A government of the people, by the people, for the people

[JakeStarkey]

No sensible person wants to go back to world where women and minorities did not have the liberties and freedoms of white males, Foxfyre. That world of Washington or TR et al is not desirable in the 21st century.

I agree Jake, which is why nobody has suggested such a thing and it is irrelevent to the concept of the OP.

It is absolutely relevant to point out, Foxfyre, when you misrecognize founding principles. It is important that we do not detach the Founders from the world in which they lived. It is important that we do not detach those principles from which the evolving world affected them.

 

[Foxfyre]

No sensible person wants to go back to world where women and minorities did not have the liberties and freedoms of white males, Foxfyre. That world of Washington or TR et al is not desirable in the 21st century.

I agree Jake, which is why nobody has suggested such a thing and it is irrelevent to the concept of the OP.

It is absolutely relevant when you misrecognize founding principles. Do not try to detach the Founders from the world in which they lived. Do not try to detach those principles from which the evolving world affected them.

Perhaps you could focus on describing a founding principle I have not recognized or have mischaracterized. A univeral principle, which is what the Constitution was intended to be, applies in whatever world it exists. There was no principle of slavery included in the U.S. Constitution--the Founders, even most of those who owned slaves and all of them who didn't--would never have agreed to that.

The principle involved was what authority did the federal government have in regard to the laws of the individual states.

 

[regent]

First, the Constitution does give the deciding power to the SC. I refer you to Article 3, Section 2.

What you are saying is that the founding fathers, the men who wrote and enacted the Constitution, did not agree with your interpretation.

No, I am saying that the writers of the constitution failed to designate in the constitution that the Supreme Court was to decide the constitutionality of laws, acts of the congress, states or the executive. The wording for that power is simply not in the constitution. The Court under Marshall decided that in the most famous court case, Marbury v. Madison.

I again refer you to Article 3, Section 2. It is not unclear. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..." Marbury simply clarified that language, it did not create the authority.

As one of the primary FFs, Hamilton, said in the federalist papers:

The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

The Federalist Papers were simply letters to the editor, and that letter reflects Hamilton's views. It may well be that that was what the founders intended, but if so they should have put their intentions in writing. Some of the founders believed the states would interpret, others the president or the legislature. It was never spelled out, and the Court took it upon itself to spell it out.
You might check some sources on the omission, in fact, let me quote from the Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court: "...it is also striking that Article III nowhere provides expressly for the power of judicial review..." Check it out, Read Marbury v. Madison, very interesting case and very important.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle of slavery was recognized in the Constitution, no ifs ands or buts. Perhaps you can focus on the reality of the world in which the Founders lived? I will treat you in the same spirit your treat me. This should be about trying to get this discussion on correct principles.

Question: What does the Constitution say about slavery?

Answer: The words "slave" or "slavery" do not exist in the Constitution. However, slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.
Learn more about the US Constitution: Constitution and Slavery

 

[bripat9643]

The issue is not mistaking the terms freedom and liberty as the same.

"Liberty" and "freedom" mean exactly the same thing, Fakey.

Not at all, princess. Start here. This is fundamental and you are outside right now.

Understanding the Difference Between Liberty And Freedom | TJC
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...com/difference-between-liberty-and-free...Mar 29, 2012 – Understanding the Difference Between Liberty And Freedom ... the founders did, where would one go to find a proper definition of liberty?
___

Jefferson evolved his understanding of the differences of liberty and freedom directly from Locke.

ROFL! Please explain the difference to us, Fakey. We're all dying to know.

BTW, Fakey, your link resolves to nothing.

 

[regent]

The principle of slavery was recognized in the Constitution, no ifs ands or buts. Perhaps you can focus on the reality of the world in which the Founders lived? I will treat you in the same spirit your treat me. This should be about trying to get this discussion on correct principles.

Question: What does the Constitution say about slavery?

Answer: The words "slave" or "slavery" do not exist in the Constitution. However, slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.
Learn more about the US Constitution: Constitution and Slavery

The word "slavery" is mentioned in the 13th Amenement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Liberty" and "freedom" mean exactly the same thing, Fakey.

Not at all, princess. Start here. This is fundamental and you are outside right now.

Understanding the Difference Between Liberty And Freedom | TJC
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...com/difference-between-liberty-and-free...Mar 29, 2012 – Understanding the Difference Between Liberty And Freedom ... the founders did, where would one go to find a proper definition of liberty?
___

Jefferson evolved his understanding of the differences of liberty and freedom directly from Locke.

ROFL! Please explain the difference to us, Fakey. We're all dying to know.

BTW, Fakey, your link resolves to nothing.

The link resolves everything. You simply don't agree with Locke and Jefferson, but are afraid to say so, princess.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle of slavery was recognized in the Constitution, no ifs ands or buts. Perhaps you can focus on the reality of the world in which the Founders lived? I will treat you in the same spirit your treat me. This should be about trying to get this discussion on correct principles.

Question: What does the Constitution say about slavery?

Answer: The words "slave" or "slavery" do not exist in the Constitution. However, slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.
Learn more about the US Constitution: Constitution and Slavery

The word "slavery" is mentioned in the 13th Amenement.

Foxfyre was trying to pretend that slavery was not a part of the original constitution, sans amendments.

 

[bripat9643]

Not at all, princess. Start here. This is fundamental and you are outside right now.

Understanding the Difference Between Liberty And Freedom | TJC
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...com/difference-between-liberty-and-free...Mar 29, 2012 – Understanding the Difference Between Liberty And Freedom ... the founders did, where would one go to find a proper definition of liberty?
___

Jefferson evolved his understanding of the differences of liberty and freedom directly from Locke.

ROFL! Please explain the difference to us, Fakey. We're all dying to know.

BTW, Fakey, your link resolves to nothing.

The link resolves everything. You simply don't agree with Locke and Jefferson, but are afraid to say so, princess.

When I said it "resolves to nothing" I wasn't referring to the content. There is no content. When you click on the link you get a message saying "Page not Found."

Try to keep up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Slavery was a fact of life in the 'New World" at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and existed in Canada, Mexico, and most of South America in addition to the American colonies. Those who would like a fairly short but comprehensive history on the situation that existed in 1787, and the opinions of the Founders, even those who owned slaves, can get a pretty good synosis here:

Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Constitution that was adopted met two conditions necessary for all the states to ratify the document. 1) It had to accommodate the slave states that already existed and 2) It had to salve the conscience of those who opposed slavery and wanted it discouraged and prevented from spreading. It gracefully accomplished both goals.

This kind of concept is at the heart of the fundamental purpose of the Constitution to secure the rights of the people while allowing them to be free and live however they chose to do that.

I shall further ignore Jake so long as he continues to misrepresent what I have posted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ROFL! Please explain the difference to us, Fakey. We're all dying to know.

BTW, Fakey, your link resolves to nothing.

The link resolves everything. You simply don't agree with Locke and Jefferson, but are afraid to say so, princess.

When I said it "resolves to nothing" I wasn't referring to the content. There is no content. When you click on the link you get a message saying "Page not Found."

Try to keep up.

https://m.facebook.com/TJCCR?v=feed I will make it easier for princess.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery was a fact of life in the 'New World" at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and existed in Canada, Mexico, and most of South America in addition to the American colonies. Those who would like a fairly short but comprehensive history on the situation that existed in 1787, and the opinions of the Founders, even those who owned slaves, can get a pretty good synosis here:

Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Constitution that was adopted met two conditions necessary for all the states to ratify the document. 1) It had to accommodate the slave states that already existed and 2) It had to salve the conscience of those who opposed slavery and wanted it discouraged and prevented from spreading. It gracefully accomplished both goals.

This kind of concept is at the heart of the fundamental purpose of the Constitution to secure the rights of the people while allowing them to be free and live however they chose to do that.

I shall further ignore Jake so long as he continues to misrepresent what I have posted.

You do not get your own set of definitions or historical narrative, Foxfyre. I correctly pointed out your misrepresentation. You dislike being disagreed with. I am sorry you feel that way, but you ignoring me is simply being ostrich and resolves nothing. I will continue responding as necessary to make sure an accurate narrative is represented.

You wrote in #102 above, "There was no principle of slavery included in the U.S. Constitution--the Founders, even most of those who owned slaves and all of them who didn't--would never have agreed to that." Yes, the principle of slavery WAS recognized in the original constitution as pointed out on this page.

 

[bripat9643]

The link resolves everything. You simply don't agree with Locke and Jefferson, but are afraid to say so, princess.

When I said it "resolves to nothing" I wasn't referring to the content. There is no content. When you click on the link you get a message saying "Page not Found."

Try to keep up.

https://m.facebook.com/TJCCR?v=feed I will make it easier for princess.

I'm not going to wade through that pile of shit, Fakey. Obviously you can't state the difference in one or two sentences. In other words, there is no difference.

 

[bripat9643]

Slavery was a fact of life in the 'New World" at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and existed in Canada, Mexico, and most of South America in addition to the American colonies. Those who would like a fairly short but comprehensive history on the situation that existed in 1787, and the opinions of the Founders, even those who owned slaves, can get a pretty good synosis here:

Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Constitution that was adopted met two conditions necessary for all the states to ratify the document. 1) It had to accommodate the slave states that already existed and 2) It had to salve the conscience of those who opposed slavery and wanted it discouraged and prevented from spreading. It gracefully accomplished both goals.

This kind of concept is at the heart of the fundamental purpose of the Constitution to secure the rights of the people while allowing them to be free and live however they chose to do that.

I shall further ignore Jake so long as he continues to misrepresent what I have posted.

You do not get your own set of definitions or historical narrative, Foxfyre. I correctly pointed out your misrepresentation. You dislike being disagreed with. I am sorry you feel that way, but you ignoring me is simply being ostrich and resolves nothing. I will continue responding as necessary to make sure an accurate narrative is represented.

Yes, slavery WAS recognized in the original constitution.

"You will be assimilated!"

"Resistance is futile!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

When I said it "resolves to nothing" I wasn't referring to the content. There is no content. When you click on the link you get a message saying "Page not Found."

Try to keep up.

https://m.facebook.com/TJCCR?v=feed I will make it easier for princess.

I'm not going to wade through that pile of shit, Fakey. Obviously you can't state the difference in one or two sentences. In other words, there is no difference.

princess, we have been through this before: you are not entitled to anything other than your own opinions, which are not evidence. When evidence contradicts your opinions, you are fail. Too bad.

 

[bripat9643]

https://m.facebook.com/TJCCR?v=feed I will make it easier for princess.

I'm not going to wade through that pile of shit, Fakey. Obviously you can't state the difference in one or two sentences. In other words, there is no difference.

princess, we have been through this before: you are not entitled to anything other than your own opinions, which are not evidence. When evidence contradicts your opinions, you are fail. Too bad.

ROFL! Fakey, you're not fooling anyone. It's obvious that you can't explain the difference between liberty and freedom.

Now run away like a scared little puppy with you tail between your legs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not going to wade through that pile of shit, Fakey. Obviously you can't state the difference in one or two sentences. In other words, there is no difference.

princess, we have been through this before: you are not entitled to anything other than your own opinions, which are not evidence. When evidence contradicts your opinions, you are fail. Too bad.

ROFL! Fakey, you're not fooling anyone. It's obvious that you can't explain the difference between liberty and freedom.

Now run away like a scared little puppy with you tail between your legs.

I don't have to if you don't read it, because you can't discuss your error otherwise.

Come on, princess, show us game. Hint: freedom to act and liberty as absence of coercion, the difference between personal and institutional

 

[bripat9643]

princess, we have been through this before: you are not entitled to anything other than your own opinions, which are not evidence. When evidence contradicts your opinions, you are fail. Too bad.

ROFL! Fakey, you're not fooling anyone. It's obvious that you can't explain the difference between liberty and freedom.

Now run away like a scared little puppy with you tail between your legs.

I don't have to if you don't read it, because you can't discuss your error otherwise.

Come on, princess, show us game.

Read what? You posted a link to a collection of blogs. You didn't even specify which one I'm supposed to read. I'm not doing research for you, Fakey. Either explain the distinction in a couple of sentences or admit there is none.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ROFL! Fakey, you're not fooling anyone. It's obvious that you can't explain the difference between liberty and freedom.

Now run away like a scared little puppy with you tail between your legs.

I don't have to if you don't read it, because you can't discuss your error otherwise.

Come on, princess, show us game.

Read what? You posted a link to a collection of blogs. You didn't even specify which one I'm supposed to read. I'm not doing research for you, Fakey. Either explain the distinction in a couple of sentences or admit there is none.

Post and respond to all, not part.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have to if you don't read it, because you can't discuss your error otherwise.

Come on, princess, show us game.

Read what? You posted a link to a collection of blogs. You didn't even specify which one I'm supposed to read. I'm not doing research for you, Fakey. Either explain the distinction in a couple of sentences or admit there is none.

Post and respond to all, not part.

Quit running away, Fakey. Cowardice is a disgusting thing to behold.