Minderwiz
You could do that. I'm not saying it's wrong by any means.But the House of Representatives had already begun its session on 4th March 1789, so when did the new Constitution actually begin operation - March or April
The failure of many 'good' astrologers to predict the election is demoralizing
You could do that. I'm not saying it's wrong by any means.But the House of Representatives had already begun its session on 4th March 1789, so when did the new Constitution actually begin operation - March or April
Minderwiz
According to the guide at Independence Hall, the Declaration was signed sometime in the afternoon of the 4th* but it was not immediately announced. There was some delay before it was made public. I think Sibley's timing is based on it becoming public knowledge. So the actual timing might be anything up to an hour or even more before Sibley's time of 17:10 (from memory).
Edited to add:
* But if any delegate made a note of the exact time, it's got lost in history. So all we know for certain is that it became public knowledge later that day.
CosmicBeing
I think some see it as the birth of the country which allowed a political system to be put in place. The political system changed the moment they broke free of the political system of England.
Best guess... I just see many people use independence day. But, I could see and understand your argument/theory. It's not a bad one. Be interesting to see someone try that method.
Amanda
If you personify the country for a moment, the first president's inauguration (in my mind) is the final piece required to truly begin... like a final push on a birthing process; after some bureaucratic grunting and groaning, there you have it, a political babe is born, from the moment that sworn oath was released from that man's lips.
Barleywine
If you look at the link to the astrologers who were wrong, you'll find one that used the George Washington chart.
Minderwiz
I think the whole point of the Constitution is that the country can't be personified by one man (or woman). There is insitutionalised Separation of Powers, and the Legislature meeting is just as significant, for the birth of the Constitution as the President taking the oath. Which he would have to have done before 12:00 as he needed to be in office when his term began at noon.
That being said, I think you might find that there might well be times when there was no President, because the President Elect had not taken the oath by noon. Can't think of one butI guess it might well have happened.
If you want to restrict it to the Presidency alone, then your suggested time is fair enough. Indeed we might take later Amendments, which affect the Presidency and his/her Term of Office. From memory, I think the most recent is the twenty fifth, but the twelfth brought in the Electoral College and the modern system of election; The twentieth changed the date to January 20th both of which are relevant to the outcome of this election and Trump's inauguration (assuming he's not impeached beforehand).
Again I'm not saying that these are better dates, but simply that with countries the analogy with the Natal Astrology moment of birth tends to break down
Amanda
There is such a thing?
Dang- I was almost interested in delving more deeply.
Astrology seems like such an exclusive club to be in.Ah well, that's a different perspective from how I was looking at it. I was looking at it as the country acquiring it's final "piece" (a man) to birth it's political system into "new"/"ready"/"full" action.
Well, I wasn't restricting it to the presidency alone though, so I wouldn't look at it through that perspective. I guess, I would call it a point of reference for the birth of politics rather, and though I might use this president's inauguration as another point of reference between then and now, the men (or woman) would not be my focus, but how things are affecting that position.
Barleywine mentions an astrologer got it wrong with a "George Washington" chart -- I bet either of you two could do it better. My inclination without looking at any link is that particular astrologer messed up somewhere else. Does it not make sense that "everything" (at the time) would be in place for a birth in politics with the first president's inauguration?
Additionally, George Washington was an "Independent" and it was during his time that the political parties divided, which is pretty significant to this particular election with Republicans in such strong power across the board at the moment. It should make for an easier astrological read (I would think) with these known 'controls'. I mean, it's known over time how the presidents have changed and when, so that seems like a given that would be easy to read against by other influences.
Ah well... I don't know what I'm talking about.
Rhoswen
Using Washington's Inauguration
I found this article just last night. It utilizes that approach. Wish I'd read it back when it was written (May 15, 2016). A sample: "To my surprise and dismay he has what looks, from the point of view of astrological symbolism, like a winning hand."
The author, Kenneth Bowser, also has interesting things to say about Trump's (at that time potential) first year in office.
http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/trump-news
I found this article just last night. It utilizes that approach. Wish I'd read it back when it was written (May 15, 2016). A sample: "To my surprise and dismay he has what looks, from the point of view of astrological symbolism, like a winning hand."
The author, Kenneth Bowser, also has interesting things to say about Trump's (at that time potential) first year in office.
http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/trump-news
Amanda
Ah, wow! Talk about serendipity.
That guy did exactly what I've been attempting to describe here, and I'm impressed with his results! Now /this/ makes me want to delve a little deeper... I'm glad you stumbled across this and shared it with me, thank you!RohanMenon
In another thread
I identify (among all the predictions I could find online) two that stood out
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=265521
Kenneth Bowser is one of the two who predicted the result very early. The other (skyscript forum member "Ellen") did so in January! Very impressive.
I identify (among all the predictions I could find online) two that stood out
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=265521
Kenneth Bowser is one of the two who predicted the result very early. The other (skyscript forum member "Ellen") did so in January! Very impressive.
