A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[saveliberty]

If they won't respect the Constitution, what makes anyone think they will a new piece of paper?

 

[dblack]

If they won't respect the Constitution, what makes anyone think they will a new piece of paper?

I think most of our reps would express respect for the Constitution. Many of them likely even believe they abide by it. The problem is one of clarity. Whether through successive 'reinterpretations' or simply vagueries in the original document, there's no clear consensus on the degree to which the Constitution limits government. Thus the need for a statement that reaffirms its meaning.

As has been discussed, that might meant actually adding new amendments. It might mean simply expressing, in some politically binding way, a mandate from the people on what we want the Constitution to mean. I'm not well-versed enough on Constitutional law to know what would be required to make the ideas expressed in the OP stick, but I think if it was widely supported our leaders would follow.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they won't respect the Constitution, what makes anyone think they will a new piece of paper?

I think most of our reps would express respect for the Constitution. Many of them likely even believe they abide by it. The problem is one of clarity. Whether through successive 'reinterpretations' or simply vagueries in the original document, there's no clear consensus on the degree to which the Constitution limits government. Thus the need for a statement that reaffirms its meaning.

As has been discussed, that might meant actually adding new amendments. It might mean simply expressing, in some politically binding way, a mandate from the people on what we want the Constitution to mean. I'm not well-versed enough on Constitutional law to know what would be required to make the ideas expressed in the OP stick, but I think if it was widely supported our leaders would follow.

The problem is that our elected leaders and the bureaucrats they put into influential positions look at the Constitution as restricting only what they can't do. They do not see it as a document that allows them to do only certain things.

Thus the temptation to use government for power,influence peddling, and self serving advantage becomes overwhelming. They spend as much as they think they can get away with as that justifies an even bigger budget. There is zero benefit to any of them for spending less, for being economical, for getting the most bang from the buck. The bigger the budget, the more money the bureaucrat is worth. The more money that can be funneled to voters and key campaign contributors, etc., the more powerful the legislator becomes. The very system is a huge incentive for inefficient and ineffective government.

The purpose of the resolution is to take away their power to use our money to advantage themselves in any way. It should provide a huge incentive to do government better.

And it gives us a fighting chance to return to the Constitutional intent that government is restricted to what the Constitution allows and not what the Constitution forbids.

 

[saveliberty]

Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?

No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all. I just think they have reversed the original intent. It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.

The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do. I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.

 

[Al_Fundie]

Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?

No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all. I just think they have reversed the original intent. It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.

The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do. I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.

That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.

And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?

Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.

On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......

So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.

 

[saveliberty]

So they willfully changed the intent of the Constitution. What keeps them from reinterpreting the new piece of paper?

 

[saveliberty]

Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?

No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all. I just think they have reversed the original intent. It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.

The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do. I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.

That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.

And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?

Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.

On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......

So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.

Which is why I suggested three amendments:

1. One term only.
2. Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
3. All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.

 

[Al_Fundie]

No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all. I just think they have reversed the original intent. It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.

The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do. I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.

That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.

And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?

Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.

On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......

So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.

Which is why I suggested three amendments:



1. One term only.
2. Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
3. All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.

I believe that if our Congressmen served one term only we'd never see them get ANYTHING accomplished.

That may be a good thing.

I especially agree with number 3. Why in the world would a military spending authorization bill include a provision for funding a frog farm in Florida, for example?

 

[saveliberty]

That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.

And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?

Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.

On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......

So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.

Which is why I suggested three amendments:



1. One term only.
2. Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
3. All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.

I believe that if our Congressmen served one term only we'd never see them get ANYTHING accomplished.

That may be a good thing.

I especially agree with number 3. Why in the world would a military spending authorization bill include a provision for funding a frog farm in Florida, for example?

The frog farm sounds a lot cheaper.

Gridlock is the only thing saving us at the moment.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.

You know what Montro...NOT MANY. However...they DID believe in the inherit goodness of MAN....the individual. That's why they placed so much power an liberty in the hands of the individual. The 10th Amendment, Powers of the States and People is the absolute expression of that.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That simple statement means that the individual has MORE POWER than the federal or state governments since the only powers governments have are those we the people allow them and everything else is ours alone.

The reason they believed in us is because they knew that although there is always going to be a small portion of any population that is corruptible or just plain evil, the VAST majority ARE inherently good and would preserve that which they founded.

So, on reflection I guess you COULD say that they DID believe in humanity in that they believed that the individual would preserve the goodness of all humanity.

On the part time government thing, the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers. But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.

First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts. I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary. The people would not pay for that.

Here's the thing Foxy, I have to disagree on part of this one.

The state of Texas has the 8th largest economy in the WORLD. Their legislature meets 2 months out of a year....every OTHER year. That's right, they don't even meet every year and they manage to get the peoples work done.

And that's in a state that not only accounts for 1/6th of the TOTAL economy of the entire US, but has the largest border with Mexico...nearly HALF of the entire boarder AND not only has the second highest population, but the FASTEST GROWING population in the entire country. A population fast approaching 1/10 our total population.

Texas is basically equivalent to a top 10 most powerful country on the planet and their legislature meets for a couple months every other year.

We don't NEED full time politicians. We NEED commuted civil servants!

As to their salary, I don't begrudge them or ANYONE making as much money as they can. What I begrudge is them doing it without having to do it under the same rules as the rest of us!

My point isn't about the money. It's about the real point of your proclamation. Shrinking the size and scope of government and reducing the waste and fraud.

If our representatives were real civil servants in the tradition of the first 140 years of our history....we wouldn't be having this discussion. We all know that's not the case though.

Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician. Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.

Hmm. Interesting concept. However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face. And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue. Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.

Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.

All that has to be considered.

And there in lies the problem Foxy. The people our representatives need to be brainstorming with are US...the people they represent.

They take their happy butts off up to Washington, get absorbed into the culture, isolated from their consultants and insulated from the REAL WORLD they came from and we get Obamacare that leaves 3 million MORE people without health insurance than we currently have, Dodd/Frank that is driving small local banks out of business and preventing new home loans, CAFE standards that add 30% to the price of every car we buy, 36 Boutique blends of fuel that add a 1.50 to every gallon we burn, ethanol E21 standards that cause our cars to burn 30% MORE fuel than gas alone and DESTROY any car older than a 2010.

What the hell do they care? They don't have to live with it. They get their fuel from OUR pockets in their underground parking lot and gas pumps at the Capitol building and on and on and on.

No, that is the problem Foxy. Until we make them PART TIME politicians and FULL TIME citizens...this thing ain't going to be fixed!

Oh, and I have got to say, I am more than a little surprised that anyone with the insight to write this proclamation would write this, "Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge."

If you meant it the way it comes off, THAT...is how we got in this MESS in the first place. Back room deals and arm twisting have been the ruination of this country and if we don't stop it...it will be the DEATH or our Republic!

If they really need to talk face to face, it will keep till one of the few weeks they are actually IN Washington.

And here's the thing Foxy, they are ALREADY essentially part time employees. The average EMPLOYED American who is working full time works about 250 days a year. Congress...124 days last year. That makes them half time employees who are getting full time pay and benefits at the expense of folks working TWICE as much time for...what's the national average, 68,000 bucks...LESS THAN half as much money.

It's immoral!

ESPECIALLY when you consider that nearly half of employed Americans work about as many days in a year as Congress does total...JUST TO PAY THEIR TAXES to cover all the money Congress is spending!

It's just wrong and until our representatives become public servants again...I can't see it getting better.

Oh, and sorry if I took it too far off topic. It's just that this one is one of my pet peeves. ;~)

And all the problems you outline could be remedied with a concept such as is suggested in the resolution in the OP.

 

[JDzBrain]

That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.

And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?

Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.

On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......

So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.

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!

Which is why I suggested three amendments:

1. One term only.
2. Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
3. All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.

And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?

Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.

On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......

So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.

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!

Which is why I suggested three amendments:

1. One term only.
2. Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
3. All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.

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

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:

John Jay, great supporter of the Constitution after its creation and an author of The Federalist wrote in 1786, "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."

Patrick Henry, the great Virginian patriot, refused to attend the Convention because he "smelt a rat," was outspoken on the issue, despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Really, are you sure about that.

Let’s try the 13 amendment and since that is the obvious choice here then you can get back to me on that. Remember that law CANNOT change the constitution so the 3/5th rule would still be in effect with an amendment process. Your comments on the founders and the ‘perfection’ of the origina constitution would say that you support such a concept because they were so ‘smart.’


Don’t be silly. The constitution was written by extremely intelligent men but none of them were perfect and the document itself was not perfect nor can any document written by man be timeless. New amendments are not written by men of lesser intelligence than the founders by default either. Many were, but that is why we are supposed to be vigilant with our voting power in order to prevent changes that were not needed. The problem with amendments is not the amendments or the process which was made extremely difficult to begin with but that the people have grown ever further from the control of government to the government controlling the people.

This is the problem I have with statements like yours: when we glorify the men of the past with perfection we lose our ability to think critically about the issue before us and our free will to improve on what has been done. The founders were far from perfect. I hold the constituting with GREAT respect and believe the it should be strictly adhered to (INCLUDING the provisions for changing it) but I am not going to abdicate my own thoughts because of some vaunted thought the founders were so great. No, amending the constitution is one of the really good ideas that the founders had so that the government and the process could continue to work for hundreds of years. Too bad the people have forgotten their role in the process.

 

[JDzBrain]

Really, are you sure about that.

Let’s try the 13 amendment and since that is the obvious choice here then you can get back to me on that. Remember that law CANNOT change the constitution so the 3/5th rule would still be in effect with an amendment process. Your comments on the founders and the ‘perfection’ of the origina constitution would say that you support such a concept because they were so ‘smart.’


Don’t be silly. The constitution was written by extremely intelligent men but none of them were perfect and the document itself was not perfect nor can any document written by man be timeless. New amendments are not written by men of lesser intelligence than the founders by default either. Many were, but that is why we are supposed to be vigilant with our voting power in order to prevent changes that were not needed. The problem with amendments is not the amendments or the process which was made extremely difficult to begin with but that the people have grown ever further from the control of government to the government controlling the people.

This is the problem I have with statements like yours: when we glorify the men of the past with perfection we lose our ability to think critically about the issue before us and our free will to improve on what has been done. The founders were far from perfect. I hold the constituting with GREAT respect and believe the it should be strictly adhered to (INCLUDING the provisions for changing it) but I am not going to abdicate my own thoughts because of some vaunted thought the founders were so great. No, amending the constitution is one of the really good ideas that the founders had so that the government and the process could continue to work for hundreds of years. Too bad the people have forgotten their role in the process.

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!

 

[Foxfyre]

Really, are you sure about that.

Let’s try the 13 amendment and since that is the obvious choice here then you can get back to me on that. Remember that law CANNOT change the constitution so the 3/5th rule would still be in effect with an amendment process. Your comments on the founders and the ‘perfection’ of the origina constitution would say that you support such a concept because they were so ‘smart.’


Don’t be silly. The constitution was written by extremely intelligent men but none of them were perfect and the document itself was not perfect nor can any document written by man be timeless. New amendments are not written by men of lesser intelligence than the founders by default either. Many were, but that is why we are supposed to be vigilant with our voting power in order to prevent changes that were not needed. The problem with amendments is not the amendments or the process which was made extremely difficult to begin with but that the people have grown ever further from the control of government to the government controlling the people.

This is the problem I have with statements like yours: when we glorify the men of the past with perfection we lose our ability to think critically about the issue before us and our free will to improve on what has been done. The founders were far from perfect. I hold the constituting with GREAT respect and believe the it should be strictly adhered to (INCLUDING the provisions for changing it) but I am not going to abdicate my own thoughts because of some vaunted thought the founders were so great. No, amending the constitution is one of the really good ideas that the founders had so that the government and the process could continue to work for hundreds of years. Too bad the people have forgotten their role in the process.

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!

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?

 

[Intense]

Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.

Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.

If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.

And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money. If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.

Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.

A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.

I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people. Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea. So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

Spoken like a true lender.

 

[dblack]

I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people. Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea. So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

Spoken like a true lender.

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.

 

[Intense]

One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.

Spoken like a true lender.

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.

Actually the Government would disagree with you there. So do I. There are limits as to what can be charged.

 

[dblack]

Spoken like a true lender.

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.

Actually the Government would disagree with you there. So do I. There are limits as to what can be charged.

I understand that you, and the government, disagree with me. I think you are both wrong. I just explained why.