0
3

[–] squiremarcus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

god fuking dammit. i totally forgot about quality posts like this, it has been so long i have seen nothing but memes and arguing

0
3

[–] Stanley_Yelnats_IV 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I would have been in the anti-federalist camp, if only on the issue of the Bill of Rights (which was admittedly added as a concession).

Also, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have altered a few choice provisions to make them a bit more clear.

0
2

[–] antiplebbitor 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Totes agree, Anti-Federalist brew.

0
3

[–] Gamerdog6482 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You have to understand, though, that the Constitution as was proposed by the federalists (and advocated in the Papers) did not include a Bill of Rights. The Jeffersonians weren't impressed by the Papers and only agreed to ratify the constitution if promise was made to pass the proposed amendments.

I'd argue that given our current situation discussing the Articles of Confederation would be more apt.

0
2

[–] Malek 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The Articles of Confederation were complete shit. People were in open rebellion against the Federal Government because they didn't get paid for their military service. Completely depending on the states for revenue without any power was a horrible idea.

I agree that the Jeffersonians were correct in adding a Bill of Rights but they brought no other alternatives to the table. The current system was not working and Hamilton, Jay, and Madison brought an idea that could have worked.

0
0

[–] Gamerdog6482 ago 

The Articles failed because they relied upon the states to raise revenue, and the states didn't and couldn't do that.

In a modern, industrialized world it could easily be pulled off. Hell, the European Union was heavily influenced by the AoC, so it's not impossible.

0
0

[–] antiplebbitor ago 

In a true negative-liberty document, enumeration of positive-rights is not only futile, but self-defeating. Why list explicit rights if the people retain all rights except those explicit powers granted to government?

I love the Constitution of the United States of America, but the Amendments are pretty shit in the negative-liberty sense. They also provide room for tyrants to erode those vast, expansive rights which are not explicitly/positively included...

0
1

[–] sactostar 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I would like to reserve a spot to comment on this later. I have had a few drinks, and the language used in this document is more complex or eloquent that I am used to reading. Consider that most newspapers and televised news casts use language that a U.S. 5th grader can understand and comprehend. I do believe that I am smarter than a 5th grader, but in my semi-inebriated state, it takes more time than I have focus for. I feel slow.

0
0

[–] antiplebbitor ago 

This will only be cool if you also post the Anti-Federalist Papers.

0
1

[–] ffkhrocks [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Hadn't heard of the Anti-Federalist papers. But, history tends to be written by the victor so I suppose that makes sense. Link for the Anti-Federalist paper No.1 has been added to the post.

0
1

[–] oowensby 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The Constitutional Convention debates and the Anti-Federalist Papers

Papers, leaflets and discussions in the constitutional congress dealing with the same topics as Federalist Papers from another point of view

Introduction

In 1778 the states debated the merits of the proposed Constitution. Along with the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers documented the political context in which the Constitution was born. The Federalist Papers defended the concept of a strong central government with their arguments in favor of the constitution. The Anti-Federalists saw in the constitution threats to rights and liberties so recently won from England. The authors did not only discuss the issues of the constitution, many general problems of politics were also put under debate; Should the members of the government be elected by direct vote of the people?, Does slavery have any place in a nation dedicated to liberty? etc.

0
0

[–] JoeKerr ago 

I do not believe so, there is too big of a political rift between certain states.

0
0

[–] RevRiot ago 

Would it work? It did work, I'm sold. Every argument put forth is exactly what it feels like we're dealing with now on the worst days, and every caveat seems to articulate my concerns with the people who would try and take the opportunity of a new constitution as a personal chance for more power, versus those who would oppose one because they don't want to lose power, with the people in the middle.

0
0

[–] der-sert ago 

Putting the old time writing aside I think Hamilton, Jay and Madison all are excellent writers and, by extension speakers, so I think they could get the states to Unionize. The main difference that would be the primary divisor of a 50 state unionization is that the East Coast's states were joined by the hands of war and still fought and argued during the Articles of Confederation. So while I believe that their would be massive state confederacies, I think these three men's writing quality and rational explanations would be able to convince them to adopt at least an EU type situation.

Hamilton does highlight some valid critics at our current political parties in Fed. Paper #1. They often pull the "for the people" card which belittles how much corruption and corporate back bending the majority do.