TheHighForester, is there a reason you are taking shots at my seriousness? Do you know me and are you someone who can determine the level of my honest desire to learn?

I have been wading through the Federalist Papers. Slow going.

You recommended Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913)? This is the first I've heard of it in this thread. And you need not burden yourself with reply to this or the honest questions I posed to your earlier post. Any student who does not understand what is presented by someone who professes to know what they are talking about should ask questions. You'd think they would get some kind of response to direct, valid questions instead of being put down for even asking in the first place.

You call me an "expert". Are you claiming I'm a wannabe know it all? You know, you sure get personal when someone asks questions about your post. I'd prefer this be a clean exchange of ideas. You need not respond to this but if you do please do so with the respect I have given you.

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

You can't expect a "conservative" to have any value in a desire to learn. Especially how they expound at legnth about how much they hate our higher education system.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Yes, that is exactly what I intended to imply.

These are not "direct, valid questions," as you claim above, but simple denials that any view is valid but your own. It is almost as though you have refused to read or try to understand what I had posted. Your final question, copied above, clearly shows that you have little understanding of what happened in 1787 or who wrote the Constitution.The states DID form the Continental Congress, the first in 1774 and a second in 1775. but by the 1780s that body had evolved into a "Congress of the Confederation," But the congress of the Confederation DID NOT WRITE AND DID NOT AUTHORIZE THAT A NEW CONSTITUTION BE WRITTEN. Those who attended the Constitutional Convention between May and September, 1787, came as individuals, ELECTED BY NO ONE and representing neither the Continental Congress nor the respective states from which they came. In effect, they were revolutionaries. Their first order of business was to elect a "President of the Convention," and George Washington was chosen without objection. Their second act was to take an oath of secrecy, because they did not want the Continental Congress or the PEOPLE to learn what they were discussing. They knew that what would be proposed was very radfical, and that they could be charged with treason if it was found out that they intended to entirely replace the existing government. For this reason, they appointed no secretary and NO MINUTES OF THE CONVENTION WERE KEPT. The only fairly comprehensive account of what went on in that room during the next three months is the dairy of James Madison, who was also one of the most active participants (as well as the youngest man present). This also led to some humorous circumstances--Benjamin Franklin, at 81, was the oldest delegate, and had a reputation for his enjoyment of wine and the company of pretty young women. It was anticipated that Franklin (also known as a blabbermouth) would be incapable of keeping the proceedings secret onb his own account. therefore, to prevent the old roue from spoiling the plans, TWO DELEGATES WERE ASSIGNED TO ACCOMPANY BEN FRANKLIN EACH NIGHT (on a rotating basis) TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.

Fifty-five self-appointed leaders met in Philadelphia in May, 1787. They came from twelve of the fourteen English colonies along the Atlantic seaboard. Rhode Island was unrepresented. So was Nova Scotia, which was of little consequence sine that colony was little more than a British Military base in those days. During the three-and-a-half months of the convention, members came and went at will, taking care of personal business. Some returned, some did not. On Sept. 17, when the document was signed, only forty-one were present. Thirty-eight signed the proposed new Constitution, and three REFUSED to do so (George Mason and Edmund Randolph of VA, and Elbridge Gerry of MA). The document arrived at was adjudged far from perfect, and Mason raised ther most telling argument against it--that it had no guarantees of the rights of the people--no "Bill of Rights." The absence of Bill of Rights would make it more difficult to convince the people to ratify, and that difficulty prompted Madison, Hamilton, and Jay to publish, in The New York Packet, a series of letters which we now call The Federalist Papers in an effort to persuade the people to support the proposed change in government. even so, the fight for ratification was bitter. North Carolina twice rejected the Constitution, and Rhode Island did not even vote on the matter until two years after enough states had ratified to set the new government in motion. That is why our first government, formed in March, 1789, had only eleven states. The people of North Carolina voted to join AFTER the adoption of the first ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) and Rhode Island followed along even later.

