Was John Quincy Adams A "Founding Father"??

God, you're boring.

Sorry... Everybody in a 4-county area knows your feelings on Social Security, Medicare, the "general welfare" clause, ad nauseum...

(Insert standard Federalist 'general welfare' clause nonsense here: ________________________________________________ )

I'm afraid I just can't get too scared about a program that is NOT part of the $14-Trillion deficit, and that is not "in trouble." (But if you want to do something constructive, you might want to figure out how to pay for those two unnecessary wars, the prescription drug benefit, the tax-breaks for millionaires, etc...)

---

I'm really not interested in your Constitution Party , LawAndLiberty , ReasonOfFreedom , PoliticsOfLiberty , TeaPartyPatriot excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said. The Supreme Court interprets, and has done so for a little over 230 years. Their interpretations of what it means are what is important, and not the libertarian nonsense of the radical right. The "general welfare" clause was not "invented", but obviously it has been interpreted to mean something you don't agree with.

Oh well.... Tough

Too bad Schama falls victim to the same trap of misrepresenting stubborn facts. The 3/5 clause did not, as he ascertains, artificially bloat the representation of the slave states. Instead it acted, as intended, as a means of limiting the national representation those states desired which made the likelihood of the northern sympathies of prohibiting the continued practice of slavery more likely to occur.

Palin's words are actually true, not false according to Paul Revere's own account of his ride in which he stated that he did tell the British troops that captured him that it was too late for them, the alarm had already been raised. Stubborn thing about truth - it exists despite agenda.

That said, I join him in the decrying of the lack of understanding about what the Constitution is and what it is not. I find shameful the illiteracy so pervasive regarding the Federalist Papers because they clearly show that the tortured interpretation of the document that currently exists in is direct opposition to its intent. The Federalist Papers are quite clear in arguing for adoption of the Constitution on the premise that the general government that would be created by its adoption was not the all powerful and unlimited one that has been interpreted into existence today.

WayneH wrote: God, you're boring.

The drum must be beat loud and long before the sound travels to where the message is sent. It must be sent many times to ensure that it is not garbled in the transmission of the message.

You can reject the truth your own eyes are showing you or you can believe it - the choice is yours Wayne. One word of caution though - rejecting that truth will not alter its existence as truth.

and the repetition of an opinion does not make it truth.

It is not my opinion that I repeat Kate, it is the opinion of the very people who were largely responsible for the content of the document - Hamilton, Madison and Jay. If they didn't know the intent of their own efforts, who else could hope to know what the intent was?

I'm so glad you were around when the founding fathers (of whom, John Quincy Adams was not a member) made their arguments and told you their opinions. It's just like when you render opinions on the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, since you were obviously a member of the jury and heard all the arguments and evidence.

Your opinions are just opinions and to be honest, have grown tiresome. Don't you have some new comedy material?

PrintSmith wrote:

Palin's words are actually true, not false according to Paul Revere's own account of his ride in which he stated that he did tell the British troops that captured him that it was too late for them, the alarm had already been raised. Stubborn thing about truth - it exists despite agenda.

Oh for crying out loud. Palin was all about the colonists being armed. Her statements were so garbled you really have to reach to match them to Paul Revere's account. Creative interpretation.

2wlady wrote: PrintSmith wrote:

Palin's words are actually true, not false according to Paul Revere's own account of his ride in which he stated that he did tell the British troops that captured him that it was too late for them, the alarm had already been raised. Stubborn thing about truth - it exists despite agenda.

Oh for crying out loud. Palin was all about the colonists being armed. Her statements were so garbled you really have to reach to match them to Paul Revere's account. Creative interpretation.

I used to date a contortionist whose behavior was amazingly similar to PrintSmith's. This person would take my words, twist them around and end up making me feel like I was the one who was wrong for the stupid things they had said to me.

I'm stunned at the people who will jump to rationalize the incorrect statements made by Bachmann and Palin. They are so willing to rewrite history (and wikipedia) to make their side look like they were right. It's not a game.