A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Jul 31, 2012.

?

Do you support the resolution as written in the OP?

  1. Yes, I support it 100%.

    13 vote(s)
    52.0%
  2. I mostly support it but do have some problems which I will explain.

    4 vote(s)
    16.0%
  3. I mostly do not support it which I will explain.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. I reject the resolution in its entirety.

    8 vote(s)
    32.0%
  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,354
    Thanks Received:
    12,310
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,917
    And all the problems you outline could be remedied with a concept such as is suggested in the resolution in the OP.
     
  2. JDzBrain
    Offline

    JDzBrain Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    519
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Back woods of Kentucky
    Ratings:
    +140
    Ya know what Al, there is NO questions how the Founders felt about the right to keep and bare or even the type or way a firearm is own or carried.

    Here is Thomas Jefferson's take on guns. "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

    Doesn't sound like a man who has any ambiguity about the nature of the 2nd Amendment to me!

    Ad as a matter of fact, the most powerful weapon of mass destruction of the day was the cannon. MANY of the founders owned and kept ready to go...CANNON on their lawns!

    That is the equivalent of us keeping a chain gun on our car. And in fact, the majority of cannon in this country during the time of our founding were owned by private citizens or groups of private citizens...NOT the national government.

    There is NOT ambiguity about the 2nd, except in the minds of those who wish to destroy it!

    As to the point about welfare and food stamps, Jefferson had this to say. "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

    Put it to the people and SEE where the truth falls!

    Ya know what liberty? While I agree with the principles you express, I am ALWAYS adverse to amending the Constitution. NO GOOD has come from any amendment after the 10th! That's because they were all written by men of limited intellect who repeat by Amendment what was already in our founding documents and should have been done by legislation instead.

    I will say this, Jefferson would have agreed with the thing about a balanced budget. He said, "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." And I agree as well. When out national debt is MORE THAN 100% of our GDP...THAT ain't what's happening!

    Folks there is NOTHING happening in our world or society today that was not occurring in the days this country was founded. Technology does NOT change the human condition...ONLY our capability to deal with it.

    On the other hand, ALL...and I mean everyone of life's answers were written into the Constitution and our founding documents.

    It's just like the bible. Having studied several religions, I don't have a religious bone in my body. What I DO KNOW...is that the bible is a book full of common sense for a society intent on tolerance and coexistence. Most atheist won't admit that because they are simply unenlightened contrarians. But it is FACT and it's why the founders used it's teachings as the foundation for our laws and society!

    Good thing this is the Clean Debate Zone. I'd be getting flamed from both sides for that one! LOL
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,354
    Thanks Received:
    12,310
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,917
    I was rushed for time and did not give your previous posts the attention they deserved. But never fear. I pride myself on ability to flame somebody without breaking any of the CDZ rules. :) (j/k)

    Unless one views the Bible as at least in part as evidence of a people evolving in their understanding and appropriate response to a changing perception of who God is and what He expects of His people, it must literally be taken as a dichotomy of good vs evil, of self-servance vs compassion, of necessary violence vs tolerance and peace.

    So perhaps it is inevitable that the founders, mostly immersed and guided by their understanding of JudeoChristian history and teachings, would also build some dichotomies into the U.S. Constitution. Thus we have an original Constitution in which the basis is all men are created with equal unalienable rights that also accommodates slavery. And though many if not most of the Founders abhored slavery, they saw that as a necessary violence overriding their personal feelings in order to persuade all the states to become part of the great experiment.

    And despite a long standing cultural acceptance of slavery throughout Euope and the New Workd, even those who owned slaves--Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al--knew in their hearts that it could not be justified.

    What some said:

    They also knew that in the hands of a mostly moral and religious people, understandings and perceptions would change and whatever they got wrong in the beginning would be corrected in time. And they left us a means to do that with the amendment process.

    And so we had the Emancipation Proclamation, the battles over the Jim Crow laws, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments all necessary to break down the last barriers associated with slavery. One vote to one household made sense at the beginning, but as the country grew and expanded that became far too difficult to properly administrate and the 19th Amendment was necessary.

    So we now are under a new kind of slavery, the very kind the original Revolution and Constitution was intended to free us from and which the 13th Amendment finally made freedom possible for everybody.

    And we need a New Emancipation Proclamation, possibly accompanied by a new revolution of sorts (see companion thread in the CDZ) to again restore the unalienable rights and freedoms the Founders fought so hard to defend for us.
     
  4. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356

     
  5. JDzBrain
    Offline

    JDzBrain Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    519
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Back woods of Kentucky
    Ratings:
    +140
    First, if you would be so kind as to point out just ONE example of where I said the founders were perfect, I'd be a HECK of a lot more inclined to lend weight to your argument!

    However, to answer your question....QUITE SURE!

    Our founding documents do NOT just include the Constitution. The Declaration is the Why, the Preamble is the what and the Constitution is the How.

