• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd[W:55]

Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Whenever you set up rules, which we call laws, there will be people who do not follow the law. Commonly these people are punished when caught. You are proposing rules for what constitutes "free" speech.

But you cannot show I'm proposing rules. I'm proposing that speech which meets certain criteria be enabled by government. All speech is free, but not equal. It is about constitutionally defining the very best speech by a majority so the government can fairly support that speech.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

But you cannot show I'm proposing rules. I'm proposing that speech which meets certain criteria be enabled by government. All speech is free, but not equal. It is about constitutionally defining the very best speech by a majority so the government can fairly support that speech.

To the contrary, all speech is actually equal. That's exactly what free speech means. Government has no role in either policing or promoting or enabling one type of speech over another. Government's role is to protect all speech. The only "enabling" government should engage in is making sure everyone has equal access to the means of free speech. Once you allow government to Constitutionally define "the very best speech" you have given government the power to regulate speech, which means government approved speech. Which means there will be rules and guidelines, with the force of law. You say the "majority" will determine what speech is approved; what if that majority disapproves of speech you consider the "very best"?

All speech must be allowed, even speech you disagree with. In the great public forum that enables a competition of ideas, and then it is up to the public to determine which ideas they like the best. In a healthy, vibrant, intelligent society the bad ideas will naturally be weeded out. Only if you consider the public to be as dumb as a box of rocks do you desperately look to government to make those determinations. Where do you stand? Is the public too stupid to be trusted with freedom of speech?
 
Last edited:
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

To the contrary, all speech is actually equal.

Do Americans have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights Waddy?
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Do Americans have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights Waddy?

Yes, they certainly do......... and one of those unalienable rights is freedom of speech. Lets try and keep it free.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Do Americans have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights Waddy?

Yes, they certainly do......... and one of those unalienable rights is freedom of speech. Lets try and keep it free.

Okay, what did the framers intend serve the purpose of enabling the development of the unity in the people required to effectively alter or abolish?
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Okay, what did the framers intend serve the purpose of enabling the development of the unity in the people required to effectively alter or abolish?

Chris, I have no idea what you just said. I think you might be asking what did the framers do to help unify the people. The framers were more concerned that every citizen have a voice than they ever were about unity. In fact, unity wasn't even a priority; they expected politics, and society, to be made up of fractured, contentious and diverse points of view. The framers recognized that people will always have different goals, desires, weaknesses, strengths, associations, etc. So they gave us a government that is full of checks and balances, so hopefully no one group could take permanent control of government. They felt that it was essential that people be able to say whatever was on their minds, offer their opinions, interpretations and solutions, even if those thoughts ran counter to what the majority favored. ESPECIALLY if those thoughts ran counter to what the majority favored. That's why they simply said freedom of speech will not be infringed. They set no limits on speech. On purpose. Thank goodness.

BTW; the "diverse, contentious society" which the founders had in mind was basically the society of land owning white males. Of course, in our wisdom, and to our credit as a nation, we've greatly expanded what we consider "society" to include all men, women and minorities. And with that expansion we've become even more diverse and contentious. Now more than ever we need to protect the idea of free speech, especially speech no one likes. Remember, back in the day, the MAJORITY probably didn't like what Martin Luther King had to say, either. Thankfully, he had the freedom to say what he thought, even if millions of people didn't like it.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Chris, I have no idea what you just said. I think you might be asking what did the framers do to help unify the people. The framers were more concerned that every citizen have a voice than they ever were about unity.

Umm, try focusing on HOW the framers naturally expected people to unify adequately to actually alter or abolish. Remember the constitution applies majority rule, that means a form of unity in order to effect alteration or abolition. What social mechanism would they logically expect to serve that purpose?
 
Last edited:
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

So you dispute the fact that we fought a literal civil war over whether some states' had the right to allow for the forced ownership of other human beings?

That was not the cause or purpose of the war.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

That was not the cause or purpose of the war.

Of course the war came down to slavery. Do you need to see some historical documents that show this?
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Of course the war came down to slavery. Do you need to see some historical documents that show this?

If the war was about slavery, the slave states would have ratified the Corwin Amendment. The basis for the war started in the 1830s, and slavery was not part of it.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Screen Shot 2018-05-23 at 5.29.09 PM.jpg
Chris, I have no idea what you just said. I think you might be asking what did the framers do to help unify the people. The framers were more concerned that every citizen have a voice than they ever were about unity.

Why aren't you answering? What harm do you suffer by answering? How does accepting those two things compromise you?
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

If the war was about slavery, the slave states would have ratified the Corwin Amendment. The basis for the war started in the 1830s, and slavery was not part of it.

That is an interesting aspect, which may help accommodate explanation for the extreme violence of the war. What started in the 1830's that led to the war?
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

That is an interesting aspect, which may help accommodate explanation for the extreme violence of the war. What started in the 1830's that led to the war?

The short version sequence: John Calhoun and the tariff nullification movement in 1832, then the Clay Compromise Measures of 1850, and then the Civil War. Tariffs.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

The short version sequence: John Calhoun and the tariff nullification movement in 1832, then the Clay Compromise Measures of 1850, and then the Civil War. Tariffs.

Thank you! I've already found a fundament that I'd not heard of before, "The Agragarins"

A key quote from the "Introduction: A Statement of Principles" to their 1930 book I'll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition:

"All the articles bear in the same sense upon the book's title-subject: all tend to support a Southern way of life against what may be called the American or prevailing way; and all as much as agree that the best terms in which to represent the distinction are contained in the phrase, Agrarian versus Industrial. ...Opposed to the industrial society is the agrarian, which does not stand in particular need of definition. An agrarian society is hardly one that has no use at all for industries, for professional vocations, for scholars and artists, and for the life of cities. Technically, perhaps, an agrarian society is one in which agriculture is the leading vocation, whether for wealth, for pleasure, or for prestige – a form of labor that is pursued with intelligence and leisure, and that becomes the model to which the other forms approach as well as they may. But an agrarian regime will be secured readily enough where the superfluous industries are not allowed to rise against it. The theory of agrarianism is that the culture of the soil is the best and most sensitive of vocations, and that therefore it should have the economic preference and enlist the maximum number of workers."​

John C. Calhoun was a supporter and the last 6 words indicate he was pro slavery. Otherwise a quality philosophy. But there is something deeper to that which seems critical to the souths position.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

View attachment 67233421


Why aren't you answering? What harm do you suffer by answering? How does accepting those two things compromise you?

Well well well, it appears we have someone here that does not want to acknowledge that the only way for the people to unify is that free speech serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity.

And no one has ever come up with another way for the people to unify effectively to do anything. This is why America will have a violent revolution that will mostly likely fail, or there will be widespread gin confiscations, because they will not be unified. Right now there are many rebels, and if they resist, they are promptly killed.

If unity around the prime of these un-accountables who will not use reason to understand the constitution are the most active traitors by default we can find unless we look to public offices.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Okay, what did the framers intend serve the purpose of enabling the development of the unity in the people required to effectively alter or abolish?

Chris, I have no idea what you just said.

Is this true waddy? This is basic defense of the constitution here. Please be accountable. At least provide a reason for your silence.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Is this true waddy? This is basic defense of the constitution here. Please be accountable. At least provide a reason for your silence.

Diagram the sentence Waddy responded to.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Diagram the sentence Waddy responded to.

Diagram? You mean re-state.

The sentence requests a logical interpretation of the social, legal mechanisms the framers intended to serve the consolidation of public opinion into collective resolve to actually use their right to alter or abolish.

Waddy agreed that we have the right to alter or abolish, but refuses to define how that right is to actually manifest IF free speech was NOT intended to serve the PURPOSE of doing so.
 
Last edited:
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Diagram? You mean re-state.

The sentence requests a logical interpretation of the social legal mechanisms the framers intended to serve the consolidation of public opinion into collective resolve to actually use their right to alter or abolish.

Waddy agreed that we have the right to alter or abolish, but refuses to define how that right is to actually manifest IF it free speech was NOT intended to serve the PURPOSE of doing so.

No, I'm challenging you to actually diagram the sentence as written.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

No, I'm challenging you to actually diagram the sentence as written.

Find someone else to do that. I only work with its meanings and they are clear.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Find someone else to do that. I only work with its meanings and they are clear.

No, they aren't. It's a very poorly written sentence.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

The important thing is protecting rights and the 9th Amendment is critical to that, because there are so many that are not listed, that are vital.

With the 9th Amendment the PURPOSE of free speech can be restored and then free speech can be used to enable unity to be used to secure the 2nd Amendment from any compromise. The logic of this is free of political nonsense and clearly constitutional.

Making a more perfect union is simple IF the intent of the law of the land is used.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Chris, I have no idea what you just said.

Pretending that you do not understand can be construed as helping others to be confused or not understand, when their really is no reason.

When the matter of understanding concerns defense of the constitution and the republic, that pretending is essentially aiding and abetting treason. As the people work to unify under the constitution for its protection and enforcement, this is an act of social espionage or a practice of using covert manipulation to damage cognition about information or plans and activities that are obviously constitutional intended to defend and uphold it.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

Pretending that you do not understand can be construed as helping others to be confused or not understand, when their really is no reason.

When the matter of understanding concerns defense of the constitution and the republic, that pretending is essentially aiding and abetting treason. As the people work to unify under the constitution for its protection and enforcement, this is an act of social espionage or a practice of using covert manipulation to damage cognition about information or plans and activities that are obviously constitutional intended to defend and uphold it.

It's still gobbydegook.
 
Re: How the 1st AMD. & the 2nd AMD are related and the 1st needed to defend the 2nd

It's still gobbydegook.

Your posting is no more than demonstration of cognitive failure, and in this case, its about aiding and abetting treason because the opposite is something you pretend to not understand.
 
Back
Top Bottom