• 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!

Impedance of the American Constitution

There were plenty of Germans and other nationalities. No, the Constitution is what really made the difference.

The colonies were an extension of UK at that time. Most of the founding fathers were of British ancestry. Most had a good working knowledge of the British system of governance.

Most non-British immigrants were usually relegated to the lower classes to do the labor work. Most Germans had little regard for their feudalistic heritage because they were not of the aristocracy.

A couple hundred of years later, USA tried to implement a version of its democracy/republic on Iraq. We know how well that worked out. Constitutions, however well crafted, are useless if people are not prepared for them. The 13 colonies had a 100 years of British democracy as part of their culture. Without that history, the constitution would likely have not have been written.
 
Thanks for the backpedal. While I still disagree, I appreciate the fact you backed away from your previous claim:

Yes, we agree to disagree.

Do you favor the net neutrality idea, or do you prefer the corporations control the internet?
 
Yes, we agree to disagree.

Do you favor the net neutrality idea, or do you prefer the corporations control the internet?

Yes, you think the US is a fascist state and I disagree then you backpedaled.

What does the OP or your claim we live in a fascist state have to do with net neutrality?
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?
 
Yes, you think the US is a fascist state and I disagree then you backpedaled.

What does the OP or your claim we live in a fascist state have to do with net neutrality?

Nothing. I just wanted to see you deflect again. :lol:
 
I would like to point out that Julius Caesar rode to his inauguration in a horse drawn cart as did George Washington.

131 years later the world has changed at light speed from horse power to steam power to gas to jet and to rocket propulsion. Our Constitution allowed mankind to throw off the chains of despots and become whatever they wanted to be. No, it's not perfect but it beats hell out of second place AND the whole world has benefited from it.

do you think the people today control the government? do you think the government fears the people?
 
The colonies were an extension of UK at that time. Most of the founding fathers were of British ancestry. Most had a good working knowledge of the British system of governance.

Most non-British immigrants were usually relegated to the lower classes to do the labor work. Most Germans had little regard for their feudalistic heritage because they were not of the aristocracy.

A couple hundred of years later, USA tried to implement a version of its democracy/republic on Iraq. We know how well that worked out. Constitutions, however well crafted, are useless if people are not prepared for them. The 13 colonies had a 100 years of British democracy as part of their culture. Without that history, the constitution would likely have not have been written.

the U.K. Wasnt formed until 1922 . the colonies were not an ext. of the uk
 
the U.K. Wasnt formed until 1922 . the colonies were not an ext. of the uk

or was it 1707? 18? any way we had colonies .settlements whatever you would call them before the u.k. formed
 
the U.K. Wasnt formed until 1922 . the colonies were not an ext. of the uk

Wrong.

The UK was formed in 1707.


In 1707 the United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed


In 1801 it became the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Ireland.


In 1922 it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
Wrong.

The UK was formed in 1707.


In 1707 the United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed


In 1801 it became the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Ireland.


In 1922 it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

...and in 1781 America kicks their ass and Cornwallis surrenders his sword and 8000 Redcoats to General Washington at Yorktown.
13star-animated.gif
 
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world. The various freedoms—speech, association, religion, and others—enshrined in the document provided a new and beneficial relationship between the citizen and its state. The capability of the citizenry to vote out a foolish or corrupt government was a unique achievement. America truly was the first nation to practice western democracy as we know it today, which helped bring creativity, opportunity, and prosperity to its people. And the principles of this document have found their ways into many other political charters around the world.

But so enthralled are the Americans with their social engineering invention that they tend to readily forget some of the history behind the building of the constitution. When this history is examined a little closer, one realizes that the constitution was not the perfect document created by perfect people in a perfect process.

Even by the world's standards today, the American colonies were not badly governed by the British. Yes, there were some unfair laws and bad governors, but these conditions still happen in western democracies. Relatively speaking, most Americans of the 1700s had a pretty good society under British rule. And Americans at that time were far from united in their quest for independence from that rule.

While freedom was a keystone in the constitution, about half of the founding fathers were slave owners. The other half did not have the political will to abolish slavery at the birth of this nation. As well, women were to have no roles in government, even as voters. These unprogressive philosophies can only mean the thinking behind the constitution was not as progressive as the myth portrays.

