RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Yes. Owen overreacted. Cromwell was for all practical purposes a king, yet even he rejected the title.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Men can indeed overreact. Didn't George Washington snub Alexander Hamilton for the rest of his life because Hamilton slapped his back at a party or something?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
A popular myth - Washington appeared at some point during the American Revolution to feel that Hamilton (his aide-de-camp) disrespected him (there are conflicting accounts but they all include something about Hamilton making Washington wait for a few minutes). Hamilton resigned and asked for a battlefield command which Washington gave him. But after the war W. made H. the first Secretary of the Treasury, and W. often favored H. over Jefferson in major political decisions. So W. and H. reconciled but were never known to be close personally after the war. Still, when W. died, H. wrote to Washington’s secretary, “I have been much indebted to the kindness of the General, and he was an Aegis very essential to me” (Alexander Hamilton to Tobias Lear, 2 January 1800, National Archives).
Last edited:
CovenantPatriot87
Puritan Board Freshman
The action is the same though in God and men: The promise that the sons of David would sit on the throne (and though the kingdom split, the sons of David remained on the throne in Judah), and at the same time, the action by which that was preserved was the people's electing a certain king because of faith in the promise:
2Ch 23:3 KJV And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he said unto them, Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the LORD hath said of the sons of David.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I do not see the people "electing" anyone in this passage. Jehoiada, the reigning king, is initiating all of the action (v.1). When the people covenant with him in v.3, they are expressing their submission. But it is the king ruling by putting his son on the throne (see vv.10-11) - the end of v.3 is Jehoiada speaking ("And he [Jehoiada] said unto them, Behold...") and showing faith in the promise, not the people. Again in vv. 10-11: "And he [Jehoiada] caused all the people to stand (every man with his weapon in his hand) from the right side of the house, to the left side of the house by the altar and by the house round about the king. Then they brought out the king’s son, and put upon him the crown and gave him the testimony, and made him King. And Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and said, God save the king."
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That is correct. Rutherford does note the point have a "confirming" role, but it is nothing like modern-day electioneering.
CovenantPatriot87
Puritan Board Freshman
I still see no problem with our modern election system. Should it be improved? Always. Should it be scrapped? Nope. Let's not take the last election debacle and say that's what the way it's always been.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I have no problems with elections per se. I'm just too much of a cynic to think the guys who rigged the last election will play nice this time. We do not have the government our founders envisioned (in fact, the very fact we amended how we elect presidents demonstrates that). We are closer to "democracy" than we might comfortably admit.
How is it unconstitutional?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Congress doesn't have the power to amend the Constitution, only the States do.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment amended Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. The later Reapportionment Act is not an Amendment to the Constitution.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment did not amend Clause 3 of Article I, Section 2 - it abrogated the first sentence of Clause 3, effectively getting rid of the "Three-Fifths Compromise." The rest of Clause 3 remains active.
I did not claim that the 1929 Reapportionment Act is an Amendment to the Constitution - I stated (see #53 above) that Congress passing this legislation was a de facto (unconstitutional) amending of the Constitution.
