Hello LEe,   
      
   On Sat 2012-Feb-18 17:29, Lee Lofaso (2:203/2) wrote to Richard Webb:   
      
   LL> The Framers of the Constitution were wealthy white men who owned   
   LL> property (including slaves).  As such, they had a vested interest in   
   LL> protecting what was theirs.  If you study the Revolutionary War, you   
   LL> will find it was not really a revolution but rather a war to protect   
   LL> the status quo.  It was rich man's war, not a poor man's uprising.    
   LL> Only wealthy folks could afford to own muskets, much less   
   LL> musketballs and the powder to fire them.   
      
   inddeed, and one of the things that the revolting colonists   
   needed most from the French and others outside was money to   
   pay troops as well as arm them.  Have done quite a bit of   
   reading on it actually, and military professionals such as   
   Von Steuben were appalled at what they had to work with in   
   the way of men and equipment.  The men were poorly equipped, poorly housed,   
   and poorly trained.  Were it not for some   
   rather lucky breaks later on in the war there would not have been a successful   
   revolution at all.   
      
   LL> George Washington was a wealthy old coot who really did not   
   LL> want to get involved, but for unknown reasons decided to join the   
   LL> fray.   
      
   George was pretty severely disciplined by the colonial   
   version of an army before the revolution for a massacre on   
   the Ohio river before the revolution as well iirc.   
      
   LL> Jimmy Carter (yes, the former president) wrote a fictional account   
   LL> of the Revolutionary War.  He put a lot of research into that book,   
   LL> and it is quite revealing, especially the details.  Understanding   
   LL> the Revolutionary War and what it was all about is essential to   
   LL> understanding what went through the minds of the Framers of the   
   LL> Constitution.   
      
   Indeed, as I said, have read plenty on it.  MOney indeed   
   trumps all, and that's waht it was about for most of them.   
      
   LL> One of the most basic things is the difference between the British   
   LL> perspective and the American perspective in regards to the purpose   
   LL> of government, more specifically where rights are derived from. The   
   LL> British view is that all laws are derived from government (laws can   
   LL> be given and taken away).  IOW, rights do not exist.  The American   
   LL> view is that people have rights, especially in regards to certain   
   LL> inalienable rights, in which is the duty of government to protect   
   LL> those rights.  Thomas Jefferson (along with others) expressed the   
   LL> American view in a most forthright manner in the Declaration of   
   LL> Independence.   
      
   YEs, the old compact between the government and the   
   governed.  I subscribe more to what you call the American   
   view.  Government is a compact between those governed and   
   those who do the governing.  IF those with the power to   
   govern fail to live up to that agreement, we have every   
   right to replace them, under force of arms if that's waht it takes imho.  Imho   
   there is no divine right of kings, or   
   anybody else.   
      
   LL> Term limits are anti-democratic, limiting the choices voters have.   
   LL> That is one of the reasons why term limits were not included by any   
   LL> of the Framers in the U.S. Constitution.  It was not until the 22nd   
   LL> Amendment was passed and ratified that any form of term limits were   
   LL> included, and that was a Republican idea.  It was a bad idea then,   
   LL> and is a bad idea now.  The amendment is poorly written, and can be   
   LL> interpreted/misinterpreted/abused in a variety of ways.   
      
   I'm of mixed feelings on that one.  Technically you're   
   right, but imho it wouldn't make much difference anyway,   
   it's the unelected bureaucrats that really run the joint   
   these days.   
      
   LL> All the 22nd Amendment does is limit a President to serving two   
   LL> consecutive terms.  Once a President has left office after having   
   LL> served two consecutive terms, he/she is free to be elected to a new   
   LL> first term, and subsequent second term.  See how that works?    
   I don't know where you get that one.  I see here that it was ratified February   
   27, 1951 and says:   
      
   Section 1.  No person shall be elected to the office of the   
   president more than twice, and no person who has held the   
   office of rpesident, or acted as president, for more than   
   two years of a term to which some other person was elected   
   president shall be elected to the office of the president   
   more than once.   
   But this article shall not apply to any person holding the   
   office of president when this article was proposed by the   
   COngress,  and shall not prevent any person who may be   
   holding the office of president, during the term  within   
   which this articles becomes operative from holding the   
   office of president or or acting as president during the   
   remainder of such term.   
      
   I will not quote section 2 as  it has no bearing.  NOwhere   
   in the 22nd amendment does it mention consecutive or   
   nonconsecutive terms.