John Adams, raging socialist!
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:54:11 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  John Adams, raging socialist!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: John Adams, raging socialist!  (Read 3292 times)
exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2011, 06:17:58 PM »

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the same Congress and signed by the same president.

Fun fact, but irrelevant as well.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2011, 06:22:38 PM »

Am I alone in finding the American tendency to justify their arguments by invoking the Founding Fathers bizarre? Noone in France would ever say :'This is a good idea because Napoleon/Danton/whoever you want said this and that on the topic, which I interpret as supporting my general argument.'

It would be hilarious if they did, though.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2011, 06:24:53 PM »

I mean, look at the first bullet point. George Washington signed a bill passed by a Congress made up of people who wrote and signed the constitution that required people to buy guns. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, so is one of the very first laws, signed by our very first president, written by the people who wrote the constitution.

No, that law was to conscript men (in times of war) into the militia, where they would be required to bring their own equipment (hence a militia).  That was justified under the power to "raise and support Armies," not the commerce clause.  In fact, IIRC not a single law cited the commerce clause until well into the 19th century.  This sort of argument that comes from the left is pretty much outright lying.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2011, 06:33:43 PM »

Am I alone in finding the American tendency to justify their arguments by invoking the Founding Fathers bizarre? Noone in France would ever say :'This is a good idea because Napoleon/Danton/whoever you want said this and that on the topic, which I interpret as supporting my general argument.'

It is very strange, yes. Also, along similar lines, people often invoke the Constitution in defense of their argument as though it cannot be argued that the Constitution ought to be changed. xD
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2011, 05:36:41 PM »

Itīs just the framework for the whole show. There is a long history in human thought of using the grammar of the present, projecting into the past and using it to justify the present. That alot is lost in translation during this translation is irrelevant as the past itself isnīt important, just the fetish of īpastnessī (Which is unique to each era and each part of the world). Thus the constitution and founding fathers cult.

Come 2025 I fully expect relics cults to have developed over the recently exhumed bones of the major founding fathers and organized by major media corporations. The demand for Washingtonīs bones will become so much that there will be two Washington heads in circulation and that FOX and whichever company replaces CNN will fight a war over the claim of which head is genuine.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2011, 09:34:04 PM »

No, that law was to conscript men (in times of war) into the militia, where they would be required to bring their own equipment (hence a militia).  That was justified under the power to "raise and support Armies," not the commerce clause.  In fact, IIRC not a single law cited the commerce clause until well into the 19th century.  This sort of argument that comes from the left is pretty much outright lying.

Seems to me that many laws do not cite any clause of the Constitution.  This thread started with reference to "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen".  The act does not cite what clause of the Constitution it relies on but what else than the Commerce clause could it be?
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2011, 09:35:05 AM »

As a side note, anybody see his miniseries from a few years back? I just put it on my netflix queue.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 11 queries.