Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando

[SamSpade]

Why are most instructors liberals? Not disputing the idea, just wondering why it is the case?

Bill O'Reilly had a partial answer a few years back. He started out saying that liberals have the best ideas, but the problem is, none of them work in the real world. In academia, you have the luxury of living in a world where ideas reign over practicality. So many of them love the concept of communism, because they don't live in the real world where communism doesn't work because people want to better themselves and that under communism, those in power are not governed by altruistic desire. They also are surrounded by other academics who reinforce their concepts of idealism, and they tend to look down on the rabble, who don't have lots of letters after their name.

So they have a distorted view of the world.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Hate to remind you, but I do work at the Census. Somehow I had a feeling you would challenge it.

1790 Census:

Virginia 691,737
Pennsylvania 434,373
North Carolina 393,751
Massachusetts 378,787
New York 340,120
Maryland 319,728
South Carolina 249,073
Connecticut 237,946
New Jersey 184,139
New Hamshire 141,885
Maine 96,540
Vermont 85,425
Georgia 82,548
Rhode Island 68,875
Delaware 59,096
(West Virginia 55,873)* wasn't a state yet.

You are right about the population centers, but we were fairly agrarian back then.

I stand corrected, but the point stands that without the Electoral College, the states that had less population would be overwhelmed.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Bill O'Reilly had a partial answer a few years back. He started out saying that liberals have the best ideas, but the problem is, none of them work in the real world. In academia, you have the luxury of living in a world where ideas reign over practicality. So many of them love the concept of communism, because they don't live in the real world where communism doesn't work because people want to better themselves and that under communism, those in power are not governed by altruistic desire. They also are surrounded by other academics who reinforce their concepts of idealism, and they tend to look down on the rabble, who don't have lots of letters after their name.

So they have a distorted view of the world.

I remember that show. It is probably true at this time. The, I remembered, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) did propagandize the socialist life and promoted getting people into the walks of life that would influence the political outcomes in the future

 

[Spoiled]

My professor is clearly not a liberel, he refered to the clinton era at the '8 year rape of the constitution'... We are going over the document piece by piece, we just got to the constitution itself like 2 weeks ago, the rest was influences... And the Federalist Papers where propaganda to get it ratified... The Federalists (took the name to confuse the everyday person, to gain support) werent even federalists, they where against federalism they wanted a really strong national government the Anti-federalists (modern day democrats) where the real federalists but named themselves that to show they where anti the other party... The average person did not support the constitution but the articles of confederation at the time...

 

[SamSpade]

And the Federalist Papers where propaganda to get it ratified...

One man's propaganda is another man's public relations. I found a lot of brilliant work in there. One I've cited before is the foresight to see an end to the expansion of the House of Representatives (which actually ended more over dispute than legislative fiat). The premise was that too many representatives would produce LESS representation, due to human nature and the desire to align behind a strong personality.

The Federalists (took the name to confuse the everyday person, to gain support) werent even federalists, they where against federalism they wanted a really strong national government

Yes, and no. Yes, they wanted something stronger than what we had, which was nearly no centralization of power, because as a fledgling nation, we were far too vulnerable. You have to understand that at the time, people regarded themselves strongly as Virginians or New Yorkers - this was not just their native land, but their concept of a *nation*. This mentality is what made the American Revolution SO hard to sell - who wants to fight for Massachusetts, anyway (the premise in Patrick Henry's famous speech)?

And no, because they retained an enormous amount of power for the states themselves.

I'm probably not explaining this well. Because, you're largely right - the Anti-Federalists succeeded over time in modifying what finally was produced and what also became the Bill of Rights - but their objections ran along the lines of "these are rights we already have" and will they be lost in a federal government.

the Anti-federalists (modern day democrats) where the real federalists but named themselves that to show they where anti the other party... The average person did not support the constitution but the articles of confederation at the time...

The average person, like today, could give a rat's azz so long as nobody bothered him too much. It's also probably a misconception to claim the anti-federalists as modern-day democrats - very much of what is espoused by modern day democrats would be anathema to Democrats of a mere hundred years ago. Parties change a LOT over time.

 

[2ndAmendment]

... the Anti-federalists (modern day democrats) where the real federalists but named themselves that to show they where anti the other party... The average person did not support the constitution but the articles of confederation at the time...

Eh, sort of, at least historically. But, big BUT, the modern Democrats would be an anathema to the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists would be more like the modern Constitution Party. The founders wanted a strong central common defense system of government, but they wanted the states and people to be supreme over the central government except in very specific areas which were very clearly defined. They also recognized that the government limits may need to change so they designed a way to amend the Constitution. Modern Democrats are not liberal in thought; they want a very liberal (loose) interpretation of the Constitution in order to increase the power (control) of the Federal government. Two entirely different meanings of the word liberal. The Republicans are more liberal in thought but want a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution. The Republicans want the people to be able to control their own lives and make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences. The Democrats want government to provide for the people (with the control strings attached - money) and want the central government to "protect" the people. That is more the way the Communists thought in the Soviet Union. SamSpade is very right when he says the parties have changed drastically in the last 100 years; heck, they have changed drastically in the last 50 years. The founders wanted the Constitution to be interpreted as they wrote it.

"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 to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats (especially the Democrats) want to do this because it limits their power at the national level. Many lawyers, the ACLU, and activist judges are especially guilty of "trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it"

If you really understand the history of the Constitution, I am very surprised that you could possibly be a Democrat. I would think you would be a Constitutionalist or at least a Republican.