Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[Publius1787]

Let's apply the same standards to politicians voting for war. How about any politician voting for war has to send their kids abroad to fight on the front lines. And if they have no kids, they have to go themselves.

Nah. Thats why people like me exist. Thats why we have a voulinteer military. And I dont want to have my life dependant on a liberal anti war hippy who would rather be smoking weed than looking after my back in a line company in Afghanistan.

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest in politicians voting for war if they have nothing personal on the line? It's my taxes going to fund a war I may or may not believe in. Why the heck should I be expected to fund a war in which some politician has nothing at stake?

Dumb point.
1. Who would sit in his place?
2. Do you really want people who dont want to serve in the military?
3. Those of us, like myself, who do serve know the risk were taking
4. Your taxes fund the constitutionaly sanctioned powers of congress, of which, war is one of them.
6. Many polititions have family, sons, or daughters, currently serving (vouluntairly) in the war they voted for.

What your advocating for is that a polititions son be taken by force to serve against his will by virtue of his fathers vote. Whereas I am advocating for those who pay the governments bills not to be forced to pay for more services because those who dont pay the bills want an extra welfare program to force more money away from those who earned it to those who havent. You see the difference? You advocate force and I advocate freedom. Which is often the core difference between liberals and conservatives.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.

And I reckon you support slavery and the 3/5ths provision, also.

Talk about a red herring. Is your ability to argue the point that pathetic?

He is pathetic. HE has no ability to argue. Merely mouth slogans. That's why his sorry ass is on iggy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nah. Thats why people like me exist. Thats why we have a voulinteer military. And I dont want to have my life dependant on a liberal anti war hippy who would rather be smoking weed than looking after my back in a line company in Afghanistan.

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest in politicians voting for war if they have nothing personal on the line? It's my taxes going to fund a war I may or may not believe in. Why the heck should I be expected to fund a war in which some politician has nothing at stake?

Dumb point.
1. Who would sit in his place?
2. Do you really want people who dont want to serve in the military?
3. Those of us, like myself, who do serve know the risk were taking
4. Your taxes fund the constitutionaly sanctioned powers of congress, of which, war is one of them.
6. Many polititions have family, sons, or daughters, currently serving (vouluntairly) in the war they voted for.

What your advocating for is that a polititions son be taken by force to serve against his will by virtue of his fathers vote. Whereas I am advocating for those who pay the governments bills not to be forced to pay for more services because those who dont pay the bills want an extra welfare program to force more money away from those who earned it to those who havent. You see the difference? You advocate force and I advocate freedom. Which is often the core difference between liberals and conservatives.

It is the dumbest comparison ever.
When the country goes to war everyone has something at stake. Politicians have their careers at stake.
This is unlike taxes where people who do not pay can vote themselves more and more benefits from people who pay, being in the majority.
Total red herring of an argument.

 

[Toro]

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest in politicians voting for war if they have nothing personal on the line? It's my taxes going to fund a war I may or may not believe in. Why the heck should I be expected to fund a war in which some politician has nothing at stake?

Dumb point.
1. Who would sit in his place?
2. Do you really want people who dont want to serve in the military?
3. Those of us, like myself, who do serve know the risk were taking
4. Your taxes fund the constitutionaly sanctioned powers of congress, of which, war is one of them.
6. Many polititions have family, sons, or daughters, currently serving (vouluntairly) in the war they voted for.

What your advocating for is that a polititions son be taken by force to serve against his will by virtue of his fathers vote. Whereas I am advocating for those who pay the governments bills not to be forced to pay for more services because those who dont pay the bills want an extra welfare program to force more money away from those who earned it to those who havent. You see the difference? You advocate force and I advocate freedom. Which is often the core difference between liberals and conservatives.

It is the dumbest comparison ever.
When the country goes to war everyone has something at stake. Politicians have their careers at stake.
This is unlike taxes where people who do not pay can vote themselves more and more benefits from people who pay, being in the majority.
Total red herring of an argument.

Are you fucking joking? This country isn't at war now. It's the military that is at war. What sacrifice have we who are not at war been asked to make? Politicians have something at stake? lol When we invaded Iraq, we had our taxes cut. God forbid if we have to raise taxes to fund a war. The average American has been asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing for the wars of the past decade.

 

[Toro]

Yeah. Well in the absence of your argument I still want to know where the Constitution specifies race or gender in regards to voting.

Or women, eh? It says "men." It says nothing about women. And yet we have the temerity to allow females to vote. It's been all downhill since.

What article? What section?
I know you arent talking about the 14th Amendment are you? In that case it says "male" but that didnt come around until the constitution was around 100 years old. Once again, Show me where Race or Gender are mentioned in the Constitution for voting purposes. Especially for restricting the right to vote. Why am I having a constitutional descussion with a guy who knows absolutly nothing about the constitution? You hate the constitution and its authors so much that you would throw out such a slanderous and false alligation just like all the other liberals who want to dismiss the principles of liberty in the advocacy of "collective salvation", "social justice", "mob rule" , "aleinable (to distinguish from unaleinable) rights" and the magically ever changing without so much as an amendment "living constitution". Just like all liberals your argument relies on a false history that never existed and you made up to make the founders look bad to bolster a political point that doesent exist. Or perhaps your so ignorant of the constitution, OF WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER READ, that you just didnt know. Either way if you dont know the damn Constitution of the United States then you need to find someone else to debate because you are seriously outclassed here. Even among bad spellers like myself.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifi -
cations requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch
of the State Legislature."

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

I understand that some of y'all pine for the 18th century when apparently the apex of all human enlightenment occurred, but the meaning of a document originally written by slaveowners extolling the rights of man is going to change over time as society evolves.

Apart from juxtaposing your "only those with a stake should be allowed to vote" argument, it's a sad reflection that apparently a "liberal" in what you just wrote is someone who thinks people should vote directly for senators and not owning land shouldn't disenfranchise Americans. Yeah, because landholders wouldn't pass laws that would screw everyone else. Fortunately, the quest for all knowledge and understanding didn't end in 1783.

 

[Steelplate]

Right. As if landholders aren't a venal group who will use legislative powers to bend laws to their interest.

At least they have some *ahem* skin in the game.

How do you expect those who have nothing to act, when voting to take from those who do?

Wait a damn second here... are you saying that only people who own their homes have skin in the game? What a bunch of bullshit. In big cities, where property values well exceed most people's ability to "own", there are a large percentage of people working, contributing and paying taxes who rent.

So you're saying that these people don't deserve the right to vote? What about young people just starting out? A young couple, both gainfully employed, doing their fair share, who happen to rent?

You guys are out of your mind.

 

[Steelplate]

Are you fucking joking? This country isn't at war now. It's the military that is at war. What sacrifice have we who are not at war been asked to make? Politicians have something at stake? lol When we invaded Iraq, we had our taxes cut. God forbid if we have to raise taxes to fund a war. The average American has been asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing for the wars of the past decade.

Yeah... all those parents of those people over in war zones have not sacrificed anything. Our people, faced with crushing debt because of those wars are being threatened with losing their safety nets aren't sacrificing anything.

You know who isn't sacrificing? In fact, they are laughing all the way to the bank at the blood spilled? The Military Industrial monopolies. Times are good for them. They love all this conflict... and they are the types to come around and bawl about their taxes.

While the rest of us rot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dumb point.
1. Who would sit in his place?
2. Do you really want people who dont want to serve in the military?
3. Those of us, like myself, who do serve know the risk were taking
4. Your taxes fund the constitutionaly sanctioned powers of congress, of which, war is one of them.
6. Many polititions have family, sons, or daughters, currently serving (vouluntairly) in the war they voted for.

What your advocating for is that a polititions son be taken by force to serve against his will by virtue of his fathers vote. Whereas I am advocating for those who pay the governments bills not to be forced to pay for more services because those who dont pay the bills want an extra welfare program to force more money away from those who earned it to those who havent. You see the difference? You advocate force and I advocate freedom. Which is often the core difference between liberals and conservatives.

It is the dumbest comparison ever.
When the country goes to war everyone has something at stake. Politicians have their careers at stake.
This is unlike taxes where people who do not pay can vote themselves more and more benefits from people who pay, being in the majority.
Total red herring of an argument.

Are you fucking joking? This country isn't at war now. It's the military that is at war. What sacrifice have we who are not at war been asked to make? Politicians have something at stake? lol When we invaded Iraq, we had our taxes cut. God forbid if we have to raise taxes to fund a war. The average American has been asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing for the wars of the past decade.

We all sacrifice something in terms of lost output, lost talent, lost opportunities. Some people are too stupid to realize it.
Again, your comparison is nonsense. Maybe someone who doesn't import bananas should have no say in whether we raise or lower tariffs on bananas? Maybe someone who doesn't own a farm shouldn't vote on farm subsidies.
It is an absurd distraction from the main argument taht people with nothing to contribute or lose should be able to vote themselves more and more benefits. Which is a good argument.

 

[Publius1787]

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest in politicians voting for war if they have nothing personal on the line? It's my taxes going to fund a war I may or may not believe in. Why the heck should I be expected to fund a war in which some politician has nothing at stake?

Dumb point.
1. Who would sit in his place?
2. Do you really want people who dont want to serve in the military?
3. Those of us, like myself, who do serve know the risk were taking
4. Your taxes fund the constitutionaly sanctioned powers of congress, of which, war is one of them.
6. Many polititions have family, sons, or daughters, currently serving (vouluntairly) in the war they voted for.

What your advocating for is that a polititions son be taken by force to serve against his will by virtue of his fathers vote. Whereas I am advocating for those who pay the governments bills not to be forced to pay for more services because those who dont pay the bills want an extra welfare program to force more money away from those who earned it to those who havent. You see the difference? You advocate force and I advocate freedom. Which is often the core difference between liberals and conservatives.

It is the dumbest comparison ever.
When the country goes to war everyone has something at stake. Politicians have their careers at stake.
This is unlike taxes where people who do not pay can vote themselves more and more benefits from people who pay, being in the majority.
Total red herring of an argument.

Then take the arguement apart. Destroy it! Dont just call the arguement dumb and walk away in a false sence of self confidence when youve responded to absolutly nothing. Oh, and services memebers should always be able to vote!

 

[Publius1787]

Or women, eh? It says "men." It says nothing about women. And yet we have the temerity to allow females to vote. It's been all downhill since.

What article? What section?
I know you arent talking about the 14th Amendment are you? In that case it says "male" but that didnt come around until the constitution was around 100 years old. Once again, Show me where Race or Gender are mentioned in the Constitution for voting purposes. Especially for restricting the right to vote. Why am I having a constitutional descussion with a guy who knows absolutly nothing about the constitution? You hate the constitution and its authors so much that you would throw out such a slanderous and false alligation just like all the other liberals who want to dismiss the principles of liberty in the advocacy of "collective salvation", "social justice", "mob rule" , "aleinable (to distinguish from unaleinable) rights" and the magically ever changing without so much as an amendment "living constitution". Just like all liberals your argument relies on a false history that never existed and you made up to make the founders look bad to bolster a political point that doesent exist. Or perhaps your so ignorant of the constitution, OF WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER READ, that you just didnt know. Either way if you dont know the damn Constitution of the United States then you need to find someone else to debate because you are seriously outclassed here. Even among bad spellers like myself.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifi -
cations requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch
of the State Legislature."

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

I understand that some of y'all pine for the 18th century when apparently the apex of all human enlightenment occurred, but the meaning of a document originally written by slaveowners extolling the rights of man is going to change over time as society evolves.

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

 

[Toro]

It is the dumbest comparison ever.
When the country goes to war everyone has something at stake. Politicians have their careers at stake.
This is unlike taxes where people who do not pay can vote themselves more and more benefits from people who pay, being in the majority.
Total red herring of an argument.

Are you fucking joking? This country isn't at war now. It's the military that is at war. What sacrifice have we who are not at war been asked to make? Politicians have something at stake? lol When we invaded Iraq, we had our taxes cut. God forbid if we have to raise taxes to fund a war. The average American has been asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing for the wars of the past decade.

We all sacrifice something in terms of lost output, lost talent, lost opportunities. Some people are too stupid to realize it.
Again, your comparison is nonsense. Maybe someone who doesn't import bananas should have no say in whether we raise or lower tariffs on bananas? Maybe someone who doesn't own a farm shouldn't vote on farm subsidies.
It is an absurd distraction from the main argument taht people with nothing to contribute or lose should be able to vote themselves more and more benefits. Which is a good argument.

