"Madison and slavery" Topic
52 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
|
Pages: 1 2
doc mcb | 22 Jul 2022 1:52 p.m. PST |
link "Madison had slaves, and that is a great stain on his legacy. "However, Madison also opposed slavery and sought its elimination. His views often put him at odds with other Virginians. Even during the Revolution, Madison opposed a proposal to offer recruits free slaves for their service and instead proposed giving slaves their freedom in exchange for their military service as "more consonant to the principles of liberty which ought never to be loss sight of in a contest for liberty." While Madison wrote early in his career to Edmund Randolph that he wanted "to depend as little as possible on the labor of slaves," he never made that break with the infamous use of such labor. Before the Constitutional Convention, Madison wrote a publication entitled "Vices of the Political System of the United States," which declared that "where slavery exists the republican Theory becomes still more fallacious." Madison, however, would forge a compromise with pro-slave delegates in the infamous provision that set representation in one house be based on the number of free inhabitants in each state plus three-fifths of the number of slaves. Madison would continue to work with those resisting slavery, including the dispatch of an extraordinary letter in 1810 to the American minister to Great Britain, William Pinkney, supporting the British condemnation of an American slave ship — even suggesting arguments to facilitate such condemnation. As president, he pushed Congress to end the slave trade. The compromise captures much of the conflicted background of Madison and slavery. He often chose compromise while seeking to nudge the country toward banning slavery. He met in his home with abolitionists and free slaves to discuss ending slavery. Madison resisted selling slaves and sold off property to support his estate instead. In his will, Madison asked that the slaves not be sold and instead be allowed to remain on the property until their deaths. (Dolley Madison would later sell the property and the slaves due to the towering debt). The fact is that there were better men when it came to slavery. General Marquis de Lafayette was a better man. The fierce abolitionist visited Madison and viewed him as a kindred spirit, but noted the continued presence of slaves on the property. Madison's aide, Edward Coles, was a better man. With Madison's praise, Coles freed his slaves shortly after Madison retired from the presidency and gave each of them some land in Illinois. Madison did not believe that freed slaves could live and thrive in a country given "the prejudices of the whites, prejudices which … must be considered as permanent and insuperable." He proposed instead the funding of a colony in Africa for freed slaves. Madison always viewed slavery as the thing that would tear the country (and his Constitution) apart. He would be proved correct in 1861. However, his efforts to compromise in favor of incremental progress sacrificed principle to politics. That is a far more interesting and instructive history than the misleading portrayal created at Montpelier. Just as Madison too readily yielded to politics in his life, the new board has done so today in this revisionist account of this great but complicated historical figure." |
Father of Cats | 22 Jul 2022 5:25 p.m. PST |
So… he owned another human being at a time when others were condemning that practice…. And he knew it was bad, but just couldn't bring himself to do anything about it? This isn't like he was eating too many donuts, but just couldn't help himself. THE MAN OWNED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. |
doc mcb | 22 Jul 2022 6:33 p.m. PST |
Big evils often can only be dealt with in small steps. Or with a big-step horribly destructive war, which might be as great an evil. Moral outrage, no matter how justified, sometimes produces more harm than good. |
Parzival | 22 Jul 2022 10:23 p.m. PST |
"He owned a human being." So the frick what. You do realize that for over TEN THOUSAND FRICKING YEARS human beings had owned other human beings. It was as common as dirt. The Sumerians owned human beings. The Babylonians owned human beings. The Egyptians owned human beings. The Israelites owned human beings. The Canaanites owned human beings. The Persians owned human beings. The Greeks owned human beings— yes, even the citizens of the "democracy" of Athens owned human. The Romans owned human beings. Moses owned human beings. Muhammad owned human beings. Christians owned human beings. Pagans owned human beings. The natives of what would be known as the Americas owned human beings. The Polynesians owned human beings. The Japanese owned human beings. The Chinese owned human beings. Name a civilization— the members of it owned other human beings. And, yes Africans owned human beings. And they owned them right up through the founding of the United States and afterwards. They still own them today. And, for that matter, the very concept of monarchy and aristocracy assumes an "ownership" of the lower classes by the nobles and the king. At the time of the American Revolution, slavery was pretty much legal everywhere (though Spain had made slavery illegal, the populace still "belonged" to the King of Spain…). Indeed, the very idea that slavery was universally wrong largely began in the Americas. It's easy today to say "He owned a human being" and act all superior and outraged. Well, guess what— someday someone will be outraged at something YOU think is perfectly normal and morally acceptable— or maybe there is something today which makes you shuffle your feet and look down at your shoes in discomfort that you might be complicit in, yet you do not act to stop. We're people. We're flawed. We don't live up to our own ideals— but that doesn't mean those ideals aren't important. Madison at least conceived of these ideals and worked to bring them forward… just too slowly. By the way, the 3/5ths compromise is not actually a pro-slavery compromise, it's an anti-slavery compromise. How so? Well, pay attention— this requires some thought… The question was how many representatives and electors each state would have, based on population. The slave states wanted to count their slave populations fully so as to have more representatives, while at the same time denying those slaves the right to vote for the representatives which their numbers would grant. In effect, the voting citizens of the slave states would be given double or triple representation for their vote, overpowering the votes of the populations of free states. Naturally the free states felt this was unfair. And they were right— it was. But the slave states didn't want to give in. So the compromise actually punished the slave states for having slaves by diminishing the level of the states' actual population. It wasn't demeaning slaves as not being men; it was deliberately undercounting the population in a way that pointed out to the slave states that they could gain the representation they wanted by freeing the slaves they had— poof, no 3/5ths restriction… but with that came an implied expectation that these freed individuals would now be voters and tax paying citizens! (The US Constitution never had any restrictions on who could and could not vote. None at all, even for race or sex or even age. The restrictions were solely held by the various states themselves.) So the 3/5ths Compromise was both a stick and a carrot— and an anti-slavery stick and carrot, too. Political power was directly linked to NOT having slaves, making abolition and emancipation a political goal to pursue as much as a moral one. And it probably would have worked… until the invention of the cotton gin and the rise of King Cotton. Alas, a technological innovation set off a sociological degradation, and greed pushed aside political ambition. But that wasn't Madison's fault. Should he have lived up to his ideals? Yes. So should everyone one. But at least he helped our country actually HAVE those ideals to reach for. When the slaves were freed, Madison was directly responsible for that freedom, because he crafted a Constitution which could be amended to establish that freedom as the final law of the land. And to me, that incredible foresight far outweighs his own moral failings on the issue. He created the path, even if he could not bring himself to step upon it. |
35thOVI | 23 Jul 2022 3:57 a.m. PST |
Doc, Parzival, logic will not work with the newly "enlightened". Nor will you "normally" get a reasonable Dialogue. In most cases it will be a dialogue based on emotions. But good luck. |
Stryderg | 23 Jul 2022 9:04 a.m. PST |
|
Silurian | 23 Jul 2022 10:20 a.m. PST |
Quantum +1 Very tiresome (for a hobby site anyway). Which personality shall we move onto next? |
Bobgnar | 23 Jul 2022 10:59 p.m. PST |
so should we tear up the Monroe Doctrine and topple all of his statures, close James Madison University or at least rename, and shut down Madison Square Garden? |
Thresher01 | 24 Jul 2022 8:54 a.m. PST |
Clearly, everyone except the few 100% blooded, native American indians alive today needed to be canceled, since they are an occupying force on stolen land, so have no REAL moral ground (get the pun?) to stand on. The "woke" too are not as "enlightened" or morally superior as they incorrectly presume they are, due to an almost total lack of self-awareness and reality. Tearing down our founding fathers is abominable and wrong, but clearly some have an agenda and want to do that, so they can do the same to our Constitution, legal system, economic system, and way of life. Many/most of those pushing these narratives are communists, Marxists, and/or socialists looking to destroy America from within. |
Lascaris | 25 Jul 2022 9:01 a.m. PST |
Yes, a reasonably balanced article describing the dichotomy of how Madison feared that slavery would result in turmoil and worked to minimize slavery while resisting freeing his own is going to destroy America. And I naively thought it was MAGA goons assaulting the capitol or party platforms advocating secession that were more problematic…. |
HMS Exeter | 25 Jul 2022 2:28 p.m. PST |
Whilst not in a position of any authority within TMP, I believe that notwithstanding, it is within my remit as a sometimes contributor to declare a Dawghouse/Political Content: --- YELLOW ALERT --- |
Au pas de Charge | 25 Jul 2022 7:20 p.m. PST |
