| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Culture Wars | |
| The Bill of Rights for dummies, with emphasis on the 3rd Amendment | |
| 2013-02-24 | |
| |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #3 ..problem with the argument is that it was ratified and recognized as legitimate by all the states involved. North was imposing modern judicial and social standards to something that happened over 200 years ago. Does he throw in that there was no 'universal franchise' and 'slavery' in his argument as well, because where is there 'consent of the governed' in that combination? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-02-24 08:53 |
| #2 An even more radical interpretation is from Gary North, who described the creation of the U.S. Constitution as an illegal coup, with the following points: The Convention was assembled under false pretenses. All attendees took a vow of lifetime silence. They held their meetings on the second floor: no eavesdroppers The press was barred from attending. The legislaturesÂ’ (Congress as stipulated by the Articles of Confederation) instructions were deliberately violated. The Confederation Congress refused to challenge the Constitutional ConventionÂ’s deliberate overturning of the Confederation CongressÂ’ own authority and also the rules governing the amending process that were specified in the Articles of Confederation. Instead, on September 28, 1787, the Confederation Congress passed along copies of the proposed Constitution to the state legislatures, which in turn authorized the calling of state ratification conventions that would be completely independent of the legislatures, thereby transferring sovereignty to state conventions. An interesting, although long, read. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2013-02-24 02:32 |
| #1 NOT A HYPOTHESIS. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2013-02-24 01:32 |