KRC Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Even our constitution effectively required unanimous ratification by the original states (though I don't know if one non-ratification would have submarined the Constitution, or merely kept the non-ratifying state out of the union.) 479226[/snapback] I think you may be incorrect regarding unanimous ratification of the Constitution. Article VII required that only nine states are needed for ratification. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification. The Constitution was originally an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, but since Article VII required that only nine states need to ratify the Constitution, the document technically took effect after the ninth state ratified it. At that point, the nine states seceded from the Union and formed a new Union. Eventually, all states did ratify it. If there were non-ratifying states, then they would essentially be a separate country.
GG Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 I think you may be incorrect regarding unanimous ratification of the Constitution. 479258[/snapback] Two in one thread? Who stole the monkey's login?
KRC Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 Two in one thread? Who stole the monkey's login? 479311[/snapback] He was not completely wrong, but was not completely right.
Adam Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Is it a democracy, or more like we have as a representative republic? I hope for the latter, because a true democracy is not a good thing....it can be very oppressive
Adam Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 I think you may be incorrect regarding unanimous ratification of the Constitution. Article VII required that only nine states are needed for ratification. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification. The Constitution was originally an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, but since Article VII required that only nine states need to ratify the Constitution, the document technically took effect after the ninth state ratified it. At that point, the nine states seceded from the Union and formed a new Union. Eventually, all states did ratify it. If there were non-ratifying states, then they would essentially be a separate country. 479258[/snapback] Are you a history teacher? you really seem to know your stuff
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 The Constitution was originally an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, but since Article VII required that only nine states need to ratify the Constitution, the document technically took effect after the ninth state ratified it. At that point, the nine states seceded from the Union and formed a new Union. Eventually, all states did ratify it. If there were non-ratifying states, then they would essentially be a separate country. 479258[/snapback] I had never heard that before. Didn't all of the states have to ratify ammendments to the Articles of Confederation? If that's the case (and I'm 99% sure that it is), saying that the Constitution was an ammendment to the Articles can't be accurate if nine states voted yea. I think you might be getting the article in the Articles that says that nine states can conduct the business of Congress if it wasn't in session confused with the requirements to ammend it?
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Is it a democracy, or more like we have as a representative republic? I hope for the latter, because a true democracy is not a good thing....it can be very oppressive 480027[/snapback] I think you mean "Constitutional Republic," yes? The US Gov't is not a pure democracy in that all laws are put to a vote of the citizenry, but it is a representative democracy.
KRC Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 I had never heard that before. Didn't all of the states have to ratify ammendments to the Articles of Confederation? If that's the case (and I'm 99% sure that it is), saying that the Constitution was an ammendment to the Articles can't be accurate if nine states voted yea. I think you might be getting the article in the Articles that says that nine states can conduct the business of Congress if it wasn't in session confused with the requirements to ammend it? 480102[/snapback] For the Articles of Confederation, amendments need ratification from ALL states. You are in a unique situation with the Constitution, since it had a section (Article VII) that stated that only nine states were needed to ratify it. Which takes priority? That is debatable. You can look at it that the Constitution, since it was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, was not ratified until all states votes "yes." I will let the Constitutional scholars fight over which is right. In the end, all states ratified the Constitution and it is binding either way you look at it.
KRC Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Are you a history teacher? you really seem to know your stuff 480028[/snapback] No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
aussiew Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED Not until our troops can come home.
Johnny Coli Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 (edited) Not until our troops can come home. 480370[/snapback] CNN just reported that Condi said the troops could be there ten more years (I'll look for a link). Think she'll recant that when she's running as Jeb's VP? Edit: Found it...link Edited October 19, 2005 by Johnny Coli
Wacka Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Hey, we have troops in Germany. What is it- 60 years?
Alaska Darin Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Hey, we have troops in Germany. What is it- 60 years? 480640[/snapback] We like our wars to be over by the time dinner finishes in the microwave, please. DING!
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 We like our wars to be over by the time dinner finishes in the microwave, please. 480702[/snapback] Perhaps some people (like most of the righties on PPP) actually believed that we'd topple Saddam, set them up with a brand new shiny democracy, and then get out dodge , just like our fearless leader told them. I remember being thoroughly roasted for bringing up similar ops in the Philipines, which we occupied for 60 some odd years, and having the "nerve" to say that this would be similar.
Adam Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 Not until our troops can come home. 480370[/snapback] If everything were up to me, I would have them coming home- and 100%victorious!!!
RkFast Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 If everything were up to me, I would have them coming home- and 100%victorious!!! 480884[/snapback] WRONG Campy...The Right REALIZES that things take TIME and WORK. YOU are the group of people who want to click your heels and "wish" away the World's ills with no effort. Call me a pollyanna, but in the past week I saw a country that was ruled by a ruthless dictator for the last 20 years and before that, had a government out of the stone age vote on a democratic constitution and then held a criminal trial. And regardless of what flaws these events had (gee....cant WAIT for the jokes about the white cage to appear on 'Late Night" and Bill Maher!!!!) or what the rest of the world, which at this point would spit on us and steal our collective wallets no matter WHAT we did, it was a damn fine week. You have to start somewhere, and like alluded to above, only a blithering moron (and we all know Im just a tick above THAT) fails to recognize that Iraq wasnt going from under Saddam's fist to a perfect, shiny democracy overnight.
Wacka Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 It took us 12 years to get a constitution. It only took Iraq 3. Seems like they are doing better than us.
Chilly Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 It took us 12 years to get a constitution. It only took Iraq 3. Seems like they are doing better than us. 480912[/snapback] Except when you factor in the other variables into the equation... You know, like the fact that we were the first people ever to have a democracy like ours, whereas Iraq has our help in formulating one....
chicot Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 Hey, we have troops in Germany. What is it- 60 years? 480640[/snapback] Very different. Are the troops in Germany being attacked some 50 or so times a day? Do most of the Germans want the troops to leave? Did the party that won most of the seats in the German election have as one of it's main policies the establishment of a definite timetable for the withdrawal of US forces?
RkFast Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 Except when you factor in the other variables into the equation... You know, like the fact that we were the first people ever to have a democracy like ours, whereas Iraq has our help in formulating one.... 480925[/snapback] Sorry...critics of the war dont get to use this excuse...because any effort the U.S. makes to "help" the Iraqis will be portrayed as the U.S. turning the new Iraq into a "puppet" of the U.S.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts