• 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!

Why Did The Framers Form The Constitution, For Equality Or Profit?

Why Did The Framers More Than Likely Form The Constitution, For Equality Or Profit?

  • Equality For All

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Personal Profit

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 17 73.9%
  • Total voters
    23
Phys251 said:
So you don't believe in the Constitution. Got it.

I'll keep this in mind the next time I hear you preaching about "mixed government," which is just code for "only white male property owners deserve the right to vote."
Click to expand...

trying to deflect me and my postings will not help you, you have been found wrong
 
Pozessed said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...

the u.s. government has never created 1 single right, rights are only recognized by the constitution and the courts, meaning rights existed before the constitution and the government recognizes that fact, that they are inherent in man.
 
Pozessed said:
Do you believe the framers deliberately constructed the constitution in a way that would be more prosperous towards equality for all?

Or do you think it is more likely the framers chose how to construct the constitution in a way that would secure their financial and political future from others?
Click to expand...

The intent of many of the founders was liberty for all. This however ended up not coming to be, and the constitution achieved many of the goals it was created for, but left things out, but it also left an amendment process.

Slaves were left in despite a free country of free men who hold slaves being contradictory to freedom. In the end it came down to economic interests of the region, And I forget which founding father who called it a luxury we can't afford to give up. Then comes in the bill of rights which was added after the constitution.

As you can see it was framed and envisioned with equality in mind, atleast to the utmost of their day, but in the end they had to comprimise between the different colonies to form a union and a constitution that was the law of that union.
 
cabse5 said:
The framers (of The Constitution) quickly realized the Articles of Confederation, which held each state as sovereign in the union, wasn't practical in areas of debt abatement in the entirety of the union, promotion of interstate trade, even promotion of a stable currency.

Constitution framers walked this tightrope between state power and federal power. The fact that federal government was created with The Constitution gives anyone the notion that more than sovereign states exclusively promoting individual liberties was needed for the union to survive.
Click to expand...

It is true that the Articles were inadequate to effect the vision the Founders saw for a great new nation, the likes of which the world had never seen. That does not change in any way that the Constitution they eventually agreed on was intended to strictly limit federal powers while enabling the various states to function as one nation, and also to promote as much liberty as possible for a people who would not be governed by any monarch, dictator, or any other authoritarian form of government but would govern themselves as they saw fit.
 
Pozessed said:
Restricting a political vote is oppression.... As is restricting a persons will, even if done so democratically. One persons political gain is another persons political loss. In a democracy (republic, I know...) if one person is making policy that contradict the majority, that majority can be considered politically oppressed. Especially if that one person generating policy is generating policy to prevent any of the majority from taking said persons power.
Click to expand...

Nobody restricted anything. Governance in the various states was very much by social contract and it was structured exactly as the people wished it to be.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Pozessed said:
Do you believe the framers deliberately constructed the constitution in a way that would be more prosperous towards equality for all?
Or do you think it is more likely the framers chose how to construct the constitution in a way that would secure their financial and political future from others?
Click to expand...

Other. Against tyranny (enemies foreign and domestic).
 
Master PO said:
the u.s. government has never created 1 single right, rights are only recognized by the constitution and the courts, meaning rights existed before the constitution and the government recognizes that fact, that they are inherent in man.
Click to expand...

Might = right. There is nothing in nature to stop a tyrannical and powerful government from exercising its power on its people. Hence the constitution. If rights were inherent, we wouldn't need a constitution to recognize them. Rights are arbitrary and not tangible.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is true that the Articles were inadequate to effect the vision the Founders saw for a great new nation, the likes of which the world had never seen. That does not change in any way that the Constitution they eventually agreed on was intended to strictly limit federal powers while enabling the various states to function as one nation, and also to promote as much liberty as possible for a people who would not be governed by any monarch, dictator, or any other authoritarian form of government but would govern themselves as they saw fit.
Click to expand...

This still doesn't acknowledge the framers of The Constitution realized, quite quickly, that a federal government needed to be created to 'fix' the inefficiencies of a government where the states were sovereign and a government only looking to preserve personal liberties was king (the king part was a pun). In other words, the framers of The Constitution realized the preservation of states' rights needed to be superseded, at times, by the strength of the federal union. The Constitution is a balancing act between preservation of states' rights and union rights.
 
Pozessed said:
Might = right. There is nothing in nature to stop a tyrannical and powerful government from exercising its power on its people. Hence the constitution. If rights were inherent, we wouldn't need a constitution to recognize them. Rights are arbitrary and not tangible.
Click to expand...



government recognizes rights that exist which are inherent in man and secures them, thats why we have government

rights are unwritten law

Unwritten Law
Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.
Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

Unwritten Law legal definition of Unwritten Law
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
government recognizes rights that exist which are inherent in man and secures them, thats why we have government

rights are unwritten law

Unwritten Law
Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.
Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

Unwritten Law legal definition of Unwritten Law
Click to expand...

The constitution is the vehicle for might. Without the constitution, any being mightier than the next in this land would be able to designate who owns which rights to the extent of their power. Thus rights being a natural construct rather than a mutual construct is far from the truth of observation. A truth I am sure the founding fathers understood but side stepped for some "mysterious" reason.
 
Pozessed said:
The constitution is the vehicle for might. Without the constitution, any being mightier than the next in this land would be able to designate who owns which rights to the extent of their power. Thus rights being a natural construct rather than a mutual construct is far from the truth of observation. A truth I am sure the founding fathers understood but side stepped for some "mysterious" reason.
Click to expand...

no, if the federal government ever moved to take rights away from "the people", the state governments would move to dissolve the union

rights are natural, even the u.s. federal government recognizes that via federal law.
 
Master PO said:
no, if the federal government ever moved to take rights away from "the people", the state governments would move to dissolve the union

rights are natural, even the u.s. federal government recognizes that via federal law.
Click to expand...

You shifted the vehicle of might to the states. That does not make rights innate.
 
Pozessed said:
You shifted the vehicle of might to the states. That does not make rights innate.
Click to expand...

rights are natural, the u. s. constitution states that the courts have the power to hear cases of equity, which are adjudicated by natural law.

u.s. federal enabling laws recognizes natural law

life liberty and property are natural rights, and are stated twice in the constitution.

the constitution also states that the federal government has authority over things which arise from the constitution, ..rights do not arise from the constitution.


our constitution and its law is exercised by the federal government, if it used might to control the rights of the people, the states would dissolve the union.
 
Master PO said:
rights are natural, the u. s. constitution states that the courts have the power to hear cases of equity, which are adjudicated by natural law.

u.s. federal enabling laws recognizes natural law

life liberty and property are natural rights, and are stated twice in the constitution.

the constitution also states that the federal government has authority over things which arise from the constitution, ..rights do not arise from the constitution.


our constitution and its law is exercised by the federal government, if it used might to control the rights of the people, the states would dissolve the union.
Click to expand...

Now we are back to the constitution being the vehicle of might that regulates what abilities are a persons rights. The Civil War already happened.
 
Last edited:
Pozessed said:
Do you believe the framers deliberately constructed the constitution in a way that would be more prosperous towards equality for all?

Or do you think it is more likely the framers chose how to construct the constitution in a way that would secure their financial and political future from others?
Click to expand...

It was to make the citizen superior to the "state" rather than being a vassal of the state if you were not royalty.
 
Pozessed said:
Now we are back to the constitution being the vehicle of might that regulates what abilities are a persons rights. The Civil War already happened.
Click to expand...

from reading you, you questioned natural rights, and i gave you the constitution concerning them.

government does not regulate rights, they stand back so they can be exercised, they secure them when violated.
 
Master PO said:
from reading you, you questioned natural rights, and i gave you the constitution concerning them.

government does not regulate rights, they stand back so they can be exercised, they secure them when violated.
Click to expand...

I did question natural rights. I said the constitution is the vehicle of might that protects natural rights and without the constitution the next vehicle of might would be the discerning factor of who gets which rights. You later mentioned how it would then be the states that recognize these rights, and I rebutted that the states would then be the vehicle of might. Next you mentioned that if if rights were controlled via the constitution the union would dissolve, to which I mentioned the Civil War already happened. All of this is observable evidence that might = right and there is no such thing as a natural right because rights are only constructed by the force mightier than the constituent. I don't need a right to breathe if no governing body is present.
 
Pozessed said:
I did question natural rights. I said the constitution is the vehicle of might that protects natural rights and without the constitution the next vehicle of might would be the discerning factor of who gets which rights. You later mentioned how it would then be the states that recognize these rights, and I rebutted that the states would then be the vehicle of might. Next you mentioned that if if rights were controlled via the constitution the union would dissolve, to which I mentioned the Civil War already happened. All of this is observable evidence that might = right and there is no such thing as a natural right because rights are only constructed by the force mightier than the constituent. I don't need a right to breathe if no governing body is present.
Click to expand...

i believe their then is miscommuncation.

my position is natural rights are recognized and secured by government, therefore government does not have authority over them because they are unwritten law and not written.

you have a natural ability to breath, which is a right, that right is not secured without some sort of organization /government to protect from others who would be nighter then you.
 
Master PO said:
i believe their then is miscommuncation.

my position is natural rights are recognized and secured by government, therefore government does not have authority over them because they are unwritten law and not written.

you have a natural ability to breath, which is a right, that right is not secured without some sort of organization /government to protect from others who would be nighter then you.
Click to expand...

I didn't know an organization was needed for something natural to arise. Unlike my ability to breathe, my rights need the organization to exist, thus rights are not natural. The alternative is anything created (or recognized in your words) by social construct can be deemed natural. Abilities and rights are not the same.
 
pozessed said:
i didn't know an organization was needed for something natural to arise. Unlike my ability to breathe, my rights need the organization to exist, thus rights are not natural. The alternative is anything created (or recognized in your words) by social construct can be deemed natural. Abilities and rights are not the same.
Click to expand...

organization, means a organized group, it does not have to be a government to secure rights

abilities are rights, as i posted when i gave you unwritten law, and its link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom