2
2
0
Perhaps the best explanation of what our Constitutional Convention produced.
TDIH: What are the Federalist Papers?
Posted from taraross.substack.comPosted in these groups: 
American History
Constitution
American History Constitution
Posted 6 mo ago
Responses: 1
2
2
0
This article does not provide an explanation of the Constitution (what the Constitutional Convention produced). It states that there were groups of "anti-Federalists" that did not like and would criticize the Constitution, and, in response, a group of "Federalists", which included, most notably, Alexander Hamilton, that produced a series of essays defending the Constitution.
Do you know why they called them "Federalists"?
You can make anything required reading. It doesn't mean people are going to understand it any better.
Do you know why they called them "Federalists"?
You can make anything required reading. It doesn't mean people are going to understand it any better.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
PO1 Kevin Dougherty - Perhaps it is simply the tyranny of language and a bit of human nature that divides us... and by "us" I mean people in general and not necessarily you and I.
For example, it was not clear if your initial statement, "Perhaps the best explanation of what our Constitutional Convention produced" was a description of the article you posted or a response to the question posed by the headline of the article. Perhaps it also related to the positioning as, when posted, your statement appears before the title, but I would bet you wrote that statement after applying the link with the title.
Regardless, language... any language, can be an imprecise tool to communicate concepts and ideas. Even with the thousands of books written about the Constitution, severe disagreements and deviating interpretations exist. Same can be said for the Bible. Many times it boils down to what a person encounters first. Those thoughts then become entrenched and it can be very difficult to dig those impressions out by their roots regardless of the logic or evidence that may counter what has taken root.
For example, it was not clear if your initial statement, "Perhaps the best explanation of what our Constitutional Convention produced" was a description of the article you posted or a response to the question posed by the headline of the article. Perhaps it also related to the positioning as, when posted, your statement appears before the title, but I would bet you wrote that statement after applying the link with the title.
Regardless, language... any language, can be an imprecise tool to communicate concepts and ideas. Even with the thousands of books written about the Constitution, severe disagreements and deviating interpretations exist. Same can be said for the Bible. Many times it boils down to what a person encounters first. Those thoughts then become entrenched and it can be very difficult to dig those impressions out by their roots regardless of the logic or evidence that may counter what has taken root.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty
To be clear, this was a repost of an article by Tara Ross, a retired lawyer who is a nationally recognized expert on the Electoral College and writes daily columns on American History with a focus on it's founding as well as a large series of short articles about the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
Unfortunately, there is not much control over how things are formatted here. in the original article linked, the slug appears immediately under the title, and so is clearly answering the question in the title.
*I noticed that the photo ended up at the top even though I placed it at the end.*
Unfortunately, there is not much control over how things are formatted here. in the original article linked, the slug appears immediately under the title, and so is clearly answering the question in the title.
*I noticed that the photo ended up at the top even though I placed it at the end.*
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
PO1 Kevin Dougherty - That's great. What makes her a "nationally recognized expert"? Does being a nationally recognized expert mean her interpretation is better or more valid? Does this same type of deference for expertise and study extend to scientific topics like climate change and vaccines? Just curious.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty
What usually makes a person a nationally recognized expert? She has studied and made herself knowledgeable in that area, published books and articles on the subject matter that have been accepted as authoritative, last but certainly not least, they have been recognized by their peers as being expert in the subject. Does it make "her interpretation better or more valid?" In a sense, yes, it does, she has invested the time, energy and resources to research and examine the subject. While it is not a guarantee they are correct, that can, and should add weight to her thoughts on the matter.
The second part is pretty much a non-sequitur, but to answer your question, yes it does. However as I have already expressed, it does not mean you should blindly accept what any expert says, especially when other equally qualified experts in the field disagree with them. Simply put, it's OK to question. In regards to political matters, I would argue that it is our duty to question. It is also our duty to be knowledgeable in regards to our Constitution, our government and it's policies, our politicians and their platforms, as well as to be engaged in the governance and activities of our communities.
"But the educated citizen knows how much more there is to know. He knows that 'knowledge is power,' more so today than ever before. He knows that only an educated and informed people will be a free people, that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all, and that if we can, as Jefferson put it, 'enlighten the people generally ... tyranny and the oppressions of mind and body will vanish, like evil spirits at the dawn of day.'" President John F. Kennedy, at Nashville, Tennessee/Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963
The second part is pretty much a non-sequitur, but to answer your question, yes it does. However as I have already expressed, it does not mean you should blindly accept what any expert says, especially when other equally qualified experts in the field disagree with them. Simply put, it's OK to question. In regards to political matters, I would argue that it is our duty to question. It is also our duty to be knowledgeable in regards to our Constitution, our government and it's policies, our politicians and their platforms, as well as to be engaged in the governance and activities of our communities.
"But the educated citizen knows how much more there is to know. He knows that 'knowledge is power,' more so today than ever before. He knows that only an educated and informed people will be a free people, that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all, and that if we can, as Jefferson put it, 'enlighten the people generally ... tyranny and the oppressions of mind and body will vanish, like evil spirits at the dawn of day.'" President John F. Kennedy, at Nashville, Tennessee/Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google