Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:12:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2010 11:14:01 PM EDT by sherrick13]
And the anti Federalist Democratic-Republican Jefferson knew it.


There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the Federal .gov to buy land from another nation. In fact Jefferson was very much against the forming of the Bank of the United States.

There was much discussion about this within the Jefferson Administration and there were suggestions from proudly proclaiming the Constitutionality or to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing land purchase by the .gov all the way to doing nothing.



Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate .

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/1/auj121.shtml

Jefferson decided to do near nothing. He just sent the Treaty over to the Senate with a little note saying "The less said about the Constitutionality of this the better." As we know it passed.



1803 and the .gov was already pissing on the Constitution.




Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:15:14 PM EDT
Fine.

Give it back.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:16:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
And the anti Federalist Democratic-Republican Jefferson knew it.


There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the Federal .gov to buy land from another nation. In fact Jefferson was very much against the forming of the Bank of the United States.

There was much discussion about this within the Jefferson Administration and there were suggestions from proudly proclaiming the Constitutionality or to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing land purchase by the .gov all the way to doing nothing.



Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate .

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/1/auj121.shtml

Jefferson decided to do near nothing. He just sent the Treaty over to the Senate with a little note saying "The less said about the Constitutionality of this the better." As we know it passed.



1803 and the .gov was already pissing on the Constitution.







You still sore because the Vikings lost the first game of the season against (gasp!) The Saints???
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:17:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Black-Tiger:
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
And the anti Federalist Democratic-Republican Jefferson knew it.


There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the Federal .gov to buy land from another nation. In fact Jefferson was very much against the forming of the Bank of the United States.

There was much discussion about this within the Jefferson Administration and there were suggestions from proudly proclaiming the Constitutionality or to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing land purchase by the .gov all the way to doing nothing.



Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate .

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/1/auj121.shtml

Jefferson decided to do near nothing. He just sent the Treaty over to the Senate with a little note saying "The less said about the Constitutionality of this the better." As we know it passed.



1803 and the .gov was already pissing on the Constitution.







You still sore because the Vikings lost the first game of the season against (gasp!) The Saints???


Wat?


Do you see MN anywhere near my name? I couldn't care less about either of those teams.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:18:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SaintMichaelArms:
Fine.

Give it back.


To the French or to the Indians?
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:18:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:18:51 PM EDT
Maybe, but it was in the country's best interest.

Just like Lincoln's unConstitutional effort to save the Union.


There, that should add fuel to your shit stirring thread.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:20:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:20:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:
Maybe, but it was in the country's best interest.

Just like Lincoln's unConstitutional effort to save the Union.


There, that should add fuel to your shit stirring thread.
Oh shit.


Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:23:18 PM EDT
Yep. The French stole it from Spain @ gunpoint.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:25:00 PM EDT
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:28:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tony-Ri:
Yep. The French stole it from Spain @ gunpoint.


Wel that actually brings up a point- would it have been Constitutional to take the area by force rather than by treaty?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:29:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.



You need some new material.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:29:29 PM EDT
If its not specifically mentioned as against the constitution, its good to go right?
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:31:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


You want to be a Spanish subject, hoss?
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:35:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By g3shooter:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


You want to be a Spanish subject, hoss?

Good point.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:47:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:54:47 PM EDT
It was definitely unconstitutional. It was also the correct thing to do.

Congress could have refused to fund the deal - but they knew that would provoke a war with the French.

It was one of the best things Jefferson ever did.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:00:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.

well.... sarkozy has criticized obama as beingg to socialist with america. I imagine the south woul dbe better off at the moment to free it of a government that is creeping towards socialism and give it to a government that recognizes how socialism failed .
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:02:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

then the illegals i california would come to arizona nevada and oregon in droves to escape mexico. not to mention the damned californian americans. not sre which would do more harm.

build a moat and well discuss this plan further.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:09:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

Pay them all you want, my "fellow American."

We've got 'em out-gunned, and would thoroughly fuck their shit up if they ever attempted such a foolish venture.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:10:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By victorgonzales:

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

then the illegals i california would come to arizona nevada and oregon in droves to escape mexico. not to mention the damned californian americans. not sre which would do more harm.

build a moat and well discuss this plan further.

fuck you too.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:17:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By victorgonzales:

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

then the illegals i california would come to arizona nevada and oregon in droves to escape mexico. not to mention the damned californian americans. not sre which would do more harm.

build a moat and well discuss this plan further.

fuck you too.


Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:34:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EXPcustom:

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By victorgonzales:

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

then the illegals i california would come to arizona nevada and oregon in droves to escape mexico. not to mention the damned californian americans. not sre which would do more harm.

build a moat and well discuss this plan further.

fuck you too.



Good on you for quoting that so quickly, have you reported me yet?

I'll bet nothing would make you happier than to see me banned, so that you might continue to propagate the idea that California is full of pussies with no dissent from other Californians.

Sorry Sherrick for the hijack. I'll go now.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:42:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 12:42:39 AM EDT by PROFESSORCHAOS]
So am I now free from the reign of the Kenyan?
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 12:53:34 AM EDT
I'm not sure if there is a girl fight going on or if we're watching a break up in real time.

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:45:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

Pay them all you want, my "fellow American."

We've got 'em out-gunned, and would thoroughly fuck their shit up if they ever attempted such a foolish venture.


Too bad you've only got ten round magazines and bullet buttons.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:46:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
I'm not sure if there is a girl fight going on or if we're watching a break up in real time.



Link Posted: 9/12/2010 1:50:18 AM EDT
Napoleon was hard up for some cash to start a liitle war in Europe. Just like Alaska, we got a bargin.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:00:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
And the anti Federalist Democratic-Republican Jefferson knew it.


There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the Federal .gov to buy land from another nation. In fact Jefferson was very much against the forming of the Bank of the United States.

There was much discussion about this within the Jefferson Administration and there were suggestions from proudly proclaiming the Constitutionality or to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing land purchase by the .gov all the way to doing nothing.



Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate .

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/1/auj121.shtml

Jefferson decided to do near nothing. He just sent the Treaty over to the Senate with a little note saying "The less said about the Constitutionality of this the better." As we know it passed.



1803 and the .gov was already pissing on the Constitution.






Well damn. Go ahead and present your case to federal judges; and let the entire country laugh at you... Male us conservatives look dumber.

I think I may be done with this site There is a whole lot of stupid on here and honestly i feel that it hurts us conservatives. It just seems like night after i night i see one dumb thing after another; i cant keep up with it. Go ahead and keep bitching about made up crap and focusing on obamas fake birth certificate; but i'm done with it. you are hurting the cause... please don't bitch when obama gets re elected when you vote for some obsure 3rd party candidate.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:03:57 AM EDT
If you want to see some bullshit, look how America bullied The West Florida Republic into the union.


I still fly Bonnie Blue.

Long live the West Florida Republic!

Death to James Madison!
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:05:31 AM EDT
Ain't no refunds.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:36:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bcw107:
Originally Posted By Tony-Ri:
Yep. The French stole it from Spain @ gunpoint.


Wel that actually brings up a point- would it have been Constitutional to take the area by force rather than by treaty?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Actually, yes. It would have.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:37:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
If its not specifically mentioned as against the constitution, its good to go right?

For a State.

IOW, say if Georgia had wanted to do a deal with France for the LA Purchase, they were good to go.

But that evil Jefferson..... Throwing his weight around.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:38:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
It was definitely unconstitutional. It was also the correct thing to do.

Congress could have refused to fund the deal - but they knew that would provoke a war with the French.

It was one of the best things Jefferson ever did.


Actually is was one of the only good things Jefferson did. His Presidency was far from stellar.

But that is for another thread.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:39:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By victorgonzales:

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

then the illegals i california would come to arizona nevada and oregon in droves to escape mexico. not to mention the damned californian americans. not sre which would do more harm.

build a moat and well discuss this plan further.

fuck you too.

Please, let's keep this thread on topic.

It could make for a very interesting discussion.


Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:39:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By EXPcustom:

Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:

Originally Posted By victorgonzales:

Originally Posted By TurboniumOxide:
Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back.

then the illegals i california would come to arizona nevada and oregon in droves to escape mexico. not to mention the damned californian americans. not sre which would do more harm.

build a moat and well discuss this plan further.

fuck you too.



Good on you for quoting that so quickly, have you reported me yet?

I'll bet nothing would make you happier than to see me banned, so that you might continue to propagate the idea that California is full of pussies with no dissent from other Californians.

Sorry Sherrick for the hijack. I'll go now.


Thanks.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:40:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 2:44:36 AM EDT by Dr_Dickie]

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By bcw107:
Originally Posted By Tony-Ri:
Yep. The French stole it from Spain @ gunpoint.


Wel that actually brings up a point- would it have been Constitutional to take the area by force rather than by treaty?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Actually, yes. It would have.

And the purchase could not be construed to be a form of a treaty? Is there something which forbids money to be exchanged when it is a treaty? Or was it just not framed in the form of a treaty with France?




