Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

question 1) no i would not.i would demand some changes before i would ratify.

i would demand a clear provision declaring the sovereignty of the states.a clear definition of the purpose of the constitution written within itself ie that it was designed to limit the power government. further statements in how the document should be read,understood and
interpreted should be in the document itself.something like this would be a good start: If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the
Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. from GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796

the constotioun is to make clear that actions by the federal government alone do not make something constotooinal.

the general welfare and the Necessary and Proper Clause should be stricken from the constitution before ratification because it can be abused to imply unlimited powers to the federal govermint.

it must be made clear that the commerce clause is to be used only to regulate foreign and interstate commerce.the langue must be more direct in meaning so that it can not be abused to imply all commerce and for what action does not effect commerce? if the federal
government can regulate all commerce it can regulate all things making it not a limited constitutional government with separated powers but a power hungry overreaching one.

it should be made clear that protectionism of politicly preferred industries through tariffs should be made illegal and all should fall under equal protection under the law.

article 1 section 8 in regards to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" should use stronger language and insist that all paper money be backed by gold and silver.

if we are to fear the executives power by putting fourth a legislative veto why do we not have the same rule apply to the courts? this veto power over the court should be instituted.

the entire judiciary needs to be considered because as it stands in the current constitution can only lead to judicial oligarchy.while judges can still serve for a lifetime they should have to go through a re conformation process and their terms in office clearly defined.

if all these were done or if they were brought up at ratification debates and openly discussed i would consider ratifying for ny.

question 2)
no the british government did not act wisely towards the colonists. we must understand the nature and politics of english government and understand how the colonists viewed themselves in relation to that government. in 1668 the glorious revolution took place in
england.no longer would the king be the sole arbiter of power but his power would now be shared and checked by a parliament. the parliament would hold the purse strings to the empire.john locke an English philosopher and physician believed that political sovereignty
belongs to the people and not to the king.the people give their power to parliament and they can take away that power.the executive should get its power from the legislative branch.the colonists did not have a representation in their own parliament in england.the british
refused to give them any.the english thought they could and should tax and control the colonists as they did british citizenry regardless if the colonists could decide their own destiny or at the very least air their grievances.

in 1651 the british parliament passed The Navigation Act.the act contrary to open and free markets where the cheapest price for the best product is decided by the consumer and seller for an agreed upon price,the navigation acts used mercantilism (similar in ways to
hamilton tariffs) favoring british transportation in british ships for the procurement of british goods.this of course harmed the colonists who could not if they choose buy english goods and have them shipped for cheaper by other nations.it effectively unfairly enriched the
british economy through force and favoritism. this caused tension between the colonies and and Britain. the states started to ignore the acts passed by parliament and started illegally smuggling tobacco through The Dutch colony of New Netherland.

in The 1660 the parliament added a new act stating that crews on the ships had to be 3 quarters english and that sugar, tobacco,and cotton could only be sold to england or other colonies.the acts were repealed but then new ones were put in place all backed by the
strong arm of the red coats who were given permission to search any home for contraband.writ of assistance was passed by parliament which helped inspectors carry out their duties of searching homes without warrants and without cause.writ holders could give their power
over to whom ever they choose led to a class of trusted political loyalists searching the homes of the colonists.if while searching a home the writ holders caused private property damage they did not have to pay for it.this lead to bullying and intimidation.perhaps if the
parliament and come up with more non partisan judicious system to hire its enforcers to stop the smuggling, the revolution may have been avoided.but the parliament kept treating the colonies like second class citizens and not as englishmen with the same rights as a
citizen who lived in england. all this without a voice or vote from the colonies.the colonies hated the navigation acts because it hurt them but the fact that their homes could be invaded at any moment by overzealous politically connected goons incensed them.added on
top of that there were supposed to pay higher taxes to pay for the army who's job was to keep suppressing them very much like china charging the family of the executed for the bullet.the colonists still seeing themselves as british tried ti challenge the writ of assistance by
calling it violated natural law.they lost the case.they based their grievance on the fact that englanders fell under Fundamental Laws of England written by Blackstone and implemented in the Constitution of the United Kingdom.

parliament levied a stamp tax on the colonists who were ordered to put a stamp on the products it taxed.not being a heavy tax the parliament thought it would cause no resistance. but the colonists at this point wee fed up with the constant degradation of having to pay
taxes without properly being represented and having a voice in parliament. in ny major thomas james was quoted as saying he "would cram the stamps down American throats at the point of his sword."this did not ease tensions. samuel addams stated in effect if the
parliament could tax trade it could tax whatever it wanted he questioned what the limit of the government? by what right did it have? he further stated "are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves".

the tea act was yet another tax put on the colonists who despite the mall amount of actual tax were furious that their request and appeals were not being herd in parliament for representation. in boston the sons of liberty retaliated by dressing up as Indians and tossing
the tea overboard. again all this could have been easily avoided if the british government had merely allowed the colonists representation. its not sure that all grievances would have been met but at least the colonists would be able to voice their concerns.

of there were some in parliament who tried to defend the colonies but not many.people like edmond burke who agreed with colonists grievance and thought that england should reconcile. he stated "The House has gone farther; it has declared conciliation admissible,
previous to any submission on the part of America. It has even shot a good deal beyond that mark, and has admitted that the complaints of our former mode of exerting the right of taxation were not wholly unfounded. That right thus exerted is allowed to have something
reprehensible in it, something unwise, or something grievous; since, in the midst of our heat and resentment, we, of ourselves, have proposed a capital alteration; and in order to get rid of what seemed so very exceptionable, have instituted a mode that is altogether new;
one that is, indeed, wholly alien from all the ancient methods and forms of Parliament."patrick henry in his Virginia Resolves stated "since inhabiting in this His Majesty's said colony, all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities that have at any time been held,
enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain." the colonists sent repeal after repeal to england.they originally did not want to break away from england but merely wanted their rights granted back them as englishmen.

in a last ditch effort to settle its complaints with england the colonies sent a letter to the king which was labeled the Olive Branch Petition,the letter was given to Lord Dartmouth, who was the Secretary of State for the American colonies. Lord Dartmouth tried to present the
letter to the King, but he would not receive it continuing the theme that in england the colonist didn't even deserved to be herd.at the very least the king could have herd them out.

question 3)

hamilton continually tried to enlarge the federal governments power via a liberal interpretation of the constitution, the judiciary,the national bank and centralizing power in the federal government instead of the sovereign states .Jefferson strongly disagreed and believed the
power belonged to the people and the states and believed in a strict constitution of the constitution. hamilton derided Jefferson view of governance saying it was an "excessive concern for liberty in public men".

while both were slave owners thomas jefforson came out loudly against slavery while hammilton did not. in a pamphlet titled the notes on the state of virginia -he tried to abolish slavery in virginia.in the first draft of the declaration he lambasted king george for introducing
slavery into the colonies.

hamilton believed in tariffs and protectionism.a system that taxed foreign goods and gave subsidies and special privileges to american companies.to do this hammilton would need a strong consolidated federal government that would enforce those tariffs so that foreign
goods could not flood the states that choose not to abide by the tariffs. tariffs that under hamiltons plan favored and monopolized wealthy northerners who would not have to worry about competition from europe could not work unless the southern states accepted the
tarrifs as well.this is why hamilton in order to cur political favor from wealthy northerners had to call for a more centralized government. john tay or and the jeforsoniouns referred to this as " Monarchy and its hand-maiden consolidation and its other hand madien ambition
and a national government dressed up in popular disguises such as national splendor and national strength".jefersonioun john taylor further criticized hammiltons language in calling for more power to the federal government because it would create national wealth by
pointing out that government wealth did not mean wealthier people,that government backed monopolies were not good for commerce and questioned the logic behind the argument that consolidate powers to the states would create divisions because of the wicked nature
of man that would all of the sudden disappear because there was now a powerful federal government.

while hammiltonieons repeatedly smeared Jefferson as a Jacobin it was actually hamilton who espoused the views of ruso.in hamiltons writings we see a running theme.the words that constantly pop up are, "the public good,the public interest,the public wealth,the publi
safety,the public welfare,the public felicity,the public happiness,the general good,the general interest,the common interest,the national interest,the national happiness,the welfare of the community,the true interest of the community,the permanent welfare of society.

this is very similar language of rousseau who believed that an elite group intelctueal leaders should decide what the general will is and impose it on all.

jefforson said there was no such thing as a general will and feared it. tyranny in the name of the people is still tyranny and an end to individual liberty.

hamilton argued for a national bank saying that the commerce clause allowed it.since it was allowed to regulate commerce as a whole he argued then it would be able to regulate every part of that whole.this meant the government could regulate ever single kind of
commerce. jefforson wrote to then president washington "i have utterly disapproved of the system of the secretary of treasury...his system flowed from principals averse to liberty and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic by creating an influence of his
department over members of the legislature".