"He owned a human being."So the frick what. You do realize that for over TEN THOUSAND FRICKING YEARS human beings had owned other human beings. It was as common as dirt. The Sumerians owned human beings. The Babylonians owned human beings. The Egyptians owned human beings. The Israelites owned human beings. The Canaanites owned human beings. The Persians owned human beings. The Greeks owned human beings— yes, even the citizens of the "democracy" of Athens owned human. Well, for starters, Madison created a document which either he (partly), or more contemporary claimants who invoke his name, expect us to live by; and it incorporates his code, his morals, his ideas and his words. As far as I know the other cultures you mentioned are both no longer extent and aren't controlling authority in the USA. Thus, it is a huge deal what Madison did or didn't do. However, as far as the Persians are concerned…maybe, not so much… |
Lascaris | 25 Jul 2022 8:25 p.m. PST |
Apologies for dragging contemporary politics into this thread. As Exeter correctly points out, while Madison is fair game for discussion, the points I mentioned are likely not appropriate. |
Old Contemptible | 25 Jul 2022 9:42 p.m. PST |
This thread is TMP at it's worst. |
HMS Exeter | 26 Jul 2022 1:29 a.m. PST |
Actually, I think the recently excised thread on the sexual orienrarion of Baron von Steuben may have been just a tad worse. Just my tuppence. |
Parzival | 26 Jul 2022 9:11 p.m. PST |
APDC: Your statement misses the point of my statement, and the reason for it. The point is that up until the American colonial period, slavery was essentially accepted practice in culture around the globe, and had been for thousands of years. Also, I was responding to the shrill shout of "HE OWNED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING" as if that somehow was the greatest sin of all the ages, unforgivable and inexcusable at any level, and thus the name of Madison must somehow be excised from any mention of praise. My point, therefore, was that slavery wasn't considered evil or wrong (except as a personal experience) in and of itself up until roughly this same time— and that Madison was indeed one of the American political leaders working to end the practice, and arguing that it *should* end. That he did not act to free his own slaves is hypocritical and should be discussed— but screaming about it is pointless and foolish. When looking at the past, the emotions and values of the present should be at least controlled, if not set aside. It is certainly valid to ask why Madison et al did not live up to the ideals which were their motivation. It is even fine to do so critically. But it is not good to yell and stomp about and claim righteousness over the people of the past because we have a perspective of subsequent events which they could not possibly have had, or because the ideas they were arguing for are widely accepted as indisputable today, when they were not so then. |
doc mcb | 27 Jul 2022 3:42 a.m. PST |
And indeed it was precisely the struggles and achievements of such as Madison that brought us to our present (and very partial) enlightenment. Condemning him for not solving the problem of slavery is like condemning the Wright Brothers because they did not solve the problem of trans-continental flight. |
Escapee | 27 Jul 2022 9:03 a.m. PST |
Not exactly the same thing Doc. Transcontinental flight is not a moral issue. I think. Parz, what a great last paragraph, this is how I have come see it as well. At first, as I got older, the enormity of slavery as an injustice seemed overwhelming, but context is everything. And getting on the path is better than standing still. |
Au pas de Charge | 27 Jul 2022 9:56 a.m. PST |
APDC: Your statement misses the point of my statement, and the reason for it. Maybe but you never address my point that the Founders are "special" because they ask us to live according to their words and morals and thus open themselves out to scrutiny by their posterity. Meanwhile, we can all sit back and enjoy Roman slaves feeding people grapes without seeing the social wreckage around us today. Additionally, although I am no expert on all things slavery, historically, slavery has had different forms and different legacies. I dont know that slavery was often made to be race based in the ancient world. I dont know that the ancients even enforced a color line or engaged in pre DNA bloodline obsessions. Maybe if the race element hadnt been engaged in, the Founder slavery angle wouldnt be as big a deal. However, the confluence of science, religion and and tribalism all seemed to have joined hands to justify race based slavery. Somehow, this made it all worse than Egyptian dancing girls. Also, I was responding to the shrill shout of "HE OWNED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING" as if that somehow was the greatest sin of all the ages, unforgivable and inexcusable at any level, and thus the name of Madison must somehow be excised from any mention of praise. That's the mood of the times. Madison will survive. I think the Constitution will too. That he did not act to free his own slaves is hypocritical and should be discussed— but screaming about it is pointless and foolish. This is a two way street, isnt it? Mr Turley suggests that criticism around racism for Madison is a 1619-esque sort of tactic but the 1619 Project seems to be a reaction of fatigue around African-American experiences never getting their due along the lines of "Slavery, yeah yeah yeah…but look at the Constitution… for white people!"
But it is not good to yell and stomp about and claim righteousness over the people of the past because we have a perspective of subsequent events which they could not possibly have had, or because the ideas they were arguing for are widely accepted as indisputable today, when they were not so then. It may or may not be good but isnt bad because you dont like it. A couple of things. The ancients didnt usually criticize their past and perhaps if they had, slavery would've ended a lot earlier. It wasnt like the ancient world where there existed no introspection that slavery was the least bit wrong, the Slave Owners in the USA knew that a large lobby of thought held slavery to be wrong at the time and thus they lived in some apprehension that dark forces were constantly coming to take their slaves. That is why they constantly negotiated for pro slavery protections and laws. In fact, they also invoked this whataboutism that the Romans etc had slaves and that it was the natural order of the universe. The fact that they constantly employed rationalizations where ancient peoples seemed oblivious to any other order besides slave ownership actually makes their behavior more contemptible.
And indeed it was precisely the struggles and achievements of such as Madison that brought us to our present (and very partial) enlightenment. Men from The Age of Enlightenment didnt have to be enlightened but today's Madison critics are living in the dark? Condemning him for not solving the problem of slavery is like condemning the Wright Brothers because they did not solve the problem of trans-continental flight. I dont know that this is an apt analogy but is there evidence that Madison's master plan for the 3/5ths compromise was to eventually end slavery? It seems like a lot of the Parzival recited reasons for the 3/5ths Compromise being anti-slavery are more silver lining than reality. |
doc mcb | 27 Jul 2022 4:18 p.m. PST |
Charge, are you familiar with Bartoleme de las Casa and the Spanish debate over slavery? link |
Au pas de Charge | 27 Jul 2022 7:51 p.m. PST |
Charge, are you familiar with Bartoleme de las Casa and the Spanish debate over slavery? No, not really. |
Parzival | 28 Jul 2022 8:08 a.m. PST |
This is a two way street, isnt it?Mr Turley suggests that criticism around racism for Madison is a 1619-esque sort of tactic but the 1619 Project seems to be a reaction of fatigue around African-American experiences never getting their due along the lines of "Slavery, yeah yeah yeah…but look at the Constitution… for white people!" The US Constitution was not for white people, though it was written by white people. Read it. It makes only one reference to race— "Indian"— and that is not actually a reference to race but to the status of being either a citizen of a State or of a separate and distinct Indian nation, as defined by taxation status, and thus participation in the body politic. In all other circumstances the Constitution deliberately does not define any person by either race or gender, but uses the terms "person," "persons" or "people." This was deliberate and was NOT assumed to be restricted to any race— understandably, as there were literally thousands of free black citizens of the various states, including property owners and heads of households, which at the time was the general standard for determining who could and could not vote. The Constitution included these people from the beginning, making no distinction either for or against them based on any criteria. Indeed, according to the terms of the Constitution itself, there was no prohibition for a black man (or woman) to serve as a Representative, Senator, Supreme Court Justice, or President of the United States. Any and all such restrictions were entirely left to the states. Did Madison et al assume that the nation's voters and leaders would always be white and male? Well, at least on the point of voting they did not, as non-white and female voting already existed in certain states. I don't believe they were prescient enough to see a time where all races and both sexes were seen as intellectually and politically equal. Yet I note that somehow the Constitution wound up with language that very much assumes this status to be in effect. It's not the Constitution which was or is racist— it never was and isn't today. It's the people who were racist— the individual and the social assumptions they make and support. As for the ancient treatment of slavery, yes, it very much was along racial and tribal lines— The Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews because the Hebrews were of a different race and tribe. And that pretty much held true of all such things— "my tribe is superior to your tribe, thus your tribe must serve my tribe." And in Europe, was not the lineage of an individual treated as a determiner of whether or not they were of the ruling class (and thus the served) or the laboring class (and thus the servant)? And is that not still roughly in place today? What is a nobleman but an expression of assumed possession of DNA going back a thousand years? So to, for the "gentleman" class? A king is a king because of who his ancestors were, not because he has any ability for the job. And it is his ancestry alone which makes him "better" than you and thus the ruler over you. The difference between "subject" and "slave" in a pure monarchy isn't worth the noting. The Romans were equal opportunity oppressors, but they did have certain rules— a Roman citizen could not be a slave (a statement of tribe); but at the same time, it was possible for a slave to become a Roman citizen (allowed to enter the tribe)— a most remarkable setting aside of tribal and racial distinctions. Which isn't to glorify the Roman state or system, but it is of interest, especially as much of the Enlightenment was predicated on an appeal to the structures of Rome (first) and Greece (a somewhat distant second). Did using these structures as a basis inform Madison to avoid racial and sex distinctions in the Constitution? Possibly. I also think he knew the terms had to be generic if slavery were to be abolished (I suspect he thought through the legislative process rather than an amendment). It's much easier to free black people if the Constitution does not distinguish any race as different from any other. Was it prescience? Planning? The insertion of the Hand of Providence? All three? Whatever the answer, it remains amazing to me. As for the 3/5ths Compromise, yes, it is quite well understood that at the time slavery was expected to come to an end. Pretty much everybody thought the writing was on the wall— the Northern states were rapidly moving towards abolition, and the Founders certainly didn't see it having much future in the South. Yes, greed stuck its head in to preserve things, at least for a time. But the 3/5ths Compromise would very much have been seen by Southern politicians as a stick and a carrot. Power was stripped from them because they had slaves, which they could gain back solely by ending slavery. These were the people who invented gerrymandering. You damn well better believe they saw the numbers involved in the 3/5ths deal and were thinking about it— especially as the South was not nearly as populated as the North. 2 reps in Congress is a lot more power than 1 and 3/5 when the 3/5 rep can't exist. It's enough to sway a law in your favor, to get tax money headed in your way, to stop a tax or pass a tax, to decide a President, or even declare a war. Yeah, they knew what the deal was when they made it. And they knew what they could do which would swing it. Politicians, even ones at the start of a system, think in terms of power. The words and terms of the Constitution meant things then which a lot of people don't grasp now. Most people think the Constitution as a legal document starts with Article I. It doesn't. It starts with "We." Every word of it has legal weight and legal meaning and is the Law of the Land, and the Founders knew it and intended it, debating each section and phrase with great care and passion. This wasn't some manifesto scratched out in a garret, or some proclamation from a radical protest activist, or some shouting from a two-bit agitator on TV. This was to be LAW— real and actual LAW— which would stand not only in their time but in the times far from them— yes, even to today. It is to be understood in terms of their time AND in terms of our own. If there are parts we don't like for our time, the document itself acknowledges that we have the power and authority to change it— and provides the very mechanism to do so. Times change. The Founders knew this. But Law cannot change— by which I mean the understanding that certain concepts and precepts must be in place, immutable and universal, and it is these Laws which serve to guide us as we make the lesser laws of our time— or recognize greater Laws the Founders failed to see. That is why I am adamant in my defense of the Constitution, and the necessity of understanding it and revering it. If we do not do the former, we will lose our way. If we do not do the latter, we will lose everything. |
35thOVI | 28 Jul 2022 8:33 a.m. PST |
|
35thOVI | 28 Jul 2022 9:56 a.m. PST |
I dare say that Chinese children are being taught that their culture is superior to any other culture, that they should be proud of their past and that they should be dominating the world. It seems that almost only in the US and UK, do we feel the need to degrade our heritage and our founders. Yes this is a bit simplistic, But I believe basically true. Can a country stand when there is so much self loathing? |
Silurian | 28 Jul 2022 11:55 a.m. PST |
Self loathing? Bit strong I think. Rather just a removal of the rose-tinted spectacles, and a realization that, as Doc is fond of saying, history and characters are complicated. |
35thOVI | 28 Jul 2022 1:13 p.m. PST |
Yes they are complicated. I knew at a young age about slavery and it's evils. I knew that many of the founders practiced slavery. It never came as any shock to me. None of the people then or today are or were saints. I would say most have skeletons in their closets. Maybe in some cases literally. But I specifically speak of the Desecration, destruction and removal of monuments, changing of names of buildings and places and in some cases Desecration as well, the need to vilify our founders and pioneers, the appropriation of the Curriculum in many schools, that seems to try and overshadow what these men accomplished and replace it with a Veneer of evil based only on one subject. And this is just the historical aspects and does not include the cultural. Again this my opinion, others may and will disagree. |
Au pas de Charge | 29 Jul 2022 9:20 p.m. PST |
The US Constitution was not for white people, though it was written by white people. Although this is not how I meant it, this is both true and also untrue. In any case, there are some who believe it wasnt meant for them and they have some legitimate gripe. In all other circumstances the Constitution deliberately does not define any person by either race or gender, but uses the terms "person," "persons" or "people." This was deliberate and was NOT assumed to be restricted to any race— understandably, as there were literally thousands of free black citizens of the various states, including property owners and heads of households, which at the time was the general standard for determining who could and could not vote. The Constitution included these people from the beginning, making no distinction either for or against them based on any criteria. There are some flaws in what you're saying. I cant hope to address them all but for instance: The reason the Founders didn't include the word "race", racial terms or even the word "slave" is because they didn't want to dirty up the document in the eyes of the world. Race and slavery were hotly discussed and everyone knew that slavery's existence posed inherent contradictions to the inspiration of the Constitution as well as a certain wrongheadedness about excluding blacks and slaves from the blessings of liberty etc.. However, the prohibition on ending the slave trade for 20 years and the fugitive slave clause are what was meant even if the document doesn't use the word "slave". Substituting "persons" for "blacks" or "slaves" because they knew it was wrong to persecute and enslave them makes the exclusion of their mention worse not better because it points to scienter and conspiracy on the part of the Founders. I see them as having left the terms blacks/slaves out as being more like old black & white films which never utter the "N-word" even though they must've slung it around mighty frequently. We cant now watch those films and say no one used that word because they're not in the films. Alternatively, the Founders left slaves/blacks language out of the Constitution specifically because they knew that including those terms would be viewed by both the civilized world and posterity to be both immoral and damning; and, further, by these omissions, acknowledged both that they were far too weak to stop themselves from doing what they themselves knew to be wrong and also did not want to be judged. This sort of behavior is exhibited in certain types of fiends who want to satisfy their compulsions but not be labeled or ostracized. Also the 3/5ths compromise isn't anti-slavery because it isn't 100% pro-slavery. It created a second class of persons under the Constitution. It didn't have the effect of ending slavery and there were really no taxes raised on this additional 3/5ths of the population. By virtue of the 3/5th compromise, the South enjoyed a lot of benefits and influence in Congress that those states would otherwise never have had; including electing Jefferson President, making Missouri a slave State, enacting Jackson's Indian removal policy and several other pro-slavery moves. I don't know why you employ a fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution when no one else ever has. Additionally, several times you switch from a fundamental or literal view to an originalist view when it suits whatever it is you're arguing. (I'm assuming you think dark forces are erroneously maintaining that the Constitution is inherently racist?).
For example, if the Founders knew that Women and free Blacks sometimes voted when they framed the Constitution and thus intended for them to be included, then by virtue of their also knowing that slaves, who were also all black, existed at the time of the framing, then they too must've been intended to be codified into the document? Slavery in the ancient world has got nothing to do with this. It was different, they were different and they weren't us but the Founders are us. Plus, the Founders, including the slave owning ones knew better because the world in the 1780s had a large body of anti-slavery philosophy which had existed for a while and did not exist in ancient times.
In any case, all sorts of cultures have had murder, rape, incest and pillage. Does that make it OK? Should we do away with rape laws because the XYZ ancient societies raped up and down the coast? Your thing about the Preamble is wrong. It has no force of law. The Law itself changes all the time and should change to meet new concerns. What you're talking about is more akin to a fundamentalist religious tract and I would've thought you'd be against "indoctrination"?
