constitution. He probably actually knows it quite well and could win a "trivia" contest.
What is important is not being able to memorize numbers and even a rough association of what that number stated. The essence of the constitution is what's important. How is the government designed? (at least roughly) What were the concerns and intents of the founding fathers? What is the purpose of government? Where to "rights" come from? (we hold that the government doesn't grant them yet 95% of the population would fail on comprehending that important point)
This has been a constant argument of mine. Especially when people are debating abortion or talking about “new” programs to help us. When I explain article 10, they say “the constitution was designed to be redone as time went on”
Talked to someone running for congress the other day. He wants to ratify the constitution to allow The House to be able to strike down a ruling of SCOTUS.
I can’t even argue with these people anymore.
That person is an absolute stooge and I hope they don’t get voted in! Zero understanding of how the govt works. May I ask the age of this person? I’m willing to bet under 40.
Haven’t even looked them up. Thankfully they’re running a write in. But putting the idea out there will get support moving
Another great article.
Some interesting points to ponder:
"We the people" - really should read "We, fifty five, well educated and wealthy people"
"a more perfect union" - than the confederation - a stronger federal government since the confederation was on the verge of collapse.
Yes, there was so much more that could be said (and much more to read because much of what was publicly propounded was privately parodied). But you hit it - the confederation was collapsing, and the Congress had no teeth. They did want a "stronger" federal government, but not one which would rule over the union. As a matter of fact, in that same Federalist Paper I referenced (Number 45), Madison stated that the federal government would depend upon the states, but the states would have no dependence upon the federal government:
"The state governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is no wise essential to the operation or organisation of the former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will perhaps in most cases of themselves determine it.1 The senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the state legislatures. Even the house of representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the state legislatures. Thus each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the state governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious, than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the state governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little if at all, to the local influence of its members."
Unfortunately today it's been flipped around. Some might even say "corrupted".
Another important point to repeatedly point out is that not all of the people involved in creating the new constitution were in agreement. Quite the contrary, they were in bitter opposition with each other. The idea of a strong federal government was so appalling to Patrick Henry that he refused to even participate in drafting the constitution. While others were considering instituting a monarchy!
Henry is one of my favorites, and you're right, he was strongly opposed (as were all the anti-federalists).
Yes, but there were shades of grey for "opposed". At the time there really wasn't clear agreement on how much power the federal government should have.
But the real problem, in my mind, isn't so much where we started, but where we have reached! Our government has become a huge monster. Nobody is in control, nobody is running it. Powerful forces manipulate it and use it to further their special interests.
AND AGAIN... we come back to the sad fact that MANY in our country are CLUELESS as to how our government is SUPPOSED to operate. Those MANY, I believe, actually want a HUGE government that is "going to take care of them" but they have NO IDEA how they will lose EVERY right and freedom they enjoy because of the existing Constitution and how it is written. These are the ones who believe "health care" is a RIGHT. These are the ones who clamor for the government to GIVE them THINGS when it is up to the individual to get those things for themselves. We have no right to THINGS.
And if my memory serves me, NOWHERE in the Constitution do the words "Federal Government" ever appear. There is mention of a "general government" or something to that effect. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
I honestly do not know why some WANT to have a BIG, controlling government looming over their heads.
To add to my earlier comment, I think the Federalist Papers should be in every curriculum across every state. To understand the context of WHY the Constitution was written is just as important as the document itself, maybe more so.
It is absolutely astonishing how often I point out it is because of the same reason- the lack of education on the Constitution in our government run “learning” institutions. Ask a junior high student about it and see what they know. Constitutional studies are almost non existent. And we wonder why the sheeple are clamoring to be governed, told what to do, how to think? Some will say, “ yeah, but the states run the education system.” Really??? Then why do the states rely so much on federal funding? If the federal government is funding the education system “run” by the states, don’t we think they will insist on having some control over the curriculum? Of course, this is my opinion. But it is based on seeing what has happened over the past half century in what students know today vs what we knew then. It’s pretty sad.