MyFox
 

Slowdog's Blog

by Slowdog from God's country

Last Post 42 days, 3 hours Ago


Thomas Jefferson was not a fan of having a constitution giving power to the federal government.  He was in favor of the states having their own laws independent of the federal government.  His view was that the individual states should not be beholden to a larger more powerful entity as that was what the Revolution was fighting against.  As we all know today, Thomas Jefferson was not successful in his desire to defeat the implementation of a constitutional republic as our country is in deed beholden to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution, Jefferson championed the idea that the Constitution should, in fact, be done a way with periodically because one generation should not be bound to the laws of a previous generation.  As times and civilizations change, the laws should change to fit the needs of the people and the times in which they live.

With all the debate and vitriolic behavior towards one another concerning various political agendas, I deem it to be necessary that the country to "start over."  Notions such as same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. were not major concerns for the founding fathers of this nation so they were (among many other ideologies) never addressed in the Constitution.  Today, these items need to be addressed and put to bed once and for all as we are ever increasingly becoming a more divided nation.

I, for one, agree with Mr. Jefferson's idea of an evolving government.  I am of the belief that the individual states should have more power than the federal government because the state government is closer and more accessible to the citizenry.  For a government of the people, by the people and for the people to truly succeed, the people need better access to it in order for it to achieve its original intents.

"A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson, 1787)
20 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 20
Page 1 of 1
pissedoff702 read my blog
Jun 30, 2008 | 4:33 PM

We do not need to scrap the constution alltogther, we need to Oust the President of the United states, Both houses of congress, the Supreme court justices, and The lobbyists of all the greedy corporations. Then we can sit down and make amendments to the cobnstution (Imagine that being able to change a document like the constution to be able to fit society for the world of today). When you conservative Whackos don't get your way you want to take all the toys and go home it doesn't work like that! There are issues today that were not around when the constution was written, that is why the constution is written with room to grow and Change, Evolve" as you said. Besides Before the constution there was a failed con-federecy your Idea has been tried and It failed! Read your history books.

Slowdog read my blog
Jun 30, 2008 | 4:47 PM

Without both houses of Congress, how would you propose the Constitution be amended? You cannot "oust" these people from their offices without someone replacing them per what the Constitution stipulates. If you "oust" the President, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, who will write the new amendments? You? Me? Surely it must be an elected official, right?

When you liberal loonies fail to get your perverted agenda passed through legislation or ballot initiatives where the voice of the people is heard, you shop for sympathetic judges who completely ignore the will of the people and the Constitution as a whole to force your perversion on the majority by creating legislation from the bench.

The Articles of Confederation were merely a stepping stone along the way to the Constitution. When the Constitution was ratified, it did not contain many of the "laws" we see in it today in the form of the amendments. Rather it clearly stipulated that anything not addressed withing the Constitution will be left up to the discretion of the individual states. I have read many history books in my life time, sir or madam, especially concerning the founding fathers. I am not a historian but I do know quite a bit about the founding of this great nation.

pissedoff702 read my blog
Jun 30, 2008 | 4:59 PM

First of all: I would have figured that "Oust" means not to reelect the incumbent when a seat in congress is up for reelection. The constution is not a popularity contest, you think everthing is like American Idol "Vote from your Cell phone" It is not the constution Says what it says it does not matter who likes or not. Legislation from the bench" you need to quit listening to that Idiot Michael Savage, he will only fill your mind with Hate and contempt. Personal Liberty is not a perversion. You speak of the Articles of confederation being a stepping stone to the constution. Again it is because it failed. There are certin matters that need to be addressed by the federal government, matters like Same sex marriage, and Abortion. These things should not be decided in the supreme court these are a persons Decesions to make amongst themselves, You conservitave cranks can't cry foul! when the supreme court won't legislate morality.

richardcheney read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2008 | 11:36 PM

The claim that Thomas Jefferson opposed a federal government granted any powers by the Constitution may be a severe interpretation of his thinking of a Constitutionally controlled LIMITED federal government. He was out of the country thorugh most of the debate and eventual ratification, but his many and frequent correspondences leaves little doubt of his passion on the subject. But he recognized the need of some federal power and there is no doubt that his view of today's federal government, its size, budget, and reach of power would turn his stomach.

richardcheney read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2008 | 11:43 PM

And clearly, the Supreme Court has no Constitutional power to legislate anything, morally or otherwise. Theirs is not the duty of legistlation, but Constitutional interpretation. They, too, [federal district courts more than the Supremes] have overstepped their authority, bypassing the representatives of the people, the legislative branch.