That is why I am adamant in my defense of the Constitution, and the necessity of understanding it and revering it. If we do not do the former, we will lose our way. If we do not do the latter, we will lose everything. I don't know what you mean? If it were rewritten, what parts of it would you find needed to be revered and what parts do you think would be left out that would make us lose our way? |
Escapee | 30 Jul 2022 7:31 a.m. PST |
35th, I don't think most Americans, left or right, are involved in destroying monuments and other such lawlessness. And I don't think schools are teaching kids to loathe America. I think there have been plenty of instances of going overboard on both sides. We have an unusually shallow and self interested bunch of political figures preying on us, manipulating us. Part of the problem is unfair and unbalanced media messaging to grab ratings and keep us foaming at the mouth. Good people, patriots, have jumped on various bandwagons on both sides, gotten caught up in the tangled web. That said, some change is overdue, adjustments to make in our story. This should be done with facts, respect, perhaps incrementally, with the kind of integrity that a lot ordinary people still live by. Maybe it's too late for our generation, torn apart by half truths and lies, showboat schemers, misguided zealots. But the upcoming generations are already turning their back on the strife and their turn is coming. |
35thOVI | 30 Jul 2022 8:23 a.m. PST |
tort, what is it that you and I did not know, or for that matter anyone who makes any effort to study history does not know? Did we believe Madison, Washington, Jefferson, etc. were saints? Did we not know they owned slaves? Did we not know that the Constitution, although written for "all", did not include all in the 1800's and early 1900's? Did we not know slavery was wrong? So what is being achieved by this constant revisionism? Do their weaknesses detract enough from them, to overshadow all they achieved? My response is, they were all still great. My bet is you do too. 😉 |
Silurian | 30 Jul 2022 9:07 a.m. PST |
35thOVI, I think you are probably smarter and more historically aware than the 'average' citizen. Most from previous generations (and today) literally were not aware of much of what you say – other than 'we used to have slaves'. Look at old textbooks, many do pretty much portray the Founding fathers as saints. |
doc mcb | 30 Jul 2022 3:15 p.m. PST |
I have been studying and teaching the Founding for fifty years, and know of NO history purporting them to be saints. Great men, though,for sure. |
Parzival | 30 Jul 2022 3:28 p.m. PST |
APDC: It is thinking like yours which will defeat us all. Yes, the preamble has force of law, because it defines what the document is doing, and what it's scope is supposed to be, not to mention who the rulers of the nation are. That very phrase, "We the People", isn't a pretty bit of prose. It is a statement of source and thus of Law. It states that the people are the rulers, and no one else. That it is the people who grant power to the government, and not the other way around— a very important distinction which is already rapidly becoming lost. Indeed, much of the world has never recognized it, and some nations of the world which at one time recognized it have tossed it away. We snub this understanding at our peril. As for the rest, it defines the purpose of the powers granted— 1. To create a more perfect Union (of the States, which is to say to craft a nation rather than a Balkanized region of petty quarreling principalities). 2. To provide for the common defense. Boy is this one not popular on the left today— "You mean to help us all engage in warfare if needed???" Yes. Exactly that. But more, too— not just military defense but also "defense" against other dangers, natural, political and economic— which might not be military in nature, but require other actions, both physical, legal, and diplomatic. 3. To promote the General Welfare. This is no small call, but is also misunderstood— "promote" being a key word. The government created by the Constitution is supposed to "promote"— that is encourage and foster— an economic system which is favorable to the people, and not just the government, or specific groups. But note that it is "promote," not "provide." The government is NOT supposed to provide the things which are favorable; it is to do things which encourage and allow the people to provide for themselves. 4. To secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity. Again, this is crucial— LIBERTY must be at the core of what is done. And LIBERTY is no vague term. It isn't license to do whatever… but it is opportunity to pursue one's own ambitions to the bests of one's ability and effort— opportunity which must extend to all the people. And this opportunity is to be lasting— it is to stand not only for the people who create the Constitution, but for their descendants throughout time. The above are indeed forceful in law. They are the foundation below the ground floor of government. Without upholding these concepts, the whole structure becomes weak. Do not cast it aside and think it is not Law. It very much is. |
Silurian | 30 Jul 2022 3:38 p.m. PST |
Doc mcb. Seriously? Not literally. Described where complexities and traits that today may be frowned upon, are glossed over. |
Au pas de Charge | 31 Jul 2022 3:52 p.m. PST |
APDC: It is thinking like yours which will defeat us all. I'm trying to understand your thinking. You didn't answer what parts of the Constitution are in danger of being lost and what parts shouldn't be added. Unless by "my thinking", you mean that anything less than complete obedience and acceptance without criticism of both the Constitution and its Founders is their undoing. Would that be indoctrination? Are you for or against that?
Yes, the preamble has force of law, because it defines what the document is doing, and what it's scope is supposed to be, not to mention who the rulers of the nation are. They're very nice words but although I think I see your point, I need to re-stress that the Constitution's preamble may indeed have force of law everywhere, except in the courts and under the law. That very phrase, "We the People", isn't a pretty bit of prose. It is a statement of source and thus of Law. It states that the people are the rulers, and no one else. That it is the people who grant power to the government, and not the other way around— a very important distinction which is already rapidly becoming lost. You're in favor of scrapping the electoral college and having popular vote elections? Indeed, much of the world has never recognized it, and some nations of the world which at one time recognized it have tossed it away. We snub this understanding at our peril. Who has tossed this away?
1. To create a more perfect Union (of the States, which is to say to craft a nation rather than a Balkanized region of petty quarreling principalities). We should get rid of the States and state laws in favor one national legal system?
2. To provide for the common defense. Boy is this one not popular on the left today— "You mean to help us all engage in warfare if needed? It isn't? I haven't seen anyone want to reduce this except to trim pork. One exception are some who don't provide enough for our veterans…but I don't think they're on the left. But note that it is "promote," not "provide." The government is NOT supposed to provide the things which are favorable; it is to do things which encourage and allow the people to provide for themselves. So, no social programs?
4. To secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity. Again, this is crucial— LIBERTY must be at the core of what is done. And LIBERTY is no vague term.It isn't license to do whatever… but it is opportunity to pursue one's own ambitions to the bests of one's ability and effor This seems vague.
opportunity which must extend to all the people. And this opportunity is to be lasting— it is to stand not only for the people who create the Constitution, but for their descendants throughout time. So, after eliminating social programs, reinstate them?
