Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Where have all the conservatives gone?

His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it.

I forgot to amend this note previously:* Madison did not write the Constitution. He proposed numerous provisions of it, many of which were debated, discarded, adopted and/or modified by a group of individuals at the Constitutional Convention, which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals. His opinion, therefore, of its meaning and purpose is... one opinion. Persuasive, perhaps, but most assuredly not definitive. There were literally hundreds of others whose opinions affected the adoption and interpretation of the words contained in it. (Remember the Federalist papers? What was that all about?)

which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States.

On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter. Before the Constitution could become the law of the land, it would have to withstand public scrutiny and debate. The document was "laid before the United States in Congress assembled" on September 20. For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals.

Which brings me to my second point: Apparently, friend, you didn't follow the link I provided, so don't understand the definition of "sophistry". It is a fallacious mode of argumentation; specifically, "the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." It is sometimes referred to as "specious reasoning." When you say, "To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it." and that "In that [Hamilton] did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant." - that is an example of specious reasoning or sophistry. It is full of logical fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority), and omissions (e.g., that the only discussions/debates were those recorded by Madison).

Now, I will also admit that I love it, which is not charitable of me, when you write things that prove my point, but disprove your own. It's a habit of yours that I take guilty pleasure in.

What you apparently cannot comprehend is that our Constitution was written to create a limited central government! They realized that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. Did our Constitution expand the role of the central government? Yes, but not as much as you erroneously think it did. [.]

To each branch, the Constitution assigns certain powers. No branch of government may exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. By assigning powers to each branch, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government and also tries to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful.

Which was exactly my point. You then reload the shotgun and point it at your... well, you get the metaphor - and assert "They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power." Who is this "they", Kemo sahbee? And why did they do exactly that, if it was not their intention? Maybe you meant to say, "some of them"? Or, "some argued against it"?

What chaps my hide is your broad generalizations and surety that you are "right" about things, when you are not, and even when you are proved in error, refusal to recognize it as such. Yes, there are limitations on the central government - I've never argued elsewise - but the argument that "To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution." Is. Just. Not. True.

* I originally mistyped that as "Peeviously". I thought that was an apt descriptor, and a freudian slip. Made me laugh.

His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it.

His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it. Thus he is not the expert on it that he thinks he is.

As someone who has been a member of the Republican Party for over 50 years, and whose family has been members of the party since 1910, my knowledge of it is better than someone who has never been a member of it.

And no, healthcare does not fit under the general Welfare clause.

Make a note of this post, my friends. This is a shining example of what is known as "sophistry".

I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

I am finding the long and convoluted lectures in response to NWP to be impenetrable. Blenderized concoctions of opinion, history, dogma, alternative fact, and the occasional true fact, are unappetizing and hard to swallow.

My construction company (yes, I am a bona fide capitalist) has been engaged in a lawsuit with a crazy (former) client for a year and a half over a payment dispute. The problem arose when she decided that she wanted to shitcan us because we wouldn't allow her to micro-manage a fixed-price contract project. Several months into the job we submitted a progress payment application (stipulated by her lender), which she refused to authorize, saying she "felt" had already overpaid us (but with no documentation). At the same time, she refused to follow the contractual disbursement procedure that required a 3rd party professional to inspect the job, compare the AIA G702 pay app to the schedule of values for work completed, and certify the amount requested.

In short, she breached the contract by not performing her obligation to follow the progress payment approval process. The cure was simple - have the 3rd party professional inspect the job and certify that payment is due.

However, she started making up tons of other reasons to accuse us of breaching the contract by stopping work until we got paid (we were $45,000 into the job and out of funds to continue). She locked up the jobsite (with some $60,000 of our tools and materials inside), and got an unethical lawyer to write a "Notice of Termination" of the contract, that was filled with specious claims and libel, coupled with extortive demands (one was that we'd get our tools back when all of her demands were met).

We finally got into court 8 months later, where she and her second sleazeball attorney poured a blenderized concoction of crap onto the judge (who was not the brightest bulb in the room and was on his final day at the bench having recently lost an election), including a new story claiming that she didn't know who the tools belonged to and and needed to determine the rightful owners were before releasing them.

The judge was so confused that he declined to rule on the case, except to order the client to give us back our tools (some of which had been stolen during the period of her protective custody).

She is now on her 3rd lawyer (from her insurance company, who is only defending covered claims) and is attempting to represent her company pro se on a raft of new claims against us. She has been so bold as to contradict the new judge after he told her that unless she is an attorney she can't represent a LLC or a corporation. He was unconvinced by her arguments, so now she is busy trying to justify pressing the claims on the basis she has been injured as a result of her company being injured. But of course, if there is no ruling that we injured her company, there is no basis for her alleged injury. She can't argue personal injury without first succeeding at arguing company damage.

Quite the stinking muddle - we are now 1-1/2 years in, she has spent an estimated $50,000 and has forced us to spend $20,000 - and the core issue is still simple and without a hearing... she didn't follow the contract in certifying the pay app. When that little step in the process is finally performed, we will get a judgement awarding the payment, interest, and damages. She will still blame us bitterly, and what should have been a normal and friendly project that would have been completed on time (June 2018) and on budget (it was a fixed-price contract) will be a smoking wreck, possibly putting her out of business.

In case you are wondering what the point is here, it's that arguing with Hatrack reminds me of our dispute with the crazy lady client. You just can't get anywhere with a Blenderizer on the other side of the table.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.