Give me a break. 99% of this country has sacrificed jack shit for the wars.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you fucking joking? This country isn't at war now. It's the military that is at war. What sacrifice have we who are not at war been asked to make? Politicians have something at stake? lol When we invaded Iraq, we had our taxes cut. God forbid if we have to raise taxes to fund a war. The average American has been asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing for the wars of the past decade.

We all sacrifice something in terms of lost output, lost talent, lost opportunities. Some people are too stupid to realize it.
Again, your comparison is nonsense. Maybe someone who doesn't import bananas should have no say in whether we raise or lower tariffs on bananas? Maybe someone who doesn't own a farm shouldn't vote on farm subsidies.
It is an absurd distraction from the main argument taht people with nothing to contribute or lose should be able to vote themselves more and more benefits. Which is a good argument.

Give me a break. 99% of this country has sacrificed jack shit for the wars.

Like I said.

It is a substitute for an argument.
The main argument is that people with nothing in the system should not be able to vote themselves benefits paid for by those who do.
Deal with it.

 

[rightwinger]

Does anyone actually believe that American citizens want to give up their right to directly elect Senators?

 

[Toro]

What article? What section?
I know you arent talking about the 14th Amendment are you? In that case it says "male" but that didnt come around until the constitution was around 100 years old. Once again, Show me where Race or Gender are mentioned in the Constitution for voting purposes. Especially for restricting the right to vote. Why am I having a constitutional descussion with a guy who knows absolutly nothing about the constitution? You hate the constitution and its authors so much that you would throw out such a slanderous and false alligation just like all the other liberals who want to dismiss the principles of liberty in the advocacy of "collective salvation", "social justice", "mob rule" , "aleinable (to distinguish from unaleinable) rights" and the magically ever changing without so much as an amendment "living constitution". Just like all liberals your argument relies on a false history that never existed and you made up to make the founders look bad to bolster a political point that doesent exist. Or perhaps your so ignorant of the constitution, OF WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER READ, that you just didnt know. Either way if you dont know the damn Constitution of the United States then you need to find someone else to debate because you are seriously outclassed here. Even among bad spellers like myself.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifi -
cations requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch
of the State Legislature."

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

I understand that some of y'all pine for the 18th century when apparently the apex of all human enlightenment occurred, but the meaning of a document originally written by slaveowners extolling the rights of man is going to change over time as society evolves.

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

I'm not attacking the founders. I'm making a point. The constitution is a historically brilliant document. The ideals embodied in the constitution may be the most noble in the world. However, do you not see the blatant philosophical contradiction in people who own slaves writing a document that says "All men are created equal?" Clearly, when the constitution was written, the founders did not believe that "all" men were equal because they were products of their time. They were enlightened men for their time. "Inalienable rights," but only if you're a white guy? If the founding fathers were alive today, do you believe they would argue slavery is OK? No, because societies evolve. That's the point. Great men cannot possibly anticipate how a society may look like 250 years into the future, no matter how great they are. We are products of our time, and can only be judged so, but that does not mean society remains rooted in the norms of centuries past.

 

[Publius1787]

Does anyone actually believe that American citizens want to give up their right to directly elect Senators?

1. Voting is not a right. Its a privilage. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only specifies the conditions that they cannot be denied the right to vote.
2. 2/3rds of the people who voted in this poll see the value of the states having a say in the federal government as intended by the founding fathers. They also see no need for two popularly elected bodies. So yes, evidently there are some that want to protect their rights through state representation.

 

[Toro]

We all sacrifice something in terms of lost output, lost talent, lost opportunities. Some people are too stupid to realize it.
Again, your comparison is nonsense. Maybe someone who doesn't import bananas should have no say in whether we raise or lower tariffs on bananas? Maybe someone who doesn't own a farm shouldn't vote on farm subsidies.
It is an absurd distraction from the main argument taht people with nothing to contribute or lose should be able to vote themselves more and more benefits. Which is a good argument.

Give me a break. 99% of this country has sacrificed jack shit for the wars.

Like I said.

It is a substitute for an argument.
The main argument is that people with nothing in the system should not be able to vote themselves benefits paid for by those who do.
Deal with it.

