Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by melbo, Sep 13, 2005.
What part of "shall not infring" do they not understand?
What part of "living document" (meaning The Constitution: it is applicable now as it was back then) is obscure? The idea that they didn't contemplate the atom bomb or e-mail doesn't mean the principles don't apply. (Same can be said of the Ten Commandments.)
When exactly did we stop being a constitutional republic and become a democracy?
We didn't, we just think we did
I figure since its what gets practiced...
What I'm getting out of this is that as citizens of the united states we are a democracy. As Citizens of (name your state) we are a republic. Or at least the rules seem to apply that way.
Gotta listen several more times I think, so glad I voted for this guy instead of Kerry or Bush. Tooooooooooooo Bad he didn't get enough votes, think would have shaken this country up big time ( probably got shot the first week, so maybe best he didn't win)
[Admin Please Delete my post above, thought I was logged in, but wasn't]
From what I've been able to find, it seems like the Civil War resulted in one of the biggest changes leading to democracy instead of Republic.
If my logic is correct, this discussion I had with my cousin should explain why:
Me: The South suceeded, the North came in, basically conquered them, and put them back in against their will.
My Cousin: But the South attacked Ft. Sumter first.
Me: Crap, forgot about that... going to do more research.
Ok, so I did some research, and basically, Ft. Sumter was being held by the North, yet it was in S. Carolina territory. SC demanded that the North relinquish it, but they refused. So then finally they decided to take it back by force (which then gave the North "moral" justification to fight a war of defense). Okay, so now I present the following comparision:
I have the country of Aptusland. It splits into West and East Aptusland. The west is holding a fort right in the middle of eastern Aptusland territory. East says get out, West does not comply. Does the East Aptusland have justification to take it back since its in their territory? This wouldn't be any different than two countries becoming hostile and taking over the enemy's embassies located within their borders, right??
Anywayyyy, if someone could verify if I'm on the right track or forgot about something which destroys what I'm thinking.
I do know however that after the civil war it's the first time the legal term U.S. citizen shows up.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What it seems to be doing is putting the power in the hands of the Federal government and making the States subservient. And from the Civil War stuff I talked about above, it basically seems like we resemble a Democratic (and i almost want to use the term "democratic" loosly) Empire than a Constitutional Republic.
I also just noticed that as a U.S. Citizen you have priviledges and immunities.... but not rights, unless you ASSUME they mean life, liberty, and property... but as far as I know, you go by what is written in the legal world, and I'm not seeing the word Right.
No problem, got it done (for those interested it was an exact duplicate of the same post where the deletion was requested).
I would have to fully agree that this was a major turning point to the change from a constitutional republic to a democracy.
I would say as far as you go with it you are correct but when viewing history in order to really understand it you also have to look at it in the full context of the time rather than just judgeing it by todays standards and by doing so it can be seen that the North abridged the Constitutional rights of the South before the South seceeded. While today it is hard for most to fully comprehend in THAT TIME slaves were privately owned property and were basicly farm machinery the same as the horses and oxen or like say tractors and combines and such would be seen today. The southerners paid for them and they were an important part of how they made their living. Let me say here I am not advocateing this situation but simply trying to put the situation in prospective of the times. So when the North decided to abolish slavery for one thing it was a major shift in the power structure since prior to that time the power and controle had been from the local up and the Fed had held the least power over daily lives but also when they abolished slavery not only did it take the means of running the plantations and industries of the South in the way they had always known but there was no compensation offered for the private property that was removed from the southerners controle. So in a practical sence it would be similar to the Fed comeing in and saying that no farmer was any longer allowed to own tractors or any other farm machinery but instead it would be taken away and if they wanted to use it they would have to rent or lease it. Yes by todays standards and the standards of the North of the time there is the fundamental difference that the slaves were human beings but in that time in the South they were not really viewed as humans or at the very least not the same 'level' of humans which to large degree in the time was true even in the North.
So basicly even before secession and attack on SUmpter the North had stolen the livelyhoods of the southerners without even following the constitutional mandate of 'fair compensation' when the government takes private property from citizens.
When viewed in the context of the times and the culture of the time it becomes a lot more clear that the North had attacked the south first and the South simply tried to peaceably walk away but when not allowed to do so attempted to fight to defend freedom from opression.
Putting an end to slavery may have been a nesicary thing to do but the way in which it was done was not acceptable under the constitution or the governmental structure.
Shoot, looks like the economic issue was much deeper than I previously thought. I remember reading that the North would tax the heck out of the South, but that pails in the comparison to the property aspect you brought up.
Here are the words from the horse's mouth - part of Lincoln's first debate:
Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]
Changing topics a little bit... more in line with "founders wisdom" sort of thing. The 2nd amendment seems like it is the most wise of all the amendments. But I think it's being downplayed heavily in today's society. Take my brother's American History book and you'd find that it gives a quick interpretation of what the 2nd amend. means. This interpretation goes along the lines of The US Supreme Court has decided that a well regulated militia means the National Guard and that citizens are only allowed to own certain firearms (the new meaning of "well regulated"). It's pretty rediculous. Especially when considering what Monkeyman said about looking at the culture of the time. Back when the amendments were made, well regulated meant to be kept in good fighting shape. That's a big difference from what they're trying to pass off in the book for reality. Ugh... misinformation at its finest.
I think it all reads differently if you sub the word "Fathers" for Lawyers or politicians
In all respect to those guys, thats what they were
Lol, well good point. Even back then the forces of spin/twisting/whatever were at work. The one thing that comes to mind was the Nationalists taking the name Federalists, leaving the Federalists (by technical definition) to be left with the name, the Anti-Federalists.
IIRC It was regarded to be every able bodied male citizen over the age of 16 was a part of the militia.
Separate names with a comma.