- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,639
- Reaction score
- 35,431
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
...Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris doesn't control the law, Chuck Norris IS The Law.
In seriousness though, Goobie's spot
...Chuck Norris.
They were not capable of forming a rational and morally just form of government; slavery was allowed, women and black people were disenfranchised.
Who is a "worker" exactly? Are some people more "worker"-like than others?
I don't know what gave that impression. A "worker" in my book is anyone who is outside the ruling class of gangsters, gamblers and thief's.
"If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine" Che [signature]
His answer to your question boils down to "yes".So everyone who doesn't get money and other privileges from the government is a "worker"? I guess that automatically disqualifies anyone who's ever joined a labor union. :lol:
So everyone who doesn't get money and other privileges from the government is a "worker"? I guess that automatically disqualifies anyone who's ever joined a labor union. :lol:
No, I was making fun of your self-contradicting statement above, which clearly flew miles above your head...
But please do enlighten us as to a clear definition of who is and isn't a "worker", which you claim in post #8 entitled one to share in a collective "divine right" to make and enforce unnatural laws.
They were not capable of forming a rational and morally just form of government; slavery was allowed, women and black people were disenfranchised.
The morally just solution to those injustices only came about following social struggles against the system set up by those godly founding fathers.
I don't blame them for setting up a government that does not live up to our modern standards of human rights. Although many were progressive political thinkers they too were children of their time and unable to cater to the more developed morality of later times.
Treating the founding fathers like a pantheon of political wisdom whose thoughts has the final words in all political discussions is a folly. Instead one should continue to build the house they laid the foundation to instead of standing looking at the foundation in awe.
Constitution 101
Congress, the representatives of the people, create the laws,
The President, the head of state elected by the states, executes them
The Court, appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate, interprets them.
The answer?
Alll three.
That they were wealthy white men does nothing to undermine the brilliance of the Constitution; unless, of course, you are suggesting that wealthy white men are incapable of forming a rational and morally just form of governance?
If you have any substantive criticisms of their political philosophy I'd be happy to hear them. Just remember, that the least of the Founders probably had more intelligence in their pinky toe than you or I do in our whole body...
The Constitution was a product of it's time, nothing more. It wasn't perfect by any means...
...if it was there would never have been a need to amend it as has been done many times, nor would there be a need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.
I find it absurd how many people hold up this 200+ year old piece of paper as the end-all-be-all document for all time.
The founding fathers, no matter how wise they may have been at the time, were just men with human foibles and human shortcomings. They were unable to see what the future might hold and their document, while it has seen this nation through 200 years, isn't going to be applicable in all situations.
Funny, I don't see anything in the Constitution that is useful for setting speed limits, handing out driver's licenses or determining who gets to fly an airplane, do you?
So much for the Constitution being perfect.
Other - reality.
And if The Constitution told you to jump off a bridge (or to use government force to maintain a monopoly on regular delivery of civilian snail-mail), would you?
And remember that politicians can amend it at any time...
And who should write that constitution?
The Founding Fathers.
That they were wealthy white men does nothing to undermine the brilliance of the Constitution; unless, of course, you are suggesting that wealthy white men are incapable of forming a rational and morally just form of governance?
If you have any substantive criticisms of their political philosophy I'd be happy to hear them. Just remember, that the least of the Founders probably had more intelligence in their pinky toe than you or I do in our whole body...
Other - reality.
And if The Constitution told you to jump off a bridge (or to use government force to maintain a monopoly on regular delivery of civilian snail-mail), would you?
And remember that politicians can amend it at any time...
The Constitution was a product of it's time, nothing more. It wasn't perfect by any means, if it was there would never have been a need to amend it as has been done many times, nor would there be a need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.
I find it absurd how many people hold up this 200+ year old piece of paper as the end-all-be-all document for all time. The founding fathers, no matter how wise they may have been at the time, were just men with human foibles and human shortcomings. They were unable to see what the future might hold and their document, while it has seen this nation through 200 years, isn't going to be applicable in all situations. Funny, I don't see anything in the Constitution that is useful for setting speed limits, handing out driver's licenses or determining who gets to fly an airplane, do you?
So much for the Constitution being perfect.
You are aware that they did include the amendment process just for this reason?
Yes, which means that even the founding fathers didn't intend for the Constitution to be the foundation of all of America's laws.
So much for this thread.
Originally Posted by Cephus
Yes, which means that even the founding fathers didn't intend for the Constitution to be the foundation of all of America's laws.
So much for this thread.
How does that follow?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It doesn't follow.... Cephus thinks that since the constitution has been amended 27 times it isn't really the law of the Land?
At least that is what I got from his/her post. :shock:
It's certainly not the ultimate authority on everything that some people purport that it is.
:shock: Splinter right-wing groups and vigilantes.