He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.



Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:40:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
And the anti Federalist Democratic-Republican Jefferson knew it.


There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the Federal .gov to buy land from another nation. In fact Jefferson was very much against the forming of the Bank of the United States.

There was much discussion about this within the Jefferson Administration and there were suggestions from proudly proclaiming the Constitutionality or to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing land purchase by the .gov all the way to doing nothing.



Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate .

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/1/auj121.shtml

Jefferson decided to do near nothing. He just sent the Treaty over to the Senate with a little note saying "The less said about the Constitutionality of this the better." As we know it passed.



1803 and the .gov was already pissing on the Constitution.








10th grade History is a real eye opener aint it?
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:41:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blazin98:
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
And the anti Federalist Democratic-Republican Jefferson knew it.


There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the Federal .gov to buy land from another nation. In fact Jefferson was very much against the forming of the Bank of the United States.

There was much discussion about this within the Jefferson Administration and there were suggestions from proudly proclaiming the Constitutionality or to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing land purchase by the .gov all the way to doing nothing.



Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate .

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/1/auj121.shtml

Jefferson decided to do near nothing. He just sent the Treaty over to the Senate with a little note saying "The less said about the Constitutionality of this the better." As we know it passed.



1803 and the .gov was already pissing on the Constitution.






Well damn. Go ahead and present your case to federal judges; and let the entire country laugh at you... Male us conservatives look dumber.

I think I may be done with this site There is a whole lot of stupid on here and honestly i feel that it hurts us conservatives. It just seems like night after i night i see one dumb thing after another; i cant keep up with it. Go ahead and keep bitching about made up crap and focusing on obamas fake birth certificate; but i'm done with it. you are hurting the cause... please don't bitch when obama gets re elected when you vote for some obsure 3rd party candidate.


Dude, lighten up. There is about 160 kilograms of sarcasm in the OP.

This is a fun discussion thread, with a very interesting piece of American history thrown in.

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:41:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
If you want to see some bullshit, look how America bullied The West Florida Republic into the union.


I still fly Bonnie Blue.

Long live the West Florida Republic!

Death to James Madison!


Excellent.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:43:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Saber7:
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
And the anti Federalist Democratic-Republican Jefferson knew it.


There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the Federal .gov to buy land from another nation. In fact Jefferson was very much against the forming of the Bank of the United States.

There was much discussion about this within the Jefferson Administration and there were suggestions from proudly proclaiming the Constitutionality or to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment allowing land purchase by the .gov all the way to doing nothing.



Wilson Cary Nichols urged the President not to convey his opinion of the constitutionality of the treaty. Nichols suggested that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Jefferson chose the later suggestion and apparently now put aside his strict constructionist views and recognized a broad construction of the Constitution. Jefferson now decided the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. When Jefferson addressed the Eighth Congress, he praised the purchase of Louisiana but said nothing about its constitutionality. In this manner Jefferson was leaving the constitutional question up to the members of the House and Senate .

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/1/auj121.shtml

Jefferson decided to do near nothing. He just sent the Treaty over to the Senate with a little note saying "The less said about the Constitutionality of this the better." As we know it passed.



1803 and the .gov was already pissing on the Constitution.








10th grade History is a real eye opener aint it?

It is easy to forget stuff unless you talk about it once in a while.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:44:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RustedAce:

Death to James Madison!


That'll fix it!
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 2:58:32 AM EDT


I'm calling our lawyers, we want your oil
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:01:29 AM EDT



SHHHHHH!!!!

Everyone be quiet. The French are here.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:13:07 AM EDT
There's a fine-print addition to the 10th that allows for actions that permanently increase the penis size of America, you just don't normally notice it. It's there though.

It was constitutional.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:25:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 3:29:33 AM EDT by Shung]

Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.


You aware that the "Louisiana" of the time, included Montana, Dakota's, COlorado, Wyoming and other territories, right ???

when you bought Louisiana, you doubled your country.

ETA: Dewoitine posted the map..
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:28:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EXPcustom:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.

Have fun in Mexico compadre.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:34:34 AM EDT
Wait....

So... Katrina is technically Jefferson's fault?
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:40:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasDoubleTap:
Wait....

So... Katrina is technically Jefferson's fault?


Yep. And which party calls themselves the "Jefferson Party"?




Yep, the DEMOCRATS are really the responsible ones for Katrina.
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 3:41:30 AM EDT


Man, I had forgotten how HUGE that tract of land was.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top