Is this useless?????

[coachlaw]

Nobody's keepin' score JT

The Federalist Papers are important for sure, but so are the Anti-Federalist Papers. Jefferson was actually an Anti-Federalist. Without them, the Constitution might have been adopted without agreeing first that a Bill of Rights would be added. Our leaders today specifically need to read and remember the 10th Amendment.

[Robalo]

Nobody's keepin' score JT

The Federalist Papers are important for sure, but so are the Anti-Federalist Papers. Jefferson was actually an Anti-Federalist. Without them, the Constitution might have been adopted without agreeing first that a Bill of Rights would be added. Our leaders today specifically need to read and remember the 10th Amendment.

Sheeeit, I'd be farging glad if Obama even ever read it-he certainly dispises it and treats it like toilet paper.

[Swells]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble to the Constitution was an extremely radical idea for its day. Prior to that, all powers of government emanated from a king, and that king had divine powers handed down directly from God. Nope, we came out with a document that said that any power comes from us - "we the people."

Many Europeans thought that America would only hast a few years before it imploded, it was such a radical concept so different from a divine monarchy. During the Revolutionary war, many Loyalists ended up in the Bahamas, upper Maine in the woods, and Nova Scotia in order to escape such a frightening idea. The very principle of the Constitution was radically liberal - although in a very different sense than those kinds of terms are used today. Giving ultimate power to the people - what? Impossible. Yet over 200 years later, here we are.

Consider that idea. Now we think of a king as a curious throwback to the 1700s although there are still plenty of them - Saudi Arabia is one of the larger monarchies left. But much of the world has adopted something like our constitution, or if they have a monarchy many are "constitutional monarchies" like how the Queen of England is just a figurehead of state, no power. Over in the Middle East, such radical liberalism spread during the "Arab Spring," bringing entire countries to their knees.

Many people use the Constitution to define their rights, freedoms, and liberties, but my point is how radical the concept is when you are bound and taxed and controlled by a king-like person, and you don't get to vote. There are endless arguments about what the framers of the Constitution really said versus other who think they know what they meant. But it's an amazing document not only for its time, but even now. -sammie