Slowdog read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 10:12 AM

Perhaps I chose my words a bit poorly as Thomas Jefferson was, indeed, not against a federal government per se, he was in favor of a small federal government with limited power over the states and the real power to be within the states and for the people.

Jefferson spent much (if not all) of the Constitutional Convention in France so his direct input was severely limited. During his term in Washington's cabinet he had many heated disagreements with others (particularly Alexander Hamilton) on the expansion of the federal government as he viewed it to be unconstitutional especially the idea of the national Bank which Hamilton championed.

It is my assertion that someone of the likes of Thomas Jefferson would be the best hope for this country. Too many politicians want more power and bigger government that intrudes into our private lives. I was only throwing out the idea of Jefferson to periodically redo the constitution as times and generations change.

Slowdog read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 10:14 AM

pissedoff702,

The fact that you cannot even spell constitution speaks volumes of the type of person I am arguing with. Perhaps when you learn to spell the word, then we can have a civilized conversation concerning what it stands for.


P.S. I do not listen to Michael Savage.

pissedoff702 read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 11:16 AM

Slowdog: Your name is perfect for slow doesn't even begin to sescribe your mental state. As for a civilized conversation about the constitution!! I am a person who loves this country and doesn't want to see it ruined by lunitics like you, who want to make everybody the same. This country was founded on the strength of the individaul and the strength of many individuals, as a community. For someone who came from another country I think you might understand that better than most Numbnuts! like Lil' dick, but you don't and since you don't, you don't belong here! go back to El salvador come back when you are ready to be an American. The good ol' moral majority like yourself doesn't consider a disscussion civilized or inteligent unless everybody else agrees with you, Thats not a disscussion.

pissedoff702 read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 11:22 AM

COCKCHENNY: Why is it when the supreme court bends to the right it is called "interpretation" but when the lean to the left all you cranks, and Hacks call it "legislating from the bench"? You can't have it both ways (although good ol' mormon boys like you probobly want it both ways in more ways than one) You can't have it your way everytime Quit crying and grow up, vote democrat and the U.S.A will be a btter place.

akiame read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2008 | 11:46 AM

The question we must ask ourselves as Americans:

Are we thug crooks manipulating the constitution for personal gain...

or are we truly honorable in intention?



Are we Evil or are we Good?

Slowdog read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 12:28 PM

pissedoff702,

Typical of liberal intolerance. The fact that you can only resort to childish name calling only further proves my point that we cannot have a civilized discussion on the topic at hand. You can only make ad hominem attacks because you cannot come up with supporting evidence for your ludicrous claims and effectively debate the issue. Telling me to go back where I came from is typical liberal intolerance, i.e. "I'll tolerate your opinion as long as it is the same as mine." Your kind have no problem with illegal immigrants but those of us who came her legally and obtained our citizenship are the problem immigrants. You make me sick! I would argue that I am more American than you and the vast majority of the liberals in this country that were born here. And you have the nerve to say I want everyone to be and think like me?

If you wish to talk about "slow," you are the poster child of slow as your spelling and grammar more than display your level of intelligence (or lack thereof). Let me guess, 2nd grade? Your evident lack of brain function only proves that you cannot think (or put together a coherent sentence) whether it be independently or following the lemmings of intolerance that define the left. Either way, it is people like you that truly define the ugly American.

Slowdog read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 12:32 PM

P.S. pissedon702,

For someone touting the individuality, you sure seem to have a problem with my individuality. Telling me to come back when I am ready to "be an American" completely contradicts everything you say is good about the individual. If you truly value individuality as you supposedly claim, then you would value my and every other opinion, especially those of us that were not born in this country.

Again, you truly define the phrase "ugly American."

pissedoff702 read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 4:54 PM

You talk about name calling and Intolerance!!! You discust me you freak! Yes go back to where you came from. Don't lecture me on intolerance, you do want everone to be like you Jackass! Some people here in this country have bad tempers, and like to use bad language (Swear words) to get our point accross to people like you, I do have A problem with Illeagal immigrants, and I don't have a problem with legal immigrants, I have a problem with your (Yes You personally) Stupid writings!! I think you are full of BLEEP! and don't want to listen to anyones point but your own, However wrong it maybe. I do value everone's opinion I don't value yours Your a nothing but a worthless BLEEP Why don't you go back to El salvador, Do you really want to start attacking me. If someone has a diffrent opinion than yours you can have a civilized disscussion you don't want that you want everone to agree with and discuss that, that is not freedom, You are not an American, Don't make me give you a civics Lesson Garbage Man!

