WHICH one of the 3 primary authors of the Federalist papers is your favorite and why?

WHICH of the 85 papers is your favorite and why?

And finally, who died first on the same day exactly 50 years to the day after they signed the Declaration of Independence? Adams or Jefferson?

Also, Microdot or Micropane and why?

Is Sheena Easton really just misunderstood?

Enquiring minds want to know:thumbsup:

Adams bought it first if I recall. HOWEVER, both men died on the same day.

Easy....

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." --Madison, Federalist 47.

Jefferson died first.


Sheena Easton: I'd hit it.

Easy....

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." --Madison, Federalist 47.

Jefferson died first.


Sheena Easton: I'd hit it.

I ALWAYS GET THAT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

What about Jeffersons letters about the debate of head and heart. Its a tear jerker, though not a paper for sure.

Sheena??????? More men have been on her that the Titanic, give me Bjork.

Easy....

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." --Madison, Federalist 47.

Jefferson died first.


Sheena Easton: I'd hit it.


You didn't answer question number FOUR....:D

I ALWAYS GET THAT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

What about Jeffersons letters about the debate of head and heart. Its a tear jerker, though not a paper for sure.

Sheena??????? More men have been on her that the Titanic, give me Bjork.


You probably got it wrong because the story goes that Adams' last words were something like "Jefferson still lives." Regardless, it's pretty amazing in a kinda creepy sorta way how they timed it.

Jefferson was so eloquent. I would love to see what he would have penned for the Federalist papers, although, Madison and him were two of a kind on so many things.

You probably got it wrong because the story goes that Adams' last words were something like "Jefferson still lives." Regardless, it's pretty amazing in a kinda creepy sorta way how they timed it.

Jefferson was so eloquent. I would love to see what he would have penned for the Federalist papers, although, Madison and him were two of a kind on so many things.


Not to mention that you know....him and Hamilton HATED each other. Only Burr probably hated Hamilton more.

I Sheena??????? More men have been on her that the Titanic, give me Bjork.

The greatest ever. 6 French Opens, 5 Wimbledons and 4 US Opens. Unreal.

The greatest ever. 6 French Opens, 5 Wimbledons and 4 US Opens. Unreal.


yeah kinda wondered why ttug was in love with Bjorn..........NTTAWWT:eek:

I like Madison because of his work on checks and balances.

That said, I still like #10 better than #51. Particularly for its indictment of the two-party system:The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.
Jefferson (and he fooled Adams).

Blotter (http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=129645). No muss no fuss and pretty pictures.

I sure don't understand Sheena Easton. I'm always getting her confused with Sheila E.

The greatest ever. 6 French Opens, 5 Wimbledons and 4 US Opens. Unreal.

The SINGER Bjork..........from ICELAND.......NOT, the swede Tennis player........not my kind of guy.............I dont do guys....literally.

The SINGER Bjork..........from ICELAND.......NOT, the swede Tennis player........not my kind of guy.............I dont do guys....literally.


potayto-potahto.

WHICH one of the 3 primary authors of the Federalist papers is your favorite and why?

WHICH of the 85 papers is your favorite and why?

And finally, who died first on the same day exactly 50 years to the day after they signed the Declaration of Independence? Adams or Jefferson?

Also, Microdot or Micropane and why?

Is Sheena Easton really just misunderstood?

Enquiring minds want to know:thumbsup:

Hamilton...
Federalist 10.
Cannot remember
never heard of either one.
Did anyone see it coming when she got killed off in Miami Vice?
Damn that took me by surprised--she looked good in Miami Vice...

Hamilton

Hamilton? Author of #84?
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

Hamilton? Author of #84?
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.


.... the next few sentences:

They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.



Note how the arguments about "the right to privacy" have gone in recent years. People (conservatives) have said that since no "right to privacy" appears in the constitution, it does not exist in terms of a restriction on government powers. Do you think that is unrelated to the danger Hamilton spoke to?

Hamilton? Author of #84?I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

I can see his point...if you affirm that the Constitution is merely a list of CANS...and anything outside of that list...are CANNOTS, not saying this was the best course, but in the 18th century ethic...it made sense.

But that isn't why he is my favorite...he is my favorite because his life is the most interesting...from start to finish.

He had it all...a whorish mother, a third world start, the Horatio Alger myth, war veteran, arguer with our nation's father, coniver, adulterer, deciever, idea man and martyr...everyone else...meh.

But my love of history is based on stories that are alive with good true narrative.

" confine myself to their aptitude for ENFORCING the Constitution, by keeping the several departments of power within their due bounds, without particularly considering them as provisions for ALTERING the Constitution itself."

Food for thought eh?

People (conservatives) have said that since no "right to privacy" appears in the constitution, it does not exist in terms of a restriction on government powers. Hamilton was naive in thinking that absent a bill of rights, the Constitution would be interpreted as minimalist on government rights to intrude into the lives of citizens. Much Constitutional jurisprudence consists in using the bill of rights to limit the powers that are explicitly granted to the government by the Constitution.

The right to privacy is seen, even by its strong advocates, as a mere constitutional "penumbra" that one must squint to discern.

Hamilton was naive in thinking that absent a bill of rights, the Constitution would be interpreted as minimalist on government rights to intrude into the lives of citizens. Much Constitutional jurisprudence consists in using the bill of rights to limit the powers that are explicitly granted to the government by the Constitution.

The right to privacy is seen, even by its strong advocates, as a mere constitutional "penumbra" that one must squint to discern.

Not to muddy the waters here....but have you ever tried to pursue happiness or enjoy liberty when you have no privacy?

WHICH one of the 3 primary authors of the Federalist papers is your favorite and why?
tough call Hamilton, because he wrote #84 though he was originally opposed to it.
I could say John Jay just to be contrarian

WHICH of the 85 papers is your favorite and why?
#84, lead to the Bill ofRights

And finally, who died first on the same day exactly 50 years to the day after they signed the Declaration of Independence? Adams or Jefferson?

JEFFERSON: and yes Adam's last words were "JeffersonLives".My fave FF any guy who says a revolution would be good every century or so is okay by me.Plus they named a TV show after his progeny

Also, Microdot or Micropane and why?

IT'S WINDOWPANE MOREON!!!!! I've never really had any quality dot, lord knows I tried, usually strychnine, but my first adventure was 1/2 of a 4 Way Windowpane at an AC/DC (Highway to Hell Tour) so it holds a very special place.But if I had my drothers,German Liquiform l-25 dropped directly into the eye.

Is Sheena Easton really just misunderstood?
Yes, she was pop crap who luckily shagged a genius for awhile creating some mystique of legitamacy

Not to muddy the waters here....but have you ever tried to pursue happiness or enjoy liberty when you have no privacy?I agree completely. My point is that the right to privacy would have been better protected by putting it explicitly into the bill of rights than by leaving it as something to be inferred through the sort of indirect reasoning you apply.

The epithet "penumbra" was used by Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You see how hard Douglas struggles to establish a clear right of privacy in the gaps between the explicit rights, invoking vague "emanations" and "penumbras." Contra Hamilton, I assert that a without a bill of rights that explicitly enumerates certain rights, it would be even harder to establish a protected right to privacy.


Meanwhile without an explicit right to privacy, we must also worry that strict constructionists, such as Scalia, will roll back the rights established in Griswold, Lawrence, and Roe on the ground that if it ain't spelled out in the Constitution, it don't count, penumbras or no.

I've never really had any quality dot, lord knows I tried, usually strychnineAin't that the truth, brother!

The one time I did liquid in the eye was a Dead show circa 1979. Good times, but I can't honestly say it was that all different from per os.

I agree completely. My point is that the right to privacy would have been better protected by putting it explicitly into the bill of rights than by leaving it as something to be inferred through the sort of indirect reasoning you apply.

The epithet "penumbra" was used by Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You see how hard Douglas struggles to establish a clear right of privacy in the gaps between the explicit rights, invoking vague "emanations" and "penumbras." Contra Hamilton, I assert that a without a bill of rights that explicitly enumerates certain rights, it would be even harder to establish a protected right to privacy.


Meanwhile without an explicit right to privacy, we must also worry that strict constructionists, such as Scalia, will roll back the rights established in Griswold, Lawrence, and Roe on the ground that if it ain't spelled out in the Constitution, it don't count, penumbras or no.

The writers of the Constitution went to great pains tio make the document flexible. Making a document of stone means to define a thing. Defining a thing kills it. This was at the forefront of writing the thing.

However, now that we live in a time where we are all finks, there is no privacy and we have been striving to destroy human hope and trust...why not?

Defining a thing kills it. ... However, now that we live in a time where we are all finks, there is no privacy and we have been striving to destroy human hope and trust...why not?Good observation.

Funny though, we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights as we know it today if it weren't for the Anti-Federalists...

Now that's some real food for thought.