While property rights were better enshrined under American law, there were certainly no property rights for aboriginal Americans whose traditional lands were confiscated for the next century. Another group that had no property rights was the supporters of the British crown, driven from their American wealth to Canada and Britain by unofficial state sanctioned terrorism. These loyalists neither had freedom of political expression nor the right to legally defend themselves while these very freedoms were being drafted into the constitution.

The constitution was not created out of thin air. A lot was borrowed from the British system of governance—and some of this was improved on. One improvement was based on the founding fathers' disdain for political parties: the electoral college was designed to elect a non-partisan head of state. Yet less than 40 years after the constitution was ratified, political parties became the vehicles for ambitious citizens to be elected as state and national legislators, thus diluting the original intention of this innovative institution.

The drafting of the constitution was not done by independent thinkers coming to a unified and unique conclusion. Expedient deals were struck and compromises were made to bring the 13 states together under one national government. Sound logical philosophy did not always influence the drafting.

Whenever the American constitution has been proffered as the ultimate social engineering tool, all the negative aspects of the building of the American constitution are made forgotten. This creates the illusion of an infallible document, above any serious reproach or criticism. Hence there is no need to discuss alternative models of governance that have different processes to elect public officials and give them different tools to make public decisions. How will we in the 21st century ever be able to move past this 18th century social invention?

I guarantee you that a constitutional convention in a political and economic atmosphere like this one would result in the rendering of a document that seals our fate as a fascist theocratic oligarchy for the foreseeable future, absent a bloody revolution.
That's because John Q. Citizen would never get a chance to set pen to paper on any revision.
Oligarchs would, and ONLY oligarchs.
 
I guarantee you that a constitutional convention in a political and economic atmosphere like this one would result in the rendering of a document that seals our fate as a fascist theocratic oligarchy for the foreseeable future, absent a bloody revolution.
That's because John Q. Citizen would never get a chance to set pen to paper on any revision.
Oligarchs would, and ONLY oligarchs.

You should consider reading the requirements for a constitutional convention. The result would be the same we have now: gridlock.
 
You should consider reading the requirements for a constitutional convention. The result would be the same we have now: gridlock.

Requirements or no requirements, (which I am familiar with) the fact is, the process would be subverted, just as our legislative process is right now. Groups like ALEC are pretty much in capture and control mode with a large number of lawmakers and state legislatures, thus no reason to believe the same wouldn't be the case in a constitutional convention.

I assume that you're aware of what's happening right now in Wisconsin, as a side note.
 
Requirements or no requirements, (which I am familiar with) the fact is, the process would be subverted, just as our legislative process is right now. Groups like ALEC are pretty much in capture and control mode with a large number of lawmakers and state legislatures, thus no reason to believe the same wouldn't be the case in a constitutional convention.

I assume that you're aware of what's happening right now in Wisconsin, as a side note.
It's a legal process. Yes, there are legal maneuvering but like voter disenfranchisement, once it works it's way through the courts, it either passes the Constitutional test or it doesn't.
 
I guarantee you that a constitutional convention in a political and economic atmosphere like this one would result in the rendering of a document that seals our fate as a fascist theocratic oligarchy for the foreseeable future, absent a bloody revolution.
That's because John Q. Citizen would never get a chance to set pen to paper on any revision.Oligarchs would, and ONLY oligarchs.

The constitution of 1791 was also written by the oligarchs of those days. The common American people had little to do with it. I would agree with you that the same would happen today--if there was political will to make changes.

If the USA is to go on a different path, that path will need to outside the current model of governance. Then the common people can participate.
 
Cornwallis probably had servants to help with that.

I understand he was a keen horseman so his nether parts were probably quite tough anyway.

Sure he was tough, but handing over his sword to the Colonials was certainly worse than being reamed by a horse.
 
Sure he was tough, but handing over his sword to the Colonials was certainly worse than being reamed by a horse.