hamilton believed in a standing army while jefforson did not.hamilton said the constitution meant when it said the central government should provide for the common defense that this meant to include a standing army. jefforson in his first annual message to congress that
only militias should exist in peace time.

jeffroson and madison of the republican party wrote the kentucky resolves in protest of hamiltons federalist party using the alien and sedition acts.the sedition acts in breach with the first amendment were used by the federalist to intimidate and silence political opposition.
the acts were passed with the notion that during war time aliens and foreigners could not be allowed to criticize the government. the virginia and kentucky resolves argued the sedition acts were unconstitutional and violated the first and tenth amendment's. the 10th
amendment which states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.he argued that the states should be under unlimited submission of the federal

hammiltons tariff plan to take on the old government debt enriched many of the politicly connected in ny. unknowing vets were swindled out of their war bounds by wealthy ny speculators who knew the government was going to back the debt.hamilton had to raise taxes
and use tariffs to give the government enough money to cover the bonds.

which philosophy would a rich person back? that depends.if the rich person wanted to grow his wealth through commerce and exchange goods and services in the free market or wanted to get special favors from the government. if he wanted the latter he would prefer
hamilton who called for tariffs on foreign goods creating monopolies for the rich american manufacturer by removing foreign competition but raising the price of goods for the american consumer.obama instituted a tire tariff on chinese tires.this was supposed to help the
american labour which thought it was being under cut unfairly by chinas cheap tires.now that there would be less competition from china american tire makers (already high compared to chinese goods) will be allowed to se the price not due to supply and demand and the
free market but due to an unfair advantage given to them by the government. this will lead to consumers not paying actual value but inflated and bolstered value.countries during wartime try to cut off trade from the enemies countries and its friends.tariffs do to us in
peace time in peace time what are enemies try to do to us during wartime try to do to each other. manufactures 1 consumers zero.

obama is very much like hamilton in another fashion. the (these days very politicly charged) fed(since the chairman is put there by the president) recently did some Quantitative Easing.this means that the fed prints more money (of course not backed by anything) out of thin
air because it wants and needs it lowering the price of the dollar in the meantime(hint hint buy gold...now!)it doesn't actually print money to that these days they just hit a button and...wala! then will then use this magic made from thin air credit to buy assets from the bank.
usaly assets their not using for credit or anything else. basically a swap.new cash for the assets.why would they do that? cause they nee to free up credit at the banks.the banks are sitting on some of these assets maybe the banks dont have the cash or capital directly on
hand to lend.they want start lending.small business, people who want to start business etc.if they remove some of those assets they will be free to lend more money.so the newly printed fed money and the proceeds from these assets sales go to the borrowers. basically
not capitalism but more like intervention and government planning into the free market(i know... where just crazy for calling this kind of thing socialist.)

The Panic of 1792

george washington had a problem.there was a financial panic going on in the states.the federal government had taken on the debt from the revolutionary wars from states like Massachusetts and south Carolina. the total debt was now over sixty million. speculators
jumped on the debt securities.wanting to corner the market on sixes or 6 precent bonds by driving down the pice of bank of ny stock william duer wanted to start his own ny bank. hamilton then Treasury Secretary and founder of the bank of ny and was not happy.he said "
I have learnt with infinite pain the circumstance of a new Bank having started up in your City.Its effects cannot but be in every view pernicious, the whole system of public Credit, by disgusting all sober Citizens and giving a wild air to everything." the ny bonds price went
through the roof and eventually the bubble burst causing the bonds to drop to drop by a quarter in a very short amount of time.so what did the interventionist protectionst mercantile hammilton do? why make the treasury borrow money from the banks and buy up all the
bonds making their value high again.brokers were told by the treasury to accept the bonds as collateral for loans and the federal government would guarantee the collateral. this is very similar to what obama is doing down at the fed today.

