 
     |
| Radical left wing ? (Page 2/5) |
|
Doug85GT
|
AUG 08, 03:22 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
You guys still sore over us getting rid of that part about black people only counting as 3/5ths of a person?
|
|
| quote |
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
|
|
Here is the part of the Constitution with the 3/5 statement. Notice how the actual language is not by race but "free Persons" and "all other Persons." There were free Blacks who were full citizens at the time of the founding and were counted as a full person.
What would have happened if slaves were counted as a full person?
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
AUG 08, 03:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Are you drawing on your experience as a lawyer, a teacher or a troll? |
|
He is drawing on his ignorance, i.e. talking out of his ass. I doubt he ever actually read the Constitution. Had he read the Constitution he would have known that the 3/5th statement was about allotting legislative representation and not about race.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 08, 03:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
You guys still sore over us getting rid of that part about black people only counting as 3/5ths of a person?
|
|
You mean the 39th Republican Congress ... both the Senate and the House were wildly Republican: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...ited_States_Congress
You mean the 39th Congress that voted against (overruled) Democrat President Johnson's veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Act that was ultimately passed by Republicans, despite significant pushback from Democrats?
|
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
AUG 08, 04:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
All changing the Constitution takes is meeting the established rules to get it done. Go for it but, I sincerely doubt that's going to happen anytime soon. Radical majorities simply don't have the numbers to make it happen.
|
|
Amendments are only part of the system. Anyone who thinks abortion rights are worth discussing should be aware that the courts can interpret -and re-interpret- the constitution.
| quote |
This, is a good thing IMHO. 
|
|
I disagree wholeheartedly. The founding fathers made all sorts of faulty assumptions, mistakes in reasoning, and conclusions based on antiquated morality. The mistakes aren't even subjective opinion; we have their arguments in the constitutional convention and in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and such that document it. The Constitution is far from perfect, and the inability to fix those things that are wrong with it is a problem itself. Democracy Journal had an entire special issue dedicated to this idea, which is itself in response to a movement started by Tom Coburn and Mark Levin.
I'd force a re-assessment of every Article every decade or so. Imagine the inhuman level of perfection you expect of the founders otherwise.[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 08-08-2024).]
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
AUG 08, 04:17 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
I disagree wholeheartedly. The founding fathers made all sorts of faulty assumptions, mistakes in reasoning, and conclusions based on antiquated morality. The mistakes aren't even subjective opinion; we have their arguments in the constitutional convention and in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and such that document it. The Constitution is far from perfect, and the inability to fix those things that are wrong with it is a problem itself. Democracy Journal had an entire special issue dedicated to this idea, which is itself in response to a movement started by Tom Coburn and Mark Levin.
I'd force a re-assessment of every Article every decade or so. Imagine the inhuman level of perfection you expect of the founders otherwise.
|
|
Morality is never antiquated.
Moral is moral; immoral is immoral.
|
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
AUG 08, 04:37 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Morality is never antiquated.
Moral is moral; immoral is immoral. |
|
Got it. For the Founding Fathers, too?
So what's up with the Three-fifths Compromise then?
Or the Slave Trade Clause?
Or the Fugitive Slave Clause?
Why'd we have to change those things with the 13th Amendment?
I mean, maybe your morality hasn't changed over time, but the Founding Fathers' views on slavery is about as apt a snapshot as exists of evolving morality.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
AUG 08, 04:49 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Yellow-88:
How "radical left wing" was it when the Founders decided to try a Country with no King?
Did the King's loyalists go back to England when the war was over?
Why aren't Americans who want a King not immigrating to a country with one?
Why do kings want to conquer other Countries?
How many American's know that we are being conquered from within? |
|
THE CON'S OF THE DAY SUPPORTED THE KING
most never left england
it takes a liberal/progressive to found a new land
out of rocks trees bears and natives
after the con's and king lost the war
many went to Canada others to the Bahamas Bermuda or jam
likely far more srayed in the new world then went back to england
the rump cult has peaked
and the insane leader is driving away support
if the current trend continues he will not win many states
but will still claim he won and they cheated[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 08-08-2024).]
|
|
|
blackrams
|
AUG 08, 05:12 PM
|
|
Amendments are only part of the system. Anyone who thinks abortion rights are worth discussing should be aware that the courts can interpret -and re-interpret- the constitution.
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
Show me where in the Constitution Abortion is address. Although not a direct quote, the Constitution clearly states that things not specifically mentioned and reserved to the Fed falls to the States to determine. While I may be a Conservative, I agree with the last decision on this issue.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NewDustin:
I disagree wholeheartedly.
Snip.
I'd force a re-assessment of every Article every decade or so. Imagine the inhuman level of perfection you expect of the founders otherwise.
|
|
OK, all you have to do is to get 2/3rds of the country to agree with you. That, might be a real challenge.
------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-08-2024).]
|
|
|
|
Yellow-88
|
AUG 08, 05:24 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
You've missed the point, or fallen victim to the craphole information that you feed upon.
Many Loyalists did return to England after the American Revolution.
( The rest stayed here and became Liberal Left Wing Nut Jobs)
America is in the midst of an attempted coup, run by the DNC and Global Interests.
You have got to be very foolish, very indoctrinated or part of the plan to not acknowledge this.
Open your blind eyes to the reality of the current situation that the Left and their minions in the once free press have put this country into.
Did your ancestors shed their blood for this BS? |
|
My point is that the United States of America was a very radical left wing idea. A country with no king and no one is above the law !? Citizens can be armed and speak against their chosen leaders!? We are free to completely screw it up by simply not understanding just how fragile it is.
We are free to leave, just like the King's loyalists did. Russia will soon have a man shortage and pristine North East Siberia is warming up nicely, and the few people there are unhappy with Putin. Opportunity knocks. Maybe start a radical new country? What would you put in it's Constitution?
The "left wing nut jobs" who stayed built a Country that is the envy of most other Countries. Yes our ancestors died to protect it. Trump called them "sucker and loosers".
The "attempted coup" is by a radical cult hoping to return to a dictatorship. Already it has destroyed the Republican party and corrupted our Supreme Court.
Since we lost Walter Cronkite (that dates me) the press has struggled with it's real purpose.
As a professional scientist, engineer and problem solver, my eyes are very wide open. My career has been about seeing what is really there. Learn to really look with no preconceptions and your will see reality. I can tell you ... that is not easy.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 08, 05:54 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Yellow-88:
My point is that the United States of America was a very radical left wing idea. A country with no king and no one is above the law !? Citizens can be armed and speak against their chosen leaders!? We are free to completely screw it up by simply not understanding just how fragile it is.
We are free to leave, just like the King's loyalists did. Russia will soon have a man shortage and pristine North East Siberia is warming up nicely, and the few people there are unhappy with Putin. Opportunity knocks. Maybe start a radical new country? What would you put in it's Constitution?
The "left wing nut jobs" who stayed built a Country that is the envy of most other Countries. Yes our ancestors died to protect it. Trump called them "sucker and loosers". |
|
Respectfully, I think you're highly misrepresenting history. Democrats and the Democrat party were the ones who believed in less of a Republic. The "right" were the Federalist Party -> National Republican Party -> Liberty Party -> Whigs -> Republican party. The Democrats started out as the Anti-Federalist party -> Democratic-Republican Party -> Democrat Party... which it's been since 1828.
It's honestly ridiculous that you would suggest forming the United States is a "left wing" idea. For one, the term left and right wing didn't even exist until after President Washington was seated, and everyone came together to create the United States and our Constitution. But even if you're trying to suggest somehow strictly on vocabulary (conservative vs liberal) and not from an ideological standpoint... it's still not at all anywhere near adjacent to your logic. That's just incorrect. The country was founded on very strict *conservative* values of freedom. Our rights are granted to us from God and Nature (as defined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence)... and they stated this so that, no matter what or who you believed in, it was understood your rights are inherent and inalienable.
| quote | Originally posted by Yellow-88:
As a professional scientist, engineer and problem solver, my eyes are very wide open. My career has been about seeing what is really there. Learn to really look with no preconceptions and your will see reality. I can tell you ... that is not easy. |
|
Also... everyone here, in all of these threads, except RayB and BingB/Fred are engineers. So, you're not winning or impressing anyone by suggesting you are something others here are not.
Fred is a dual-major... History Teacher and Lawyer, which is uniquely special in its own way.[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-08-2024).]
|
|
|
|