The above are indeed forceful in law. They are the foundation below the ground floor of government. Without upholding these concepts, the whole structure becomes weak. Do not cast it aside and think it is not Law. It very much is. It sounds like you are talking about a culture's "norms". That if a Nation breaks from its norms for short term gains, it runs the risk of both destabilizing and destroying itself. In the case of our Constitution some of the norms are fairness towards everyone and an understanding that you might not get every last thing you want or like under its operation. Is that something like what you mean? |
Escapee | 01 Aug 2022 9:19 a.m. PST |
Yes 35th, the Founders were exceptional men, imperfect but they started us on the path. They were of a time, and only just coming to terms with what their work really meant. Their own lives may not have lived up to their words, but the change they were creating could not happen overnight. I admire them immensely. IMO: Just as many of us try to judge them in the context of their times, we need to judge their work in the context of ours. They were forward thinking men. They did not give us stone tablets, they gave us the tools for equal rights and freedom. Amendments were allowed because they knew we would need them to fulfill the promises they had made just by writing the Constitution. As for history, I think many of us here, maybe all of us, know a lot more history than the average American. The texts we learned from were simplified. We did not learn very much about who some people were or the impact of their actions. We were taught slavery existed, but not what is was like. We read a lot more. Most people are not operating from our level of awareness. 60 years ago, I was not inspired by textbooks. They made me questions things. Most Americans have not even retained the modest history lessons of school. If you think this is not true, recall the 4th of July speech where Washington's army was said to have secured the airports. |
35thOVI | 01 Aug 2022 9:53 a.m. PST |
Tort I beg to defer! You cannot name one airport that Washington did not have secured during the Revolution, not one! 😉 |
Escapee | 01 Aug 2022 11:33 a.m. PST |
It's true…they could not have been more secured. It was like they were not even there! |
35thOVI | 01 Aug 2022 12:14 p.m. PST |
|
Parzival | 03 Aug 2022 12:50 p.m. PST |
I shall not individually quote ADPC or myself, but instead break these sections apart with **** so as to aid the reader in placing my response according to his breakdown. **** What I mean is that APDC's thinking reduces the Constitution to bits we like and want to follow and bits we don't like and don't want to follow but are too lazy or don't have the popular will to change according to the process provided by the Constitution itself. When the Constitution is open to the interpretation of either the whims of the masses or the wishes of the powerful then the Constitution becomes a meaningless document— and that means *all* of it is meaningless. This is the problem of the "living document" philosophy as it is meant by the progressive left— and in fact so stated by Obama. That philosophy is not that the Constitution is "alive" in the sense that it provides a mechanism for altering it— the amendment process— but rather that they believe that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the assumed ethics, morals, and political desires of today— by which, of course, they mean progressive points of view, not either conservative or moderate points of view. This is the thinking which magically "discovers" new rights neither mentioned nor implied by the Constitution, much less conceived of by its creators or even subsequent generations, and yet this thinking somehow can also argue against rights explicitly recognized by the Constitution or directly implied. What's worse, this same thinking produces a disrespect and discounting of the roles of the various branches of government and what they can and cannot do. As an example, not long ago the Speaker of the House asserted that the position of Speaker was co-equal with the Office of the Presidency. But the Constitution says no such thing. In fact, the US Constitution grants no power or authority whatsoever to the Speaker of the House, and only mentions the position as one which the House has the power and authority to establish for itself. Quite literally the "power" of the Speaker of the House is simply what the term "speaker" means— the spokesperson of the House, who basically communicates the collective will of the House (determined by voting) to the Senate, and on occasion to the President of the United States. Otherwise, the authority of the Speaker is solely established by the body of the House of Representatives, and exists only over itself and its duties under the Constitution. The Speaker has zero authority over any other branch, or even over Congress as a whole, and is co-equal only with the equivalent to the same role in the Senate. It is Congress as a whole which is co-equal to the President and to the Supreme Court as a whole. Indeed, at any time the House of Representatives can vote to change the authority of the Speaker to whatever they wish it to be, but only over themselves, or, as an act of law also voted for by the Senate and signed by the President, within the structure of the Federal government, so long as that law does not go against the powers restricted to the various branches by the Constitution itself. I use this as an example of something that appears to be insignificant to most but is actually enormously important. If politicians can declare for themselves powers, roles or status which the Constitution does not grant, then we are in deep weeds as a free Republic. Such politicians have ceased to be "servants" of the People, but have asserted themselves as rulers over us. Similarly, if the Constitution can be reinterpreted according to political whims, then it ceases to be a firm source of Law, but is instead a flimsy tissue of ideas to be ignored at any moment on any matter. That's the thinking I see as extremely dangerous and extremely destructive. I am not saying that ADPC goes full bore in that direction, but simply that his statements hold the seeds. It's one thing to have political ideas of the moment, and work to implement those ideas within the structure provided by the US Constitution— it is another to assume that these ideas have more weight than the Constitution simply because we have them NOW and they were not had THEN. Which doesn't mean we can't give the ideas equal weight— but that process is called the Amendment process. It is not to decide what we can ignore and what we can't just because we want to do so. I have never said that the Constitution or the Founders cannot be criticized. Of course it can be, and of course they can be. But the Constitution must be followed if we are to have a nation of laws and a republic of the people. Which doesn't mean we can't change things we don't like or which we think reflect out-dated or outmoded thought— but that's called Amending the Constitution, and that must be by the will of the people and the States, not the modern agitator's call to toss something out because someone 200 years ago didn't believe or act exactly as the agitator wishes. As for criticism of the various Founders, I do not oppose that. However, I oppose things being declared as fact for which there is little or no corroborating evidence, or for holding someone from a time centuries removed from our own as a target for evisceration and ultimate condemnation based on ideals we hold today which were not so held then. Part of the reason I take this view is because the detractors are seldom coming to the situation merely as a discussion of history— that yes, this person thought this, said this, and did this— but rather as a method of discrediting the nation and the Constitution itself while pushing radical agendas which the Constitution and the laws specifically prohibit. They will not only toss out the proverbial baby with the bath water, they'll toss the mother, the father, the siblings, the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and the entire bath tub, too. But I'm glad to hear that you are opposed to indoctrination, APDC. Of course, one man's indoctrination is another man's wise precepts for life. Surely there are precepts you think others should be taught? If so, is that not itself "indoctrination"? So don't throw out words as universal negatives that are not necessarily always negative. It is not teaching which is either good or bad; it is what is taught. **** The Preamble DOES have force of Law in the government and the courts. It has to, else the government and the courts themselves bear no power. The Preamble establishes what the rest of the Constitution and thus the laws created under it exist to do, and from where they derive authority. We damn well better hope it's law, because if it isn't, our rights will waft away like smoke in the wind. Oh, not all at once. Just little by little by little. But if the leaders of these institutions cease to agree that the nation is formed by the people and not themselves, and that they neither have to defend the people or their rights, or that LIBERTY is the underlying goal of all of it, we will at that moment cease to be free on any point. Do not think that because the Preamble is not often cited in arguments that it ceases to have any weight as law. It has the full weight of what it says— all the law is essentially under it! The Preamble is therefore of VITAL importance to the existence of a free and functioning democratic republic. Thinking otherwise is to engage in a dangerous folly. (For the record, I spoke with an attorney about the above, and got a similar reply— the Preamble is part of the text of the Constitution and is essential law. She was appalled to think anyone would think differently.) **** Again, as for the electoral college, APDC is again trying to put words in my mouth and trip me up. I am, of course, more than prepared for that. I actually fully believe in the electoral college, as it does what it's supposed to do— make the President the President of the United States. The House reflects the desires of the population, based on regional desires. The Senate (supposedly) represents the interests of the individual States. The President represents the combined desires of the people AND the States, towards each other and towards the rest of the world. Hence the electoral college— which is absolutely brilliant, no matter how ridiculous it may seem on first glance. The college itself is mostly a rubber stamp, but it is the apportionment of it which is so important— it gives the heavily populated areas significant power and say, but also gives a greater say to the regions and States of the nation as a whole— and that's important, as without it the President would not be accountable to the nation and the people, but merely to the populations of New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Which I think everyone can agree would be a disaster. *cough cough* Ironically, instead of silencing the voices of the big cities (as certain agitators love to claim), the electoral college empowers the voices of all Americans. Absolutely brilliant. And clearly APDC must agree. **** Who has currently tossed the ideals of liberty and a restrained government accountable to the people away? Venezuela. Cuba. Russia. China. Iran. Europe is risking it with the unelected nature of the EU. There are others I can name, but we're starting to enter into recent politics on those. Let's just say that some are uncomfortably close. By the way, the Soviet Union had very extensive versions of the Bill of Rights, supposedly as part of its own constitution. Today, China and Russia still do. But these lists of rights are worthless, as those in power do not believe in the authority of the people and do not follow any "restrictions" on their own power. The systems have the style, but none of the substance. They announce "rights" all the time; but they do not believe in them, and so the rights are no rights at all. Which is not dissimilar to agitators in the US who declare certain rights and reject others— and sometimes reverse their stances depending on what suits them in the moment, or whom they wish to apply the rights or rejections for or against. Or, to quote Orwell, they hold that "Some are more equal than others." **** No, we shouldn't abolish the states. Again, APDC engages in the fallacy of PWIMM. I said nothing of the sort and neither does the Preamble. "A more