We the People

[MarathonMike]

Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries. In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.

 

[Skylar]

Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries.

They're easy things to pick on from any one who values the idea that 'all men are created equal'.

And given that slavery in particular almost destroyed the country, its rather easy to pick on historically.

In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.

White male land owning dominance. Kind of a rather small subset of 'all men', dontcha think? Especially when millions of those 'all men' were property with no rights. The horrid, loathsome hypocrisy of it was not lost on many of the founders either.

We've corrected many of the fatal flaws of the constitution, aligning its practice with its lofty ideals. And we paid dearly for the constitution's original flaws.

Oh, and you never did mention the Bill of Rights not applying to the States. Talk about an utter clusterfuck. The founders assumptions on the role of the states was laughably wrong. The States were not the protectors of the rights of the people. They were the prime violators of the rights of the people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We the people can vote for any government we want. It doesn't have to be a backwards libertarian government as the constitution is quite broad in the choices we can choose.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It means serving the people and being elected by those people in order to do so...Otherwise, government would demand the people to serve it.

SSI, Nws, fda, epa, etc all serve the people through making life easier for us.

If you think people don't serve the government try not paying your taxes for a while

 

[dblack]

We the people can vote for any government we want. It doesn't have to be a backwards libertarian government as the constitution is quite broad in the choices we can choose.

The question is, to what extent can some of the people use government to force their will on everyone else? The power of democracy is limited for good reason.

 

[regent]

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.

 

[regent]

Looks like we're a bunch of guys crossing the Rhine River during a winter in an open boat.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries. In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.

if that were true then how come Catherine of Aragon was Queen of England in 1553

Think maybe there may have been other reasons?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries.

They're easy things to pick on from any one who values the idea that 'all men are created equal'.

And given that slavery in particular almost destroyed the country, its rather easy to pick on historically.

In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.

White male land owning dominance. Kind of a rather small subset of 'all men', dontcha think? Especially when millions of those 'all men' were property with no rights. The horrid, loathsome hypocrisy of it was not lost on many of the founders either.

We've corrected many of the fatal flaws of the constitution, aligning its practice with its lofty ideals. And we paid dearly for the constitution's original flaws.

Oh, and you never did mention the Bill of Rights not applying to the States. Talk about an utter clusterfuck. The founders assumptions on the role of the states was laughably wrong. The States were not the protectors of the rights of the people. They were the prime violators of the rights of the people.

wow thats the first sensible thing I ever seen you post?

 

[KokomoJojo]

It means serving the people and being elected by those people in order to do so...Otherwise, government would demand the people to serve it.

SSI, Nws, fda, epa, etc all serve the people through making life easier for us.

If you think people don't serve the government try not paying your taxes for a while

well if people are citizens of a gubmint do they not hold the 'office' of citizen?.......and work for the gubmint in the capacity of citizen......and are they not entitled to every benefit that those the rest of the officers of gubmint?

 

[KokomoJojo]

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.

Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them. They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.

 

[Skylar]

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.

Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them. They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.

And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?

Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.

 

[dblack]

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.

Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them. They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.

And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?

Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.

I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power. This is why recanting on those arguments undermines the sovereignty of the federal government. It's basically reneging on the compromise that created our nation.

 

[Skylar]

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.

Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them. They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.

And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?

Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.

I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power.

Conceding to your opponents argument in exclusion of your own is losing a debate. Some of them were persuaded. Some weren't. Henry didn't like a federal constitution even after the overwhelming majority of the founders agreed with it.

The anti-federalist argument failed. The federalist argument won. 'Lost' sounds perfectly appropriate to me.

 

[dblack]

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.

Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them. They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.

And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?

Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.

I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power.

Conceding to your opponents argument in exclusion of your own is losing a debate. Some of them were persuaded. Some weren't. Henry didn't like a federal constitution even after the overwhelming majority of the founders agreed with it.

The anti-federalist argument failed. The federalist argument won. 'Lost' sounds perfectly appropriate to me.

They won important concessions (e.g. The Bill of Rights), as well as forced proponents to clarify the meaning of the Constitution - emphasizing its intent to constrain federal power.

This is important, especially if you're contending that their "loss" represented a rejection of their concerns. In many ways it was an affirmation.

 

[Skylar]

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.

Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them. They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.

And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?

Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.

I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power.

Conceding to your opponents argument in exclusion of your own is losing a debate. Some of them were persuaded. Some weren't. Henry didn't like a federal constitution even after the overwhelming majority of the founders agreed with it.

The anti-federalist argument failed. The federalist argument won. 'Lost' sounds perfectly appropriate to me.

They won important concessions (e.g. The Bill of Rights), as well as forced proponents to clarify the meaning of the Constitution - emphasizing its intent to constrain federal power.

Kinda.

On the issues you're discussing, there were no fundamental differences of opinion...but of book keeping. Both sides recognized that the rights in question existed. Both sides recognized that the constitutions intent to constrain federal power. With the anti-federalists wanting more enumerated and clarified verbiage than the federalists thought necessary to express the same points. Points both sides agreed on.

On the fundamental issues that the federalists and anti-federalists disagreed, the federalists broke their foot off in the anti-federalist argument. The need for a constitution, a stronger federal government, a supremacy clause, the powers of the executive, the extent of judicial power, all of it....

.......the federalists won. Utterly. If mics had existed in 1787, Madison could have dropped one at the constitutional convention. To the extent that the Federalist Papers can be credibly used to describe what the constitution means. And the Anti-Federalist papers are historic trinkets of no particular value in defining the meaning of the constitution.

That being said, I'm glad the Anti-federalists pushed. As the bill of rights has been a superb bulwark against the encroachment on the liberty and freedom of the people. And have had far more utility than the Federalists assumed they would.

 

[dblack]

I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.

 

[Skylar]

I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.

The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.

 

[dblack]

I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.

The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.

Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.

 

[Skylar]

I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.

The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.

Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.

Yeah, but the argument doesn't get much legal traction. As the 9th amendment just toasts it. Precedent recognizes about an order of magnitude more rights than the constitution explicitly articulates.