You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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...