In summary, let me point out that the STATES took no part in this process, nor did the Congress of the Confederation. The Congress had generally approved of the idea that citizens would meet to propose changes to the Articles of Confederation, but at no time did they contemplate the formation of an entirely new form of government, which would replace themselves.

It was a "Second American Revolution"--this time without bloodshed.

__________________________________________________ _____

I will apologize for an inadvertent error. The referral to Beard's book actually was posted in another thresd. You may find it here:How do we stop communism ?

This comment, if directed at me, is absurd. You apparently have no idea what I do.

TheHighForester, thanks for your reply. You know, once you get past the hostility thing you sure do write an interesting and engaging telling of history. You are born to it.

If my own view was all I was interested in why would I ask a question at all? Honestly, I'm not here to bash your beliefs or reduce your opinion. It took very educated people to battle through all the points to be considered in the founding of our country. It might take me more than a couple years to learn about things. I think it has been obvious that I have many questions. Some of the things you have mentioned are the first time I've heard anything about it (No State ever joined the Union) so rather than respond without investigation into this, I will look into it and respectfully respond soon.

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

Fascinating historical digression, though marred by the tone of it's condescending intro. I hope we can put the same scholarship into a discussion of the matter at hand.

Which is; what might be the role that states should play in the governing of the USA NOW, 233 years after the Constitutional Convention and after a major civil war. My own opinion on this has been stated. It would be interesting to hear others.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

The STATES have no role "in the governing of the USA NOW, 233 years after the Constitutional Convention and after a major civil war." Each state is entitled to govern itself, in compliance with the laws of the United States of America. Texas has no business trying to govern California, and vice versa. We have a dualistic system of government (a part of the system of "checks and balances" which is rarely discussed). States take care of business within their own borders. Through their participation in the United States Senate, they may influence the decisions being made for ALL THE PEOPLE by the Federal Government, which is the only entity which represents and governs ALL THE PEOPLE.

I think States should govern themselves within the limits of their State Constitutions. States should step up and represent their citizens as was promised when their the representatives took the oath of office.

They should also protect citizens from an over reaching Federal Government who, over time, has left the bounds of enumerated powers behind. This is the hot spot and 74% of the States are flexing muscle to some degree. I think this is very important because there should be friction in such areas. States should not blindly follow an overgrown Federal Government, especially when it conflicts with the Constitution.

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

THF,

Obviously you don't really know the full story. There are plenty of people that thought differently than you do and were more knowlegable. If not, then there wouldn't have even been a civil war. That is when the states really lost their power. Not from the beggining like you try and put forth. So, yes, you may be right to a degree based simply on the fact that the North had more numbers, more money, and more equiptment than the south did and were able to beat them into submission.

Besides that there are some states that have an even great claim as they joined later. Texas comes to mind.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Anytime you want to discuss "the full story," I am ready to go.

The Civil War was not a product of people who were "knowlegable" (sic), but of people who were ignorant and unwilling to learn, cruel and unwilling to change, and aggressive in the defense of a system which was morally unsupportable. But I did not address the issues which led to the American Civil War in my comments above, so it appears that your "objections" are simply an effort to muddy the waters. Try to respond to what I actually post, not to what you imagine.

In practical terms, the states "lost power" with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was the first time that THE STATES WERE FINALLY REQUIRED TO OBSERVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

Texas was unique in that it existed as a sovereign, independent nation for nine years, and its entry was effected by a treaty, rather than being governed (as other states were) by the provisions of The Northwest Ordinance of 1787. But Texas is still part of a Union which is promulgated upon consistent principles and under which all states must be treated equally. Texas, after 164 years, has no valid claim to particularism.

Now, start a thread on Texas, if you like. I may or may not participate--as I choose.

Could someone please explain to me how the Civil War, caused the Constitution of The United States of America to become "null and void"?

The assertions in post #11 are so full of holes, it resembles Swiss cheese. It doesn't take someone from the "halls of academe" to figure that out.

The Constitution was not written to be misinterpreted by pointy headed modern liberals (Marxists), using the misguided writings of Charles Beard (who apparently, recanted his assertions later in life), it was written to be easily understood by common folk. No amount of spin can change the very easy to understand 10th amendment: And which people, exactly, do these Congressmen represent?

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

I never heard it put that way. Very insightful. Id like to see more states rebelling against the govt.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

1. There is nothing that I wrote which suggests that the "Civil War caused the Constitution of The United States of America to become "null and void." I did not mention the Civil War, and I did not claim that the Constitution, or any part of the Constitution, had become "null and void."

2. The assertions I made in post #11 are absolutely accurate. If there are any particulars which you want to dispute, you should do so, and I will explain them to you. It would seem that the reason you have not been specific is because you cannot back up what you are saying.

3. Although Charles Beard was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he was not cited in post #11, for the very simple reason that nothing he wrote influenced what I wrote there. There are no "pointy headed modern liberals" or "Marxists" involved here. I have to assume that you are resorting to such ad hominem attacks because you don't have sufficient knowledge of the facts to disagree in substance.

4. The members of Congress (the House of Representatives) obviously represent "the people" of their Congressional districts. Members of the Senate represent their respective states.

5. You also say "it was written to be easily understood by common folk." I agree. The caveat is that, as Tug McGraw was so fond of pointing out, "Ya gotta wanna!" If you do not have a desire to understand, and you close your mind to valid information which contradicts your preconceptions, then you will never understand the Constitution.

6. Closing, I would like to point out that, when you carefully read the Tenth Amendment, you will see that NO POWERS WERE GIVEN TO "THE UNITED STATES" BY THE RESPECTIVE STATES. The Amendment says that the powers were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Since the Constitution was ratified by the people, and not by the states, the federal government derives its authority from the people, not the states. That is clear enough to be understood by "common folk."

1. The states which are asserting their 10th Amendment rights are not attempting to "govern The USA", they are simply demanding the Federal government adhere to The Constitution.

2. While I appreciate the offer, I do not need you to explain anything to me, I am perfectly capable of reading, and understanding what you wrote.

Your statement:"NO STATE EVER JOINED THE UNION, THE PEOPLE JOINED THE UNION." Is redundant, since the state and the people are one and the same. The term "state", is merely a descriptive used to illustrate geographical borders, and the people who live within those borders. Of course the states joined the union, and your attempt to spin that fact is nothing more than simple obfuscation.

Again, kinda redundant. We are not "citizens" of the state in which we live, we are residents. We are citizens of The United States. The only "duel citizenship" in regards to The United States, pertains to individuals that are a citizen of this country, and also a citizen of another country.

3. While Beard may not have been mentioned in post #11, your suggestion to Lettuce Head to read Beard's, "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution", before you would grace him with any more discussion on the subject, clearly suggests (to me anyway) you are at least influenced by his writings. And, Beard was clearly influenced by Marx's communist manifesto. Hence, my "ad hominem attacks". I have more than sufficient knowledge of the facts, just not, your facts. Besides, you pointing the finger at me because of "ad hominem attacks", is a bit hypocritical, in light of your many snarkey comments directed at others. Is it not? I mean c'mon, is it really necessary to point out a misspelled word?

4. And where do "the people" of these Congressional districts reside? Geographically speaking, of course.

5. One man's "valid", is another man's frivolous. Don't you agree?

Facts are based upon their merit, not the misguided "preconceptions" of those who wish to turn our Constitution into a "living breathing" document.

6. Circular reasoning may well qualify you as a master debater, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have a firm grasp on the reality of the situation.

What I don't understand is why people of your ilk cannot have a friendly, civil discussion, and you feel the need to talk down to, insult, and denigrate, those who you feel are less "educated" than yourself.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

The only thing you have proved, countryboy, is that you have absolutely no intention of trying to understand the Constitution. I do not mind discussing it with anyone, but I will not waste my time on someone who does not even do me the courtesy of addressing what I actually wrote, and who thinks it clever to edit or omit portions of my explanations.

Go back and reread what I posted before. It was written plainly enough for "common folk."