As I said he probably had another sword at home but in any case the colonials didn't keep his sword anyway. Defeat at Yorktown was hardly the end of his career either and he was actually knighted 5 years later:


"...Despite this defeat (Yorktown), Cornwallis retained the confidence of successive British governments and continued to enjoy an active career. Knighted in 1786, he was in that year appointed to be Governor-General and commander-in-chief in India. There he enacted numerous significant reforms within the East India Company and its territories, including the Cornwallis Code, part of which implemented important land taxation reforms known as the Permanent Settlement. From 1789 to 1792 he led British and Company forces in the Third Anglo-Mysore War to defeat the Mysorean ruler Tipu Sultan.

Returning to Britain in 1794, Cornwallis was given the post of Master-General of the Ordnance. In 1798 he was appointed Lord Lieutenant and Commander-in-chief of Ireland, where he oversaw the response to the 1798 Irish Rebellion, including a French invasion of Ireland, and was instrumental in bringing about the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. Following his Irish service, Cornwallis was the chief British signatory to the 1802 Treaty of Amiens and was reappointed to India in 1805...
"


Cornwallis didn't attend the surrender ceremony citing illness and it was Brigadier O'Hara who did the actual surrendering. Cornwallis' sword was indeed surrendered...and then promptly returned to O'Hara:


"There is a belief that General Cornwallis's sword, surrendered by Charles O'Hara after the battle, is to this day on display at the White House. However, U.S. National Park Service historian Jerome Green, in his 2005 history of the siege, The Guns of Independence, concurs with the 1881 centennial account by Johnston, noting simply that when Brigadier General O'Hara presented the sword to Major General Lincoln, he held it for a moment and immediately returned it to O'Hara.."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown
 
As I said he probably had another sword at home but in any case the colonials didn't keep his sword anyway. Defeat at Yorktown was hardly the end of his career either and he was actually knighted 5 years later:...

Your defense of the Crown, the Redcoats and Cornwallis surrender is admirable, but the final result is that Britain ****ed up, lost it's biggest colony because they were too authoritarian, treated colonials like second-class citizens and, the real irony, was that despite a 100 years of acrimony, we saved their asses not once but twice in one century...and now they rely on us for help.

lb8kk.jpg
 
Your defense of the Crown, the Redcoats and Cornwallis surrender is admirable, but the final result is that Britain ****ed up, lost it's biggest colony because they were too authoritarian, treated colonials like second-class citizens and, the real irony, was that despite a 100 years of acrimony, we saved their asses not once but twice in one century...and now they rely on us for help.

lb8kk.jpg


Actually it was 13, not one colony

I'm not sure what else Britain could have done...the American colonists were fired up by nationalism. The weren't affected by British taxes but the American middle classes were - it was they, not the dirt farmers who organized a revolution

It is interesting that 80 years later similar emotions saw another revolution - this time int eh Southern states. Again the dirt farmers who did the fighting were roused by nationalistic calls by the Southern gentry who stood to lose their slaves. The dirt farmers who died fighting had no slaves

Britain didn't have the ruthless approach that the Union had in 1864-65

Fast forward another 40 years and Britain faced anotehr colonial war in South Africa (the second Boer War). Instead of the French it was the Germans supporting the colonials. In the war Britain suffered far greater losses than in the US Revolutionary War but poured in resources and won.
But did Britain really win ? Another 40 years later and Britain had to recognize the independence of South Africa...and deal with the antipathy caused by Kitchener's tactics including his concentration camps.

Yes, the British invented the concentration camp.

As for saving the British twice in one century - well the Anglo-French were beating the German army in West in the Hundred Day Offensive in 1918 before significant US forces had arrived

And in 1940 Britain saved the world by holding out alone while the USA looked on.


If I wanted to be mean, I could say that the only war the USA has fought in the 20th or 21st century without British help - it lost.
 
Wrong.

The UK was formed in 1707.


In 1707 the United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed


In 1801 it became the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Ireland.


In 1922 it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

ok baby. anyway we wre diggin around in the dirt over here before 1700. you like it when i call you baby . dont you
 
Yes, you think the US is a fascist state and I disagree then you backpedaled.

What does the OP or your claim we live in a fascist state have to do with net neutrality?

Nothing. I just wanted to see you deflect again. :lol:

Wow, this is new. Two libertarians duking it out. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom