Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,934 Posts
Years back (way, way back) in a business law class, I read the Constitution front to back for the first time, not in excerpts like in high school. I was amazed at how well written it was and with so much foresight. If only they had used a bit more foresight when writing the amendments.
The first ten amendments, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, have a very interesting history of their own. The United States started out as a nation-state under the Articles of Confederation, each state essentially remaining a sovereign nation with (largely optional) obligations to observe the sovereignty of the other states and provide for interstate commerce and national defense. Within a few years it became obvious that national government was impossible without the means to compel the individual states to respect the rights of other states and to observe a reasonable measure of compliance with national interests.

Over a period of years there was considerable public debate over the issues of contention, largely documented in "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers" (strongly recommended reading as a basis for understanding the original intent and proper functions of government under the current Constitution, as well as the general concept of "federalism"). Adoption of the proposed Constitution of the United States during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 was not a foregone conclusion, and the entire idea of a united government of the several states was hanging by a very thin thread (with considerable outside interest by various foreign regimes).

The key point to understand is that the Constitution would never have been accepted by the delegates without the Bill of Rights, seen as an absolute necessity to prevent usurpation of states' rights and individuals' rights by a strong central government.

Now, 232 years later, the debates continue over the limitations on federal control, the extent of states' rights, and the continuing need for individuals' rights. The rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been under attack, always been questioned, always viewed as an obstacle in the way of some person's or party's agenda and vision for the future.

Much to be learned, and I sincerely wish that our public school curricula were based upon a study of the history of our Constitution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,338 Posts
The first ten amendments, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, have a very interesting history of their own. The United States started out as a nation-state under the Articles of Confederation, each state essentially remaining a sovereign nation with (largely optional) obligations to observe the sovereignty of the other states and provide for interstate commerce and national defense. Within a few years it became obvious that national government was impossible without the means to compel the individual states to respect the rights of other states and to observe a reasonable measure of compliance with national interests.

Over a period of years there was considerable public debate over the issues of contention, largely documented in "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers" (strongly recommended reading as a basis for understanding the original intent and proper functions of government under the current Constitution, as well as the general concept of "federalism"). Adoption of the proposed Constitution of the United States during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 was not a foregone conclusion, and the entire idea of a united government of the several states was hanging by a very thin thread (with considerable outside interest by various foreign regimes).

The key point to understand is that the Constitution would never have been accepted by the delegates without the Bill of Rights, seen as an absolute necessity to prevent usurpation of states' rights and individuals' rights by a strong central government.

Now, 232 years later, the debates continue over the limitations on federal control, the extent of states' rights, and the continuing need for individuals' rights. The rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been under attack, always been questioned, always viewed as an obstacle in the way of some person's or party's agenda and vision for the future.

Much to be learned, and I sincerely wish that our public school curricula were based upon a study of the history of our Constitution.
Your comment about the states not adopting the Constitution without the Bill of Rights is correct, and yet 100 yrs later they approved the 17th Amendment which destroyed states rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
The first ten amendments, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, have a very interesting history of their own. The United States started out as a nation-state under the Articles of Confederation, each state essentially remaining a sovereign nation with (largely optional) obligations to observe the sovereignty of the other states and provide for interstate commerce and national defense. Within a few years it became obvious that national government was impossible without the means to compel the individual states to respect the rights of other states and to observe a reasonable measure of compliance with national interests.

Over a period of years there was considerable public debate over the issues of contention, largely documented in "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers" (strongly recommended reading as a basis for understanding the original intent and proper functions of government under the current Constitution, as well as the general concept of "federalism"). Adoption of the proposed Constitution of the United States during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 was not a foregone conclusion, and the entire idea of a united government of the several states was hanging by a very thin thread (with considerable outside interest by various foreign regimes).

The key point to understand is that the Constitution would never have been accepted by the delegates without the Bill of Rights, seen as an absolute necessity to prevent usurpation of states' rights and individuals' rights by a strong central government.

Now, 232 years later, the debates continue over the limitations on federal control, the extent of states' rights, and the continuing need for individuals' rights. The rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights have always been under attack, always been questioned, always viewed as an obstacle in the way of some person's or party's agenda and vision for the future.

Much to be learned, and I sincerely wish that our public school curricula were based upon a study of the history of our Constitution.
I admit, I have never understood the obsession that some humans have to control the actions of other humans. What is it about this desire that I'm missing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
What do you propose?
I dont know, but clearly trying to push "the constitution should be followed because it says so" has shown itself to be a losing battle. I agree that in a hypothetical sense, it is the best way forward. In a country full of civilized, intelligent people who value ideas, sure, it would be great. In the country that the founders lived in, it was a great system. Thats not the country we live in anymore. Look at the country of Liberia. They are modeled after the USA, as it was a country created by freed slaves. Their flag is modeled after ours, their constitution is modeled after ours, their government is modeled after ours. Their country is named "Liberia" for the roof of the word "liberty," and they named their capitol, Monrovia, after James Monroe. They even have yellow school buses like we do. Their country is an absolute dump. Why? Because a constitution doesnt have magic principles that make it function. There is no magic land. There are only people, and people form nations. We were once a great nation. When we get a bunch of people from crappy nations, our country will eventually stop being great. Many will argue that has already happened.

The point of all that is to show that they have a constitution just like ours, with founding principles just like ours. Their government is essentially a direct copy of ours. In a way, its a perfect science experiment. With the USA and Liberia, we have a control and an experimental group. Shockingly different results. Liberia is about as poor as it gets on the face of the planet. They cant feed their people, they dont have clean water. No sewers, no landfills, no power grid, no real road system to speak of. No industry, no companies, no scientific, humanitarian, or artistic achievements. No great thinkers or philosophers. No great military, no anything. The world would be no different if it simply didnt exist. Then look at a place like the USSR. They had essentially no rights, complete government control. They had huge industry, huge military might. Tons of scientists, thinkers, inventors, philosophers, etc that have entirely changed the course of history. Are the Slavic people more like the Liberians or more like the historic American people? To a lesser extent the same goes for the rest of the European countries and the rest of the African countries. It is essentially a clean line drawn, one group creates good countries that succeed and are good places to live, and the other creates squalor. It isnt the constitution that historically made us a great country. It was us. Telling others to just follow the constitution isnt going to fix our problems. Returning to the original recipe that made us the dominant world power is what will fix our country.

You cant bake a good cake with bad ingredients.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,934 Posts
I admit, I have never understood the obsession that some humans have to control the actions of other humans. What is it about this desire that I'm missing?
Modern American Liberalism exists as a means for the self-perceived liberal to feel superior, morally and intellectually, to the common man. Unfortunately, once the liberal is convinced of that superiority there is usually a driving need to control the lives of other lesser humans (for their own good, of course). The final progression of Modern American Liberalism is usually manifested by entering politics, seeking ever higher public office so that all the goodness and light can be shared with those unfortunate beasts sharing the planet.

Modern American Liberalism is a self-imposed mental disorder. To put it as simply as possible, the Modern American Liberal is MAL-adjusted.

That should be enough to explain these matters for you. Of course, when dealing with MAL-types I need to use a Big Chief tablet and a box of Crayolas so they can understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I dont know, but clearly trying to push "the constitution should be followed because it says so" has shown itself to be a losing battle. I agree that in a hypothetical sense, it is the best way forward. In a country full of civilized, intelligent people who value ideas, sure, it would be great. In the country that the founders lived in, it was a great system. Thats not the country we live in anymore. Look at the country of Liberia. They are modeled after the USA, as it was a country created by freed slaves. Their flag is modeled after ours, their constitution is modeled after ours, their government is modeled after ours. Their country is named "Liberia" for the roof of the word "liberty," and they named their capitol, Monrovia, after James Monroe. They even have yellow school buses like we do. Their country is an absolute dump. Why? Because a constitution doesnt have magic principles that make it function. There is no magic land. There are only people, and people form nations. We were once a great nation. When we get a bunch of people from crappy nations, our country will eventually stop being great. Many will argue that has already happened.

The point of all that is to show that they have a constitution just like ours, with founding principles just like ours. Their government is essentially a direct copy of ours. In a way, its a perfect science experiment. With the USA and Liberia, we have a control and an experimental group. Shockingly different results. Liberia is about as poor as it gets on the face of the planet. They cant feed their people, they dont have clean water. No sewers, no landfills, no power grid, no real road system to speak of. No industry, no companies, no scientific, humanitarian, or artistic achievements. No great thinkers or philosophers. No great military, no anything. The world would be no different if it simply didnt exist. Then look at a place like the USSR. They had essentially no rights, complete government control. They had huge industry, huge military might. Tons of scientists, thinkers, inventors, philosophers, etc that have entirely changed the course of history. Are the Slavic people more like the Liberians or more like the historic American people? To a lesser extent the same goes for the rest of the European countries and the rest of the African countries. It is essentially a clean line drawn, one group creates good countries that succeed and are good places to live, and the other creates squalor. It isnt the constitution that historically made us a great country. It was us. Telling others to just follow the constitution isnt going to fix our problems. Returning to the original recipe that made us the dominant world power is what will fix our country.

You cant bake a good cake with bad ingredients.
I never proposed that we should just follow the Constitution. It's going to take a lot more than that. But, I still believe it is a good foundation. Whether we can fix things or not is certainly a big question. Personally, I don't think we can, but I am not going to sit around and do nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Modern American Liberalism exists as a means for the self-perceived liberal to feel superior, morally and intellectually, to the common man. Unfortunately, once the liberal is convinced of that superiority there is usually a driving need to control the lives of other lesser humans (for their own good, of course). The final progression of Modern American Liberalism is usually manifested by entering politics, seeking ever higher public office so that all the goodness and light can be shared with those unfortunate beasts sharing the planet.

Modern American Liberalism is a self-imposed mental disorder. To put it as simply as possible, the Modern American Liberal is MAL-adjusted.

That should be enough to explain these matters for you. Of course, when dealing with MAL-types I need to use a Big Chief tablet and a box of Crayolas so they can understand.
Yes, but look at human history. Most of it has been filled with slavery and autocracy. Almost like it's in humans DNA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,934 Posts
Well of course, and don't forget a good dose of smarmy condescension if it helps you to feel superior.
Relax, bud! A little light humor, nothing more. You seem to have missed the point of my earlier post, which is the liberal's self-anointed position of superiority, and that is what I was holding up as the contemptible hypocrisy of Modern American Liberalism.

No need to shoot back, I wasn't aiming in your direction!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,835 Posts
I never proposed that we should just follow the Constitution. It's going to take a lot more than that. But, I still believe it is a good foundation. Whether we can fix things or not is certainly a big question. Personally, I don't think we can, but I am not going to sit around and do nothing.
It would 100% work if we had a country full of people who value it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,338 Posts
It was how our country functioned for its entire history until the Hart-Celler Act in 1965.
You need to go back about 75 years to the Sherman Anti Trust Act. Or dare I say it, the Civil War when it was determined the Constitution was like Hotel California.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Relax, bud! A little light humor, nothing more. You seem to have missed the point of my earlier post, which is the liberal's self-anointed position of superiority, and that is what I was holding up as the contemptible hypocrisy of Modern American Liberalism.

No need to shoot back, I wasn't aiming in your direction!
Sometimes my skin is thinner than I'd like. Because this is something that gnaws at me: why do primates like to dominate one another? It's not really a very useful strategy for advancement. Not in the long term. And it almost seems to me to be something that was added as a hobble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,934 Posts
Sometimes my skin is thinner than I'd like. Because this is something that gnaws at me: why do primates like to dominate one another? It's not really a very useful strategy for advancement. Not in the long term. And it almost seems to me to be something that was added as a hobble.
I suspect that we are discussing traits that are hard-wired into our DNA, natural tendencies to compete (for food, shelter, territory, mating opportunities, just about everything life has to offer). The methods of competition can vary widely, from the crudeness of physical force to the finesse of political skills.

I'm not a psychologist (or any other level of professional), just an old retired soldier, cop, and small business owner. My opinions are offered at no charge, and probably worth about that much.

Enjoy your day!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
I suspect that we are discussing traits that are hard-wired into our DNA, natural tendencies to compete (for food, shelter, territory, mating opportunities, just about everything life has to offer). The methods of competition can vary widely, from the crudeness of physical force to the finesse of political skills.

I'm not a psychologist (or any other level of professional), just an old retired soldier, cop, and small business owner. My opinions are offered at no charge, and probably worth about that much.

Enjoy your day!
And I'm just a kid that grew up asking "Why?"
Co-operation based upon self interest is the most effective way of advancing.
Yet we seem to be forced into communal action based on coercion, either by psychological or physical force.
Why?
If it's in the DNA, how did it get there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
And I'm just a kid that grew up asking "Why?"
Co-operation based upon self interest is the most effective way of advancing.
Yet we seem to be forced into communal action based on coercion, either by psychological or physical force.
Why?
If it's in the DNA, how did it get there?
I absolutely believe it's hardwired in our DNA and goes back to our most primitive origins. Look at what wild animals do to survive and to further their species. Under all of our modern trappings of clothing, technology, and civilization, human beings are still animals and will do what it takes to keep themselves alive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
I absolutely believe it's hardwired in our DNA and goes back to our most primitive origins. Look at what wild animals do to survive and to further their species. Under all of our modern trappings of clothing, technology, and civilization, human beings are still animals and will do what it takes to keep themselves alive.
Wild animals don't enslave other wild animals. Wild animals don't kill other wild animals to silence their dissent. I agree that it might be hardwired into most humans. But I don't think that it's the product of any sort of "natural" evolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Wild animals don't enslave other wild animals. Wild animals don't kill other wild animals to silence their dissent. I agree that it might be hardwired into most humans. But I don't think that it's the product of any sort of "natural" evolution.
That's not completely true in regards to slavery:
"Ants, there are six different species of slave maker ants one just recently discovered to reside in the US states of Michigan,Vermont and New York they are a warlike species and completely parasitic on their slaves what they do is in summer,when its breeding season they invade the nest of the particular ant it needs it uses chemical warfare as it invades the nest to cause confusion,chase the adults out and waits for the pupae to hatch when they hatch,it uses chemical imprinting so that they do their bidding capture more ants to enslave.
But the host ants have a defense system if they find a few dead slave maker ants they make a decision if their colony is big they get aggressive and go on a rampage killing the slavers pupae and colony if they are small,they up and leave and if captured they mutiny.
Most are of the Leptoformax genus."

And yes, while wild animals can't communicate and have no need to "silence" another animal for "dissent", males among chimpanzees will kill the offspring of another male to ensure more females for breeding for themselves.

Just look to the bible, all the way back to the origins of man, when Cain murdered his brother Able, and how many people killed others for their wives, wealth, and because of their beliefs.
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Top