Slowdog read my blog
Jul 1, 2008 | 7:08 PM

Spoken like a true liberal. The intellect just oozes from every pore. I would not expect anything less. You have more than proven my point. Thank you.

pissedoff702 read my blog
Jul 2, 2008 | 12:17 PM

You have proven mine, People like don't belong here in America you are a peice of S H I T! You want people to be tolerant of your intolerance! You CRANKS are all the same.

YyinYyangMan read my blog view my photos
Jul 2, 2008 | 8:19 PM

Thomas Jefferson by his own words was an anti-federalist patriot. He saw the inherent need for a periodical revolution to insure the Constitution remain what it was mean to be- for and by the people. Redrawing the Constitution now would be certain death with dictators and tyrants in control of the proceedings. Having enough of the People with enough of a backbone to insure a proper revolution would be exactly what he had in mind for its evolution. With the people divided among themselves this simply is not a possibility. Fault finding and shrinking from controversy is what keeps the People away from government and is what keeps crooked dictators in control. Jefferson even once stated that Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, when 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49. Something that can be fought over for god knows how long. What his point was as with the point of the Constitution, in to ensure the rights of all of the People; not to chop and hem as seen fit at the time by those who are only concerned for their own welfare or benefit. I think its high time for ALL the People to pull their heads out of their asses and start thinking about the welfare of everyone not just themselves.
God Bless America!

lifeliberty read my blog
Jul 5, 2008 | 1:26 AM

Someone said that civilisations only last about two hundred years. I think that person was right; if any civilisation extends beyond that period it is because it is refreshed in some way. For Jefferson this observation is realistically summarised as patriots overcoming tyrants.

Perhaps he was looking at British history, which is cyclical in this way. Jefferson was well aquainted with the history of his ancestors before there had begun to be a history of the United States.

When Jefferson enumerated the faults and tyrannies of a king (George III) whose rule he felt bound to reject, he did what had been done before in the case of Charles I. The Petiton of Right in 1628 complained of the abuses of power of Charles I. This document was followed by a revolutionary war, and the establishment of a republic in England. While the Stuarts were restored after eleven years they had lost a great deal of their power. When James II later began to abuse the royal authority again he in turn was rejected and replaced by the Parliament.

Other imperious English kings who were forced into line were King John and Richard II. Not only was King John forced to sign Magna Charta, but his son Henry III was three times made to swear to uphold it.

akiame read my blog view my photos
Jul 9, 2008 | 1:04 PM

All great thinkers are "Before their time"...

So when is it going to ever be the "time" for all people to be great thinkers?

Scotsman read my blog
Jul 13, 2008 | 8:43 PM

Dear Pissedoff,

You had better go back and study up on the purpose of the Constitution. It was not written to protect us from different issues. It was written to protect us from the frailties of men. ie: greed, corruption, dishonesty and any other negatives you would care to mention. All of those things have not changed since its inception. Now, as to voting Democrat and us being better off. If you like your taxes going through the stratosphere, and your looking forward to walking or peddling your bike across country because you can no longer afford to drive, then go ahead and vote your marxist/socialist boyfriend Obama! Before you go calling me a Republican, I am not happy with them either! One is taking us to Hades in a jet plane the other in a fast train! They are all giving us the same political BS. Every good coach on the planet knows that when the team is struggling it is time to get back to basics!!! We as a country must get back to our basic principals if we are to survive!

codromystro read my blog
Jul 16, 2008 | 5:56 PM

The problem I see is that when States have the power to totally govern, in a State such as Utah the Church has a lot of influence on this
States politics.......in some cases I think some federal regulation is needed in order to not become more the divided States but the United States. This red and blue idea just separates us more, each with their own agenda

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Slowdog

My name in Enrico and I come from El Salvador. I came to this country almost 15 years ago to have a better life for my family. I did it the legal way and waited my turn. Even though I come from a different country, I am an American. I am proud of my heritage and where I came from but I am here now and this is the country I love and the country I am proud to be a citizen of. God bless America! She is truly the nation above all nations.

Member Since: 10/17/2007