"I learn with pleasure that republican principles are predominant in your state, because I conscientiously believe that governments founded in them are most friendly to the happiness of the people at large; and especially of a people so capable of self government as ours. I have been ever opposed to the party, so falsely called federalists, because I believe them desirous of introducing, into our government, authorities hereditary or otherwise independant [sic] of the national will. these always consume the public contributions and oppress the people with labour & poverty."
Indeed, the very issue that we are discussing is the fact that the authorities have become independent of the national will (or have otherwise subverted the national will).
Also, there is much debate about why the Articles were replaced, and I don't really like your simplistic view of the matter, it was a very complex time and arguments for and against were extremely varied, but your point is taken.
I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.
I would also point out that I consider the SCOTUS compromised now too.
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas Jefferson
Also a side note is that the only oath I have ever sworn was to the defence of the Constitution, so I am biased. (I think in a good way)
> Actually, though Jefferson may have lost the debate, I think that history has proven him correct.
The original point was about Obama saying his top priority is keeping America safe. Whether or not TJ was right goes to what should be his top priority, not what it is under the document that defines the scope of his responsibilities.
> I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.
That's a double-edged sword, because a strict textual interpretation of the 4th amendment doesn't get you where you need to be re: surveillance. Remember, the whole "expectation of privacy" is a "living Constitution" bolt-on. What the 4th amendment's text actually lays out is basically a protection against what would be trespass if done by a private person: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/.... All of the things explicitly mentioned in the amendment are things in which people have property interests. You have no property interests in the records AT&T keeps about what you do online--extending the 4th amendment to that requires reliance on the whole "expectation of privacy" framework that simply did not exist when the Constitution was written.
> “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
You're begging the question. What is the "spirit manifested in the debates?" 55 delegates debated the provisions of the document, and they had 55 points of view. Whose "spirit" should we give credit to? The literal text is the best evidence of the compromise that actually came out of that process.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/content-im...
"I learn with pleasure that republican principles are predominant in your state, because I conscientiously believe that governments founded in them are most friendly to the happiness of the people at large; and especially of a people so capable of self government as ours. I have been ever opposed to the party, so falsely called federalists, because I believe them desirous of introducing, into our government, authorities hereditary or otherwise independant [sic] of the national will. these always consume the public contributions and oppress the people with labour & poverty."
Indeed, the very issue that we are discussing is the fact that the authorities have become independent of the national will (or have otherwise subverted the national will).
Also, there is much debate about why the Articles were replaced, and I don't really like your simplistic view of the matter, it was a very complex time and arguments for and against were extremely varied, but your point is taken.
I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.
I would also point out that I consider the SCOTUS compromised now too.
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas Jefferson
Also a side note is that the only oath I have ever sworn was to the defence of the Constitution, so I am biased. (I think in a good way)