And thus, another anniversary for a heinous and tragic event is created.

[Azarkon]

Not if the "person" in question was not considered a person at all.

[Cantousent]

If the constitution is a story of hypocrisy, then it is certainly a story later authors can amend. I'm not going to speak for Gromnir, as he can certainly speak for himself, but I will speak for the constitution. Let's take for granted that the constitution was all about hypocrisy and that it was flawed from the very beginning. mkreku wrongfully states that the constitution is too old and outdated to serve as the basis for law. The obvious answer is that the constitution can always be updated. It's just not easy to do so. We should be glad that it is not easy to amend the constitution.

 

As for the compromise, you say that liberty used to apply exclusively to male white landowners? You say that illustrates some sort of point about hypocrisy? Indeed, I say it illustrates the fact that we have a living and vibrant constitution that, when the great mass of people exert itself, can be changed. Sometimes, those changes do not provide the outcome the great mass of people desired, at which point the constitution can be changed again. Not easily, though. Women don't get the vote one year and have it taken away the next. Hypocrisy?

 

I love how small minds use the word compromise as if it is the utmost profanity. All things in government are compromise. In totalitarian governments, there is always a compromise between desire and resources. How far can the head of state go without eroding his own power and losing support that everyone, even the head of state in a totalitarian government needs? In democracies, compromise is not important. It's vital. Some of the compromises are certainly unsavory. That is also part of government.

 

Finally, you say that the story of the American constitution starts in hypocrisy and ends in the logical conclusion. As I've already stated, the American constitution has not ended. It can be changed, either way, on any issue. It is not immutable. Even if you contend that the outcome is good but the beginning if flawed, you must understand, no matter how petty your desire to pour vitriol on the US Constitution, that we require a beginning to reach an end.

 

You don

[Gorgon]

The constitution had to be a comprimise between two concepts that are in reality completely unreconcilable ; the notion of liberty, personal and social, and slavery.

that doesn't make sense at all. personal liberty and slavery are not irreconcilable. the rights provided by the constitution cannot infringe upon inalienable rights, of which life and freedom stand highest, and the "right" to slavery would most definitely infringe upon another's freedom.

 

taks

There was no inalienable right unless you were part of the elite when the consititution was written. And liberty and slavery are quite obviously opposites. Liberty and freedom from opression were the the same ideas as those embodies in the french revolution, only the 'citizens' were merely the ruling elite, not the breath of society. They barely even qualified as the bourgeois class that characterise the end of feudalism seeing how such a large percentage of them lived like supreme lords on their plantations.

 

Until you take those ideals to their ultimate conclusion, an egalitarian democracy, they remain unfulfilled and self contradictory, which is why I put the watermark some time around the end of the civil rights movement.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gorgon

[Aram]

The fact is, if 2nd amendment or even the American constitution had never been written, Americans would still believe in the right to bear arms. Arms are a part of American culture, and we'd no sooner lose that right than we would any other. Citing the second ammendment to defend gun ownership shouldn't even be necessary, just as we should not have to cite the first ammendment when we want to speak our minds. It's simply a guarenteed human right, and it should and will not be surrendered without a fight.

[Gorgon]

That is how most Americans feel about it, and indeed should the law of the land not reflect the majority. That doesen't mean that you can't all be wrong though

[taks]

There was no inalienable right unless you were part of the elite when the consititution was written.

in the context of "when the constitution was written," i agree. i was more or less extending it to a general case.

 

taks

[Gromnir]

"There was no inalienable right unless you were part of the elite when the consititution was written. "

 

...

 

so what?

 

*shrug*

 

at the time the Constituion were first penned, slavery were an accepted part of American culture. argue that it were unjust or inhumane if you wish, but notions o' personal liberty has been 'round probably almost as long as has slavery. notions o' personal liberty and the practice ho' slavery has both been 'round FAR longer than has the US Constitution. regardless, when culture and notions 'bout slavery changed in this country, so did we change the Constituion to more accurately reflect the change in pov.

 

is crappy reasoning at work in this thread. if you conclude that Founding Fathers were all hypocrites that does not in anyway invalidate the value o' their Constitution and the nation they sought to create. is the notion o' freedom o' speech nullified 'cause blacks and other minorities weren't given free speech rights way back in 1791? *snort* The Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, requires that any law which seeks to categorize or discriminate based 'pon race or religious preference needs pass a Strict Scrutiny analysis... which for all intents and purposes means that the law will be struck down. maybe we dump that standard simply 'cause original Founding Fathers were, some of 'em, slave owners? nonsense.

 

btw, the notions o' personal liberty and DEMOCRACY is also in conflict. but so what?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aram]

That is how most Americans feel about it, and indeed should the law of the land not reflect the majority. That doesen't mean that you can't all be wrong though

 

If hoarding massive amounts of deadly weapons is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

[Gorgon]

Of course liberty is at odds with slavery, they were not sufficently dense to deny the obvious even then, however the conclusion of those ideals of freedom, and they were intended in word and spirit to be universal - in many senses the inspiration for the French revolution - could not be drawn because political and economical necessity demanded slavery.

 

The declaration of indepencence goes, 'we the people...' the people. The suggestion that neither blacks or women for that matter are people is a logical falacy. That is all, I have not argued that slavery is this or that as you have suggested.

 

So, when you look back on that piece of paper remember that the words are infinitely less important than the hard won victories that have come since. Than the historical determination of the supreme court to fulfill the promise.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gorgon

[Gromnir]

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. "

 

THAT is the preamble to the Bill of Rights. you ain't even on the right page for chrissakes.

 

and again, so what? so what if blacks and women were excluded from the political process back in 1791, 1787 or even 1776? is a terrible thing that blacks and women took so long to get proper recognition... but so what? what point you got that is relevant?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

well, at least you caught your Bill of Rights mistake... one step in the right direction.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

however, is not the declaration that goes "we the people..." you is still on wrong page.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

ehh ?

 

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

 

I like this one even better

 

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gorgon

[astr0creep]

What does slavery and the US constitution have to do with a crazed South Korean immigrant killing 32 people?

 

He wasn't a slave, no more than any of us are.

 

The gun issue? Pff. Irrelevant.

 

 

In Canada our gun laws are stricter(word?) than in the US and still, a few months ago a kid used his legally obtained weapons to shoot students in a poshy school. One died of her injuries in the hospital.

 

Of course having firearms so easily obtainable in the US is an issue. But I can kill many people within a few minutes in downtown Montreal using my car and/or a baseball bat.

 

I won't do it, ever, because I am a sane person, able to normally live within this society. This guy was insane. Period.

 

I believe no individual should be allowed property of a firearm, except military and police. Hunters can rent them for their sport, there is no need to own a gun, rifle or any firearm.

 

But it is unfair to blame gun laws, the NRA, the Government or whatever for the actions of a crazed individual who would've found a way to do the deed no matter what laws exist.

[Gorgon]

It was a deralment kinda thing.

[Gromnir]

ehh ?

 

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

 

I like this one even better

 

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'

 

 

"we the people" not appear in declaration... that is preamble to the Constitution. the declaration not have a preamble, but regardless, we the people is Constitution. if you is gonna quote, then quote right.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

yeah yeah don't you think you have milked that enough already

[Gromnir]

look, you seem confused at to what is in which documents, and the relevance of such info you does know. declaration were written by jefferson and signed by a bunch of angry colonists... were not a democratically elected body that authored or signed. you wanna use simply as indicative of Foundy Fathers pov? fine, but so far you took 2 shots at "we the people..." and you missed both times.

 

first mistake were maybe understandable... but the second, the one in which you post the linky, now that is funny. you post link w/o even realizing that your quoted material ain't even in the document in question.

 

maybe you should review which, witch is which... get the material straight in your noggin first.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[metadigital]

One might even say that all the high browed talk of freedom and liberty doesen't mean a damn thing before about the end of the civili rights movement. The constitution had to be a comprimise between two concepts that are in reality completely unreconcilable ; the notion of liberty, personal and social, and slavery.

 

It illustrates the point about human rights rather well though, liberty used to apply exclusively to male white landowners and has slowly been extended to cover everyone.

 

The story of the American constitution and civil liberty is one that starts in hypocricy and ends in the logical conclusion. Still subject to degenerate though.

When the constitution of the USA was drafted, it was the most forward-looking and modern document of its type. Equal rights weren't dolled out by the founding fathers because they were operating upon the society built by the Georgians, i.e. British Empire (although the George's were from Germany ), which still has no constitution btw.

 

Universal suffrage didn't occur (at a national level) until Haiti (which wrote human rights into their constitution in 1804: the first country ever to do so). Britain was still moving 40k slaves through their territorial waters at this time.

 

Haiti was the second independent country in the New World, and the only successful slave rebellion in world history. Until the French extorted reparations from them to end the blockade; even the Vatican withdrew its priests from Haiti and did not return them until 1860. France demanded, and got, an indemnity of 150 million francs in 1833. (Haiti was the richest island in the Caribbean at the time of the rebellion under Toussaint L'Ouverture.)

[Gorgon]

look, you seem confused at to what is in which documents, and the relevance of such info you does know. declaration were written by jefferson and signed by a bunch of angry colonists... were not a democratically elected body that authored or signed. you wanna use simply as indicative of Foundy Fathers pov? fine, but so far you took 2 shots at "we the people..." and you missed both times.

 

first mistake were maybe understandable... but the second, the one in which you post the linky, now that is funny. you post link w/o even realizing that your quoted material ain't even in the document in question.

 

maybe you should review which, witch is which... get the material straight in your noggin first.

 

HA! Good Fun!

What do you want, a lollypop, I know what the declaration of indepencence is. I just couldn't remember the where the phrase originated from, American history was 4 years ago, my memory is not perfect.. 'We hold these truths to be self evident' is somewhat close.

 

Is that the best you have, salivating repetatively over a simple mistake ?

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gorgon

[Gromnir]

"'We hold these truths to be self evident' is pretty close."

 

no it ain't, not given the point you were trying to make. am not needing a lollipop, but fact that you posted linky to prove you were right when it were actually the second time you were wrong (please recall that before the edit you attributed to bill of rights preamble,) is kinda funny... though obviously you not see the humor.

 

also, your obvious unfamiliarity with the source material is only one issue we addressed, but is the only issue you seem really concerned with at moment. perhaps you feel that you can deflect by pointing out that such a minor issue shouldn't be the totality o' Gromnir's argument... which it weren't.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sand]

It's Gromnir. It's what he does.

[Gorgon]

He can have his lollipop. I know full well what the bill of rights, the declaration of independence and the constitution are, and here he goes again, fishing for cheap points.

 

Sorry council, you have already made your discredit argument, simply repeating it over and over again will not increas its effect.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gorgon

[Gromnir]

He can have his lollipop. I know full well what the bill of rights, the declaration of independence and the constitution are, and here he goes again, fishing for cheap points.

 

Sorry council, you have already made your discredit argument, simply repeating it over and over again will not increas its effect.

 

funny, but we thought that the pointlessness of thread were due to you simply repeating that you is a victim, or complaining that you didn't make no mistake. you ain't added nothing to the debate save for crying foul, so we got no material to respond to at this point.

 

maybe you shoulds look up definition o' "hypocrite" too while you is at it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

At least you stopped raping that dead horse, good for you.