    The Constitution did NOT MAKE SLAVERY LEGAL...any more than it did indentured servitude or any other individual law. There was NO REASON to write an amendment to the Constitution that only effected the 3rd clause of Article IV, Section 2. WHICH...was a clause titled States citizens, Extradition and that is what it was dealing with.

    It dealt with a practice that was common then, but continues to this very day of forced labor. Back then, the court would force a man to work for you to pay a debt. Today, they garnish your wages or make you work for 40 cents a day in the prison cabinet shop. And you can believe that even today, if you run, they WILL extradite your butt back...just like the clause says. It did NOT legalize slavery or indentured servitude.

    The 13th Amendment...titled Slavery Abolished...abolished something that wasn't even IN the damn Constitution.

    And as a matter of fact, by the time the 13th was introduced, slavery had ALREADY been abolished in all but a few states and by the time it was ratified, the war was over and 9 of the 11 former Confederate states VOTED TO RATIFY IT.

    So WHY PASS THE AMENDMENT to abolish something that wasn't in the Constitution? Because it was a political football to war with the south. Just a couple weeks before the first shots were fired, the southern states offered to abolish slavery as part of a compromise that keep the fed from laying a (unconstitutional before the illegally passed 16th amendment made direct taxes legal) direct tax on southern textiles. Jeff Davis said later that he had only one regret about the way he conducted the war. That was that he hadn't freed the slave before he fired on Sumter. On the other hand, Lincoln wrote in a letter to a friend that he would, "...free some of the slaves, one of the slaves or none of the slaves, whatever it took to rally citizens to the cause." THAT is the REAL history of the 13th!

    As to the 3/5ths clause...which wasn't a clause...it was NOT effected by the 13th amendment in any way. IT was modified by the 14th Amendment. You know, that brilliant piece of work that gave us anchor babies? What a gem!?!?

    The so called 3/5ths clause was PART of the 3rd clause of Article 1, Section 2 titled The House. The sole purpose of that clause was to define how EQUAL taxes are laid and how many representatives are to be chosen for each state according to the population. It was MODIFIED by the second clause of the 14th Amendment that...instead of simply addressing how representatives were chosen, made it so that ONLY MEN COULD VOTE!

    Added to anchor babies and the fact that it failed to address the taxes portion of the clause it was modifying all together...NOT the best examples for brains you could have brought out!

    Brother, I could go on for days about the insanity that has been inflicted on this country by men playing politics with the founding principles. AND WILL if you would like, but just know this, I did NOT describe the men who wrote the Constitution as "perfect." I WILL say that there had never before nor has there ever been since a greater collection of righteously inspired intellect in one place at one time in the history of this world. And ANYONE who would argue otherwise...REALLY needs to study the history of this planet before making any assertions about our founding or the visionary documents that intellect produced.

    Perfect diamonds...are produced by the trained mind and skilled hands of imperfect men!
     
  6. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,354
    Thanks Received:
    12,310
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,917
    All interesting concepts for sure. But obviously the Founders reassured all that the Constitution neither required slavery nor prohibited slavery at the time it was presented and ratified by the states. So the consensus was that slavery was legal for those states that chose to have it and it was also legal for states to prohibit it. The 13th Amendment made it illegal for anybody to have it.

    It has been explained that the Declaration of Independence is the reason for the Constitution, the Preamble is what it is intended to accomplish, and the body of the Constitution is the how that is to be done. All that, plus the documents of the Founding Fathers is essential to an honest interpretation of original intent.

    So we now have a President and Congress who no longer feel bound by original intent. And they all are now caught up in a system that feeds upon itself to benefit those in government, is totally self serving, and is a roadblock to focusing on what government was originally intended to do.

    How do we get back to original intent?
     
  7. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,851
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,867
    Spoken like a true lender. :lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,363
    Thanks Received:
    2,173
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,634
    More like someone without a great credit score who doesn't want to be denied credit altogether. It's not up to you, or a "we-know-better-than-you" regulator, to tell me how much interest I should be willing to pay. If it's too high, I'll say no. If I think it reasonable, and I need it bad enough, I'll pay the higher interest. As long as there is no fraud or deception going on, the terms should be up to me and the lender, and no one else's business.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2012
  9. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,851
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,867
    Actually the Government would disagree with you there. So do I. There are limits as to what can be charged.
     
  10. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,363
    Thanks Received:
    2,173
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,634
    I understand that you, and the government, disagree with me. I think you are both wrong. I just explained why.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

emancipation proclamation in modern english

,

emancipation proclamation in modern language

,
emancipation proclamation modern english
,
emancipation proclamation modern translation
,
modern english emancipation proclamation
,
modern example of emancipation proclomation
,
modern translation of the emancipation proclamation
,
proclamation in modern language
,
the emancipation proclamation in modern english