question 4) Washington's farewell address is wrongly considered a call to isolationism. one must remember when and why he said it.at the time the country was split between the federalist and anti federalist. the federalist favored Britain while the anti federalists favored
france.washington was trying to preserve the union and did not want to see the country split apart.washington knew the importance of alliances. without the french the american revolution would have been lost.what he was talking about in his farewell address was not
letting the passions of nation tear it apart. constitutional founder james wilson said on waiting to be attacked before attacking (on pre emptive war) "Every principle of policy must be subverted, and the government must declare war, before they are prepared to carry it on.
Whatever may be the provocation, however important the object in view, and however necessary dispatch and secrecy may be, still the declaration must precede the preparation, and the enemy will be informed of your intention, not only before you are equipped for an
attack, but even before you are fortified for a defense. The consequence is too obvious to require any further delineation, and no man who regards the dignity and safety of his country can deny the necessity of a military force, under the control and with the restrictions
which the new constitution provides"

in the clinton years al quidea attacked the united states and its allies repeatedly. On December 29, 1992 they attacked a hotel in yemen directed at american troops heading for Somalia.
in 1996 al qudiea tried to assassinate bill clinton with a bomb under a bridge in manila.in 1998 the us embassy in east africa was bombed (clinton sent some cruise missiles but for the most part did nothing as magnificent as an invasion of the threats host country).in 2000
a the uss cole was bombed.the clinton administrations insistence on non intervention and doing zero to kill the threat allowed al quidea to strike us on 911.was it in americas interest for bill clinton to act stronger to protect american lives? i think so.

democracy building as whole should not just be accepted at face value or as an end goal however when american interests can be preserved we should consider it.look at the marshal plan which was devised to help the countries after ww2 and to keep europe from soviet
influence. in a world where radical tyrannical regimes breed hatred to their people the only real way to permanently stop future attacks is to change the environment of those nations.they should be given the opportunity to choose of they want to remain hostile to the
united states not held under the gun and told to so..let us keep in mind that Palestinians have voted to keep hamas a terrorist organization in charge of gaza.this means they have made a choice.the Israelis should now feel free to ease their roe (rules of engagement)
when or if they go back into gaza.the territory should be labeled a terrorist entity and ww2 style carpet bombing should commence at dawn until complete and utter victory is secured.not via negotiations with the loser dictating the conditions of surrender this time.the
bombing should not end until the enemy state perishes or submits completely or which ever comes first.but it is important that the world,the Israelis and the u.s. know that the Palestinians have chosen to dig their own grave and not just its leaders.this cant be known
without elections. god allows man to choose his path.we can not serve him if we have no choice.america is like god allowing people the choice to decide if they want to be our friends.does any one think that an invasion or arming the green revolution in iran will lead to anti
western elections? if they have honest elections and still choose to be our enemies then we know where they stand but we cant know as long as they are oppressed by their not so benevolent dictators. these are things we have to decide before aiding a foreign
country.wether it serves our interest and how vital is it for national security.is north koreas nukes a threat to the united states? as the wall street journal repeatedly points out the north koreans play this game every couple of years.they scream they have nukes and naive
politicians like bill clinton bribe them to behave.do they have a history of suicidal jihad? no.are they say more of a direct threat to us then say iran who does have that history? this does not mean that we bomb invade and nation build every time we have a problem but it
does mean we do not shirk from our responsibilities and our duty to protect our lives.in ww2 we aligned with soviets to defeat the germans.this lead to an empowered soviet block in europe and a very tense cold war.in Afghanistan we armed the mujhadien to defeat the
russians.that defeat was the beginning of the end of the soviet regime.we use this strategy time and time again.we hae to.when we are short on friends we must align with the lesser evil to survive. to many wars are considered wars of choice instead of defense even
though we have fought wars of choice in the past think of western expansion in the united states.in our day an age we can not allow suicidal jihadi state sponsors of terror armed with nukes attack us first till we retaliate.if this means holding our nose and making friends
with the saudies then so be it.tomorrow we will hold some one elses hand if they turn and then another.we will be the whore of alinces but we will surrvive.we have no other choice.

there are many conflicts that we do not get involved in.we have done nothing towards the north koreans.the current presidents main focus seems to be to make sure that Israel is not allowed to build settlements in its capital.we have nothing to stop the genocide in darfur.
the un wont even call it genocide. the un thinks global warming is the problem in Darfur. we seem to be taking an non interventionist policy towards the poles and the eastern block countries that are threat from an ever more threatening russia by removing are missile
defense shield.we say and do nothing about the boer genocide in south africa.we did nothing to stop the russians from rolling over gerogia.we have and continue to do absluty zer to stop iran from arming itself with nukes and threatning our intrests in the middle east.we
have not invaded canda to take over their wonderful health care system and eat their wonderful bacon.

question 5)

when comparing the mill to slavery: