Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Consent of the governed and classic liberalism (Read 1296 times)
Morris
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53
Joined: Nov 9th, 2016
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #40 - Aug 7th, 2017 at 11:26pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 7th, 2017 at 7:40am:
The Constitution created by the Convention was proposed as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation. When it was accepted, i.e. ratified according to the process set out in the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation no longer applied.
The Constitution did not alter the Articles of Confederation, it replaced them.

Not true. No offense, but I won't keep being the only one who gives backing to what he asserts. It's easy to do otherwise.  From The Republic of Republics: Or, American Federal Liberty By Bernard Janin Sage
Quote:
THE   CONGRESS  OF  STATES.   This body on Feb. 21, 1787, resolved unanimously, that it was expedient that the states hold a convention of their delegates, "  for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of Confederation,"  to  " render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the union."     [Ibid. 120.
...
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.  By his Excellency  James Bowdoin,  Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth [l. s.]   of Massachusetts.    To the honorable  Erancis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rtjfus King,  and  Caleb Strong,  Esqrs., Greeting: Whereas,  Congress did, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1787, resolve, " That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union;" And, whereas, the Gen. Court have constituted and appointed you their delegates, to attend and represent this commonwealth in the said proposed convention, and have, by a resolution of theirs of the 10th of March last, requested me to commission you for that purpose

The States of Connecticut and New York issued statements that included the same wording. Rhode Island didn't attend the convention.

Quote:
Edit: You should refer to the Declaration of Independence where it talks about the Right of people to alter or abolish forms of government that aren't serving the purpose of preserving Rights and Liberties. Smiley

"People" in such a use can mean anything, and that expression (from the quote) or the DoI isn't mentioned in the Constitution. The reality is that degree and kind of change wasn't popular among the property owners, and they were a minority of the population. That's why the proceedings of the convention were kept secret, and the requirements for such change stipulated in the AoC were blown off.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23066
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #41 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 9:35am
Print Post  
Morris wrote on Aug 7th, 2017 at 11:26pm:
Not true. No offense, but I won't keep being the only one who gives backing to what he asserts. It's easy to do otherwise.  From The Republic of Republics: Or, American Federal Liberty By Bernard Janin Sage
The States of Connecticut and New York issued statements that included the same wording. Rhode Island didn't attend the convention.

"People" in such a use can mean anything, and that expression (from the quote) or the DoI isn't mentioned in the Constitution. The reality is that degree and kind of change wasn't popular among the property owners, and they were a minority of the population. That's why the proceedings of the convention were kept secret, and the requirements for such change stipulated in the AoC were blown off.

Right. The Constitutional Convention didn't do what they were supposed to do. Instead they started over, produced the Constitution and presented it to the States for ratification.

The DoI is a legal Founding document of the U.S.A.
Things mentioned in the DoI must be considered whenever the meaning of the Constitution is called into question. It is almost universally understood that "the People" mentioned in the DoI are the same "People" mentioned in the Constitution.

In any case, the States had the option of rejecting the Constitution and calling another convention with a new set of actors with instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation and hope they stayed within their charged duties. Instead, they accepted the Constitution for consideration and ratified it.

BTW, the people sent to the Convention were property owners, and the product of the Convention (the proposed Constitution) was widely publicized and much discussed by virtually everyone before it was ratified.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Minarchist

Posts: 3350
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #42 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 10:57am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 9:35am:
Right. The Constitutional Convention didn't do what they were supposed to do. Instead they started over, produced the Constitution and presented it to the States for ratification.

The DoI is a legal Founding document of the U.S.A.
Things mentioned in the DoI must be considered whenever the meaning of the Constitution is called into question. It is almost universally understood that "the People" mentioned in the DoI are the same "People" mentioned in the Constitution.

In any case, the States had the option of rejecting the Constitution and calling another convention with a new set of actors with instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation and hope they stayed within their charged duties. Instead, they accepted the Constitution for consideration and ratified it.

BTW, the people sent to the Convention were property owners, and the product of the Convention (the proposed Constitution) was widely publicized and much discussed by virtually everyone before it was ratified.

