User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:12:50 PM EDT
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.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:15:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Fine.
Give it back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:16:37 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
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???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:17:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:18:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Fine. Give it back. To the French or to the Indians? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:18:21 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:18:51 PM EDT
[#6]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:20:08 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:20:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Oh shit. 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.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:23:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Yep. The French stole it from Spain @ gunpoint.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:25:00 PM EDT
[#10]
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:28:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:29:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French.  You need some new material.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:29:29 PM EDT
[#13]
If its not specifically mentioned as against the constitution, its good to go right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:31:51 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French. You want to be a Spanish subject, hoss? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:35:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French. You want to be a Spanish subject, hoss? Good point.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:47:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French. I have no problem with paying Mexico to take California back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 11:54:47 PM EDT
[#17]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:00:23 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: 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 . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:02:23 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:09:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:10:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:17:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:34:07 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:42:24 AM EDT
[#24]
So am I now free from the reign of the Kenyan?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 12:53:34 AM EDT
[#25]
I'm not sure if there is a girl fight going on or if we're watching a break up in real time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 1:45:57 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 1:46:06 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: I'm not sure if there is a girl fight going on or if we're watching a break up in real time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 1:50:18 AM EDT
[#28]
Napoleon was hard up for some cash to start a liitle war in Europe. Just like Alaska, we got a bargin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:00:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:03:57 AM EDT
[#30]
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:05:31 AM EDT
[#31]
Ain't no refunds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:36:00 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:37:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: 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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:38:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:39:10 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:39:36 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:40:06 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:40:40 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:41:29 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:41:52 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:43:11 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:44:11 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Death to James Madison! That'll fix it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 2:58:32 AM EDT
[#43]
 I'm calling our lawyers, we want your oil |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 3:01:29 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/U.S._Territorial_Acquisitions.png/800px-U.S._Territorial_Acquisitions.png I'm calling our lawyers, we want your oil SHHHHHH!!!! Everyone be quiet. The French are here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 3:13:07 AM EDT
[#45]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 3:25:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: 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.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 3:28:53 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: I have no problem turning over most of the South to the French. Have fun in Mexico compadre. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 3:34:34 AM EDT
[#48]
Wait....
So... Katrina is technically Jefferson's fault?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 3:40:26 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 3:41:30 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/U.S._Territorial_Acquisitions.png/800px-U.S._Territorial_Acquisitions.png I'm calling our lawyers, we want your oil Man, I had forgotten how HUGE that tract of land was.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