perfect" union doesn't mean "one big nation." It means "making things better than what we had" which any student of the Constitution or American history knows. It's kind of sad that apparently some people don't. In any case, it's clear that the Preamble specifically did mean that the States would remain individual regionally governing bodies answerable to their own people and NOT appointed by a distant government nor under it's unlimited authority (which were among the tyrannical acts of King George III decried in the Declaration of Independence.). But the Articles of Confederation which had tried to govern the interactions of the States had proved to be greatly flawed— which is why the Constitution was written in the first place. So the "more perfect union" literally meant exactly what it says— "a better system of unity among the people and the states." It doesn't mean "one overall government which eliminates the States." What a silly thing to assert. **** Defense: I of course wasn't referring to spending. I was referring to things like a powerful navy, nuclear weapons, anti-missile defense systems, defending the nation's borders, killing terrorists (I'm sorry— "Islamic scholars")… that sort of thing. But then, I'm not chanting ignorant slogans like: "No blood for oil." "Maybe one day schools will have money for books and the Pentagon will have to hold a bake sale for bombs." "We don't need a two-war military anymore!" (Sure about that now, are you?) As for the rest, anyone who pays attention to the details knows that responsible representatives of the people don't vote for bills with poison pills in them, especially non-allocated ‘discretionary' spending amendments with no specific purpose or restraints, which have nothing to do with the purpose of the bill or the agreements reached in debate and negotiation, and could negatively affect the desired outcome of the bill. But hey, if the bill-killing amendment gets the ill-informed to believe that people are opposed to aiding veterans, who cares if it screws the veterans, right? **** On social programs, I think that no, the Preamble doesn't call for giveaways to anybody. In fact, I'm not convinced it really allows for it, either. I think the vast majority of social programs are an abuse of the Commerce clause, and in most cases are more destructive than helpful. The ongoing collapse of social order within our cities and among the poorer classes is sufficient evidence that in the main these programs are an abject failure, and have been so for decades. Even the Veterans Administration is an inefficient and often cruelly ineffective program, which needs massive reform if not outright replacement. I firmly believe that such elements should largely be left to the states and local governments and institutions, without either Federal oversight or funding (which is grossly inefficient anyway— typically for each dollar actually allocated to "social programs" around twenty cents or less actually winds up in the hands of or benefiting the intended recipients). The Federal attempt at "one size fits all" social(ist) systems does not work and should be abandoned. Furthermore, who he pays the gold makes the rules, which means that local institutions or approaches which might help based on local circumstances and needs are instead constrained or even prohibited by Federal requirements, as to get the funds the local services must go against their better judgment and knowledge just to have the extra dollars. Far better would be to reduce the inefficiencies of filtering money through the Federal bureaucracy and the "alphabet soup" and instead let the people and the states deal with the needs they have in a far more effective and efficient manner. In any case the term "social programs" is far too broad for what I am saying, except to assert that "redistribution of wealth" is NOT the intention of the Constitution in any form. Period. JFK had it more correctly— "a rising tide lifts all boats." That's exactly what the Founders had in mind— that governments exist to help allow for everyone to achieve a better life for themselves and their families, not to try to force everyone into the same economic or social condition (which is an impossibility), or even really to establish a minimum condition. Which isn't to say that government cannot act in times of real need, or to aid the weakest— but that there may be better mechanisms than government for the job. Government is not meant to BE society, nor to take the place of personal compassion and generosity. It is meant to ensure that society has the opportunity to be its best, and for people to individually (and corporately) fulfill the obligations and even sacrifices that our mutual humanity and the guidance of our consciences and faith call upon us to make. It is not good to "vote" for someone else to do the roles we should be fulfilling ourselves, nor should we think ourselves better because we have done so. That attitude is as selfish as the miser and as foolish as feeding a viper by hand. **** Liberty is vague only to those who do not understand what it means, or who deliberately do not wish to. Liberty means the freedom to live, believe, speak, write, act, and own according to the dictates of one's own conscience without acting against or intruding upon the rights of others to do the same. That's not vague. It's specific. It's also important to note that the Preamble specifically says "Blessings of Liberty"— the very thing which indicates that personal Liberty is not absolute if it does not have the positive impact— hence the prohibition of intruding upon another's rights. You do not have the right, with your Liberty, to deny others their Liberty, or to use your Liberty to do damage to society or others. There is Liberty to protest— there is not Liberty to riot. There is Liberty to speak one's mind— there is not Liberty to threaten or abuse, or to call for abuse. And yes, there is Liberty to own— and we now know truly there is no Liberty to own someone else. And yes, the Founders did at least have an inkling of that, though sadly they still acted against it. **** I cannot fathom how APDC found any suggestion of either eliminating or reinstating social programs in what I wrote. I spoke of opportunity. How that has anything to do with social programs seems a leap completely devoid of logic. I think what I wrote was clear, and see no reason to explain it further. **** And yes, in general that is something like what I mean. But it's not just "norms." Norms change. Liberty is not meant to be a norm. It is meant to be undeniable and inviolable, the foundation upon which our society is built. If we go against that, we destroy ourselves, inevitably and irredeemably. There are politicians and pundits today who are too ready today to say that all cultures are equal. They most certainly are not. One cannot equate our culture with a culture which does not hold Liberty to be sacred without sullying and diminishing our own culture. |
35thOVI | 03 Aug 2022 2:41 p.m. PST |
"An amendment! But that takes too much time and effort and we want the changes NNOOOOOOWWWW!!" Parzival +5 |
Lascaris | 03 Aug 2022 4:28 p.m. PST |
Well that's a blast of words but a couple thoughts I have regarding the statements are: 1. Popular will is not enough to modify the constitution. With out current political system of gerrymandered districts and an over 70X ratio of most/least populous states the tail can endlessly wag the dog and prevent almost any change regardless of popularity. 2. Disagree with the electoral college viewpoint. Today the votes of residents of Wyoming, the most powerful vote per capita in national elections, have almost 4X the weight of Texas. Again, we have a system where the tail can wag the dog. I guess it's noble that ultra-low density states have this degree of power however while the tyranny of the majority is deplorable the tyranny of the minority is idiotic. 3. If you can think of a better mechanism than the government for handling social programs I'd like to hear it. Depending on the good will of individuals is never going to provide reasonable support for individuals that require it in today's world. Leaving it up to states just leads to the cases we have today where health care by state is drastically driven by state policies so you have states like Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and California with the highest ranked health care and those like Louisiana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi with very poor levels of care. Some of that is obviously economically driven however some of it is due to policy choices such as refusing medicaid expansion. You might argue that the ballot is the place to enact changes if you don't like how the state is run however with our current gerrymandered districts that is almost impossible to achieve. Wisconsin is a great example where a 2021 paper calculates that Democrats would have to win 8.2% more votes in order to achieve a parity in legislation representation. Ok enough stream of consciousness rambling. |
Escapee | 03 Aug 2022 7:00 p.m. PST |
Good rambling. And thanks Parz, good stuff, I just disagree somewhat. The private sector will not act sufficiently to maintain the rising tide. It is no even aware that there is a tide much of the time. |
Au pas de Charge | 04 Aug 2022 8:30 a.m. PST |
What I mean is that APDC's thinking reduces the Constitution to bits we like and want to follow and bits we don't like and don't want to follow but are too lazy or don't have the popular will to change according to the process provided by the Constitution itself. Never was APDC more misunderstood. There are several provisions he is not crazy abour in the Constitution and yet he realizes that the Constitution isn't a document that needs to 100% in sync with what he likes and be 100% against what he doesn't. He wonders if you feel the same way? When the Constitution is open to the interpretation of either the whims of the masses or the wishes of the powerful then the Constitution becomes a meaningless document— and that means *all* of it is meaningless. Unfortunately, this sweeping statement demands a lot of questioning but, for now, I'll settle for examples of where these masses or powerful are rendering the Constitution meaningless?
This is the problem of the "living document" philosophy as it is meant by the progressive left— and in fact so stated by Obama. That philosophy is not that the Constitution is "alive" in the sense that it provides a mechanism for altering it— the amendment process— but rather that they believe that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the assumed ethics, morals, and political desires of today— by which, of course, they mean progressive points of view, not either conservative or moderate points of view. It's continually fascinating that you think the morals of Madison's time were superior to those of today but you also feel it necessary to assert we cannot judge morals of his time. Do you really think the morals of his time were superior? Do you think we need to live by the moral standards of his time? DO you think we cant use our current morals? Why would that be the case? I don't agree with you about progressive points of view and the Constitution. Justice Roberts court has been overwhelmingly favorable to Conservative viewpoints and policies. He was always savvy enough to throw a few headline cases the way of the liberals and then ensure that governing decisions were quite conservative, business friendly and above all, religion friendly. Alito has now ruined that. That's the difference between a true, dyed in the wool conservative and a religious fanatic. Conservatives do acknowledge that given a choice of views by the public, the conservative ones almost always lose out which is unfortunately why the right has moved to a more fascist stance. This is the thinking which magically "discovers" new rights neither mentioned nor implied by the Constitution, much less conceived of by its creators or even subsequent generations, and yet this thinking somehow can also argue against rights explicitly recognized by the Constitution or directly implied. I don't understand a lot about this statement but for starters what new rights are you speaking of? Why do you think "new" rights are somehow constitutionally offensive? Why do you think they're missing in the Constitution in the first place? Over time on this thread, you haven't seemed to be able to specify any of these new and presumably offensive rights. I bring this up because you appear to be an avowed champion of specificity.
I use this as an example of something that appears to be insignificant to most but is actually enormously important. If politicians can declare for themselves powers, roles or status which the Constitution does not grant, then we are in deep weeds as a free Republic. Such politicians have ceased to be "servants" of the People, but have asserted themselves as rulers over us. The Speaker's opinion is a grave threat but we're supposed to ignore the last president's actions to actually interfere with the constitution? When you say "politicians declaring for themselves powers etc that the constitution doesn't grant" are we including withholding a Supreme Court hearing for a year? Was that one of those? Or did the Founders consider a move like that doing the bidding of the people? Similarly, if the Constitution can be reinterpreted according to political whims, then it ceases to be a firm source of Law, but is instead a flimsy tissue of ideas to be ignored at any moment on any matter. I think you keep hinting at this but I haven't seen any examples set down by you. I also disagree wholeheartedly that laws shouldn't change with the times, they should and must. You are reciting some horribly reactionary rationalizations. A law doesn't have to be longstanding to be valid. However, I would agree that perhaps a law you personally like is more valid because of its longevity. Please tell us, outside of SCOTUS itself, where the Constitution is being reinterpreted according to political whim? That's the thinking I see as extremely dangerous and extremely destructive. I am not saying that ADPC goes full bore in that direction, but simply that his statements hold the seeds. Yeah, w/e. It's statements like this that make me suspect you are susceptible to mass hysteria. I don't know that it is any of your business what other people think nor is the Constitution some sort of autocratic instrument to be rolled up and whack people on the snout with. I have never said that the Constitution or the Founders cannot be criticized. Of course it can be, and of course they can be. But the Constitution must be followed if we are to have a nation of laws and a republic of the people. Which doesn't mean we can't change things we don't like or which we think reflect out-dated or outmoded thought— but that's called Amending the Constitution, and that must be by the will of the people and the States, not the modern agitator's call to toss something out because someone 200 years ago didn't believe or act exactly as the agitator wishes. You come across to me as someone who believes both the founders and the constitution to be sacrosanct. I see what you're saying; that the founders and the constitution can be criticized but really it looks like that's only acceptable as long as nothing can be done about it and both constitution and founders fundamentally remain both in place and unchallenged. LoL, modern agitators. That sounds a lot like that movie where a judge calls FEDs "outside agitators". OK, so who are these agitators and what constitutional provisions are they calling to be tossed out? You continue to make sweeping generalizations and it's beginning to sound like these enemies of the constitution are imaginary. Incidentally, challenges to the constitution are exactly how Amendments come about and also how the constitution itself gets a chance to explain itself more clearly and to reaffirm its principles. In contrast, your approach gives me the impression that the constitution represents a theology and that anyone that challenges it is an enemy or an unbeliever. The Preamble DOES have force of Law in the government and the courts….(For the record, I spoke with an attorney about the above, and got a similar reply— the Preamble is part of the text of the Constitution and is essential law. She was appalled to think anyone would think differently.) Maybe she misunderstood the context. The preamble has no force of law. If you want to believe it does, go right ahead.
Again, as for the electoral college, APDC is again trying to put words in my mouth and trip me up. I am, of course, more than prepared for that. I actually fully believe in the electoral college, as it does what it's supposed to do— make the President the President of the United States. Well, you have to be on your guard around me. Perhaps you even think I'm one of those…agitators?
Who has currently tossed the ideals of liberty and a restrained government accountable to the people away? Venezuela. Cuba. Russia. China. Iran. Europe is risking it with the unelected nature of the EU. Really? Europe's unfulfilled EU thing aside, what do any of those countries' preexisting regimes have in common with the USA? Every one of them had a government every bit as rotten as what replaced them. LoL, Iran…honestly.
No, we shouldn't abolish the states. Again, APDC engages in the fallacy of PWIMM. You have to watch me, I'm quite wily. (rolls eyes) No, we shouldn't abolish the states. Again, APDC engages in the fallacy of PWIMM. I said nothing of the sort and neither does the Preamble. "A more perfect" union doesn't mean "one big nation." It means "making things better than what we had" which any student of the Constitution or American history knows. It's kind of sad that apparently some people don't. In any case, it's clear that the Preamble specifically did mean that the States would remain individual regionally governing bodies answerable to their own people and NOT appointed by a distant government nor under it's unlimited authority (which were among the tyrannical acts of King George III decried in the Declaration of Independence.). But the Articles of Confederation which had tried to govern the interactions of the States had proved to be greatly flawed— which is why the Constitution was written in the first place. So the "more perfect union" literally meant exactly what it says— "a better system of unity among the people and the states." It doesn't mean "one overall government which eliminates the States." What a silly thing to assert. There's outdated thinking and then there is this antique gem. SO, the Founders wanted us to remain separate states forever? We're supposed to be united but only while being separate? This ultra extremist viewpoint that the Federal government is the enemy is itself a tool of "agitators". Incidentally, why is it that often either the poorest states or the ones with the worst track records of civil rights violations always seem to want state sovereignty the most? I can live with the states existing and administering local needs but why should the people of Alabama live under radically different laws from Pennsylvania? Or do you believe there is value in that? Why should the people of Alabama want separate laws? Are they a separate country?
On social programs, I think that no, the Preamble doesn't call for giveaways to anybody. In fact, I'm not convinced it really allows for it, either. Right, so we should be united but at the same time it should be every man for himself.
Liberty is vague only to those who do not understand what it means, or who deliberately do not wish to. Or for those who love the word "Liberty" so much that they never tire of hearing its blessings listed over and over. Don't you agree? Liberty means the freedom to live, believe, speak, write, act, and own according to the dictates of one's own conscience without acting against or intruding upon the rights of others to do the same. Again, and because you're such a fan of specificity, where is this liberty threatened?
I cannot fathom how APDC found any suggestion of either eliminating or reinstating social programs in what I wrote. I spoke of opportunity. How that has anything to do with social programs seems a leap completely devoid of logic. I think what I wrote was clear, and see no reason to explain it further. APDC wasn't sure and wasn't sure if you'd thought everything through in terms of repercussions. Now APDC is sure you haven't; thanks for the clarification.
And yes, in general that is something like what I mean. But it's not just "norms." Norms change. Liberty is not meant to be a norm. It is meant to be undeniable and inviolable, the foundation upon which our society is built. If we go against that, we destroy ourselves, inevitably and irredeemably. There are politicians and pundits today who are too ready today to say that all cultures are equal. They most certainly are not. One cannot equate our culture with a culture which does not hold Liberty to be sacred without sullying and diminishing our own culture. Norms change? Do you find that troubling? Liberty is universal and everlasting but it took the founders to figure this out just the one time in human history and no one else can ever be trusted to handle it? Is the opposite of liberty, slavery? It would be ironic if slave owners who baked some pro slavery provisions into the constitution were the sole arbiters of liberty while your imagined but unspecified agitators against the constitution are presumably trying to overturn it and thus reimpose slavery? Ironies abound but they seem to ironically be more abundant in these parts. I don't understand what the fear is here. Are you suggesting that people who want rights or liberties not included in the constitution are returning us to a state of chaos and slavery? I think there is room to love the constitution without needing to be a fundamentalist extremist to prove it. Who is going against liberty? You still haven't told us what these current threats are to liberty or which liberties are threatened and how they touch on the constitution or indeed threaten it. Am I putting words in your mouth when I say you seem to say that you're all for both liberty and rights but only if it's from an Amendment and not via interpretation but that there really is no need for Amendments for rights or liberties because the missing ones really aren't missing because the Constitution doesn't really discriminate and, additionally, the states should be free to treat people any way they like without interference with the federal government? Incidentally, it would be interesting to understand what country ever halted change successfully? In fact, it would be interesting to see examples of countries where complete intolerance and inflexibility towards change didn't actually, and ironically, precipitate the very change they were trying to toll.
|
Parzival | 04 Aug 2022 12:07 p.m. PST |
You're not that wily. In fact, you're rather obvious. The lawyer I spoke with has considerable more understanding of the issues and the Constitution and the nature of Law than you do. Your responses continue to demonstrate little to no understanding at all. I see no need to continue with a point for point tit for tat, especially as you have now become personally insulting. For the rest of those following this discussion, I will from henceforth ignore APDC and anything he cares to share (not the button, just by not bothering to respond). I have no desire to "throw pearls before swine," which is where this has now descended. He continues to deliberately take my words out of context, thinking that by his doing so I have somehow stumbled into his "wily" plans. Hardly. Any decent attorney (and APDC is clearly not one) knows that the text of the US Constitution includes the Preamble, and that the Preamble therefore shares the same status as law in the US as the rest of the document— and indeed that it is foundational to the document. Any decent attorney also understands the concept of permanence of law (my term). If a law does not have permanence, then the law has no power. This does not mean that a law cannot be changed; it can. But that change must be a result of legal process, whether that be on the judicial side (through constitutional review) or the legislative side, either through legislative action or amendment to a constitution. These concepts are fundamental to the republican and constitutional forms of government. Laws within a constitutional society do not "fade away." They must be formally altered, changed, or repealed. Respect for that is essential. A crime does not cease to be a crime because people no longer agree that it is; it ceases to be a crime because legislative action is taken to formally declare that it is not a crime. It is not enough for a prosecutor to state he will not enforce the law; this does not change the law. It merely means the prosecutor has abandoned his sworn duty. Nor does a law disappear because the executive grants a person a pardon; that is circumstantial, and may be the correct course of action and even justice in that instance, but the law remains to cover further instances. But yes, we can and should change laws by the process provided to do so. And that includes amending the Constitution. But simply deciding "that's not what we want anymore" is not sufficient. Rather, we change things by voting for representatives for the people who then act to make the changes their constituents desire— but those changes may be opposed by the constituents of others, which in and of itself proves "that's not what we want anymore" is not an actual "we", but an assumed one. The rest of his statements are quite obviously an attempt to muddy things and delve into recent politics, which I am not discussing here. Yes, some of our Founders morals are superior to our current society's behavior. But some are and were not. I have never said differently. I don't know who APDC is attacking there, but it is not me, nor can it be derived from anything I wrote. I am not engaging in hagiography. I am defending the importance of Law (not laws), and the significance of the US Constitution to US society and the structures which guide us and exist to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Can these structures be examined and altered by amendment? Yes. (For the record, we've done this very thing multiple times in the two-hundred year history, including in the 20th century, where the bulk of the changes post the Bill of Rights were all made! It's hard to do— it's supposed to be hard to do— but we can do it. And no, gerrymandering doesn't prevent it. We've had that since the early years of the nation; it's named after a 19th century politician, and began in 1812! Gerrymandering has not and will not prevent the amendment process, if the people decide that an amendment is necessary. We've done that before, we can do it again— and in fact, the last few amendments to the Constitution were done within living memory of many of our citizens. So if you want a change, use your voice and your vote to advocate for one. Just don't be surprised if not everyone feels your sense of urgency, or even agrees.) In any case, I think I have made my points sufficiently that they need no further commentary or explanation. I believe the debate is over; the readers may choose themselves which opinions they wish to uphold, which to discount, or which to dismiss as irrelevant to themselves. See you on TMP. |
Steve Wilcox | 04 Aug 2022 12:46 p.m. PST |
Any decent attorney (and APDC is clearly not one) knows that the text of the US Constitution includes the Preamble, and that the Preamble therefore shares the same status as law in the US as the rest of the document— and indeed that it is foundational to the document. "The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights." link "The preamble states the purpose of the Constitution and the intention of the entire document full of laws. The preamble is not actually a law or a legal document, but it is used to make it clear what to expect in the Constitution." link |
35thOVI | 04 Aug 2022 12:51 p.m. PST |
|
Escapee | 05 Aug 2022 3:25 p.m. PST |
There is the letter of the law and the intent of the law. If I stop you for doing 68 in a 65 highway zone, I am enforcing the letter of the law. But the intent of the law is to keep all drivers safe, so I look for the guy doing 85. Law is a tool for the greater good. If I bust every guy doing 68, I might miss the guy who is a public safety threat. The intent of the Constitution is laid out in preamble. It's like an interpretive guide to enforcing the law. It may not be law, but it serves the law and supports understanding. |
Au pas de Charge | 07 Aug 2022 10:03 a.m. PST |
You're not that wily. In fact, you're rather obvious. I have always striven for clarity. Wish that those I conversed with strove for the same. The lawyer I spoke with has considerable more understanding of the issues and the Constitution and the nature of Law than you do. Your responses continue to demonstrate little to no understanding at all. Perhaps you can get the lawyer to come make their arguments because something is getting lost in translation here.
For the rest of those following this discussion, I will from henceforth ignore APDC and anything he cares to share (not the button, just by not bothering to respond). I will hardly notice, you havent been responding for several posts now. I have no desire to "throw pearls before swine," which is where this has now descended. Really? Considering the inchoate nature of your arguments, it would seem that the pearls might be faux.
He continues to deliberately take my words out of context, thinking that by his doing so I have somehow stumbled into his "wily" plans. Hardly. You're making some sweeping generalizations, platitudes, personal preferences, and authoritative declarations. I'm simply trying to help you to test your theories out; isnt that your philosophy, to kick the tires hard? If you can get this personally insulted over something as sacrosanct as the US Constitution and quickly drop its superficial defense with someone as uninformed as myself, how would you fare against a true Constitutional expert? You would think you'd be delighted to shore up your arguments in preparation for the big dance. You can take your ball and go home thinking it will punish me but others might think you can neither express yourself nor justify or defend your assertions. Or, perhaps you think criticism, skepticism and thinking through constitutional principles constitutes a personal attack. If that is the case, it might indeed be wiser to only discuss the Constitution with those who already tacitly agree with you. At this point some of your "pearls" include: 1. Liberty is under threat but you give no specific cases. If this were the case, you would think you could give a few cases. You have given none. 2. Other countries have lost their liberties. But you've either listed completely alien, non democratic cultures or countries where the preceding regime was horrendous for the average citizen. 3. If a law does not have permanence, then the law has no power. This is a broad, sweeping platitude. One might as well say "Evil has always existed". Laws have permanence until they dont. The Constitution is vague on quite a few matters and needs oceans of judicial interpretation to flesh it out. I say this because I get the idea that the viewpoint you're setting down believes everything you need to run the USA with is set down clearly in the Constitution, and it aint. The only view that asserts this is the case is an extremist, reactionary one. If that is the view you think worth having, why would that be a problem? You also haven't given any examples of Constitutional law gone awry that should be addressed only within the black letter of the Constitution itself or fixed via Amendment. Maybe this is the contemporary politics bait you think I'm setting but you brought it up and you haven't given any specific examples. How can I understand what outrageous Constitutional distortion is taking place left and right if you don't set down a single example? 4. But that change must be a result of legal process, whether that be on the judicial side (through constitutional review) or the legislative side. Considering the Constitution only gets changed via the legal process or judicial interpretation, I wonder what the problem is? Ive asked several times, and several times it's been avoided. Are there changes taking place in the Constitution that we are unaware of and by parties who are neither Congress nor the Judges? 5. The Founders were mortal but they made a great document and we cant judge them by our morals and we cant judge the Constitution by our times. Some people hold this view but again they are the most reactionary voices. Additionally, you haven't answered why we should live by their principles but we cant evaluate them by ours. Not an easy question to answer but you haven't even tried. I would like to know if your lawyer believes that making bold, superficial declarations about the law and Constitution makes for both good constitutional analysis and oral argument. It's a pity because there was the potential of a good discussion to be had here but it all got stalled at the starting gate. |
doc mcb | 08 Aug 2022 7:41 a.m. PST |
The Declaration as well as the Preamble are part of our fundamental law. The organic laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the general and permanent laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[6] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.[7][8] |
doc mcb | 08 Aug 2022 7:44 a.m. PST |
Acts of the Confederation, e.g. the NW Ordiance, still have the force of law. As does the Declaration of Independence, which does not establish institutions nor powers, but explains WHY institutions and powers exist. |
Pages: 1 2
|