Too bad you've lost that argument. Deal with it.

 

[Publius1787]

I understand that some of y'all pine for the 18th century when apparently the apex of all human enlightenment occurred, but the meaning of a document originally written by slaveowners extolling the rights of man is going to change over time as society evolves.

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

I'm not attacking the founders. I'm making a point. The constitution is a historically brilliant document. The ideals embodied in the constitution may be the most noble in the world. However, do you not see the blatant philosophical contradiction in people who own slaves writing a document that says "All men are created equal?" Clearly, when the constitution was written, the founders did not believe that "all" men were equal because they were products of their time. They were enlightened men for their time. "Inalienable rights," but only if you're a white guy? If the founding fathers were alive today, do you believe they would argue slavery is OK? No, because societies evolve. That's the point. Great men cannot possibly anticipate how a society may look like 250 years into the future, no matter how great they are. We are products of our time, and can only be judged so, but that does not mean society remains rooted in the norms of centuries past.

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!! I'll give you a hint. There are 2 blacks and one woman and they all are dipictions of real people WallBuilders - Newsletters - Black History Issue 2004

Heres Prince Whipple's Grave. Oliver Cromwell is the other black guy.

 

[del]

What article? What section?
I know you arent talking about the 14th Amendment are you? In that case it says "male" but that didnt come around until the constitution was around 100 years old. Once again, Show me where Race or Gender are mentioned in the Constitution for voting purposes. Especially for restricting the right to vote. Why am I having a constitutional descussion with a guy who knows absolutly nothing about the constitution? You hate the constitution and its authors so much that you would throw out such a slanderous and false alligation just like all the other liberals who want to dismiss the principles of liberty in the advocacy of "collective salvation", "social justice", "mob rule" , "aleinable (to distinguish from unaleinable) rights" and the magically ever changing without so much as an amendment "living constitution". Just like all liberals your argument relies on a false history that never existed and you made up to make the founders look bad to bolster a political point that doesent exist. Or perhaps your so ignorant of the constitution, OF WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER READ, that you just didnt know. Either way if you dont know the damn Constitution of the United States then you need to find someone else to debate because you are seriously outclassed here. Even among bad spellers like myself.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifi -
cations requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch
of the State Legislature."

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

I understand that some of y'all pine for the 18th century when apparently the apex of all human enlightenment occurred, but the meaning of a document originally written by slaveowners extolling the rights of man is going to change over time as society evolves.

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

try reading what's actually been written

 

[Toro]

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

I'm not attacking the founders. I'm making a point. The constitution is a historically brilliant document. The ideals embodied in the constitution may be the most noble in the world. However, do you not see the blatant philosophical contradiction in people who own slaves writing a document that says "All men are created equal?" Clearly, when the constitution was written, the founders did not believe that "all" men were equal because they were products of their time. They were enlightened men for their time. "Inalienable rights," but only if you're a white guy? If the founding fathers were alive today, do you believe they would argue slavery is OK? No, because societies evolve. That's the point. Great men cannot possibly anticipate how a society may look like 250 years into the future, no matter how great they are. We are products of our time, and can only be judged so, but that does not mean society remains rooted in the norms of centuries past.

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!!

Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Some did not. Clearly not all of them believed in the inalienable rights of all men.

 

[del]

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

I'm not attacking the founders. I'm making a point. The constitution is a historically brilliant document. The ideals embodied in the constitution may be the most noble in the world. However, do you not see the blatant philosophical contradiction in people who own slaves writing a document that says "All men are created equal?" Clearly, when the constitution was written, the founders did not believe that "all" men were equal because they were products of their time. They were enlightened men for their time. "Inalienable rights," but only if you're a white guy? If the founding fathers were alive today, do you believe they would argue slavery is OK? No, because societies evolve. That's the point. Great men cannot possibly anticipate how a society may look like 250 years into the future, no matter how great they are. We are products of our time, and can only be judged so, but that does not mean society remains rooted in the norms of centuries past.

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!! I'll give you a hint. There are 2 blacks and one woman and they all are dipictions of real people WallBuilders - Newsletters - Black History Issue 2004

you do realize that oil paintings aren't the same as photographs, right?



damn