Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Purp" data-source="post: 2743302" data-attributes="member: 12852"><p>Disagree. I agree that SCOTUS has interpreted it that way, but disagree that it's a correct reading</p><p></p><p>The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect us and the states from the federal government. I've read Patrick Henry, George Mason, Madison, and Jefferson's (though he wasn't there) writings to one another and notes of the ratification convention and at no time was the Bill of Rights proposed to protect the minority from the majority. I also read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The Anti-Federalists, to whom the Bill of Rights was a concession in order to secure ratification in Virginia, were adamant that the new constitution granted too broad a power to the new government to not have explicit checks against it. Mason and Henry especially were quite prophetic.</p><p></p><p>The Bill of Rights was fashioned heavily after Virginia's Declaration of Rights (authored by George Mason), which was also intended to protect Virginians from their new government and not from one another. Each bill places an expressed limitation on the government and not on any person or group of people.</p><p></p><p>The structure of the federal government and the electoral college system is designed to protect us from tyranny of the majority, but the Bill of Rights is not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Purp, post: 2743302, member: 12852"] Disagree. I agree that SCOTUS has interpreted it that way, but disagree that it's a correct reading The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect us and the states from the federal government. I've read Patrick Henry, George Mason, Madison, and Jefferson's (though he wasn't there) writings to one another and notes of the ratification convention and at no time was the Bill of Rights proposed to protect the minority from the majority. I also read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. The Anti-Federalists, to whom the Bill of Rights was a concession in order to secure ratification in Virginia, were adamant that the new constitution granted too broad a power to the new government to not have explicit checks against it. Mason and Henry especially were quite prophetic. The Bill of Rights was fashioned heavily after Virginia's Declaration of Rights (authored by George Mason), which was also intended to protect Virginians from their new government and not from one another. Each bill places an expressed limitation on the government and not on any person or group of people. The structure of the federal government and the electoral college system is designed to protect us from tyranny of the majority, but the Bill of Rights is not. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"
Top