I agree that the Articles of Confederation don't apply, they were replaced by the Constitution.  The Constitution wasn't added on to them.  However, the Constitution was a document of enumerated powers with all others withheld, and there is no Constitutional authority to prevent States from leaving the union.  You're right, but you're wrong.  Lincoln was a tyrant who is directly destroying us today as the big, socialist States are freely engaging in tyranny of the majority unchecked by that the rest of us have no power to stop them
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23066
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #43 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 4:46pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 10:57am:
I agree that the Articles of Confederation don't apply, they were replaced by the Constitution.  The Constitution wasn't added on to them.  However, the Constitution was a document of enumerated powers with all others withheld, and there is no Constitutional authority to prevent States from leaving the union.  You're right, but you're wrong.  Lincoln was a tyrant who is directly destroying us today as the big, socialist States are freely engaging in tyranny of the majority unchecked by that the rest of us have no power to stop them
Try looking at it this way, it was inevitable at the time that the USA would go to war with the CSA.

The USA won and the states of the conquered CSA were forced back into the Union.

And it was Congress that declared war. Nothing Lincoln ever did or said has any relation to democracy and the tyranny of any majority and did not contribute to the problems we have today with regressive theories and applications of government.

Lincoln, if anything, exceeded the powers granted to the Executive, which could be viewed as tyrannical, except the nation he was elected President of had declared war, and he was the Commander in Chief of a military that wasn't doing well at all. The USA was invaded by the CSA. The CSA might have won the war. For quite a few years, it looked like they would.

If you can connect things like the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress to Lincoln having his Treasury Dept. issue fiat money in time of war, have at it. I think you are wrong and wrong.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5233
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #44 - Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:58pm
Print Post  
Morris wrote on Aug 7th, 2017 at 11:26pm:
Not true. No offense, but I won't keep being the only one who gives backing to what he asserts.


Nor should you. Very good post by the way.
  

Making Sci-Fi great again since 2063.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23066
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #45 - Aug 10th, 2017 at 7:25am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Nor should you. Very good post by the way.
What makes you say that? I thought it was misleading and incorrect and said why I thought that in my reply to Morris.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Morris
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53
Joined: Nov 9th, 2016
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #46 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 6:21pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 9:35am:
Right. The Constitutional Convention didn't do what they were supposed to do. Instead they started over, produced the Constitution and presented it to the States for ratification.

The DoI is a legal Founding document of the U.S.A.
Things mentioned in the DoI must be considered whenever the meaning of the Constitution is called into question. It is almost universally understood that "the People" mentioned in the DoI are the same "People" mentioned in the Constitution.

In any case, the States had the option of rejecting the Constitution and calling another convention with a new set of actors with instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation and hope they stayed within their charged duties. Instead, they accepted the Constitution for consideration and ratified it.

BTW, the people sent to the Convention were property owners, and the product of the Convention (the proposed Constitution) was widely publicized and much discussed by virtually everyone before it was ratified.


You’re just reciting a popular narrative, proving nothing (and can’t); and using the terms “State” and “People“ in a totally collectivist way.
« Last Edit: Aug 12th, 2017 at 11:58am by Morris »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Morris
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53
Joined: Nov 9th, 2016
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #47 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 6:45pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:58pm:
Nor should you. Very good post by the way.

Thanks
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5797
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #48 - Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:01pm
Print Post  
Forget all the phony baloney fanding fouthers talk and the classic Liberalism or libertarians nonsense.

The rest of the world's civilized nations are doing just fine with 'socially responsible capitalism'.

luv from Canada.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23066
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Reply #49 - Aug 15th, 2017 at 9:06am
Print Post  
Morris wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 6:21pm:
You’re just reciting a popular narrative, proving nothing (and can’t); and using the terms “State” and “People“ in a totally collectivist way.
I'm just saying that the term 'People' means the same thing where it is used in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The Founders of America did in fact believe that legitimate government required the consent of the governed and referred to "the governed" as "the People", but it was not a government either created or approved "collectively" by the People. The method used to choose representatives to the convention and the method used to ratify the Constitution were both what is commonly called "representative democracy", and that is also the common descriptive term used for the system of government created by the Constitution. Elements of the system are not "democratic" (or "collective") for very good reasons. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent of the governed and classic liberalism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy