• 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

Harshaw said:
Then you are construing it incorrectly.

It's not a question of opinion.
Click to expand...

It is entirely a question of opinion, mine and yours. If establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty and promoting the general welfare are not goals that would suggest social engineering, the word has no meaning.

Maybe you are one of those guys who have trouble grasping a notion of separation of church and state unless those actual words are used, or cannot grasp an effort towards social engineering unless those precise words are used, well....
 
Thoreau72 said:
It is entirely a question of opinion, mine and yours.
Click to expand...

No.

If establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty and promoting the general welfare are not goals that would suggest social engineering, the word has no meaning.
Click to expand...

If you understood what they were referring to, you wouldn't think so.

Not that I haven't already mentioned in the thread.
 
Harshaw said:
No.



If you understood what they were referring to, you wouldn't think so.

Not that I haven't already mentioned in the thread.
Click to expand...

I speak English, Harshaw, and so do you. Are you so desperate on this topic that you want to assign special, hidden meanings to the words in the Preamble?

I know what those words meant in 1787, and what they mean today.

For whatever reason you cannot imagine that the men of 1787 somehow cared about social justice or social engineering, however on earth you might define that term. Acknowledging that there is such a thing as securing the blessings of liberty or providing for the general welfare are things you apparently have no grasp over. Providing for mail to be delivered might also be described as a form of social engineering.

Why don't you start by offering to define the term that is so anathema to your world view.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I speak English, Harshaw, and so do you. Are you so desperate on this topic that you want to assign special, hidden meanings to the words in the Preamble?

I know what those words meant in 1787, and what they mean today.

For whatever reason you cannot imagine that the men of 1787 somehow cared about social justice or social engineering, however on earth you might define that term. Acknowledging that there is such a thing as securing the blessings of liberty or providing for the general welfare are things you apparently have no grasp over. Providing for mail to be delivered might also be described as a form of social engineering.

Why don't you start by offering to define the term that is so anathema to your world view.
Click to expand...

Harshaw has not responded to my points that (1) the founding father were in contempt of the lower classes just like all other rulers of those times and (2) the tobacco companies were masters of social engineering.

I fear Harshaw is of a mind that social engineering is only conducted by socialists and he does not like socialists. The mind is not that open to other ideas.
 
TDGonDP said:
I'm back, giving you the 10-minute version of my last post to you.

Point #1
If the states rights have indeed been usurped by the federal government, then the Supreme Court should be the final arbitrator. I suspect that states rights have been challenged by various states in the past, the SC's interpretation has found to favor the federal government. In this case, either "the constitutionalist cause" has misinterpreted the constitution OR the SC is somehow corrupt or inept. In the latter case, then the constitution is at fault, thereby placing the constitution further away from being a perfect document--and worthy of replacement or serious amendment.

Point #2
I believe it would be entirely possible to develop a new political party in the USA, mostly based on giving rights back to the states. Elect these people to Congress, and the transition "back to the good old days" can start. But there is not such a political movement, leaving the D's and R's in charge. The two parties are not that interested in this transition.

Point #3
We could argue for hours whether a certain aspect of governance is better suited at the federal, state (or provincial), or municipal levels. And in many cases, we have made the right call. For example, I don't think citizens in Odessa Texas need to contact someone in Washington to fix a pothole in their street. But I have to admit that we Canadians sometimes get this balance wrong, and it is difficult to fix.

Point #4
I consider the "states right movement" a moot point. Even if the movement does gain some practical influence, many of the problems of America will remain intact. It is hard to blame everything on the lack of state rights. In my opinion, the best solution is get rid of all political parties. And the political parties would sooner have us debate state rights than their own demise.

-----
Just to clarify, I believe we need to place responsibility and authority to lowest possible of governance that can handle the job. There may be times when we need regional and federal oversight, but keep that at minimum.

I said a lot more in my "lost" post, but I think this is a good summary.
Click to expand...

1: States rights have been constantly eroded by the greed of the people accepting bribes from the Feds. It's hard to turn down those highway grants or the aids to education.

Show me a big old pile of public money and I'll show you a thief stealing from it.

2: Election laws passed in cooperation by the two major parties promote and protect the two major parties. That is why ALL of the establishment types from BOTH American political parties HATE Trump. The two major American political parties work together in the same way that professional wrestlers work together. They seem to be opponents, but are actually working in concert to maintain their incomes and bilk the ticket buyers.

3 & 4: I agree that the best place for power is with the people. The farther from the people it gets, the more like tyranny it becomes. The Founders would be appalled by the structure of the USA today and the remoteness of power from the governed.

They would also be appalled by the apathy of the people rejecting all responsibility to work for the betterment of their communities while mindlessly shrieking they have a right to be heard.

The Constitution did not foresee the rise of two parties and assumed the House would be selecting Presidents.

The only way to have a third party created is to undergo the process currently happening in the USA. Step one would be an organic movement, like the T-Party, that spotlights the deficiencies of the parties.

Step two would be the rise of a charismatic leader, like Trump, who makes and keeps promises and highlights the problems of today and the promise of tomorrow.

Step three would be the recognition by the majority of one of the parties that the stated promise of tomorrow holds value and is attainable.

We'll find out in a few days how step three is coming along.

Ironically, if the Republicans carry the day next Tuesday, it could signal the end of the Republican Party as we know it. The end of either major party as we know it can't be a bad thing.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/politics/state-department-curtains.html
 
Xelor said:
Red:
All the Founding Fathers -- the one's whose signatures we see on the Declaration, Articles and Constitution and the ones whose names we don't -- were quite well off to begin with. Indeed most of them, almost to a man, were in some way "to the manor born."

Hell, until Trump, George Washington was far and away the wealthiest man to ever be POTUS.
Click to expand...

What helped was Ol George marrying Martha. In other words, he married money. She was from wealthy family. This allowed him to make Mt Vernon what it is today.
 
code1211 said:
1: States rights have been constantly eroded by the greed of the people accepting bribes from the Feds. It's hard to turn down those highway grants or the aids to education.

Show me a big old pile of public money and I'll show you a thief stealing from it.

2: Election laws passed in cooperation by the two major parties promote and protect the two major parties. That is why ALL of the establishment types from BOTH American political parties HATE Trump. The two major American political parties work together in the same way that professional wrestlers work together. They seem to be opponents, but are actually working in concert to maintain their incomes and bilk the ticket buyers.

3 & 4: I agree that the best place for power is with the people. The farther from the people it gets, the more like tyranny it becomes. The Founders would be appalled by the structure of the USA today and the remoteness of power from the governed.

They would also be appalled by the apathy of the people rejecting all responsibility to work for the betterment of their communities while mindlessly shrieking they have a right to be heard.

The Constitution did not foresee the rise of two parties and assumed the House would be selecting Presidents.

The only way to have a third party created is to undergo the process currently happening in the USA. Step one would be an organic movement, like the T-Party, that spotlights the deficiencies of the parties.

Step two would be the rise of a charismatic leader, like Trump, who makes and keeps promises and highlights the problems of today and the promise of tomorrow.

Step three would be the recognition by the majority of one of the parties that the stated promise of tomorrow holds value and is attainable.

We'll find out in a few days how step three is coming along.

Ironically, if the Republicans carry the day next Tuesday, it could signal the end of the Republican Party as we know it. The end of either major party as we know it can't be a bad thing.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/politics/state-department-curtains.html
Click to expand...

You have thought things through very well. We have reached the same conclusion on many things.

I think the only I would disagree with is that a new political party would solve many things. It too will be corrupted--if it wants to win elections, probably sooner than later. This conclusion comes from six years inside a political party in Canada. Within each party are formal and informal contests for gaining influence, status, and power. Party members compete against each other, almost as much as the parties compete against each other. All this competition creates a certain level of dysfunctionality that eventually finds its way into general society. A new political party would be subject to the same social and psychological forces.

I think this is about my sixth political internet forum I have been involved with over the years, and very few people have reached the same conclusion as you. I would like to tell you a lot more on this subject. But I would be violating some of the rules of DebatePolitics, and this was confirmed with a discussion of one of the moderators. With respect for the investors and volunteers who keep this site running, I shall stay within the rules.

In the meantime, there are enough bread crumbs on DP for you to find where I would like you to go next. It's up to you.

Regardless, you have made a great post.
 
yankintx said:
What helped was Ol George marrying Martha. In other words, he married money. She was from wealthy family. This allowed him to make Mt Vernon what it is today.
Click to expand...

Seriously, dude? Did you look at the house in which Washington grew up?

57768c4a88e4a74e018b57c4-750-563.jpg


What about that property suggests to you that it's the sort of place folks other than wealthy folks lived?


Just to give you some perspective, this is where Woodrow Wilson was born.


WWBP.jpg




ww-birthplace.jpg


​

As for Mt. Vernon, it was in Washington's family since 1674, long before he wed Martha Custis (1759) and George purchased it from his sister-in-law (1752) using his own wealth. Yes, Custis came with means, but George was born to wealth as well as earning more on his own, and, as the linked content from my earlier post notes, George made his "real" money from land speculation.

Martha Custis, nee Dandridge, was, like George Washington, born to a plantation owning family. She married a plantation owner, George Custis; however, he died leaving her a 20-something widow, whereafter she married George Washington, who, like her, was born and raised on plantations, first at Pope's Creek Plantation and later at Mt. Vernon, which was his half-brother's plantation.

To give you a rough idea of how well off Ol' George was before he married...

Now you tell me. What non-wealthy person buys a primary home that consists of a mansion and surrounding lands, and five years hence, has $60K to millions to spend on another piece of real property? Let me make it simple for you: none.

Another point of perspective....How did people travel in George's day? By horse. A horse cost between £5 - £1000 to buy, to say nothing of maintaining the beasts. (I don't know how many horses George had, but I know even before the war he had horses and rode the hounds.)


Anyway, the point of the above: Martha added substantial sums to Washington's coffers, but as a member of VA's landed gentry, his coffers were doing just fine before he wed her.
 
Xelor said:
Seriously, dude? Did you look at the house in which Washington grew up?

57768c4a88e4a74e018b57c4-750-563.jpg


What about that property suggests to you that it's the sort of place folks other than wealthy folks lived?


Just to give you some perspective, this is where Woodrow Wilson was born.


WWBP.jpg




ww-birthplace.jpg


​

As for Mt. Vernon, it was in Washington's family since 1674, long before he wed Martha Custis (1759) and George purchased it from his sister-in-law (1752) using his own wealth. Yes, Custis came with means, but George was born to wealth as well as earning more on his own, and, as the linked content from my earlier post notes, George made his "real" money from land speculation.

Martha Custis, nee Dandridge, was, like George Washington, born to a plantation owning family. She married a plantation owner, George Custis; however, he died leaving her a 20-something widow, whereafter she married George Washington, who, like her, was born and raised on plantations, first at Pope's Creek Plantation and later at Mt. Vernon, which was his half-brother's plantation.

To give you a rough idea of how well off Ol' George was before he married...

Now you tell me. What non-wealthy person buys a primary home that consists of a mansion and surrounding lands, and five years hence, has $60K to millions to spend on another piece of real property? Let me make it simple for you: none.

Another point of perspective....How did people travel in George's day? By horse. A horse cost between £5 - £1000 to buy, to say nothing of maintaining the beasts. (I don't know how many horses George had, but I know even before the war he had horses and rode the hounds.)


Anyway, the point of the above: Martha added substantial sums to Washington's coffers, but as a member of VA's landed gentry, his coffers were doing just fine before he wed her.
Click to expand...

Nice response to Yankintx

When I first read your earlier post on this subject, I was somewhat taken aback. I too had thought that George Washington had come from more modest means, and it was his marriage that brought him his wealth. At least, that is what I had read many years ago.

But then I thought, "Xelor is probably right." It makes more sense that Washington was filthy rich from the start. Even a marriage to a wealthy widow would not have put him into the constitution-writing club, let alone electing him as President. The aristocracy just had too many prejudices about the lower classes. The notion that he came from a middle class background (if there was a significant middle class at that time) plays into the myth that the Constitution was a document for all Americans. A lot more people than Yankintx and I had fallen for this part of the myth.

Until Americans get past the myth, they won't progress.
 
TDGonDP said:
Nice response to Yankintx

When I first read your earlier post on this subject, I was somewhat taken aback. I too had thought that George Washington had come from more modest means, and it was his marriage that brought him his wealth. At least, that is what I had read many years ago.

But then I thought, "Xelor is probably right." It makes more sense that Washington was filthy rich from the start. Even a marriage to a wealthy widow would not have put him into the constitution-writing club, let alone electing him as President. The aristocracy just had too many prejudices about the lower classes. The notion that he came from a middle class background (if there was a significant middle class at that time) plays into the myth that the Constitution was a document for all Americans. A lot more people than Yankintx and I had fallen for this part of the myth.

Until Americans get past the myth, they won't progress.
Click to expand...

Red:
Thank you.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Thank you.
Click to expand...

There is something else I would like to confirm. Year back, I had read that the location for the new American capital was a hot topic back then. Some wanted New York, some wanted Boston, some wanted Philidelphia. Eventually they settled on some rural land now known as Washington DC., not really being part of any established city.

In one way, Washington broke a deadlock; i.e., no city could earn a windfall profit.

In another way, the land ceded to the federal government (from Maryland and Virginia) was actually a large land tract held by a Loyalist who was chased into Upper Canada. The land was confiscated by the "government" and it was a hot political potato as to who should get to eventually own it--and for what price. This dispute was settled by giving the tract to the new federal government. Washington DC was built on top of that land.

I have only read that fact in one place, so I'm a little suspect. But it sounds something myth-creating historians would like to bury. Maybe you might have some insight.
 
TDGonDP said:
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?
Click to expand...

We won't, it is the anchor that holds us back. I see the split being one of who retains power as demographics shift. As we become more concentrated in certain states and urban areas, the power of Rural America will become an impediment to the majority wanting to continue the original structure. Today, all three branches are controlled by the same party. That party won this power not with sheer numbers but due to the structure of the government. We have a minority government and the majority will only tolerate it as long as they can. Once it becomes unbearable, the union as we know it must change or die.
 
TDGonDP said:
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....
Click to expand...

A common misunderstanding is that the Constitution grants freedoms. It doesn't, we already have unalienable rights. What the Constitution does is limit the powers of government. Obviously many of those limitations were in direct opposition to the abuses of the British Empire, their mad king and the atrocities of the Redcoats.
 
Vadinho said:
We won't, it is the anchor that holds us back. I see the split being one of who retains power as demographics shift. As we become more concentrated in certain states and urban areas, the power of Rural America will become an impediment to the majority wanting to continue the original structure. Today, all three branches are controlled by the same party. That party won this power not with sheer numbers but due to the structure of the government. We have a minority government and the majority will only tolerate it as long as they can. Once it becomes unbearable, the union as we know it must change or die.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

In a tight race, rural America has a little edge over urban America. That was part of the deal to bring the 13 states together into one nation. While that reason is probably lost as the USA has changed at lot, tradition and history and desire to hold that edge remain strong.

However, it should be noted that this edge still cannot vault an undesirable candidate into a front runner. Mr. Trump still got 62m votes on his own merit. It is totally wrong to say that he was a losing candidate. The electoral college is not that bad of a way to pick to winner.

Had Ms. Clinton won, Mr. Trump's base would still be a strong political/social force.

If Mr. Trump is to be defeated, then strategists should be working within the rules to defeat him, not hope the rules will change.
 
TDGonDP said:
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?
Click to expand...

quote-but-whether-the-constitution-really-be-one-thing-or-another-this-much-is-certain-that-it-h.jpg
 
TDGonDP said:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

In a tight race, rural America has a little edge over urban America. That was part of the deal to bring the 13 states together into one nation. While that reason is probably lost as the USA has changed at lot, tradition and history and desire to hold that edge remain strong.

However, it should be noted that this edge still cannot vault an undesirable candidate into a front runner. Mr. Trump still got 62m votes on his own merit. It is totally wrong to say that he was a losing candidate. The electoral college is not that bad of a way to pick to winner.

Had Ms. Clinton won, Mr. Trump's base would still be a strong political/social force.

If Mr. Trump is to be defeated, then strategists should be working within the rules to defeat him, not hope the rules will change.
Click to expand...

If you think Trump is a viable and satisfactory selection for POTUS then we may have nothing more to say to each other.
 
TDGonDP said:
There is something else I would like to confirm. Year back, I had read that the location for the new American capital was a hot topic back then. Some wanted New York, some wanted Boston, some wanted Philidelphia. Eventually they settled on some rural land now known as Washington DC., not really being part of any established city.

In one way, Washington broke a deadlock; i.e., no city could earn a windfall profit.

In another way, the land ceded to the federal government (from Maryland and Virginia) was actually a large land tract held by a Loyalist who was chased into Upper Canada. The land was confiscated by the "government" and it was a hot political potato as to who should get to eventually own it--and for what price. This dispute was settled by giving the tract to the new federal government. Washington DC was built on top of that land.

I have only read that fact in one place, so I'm a little suspect. But it sounds something myth-creating historians would like to bury. Maybe you might have some insight.
Click to expand...


I am not aware of the tale of the loyalist, but it's not entirely implausible that such a series of events occurred.

I do know the land that forms the current area of the District of Columbia was, in the 18th century, multiple plots of variously owned tracts that individual small landowners agreed, in response to George Washington's solicitations, to sell their plots to the government after the surveying process had been completed. (Source)

One of the original landowners was David Burnes, who owned much of what is now the National Mall, the Ellipse and the WH grounds. He is notable in that the terms Washington negotiated allowed the owners to use and profit from their lands until the survey was complete and Burnes was particularly reticent to yield his land when the appointed time came.

David Burnes' Home
(It stood until the late 1800s.)

y87ewjbw

An incomplete list of those 19 sellers are shown here: Original Landowners of Washington.


​

As far as why the swampy lands around the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, well, that was driven largely by wanting to put the capital between (politically more so than precisely geographically) the North and the South so as not to appear to favor either.

That's what I know off the top of my head and that I can quickly find Internet content to corroborate. If I remember to do so the next time I visit Momma or my friend on the other side of the woods, I'll ask about the loyalist story you've mentioned. They both have ancestors' diaries from that period, and it's possible some snippet of such a thing is mentioned in an entry somewhere. (Mind you, it's also possible that it isn't, as well as that it is and neither of them read, noticed, or remembers it being there.)

I hope the above helps somewhat. I know it's not precisely what you've asked about....
 
Xelor said:


I am not aware of the tale of the loyalist, but it's not entirely implausible that such a series of events occurred.

I do know the land that forms the current area of the District of Columbia was, in the 18th century, multiple plots of variously owned tracts that individual small landowners agreed, in response to George Washington's solicitations, to sell their plots to the government after the surveying process had been completed. (Source)

One of the original landowners was David Burnes, who owned much of what is now the National Mall, the Ellipse and the WH grounds. He is notable in that the terms Washington negotiated allowed the owners to use and profit from their lands until the survey was complete and Burnes was particularly reticent to yield his land when the appointed time came.

David Burnes' Home
(It stood until the late 1800s.)

y87ewjbw

An incomplete list of those 19 sellers are shown here: Original Landowners of Washington.


​

As far as why the swampy lands around the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, well, that was driven largely by wanting to put the capital between (politically more so than precisely geographically) the North and the South so as not to appear to favor either.

That's what I know off the top of my head and that I can quickly find Internet content to corroborate. If I remember to do so the next time I visit Momma or my friend on the other side of the woods, I'll ask about the loyalist story you've mentioned. They both have ancestors' diaries from that period, and it's possible some snippet of such a thing is mentioned in an entry somewhere. (Mind you, it's also possible that it isn't, as well as that it is and neither of them read, noticed, or remembers it being there.)

I hope the above helps somewhat. I know it's not precisely what you've asked about....
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. If true, those little plots seem to put to rest the story of a large Loyalist land tract as the basis for Washington DC. But I'm sure other Loyalist lands were confiscated.
 
Vadinho said:
If you think Trump is a viable and satisfactory selection for POTUS then we may have nothing more to say to each other.
Click to expand...

USA has 350 million people. Why couldn't it find candidates more suitable than Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton? I think there are many other better people out there, but the system proffered these two. It sounds like a broken system to me.

In the minds of 62 million people, Mr. Trump was a pretty good choice. I can see their reasoning in November 2016, but I am somewhat perplexed as to why they are sticking with him. I thought he would be inept at the job, and he has proven that.

If I were an American in November 2016, I probably would have tried to spoil my ballot.
 
Anarchon said:
View attachment 67243573
Click to expand...

I would just say that the American Constitution, despite its flaws, was the better system to get the best of its citizen's potential than any other system of governance at that time. Other countries learned from that experience.

But today, it is outdated and not very capable of handling our increasingly complex world. It is time for a new system.
 
TDGonDP said:
You have thought things through very well. We have reached the same conclusion on many things.

I think the only I would disagree with is that a new political party would solve many things. It too will be corrupted--if it wants to win elections, probably sooner than later. This conclusion comes from six years inside a political party in Canada. Within each party are formal and informal contests for gaining influence, status, and power. Party members compete against each other, almost as much as the parties compete against each other. All this competition creates a certain level of dysfunctionality that eventually finds its way into general society. A new political party would be subject to the same social and psychological forces.

I think this is about my sixth political internet forum I have been involved with over the years, and very few people have reached the same conclusion as you. I would like to tell you a lot more on this subject. But I would be violating some of the rules of DebatePolitics, and this was confirmed with a discussion of one of the moderators. With respect for the investors and volunteers who keep this site running, I shall stay within the rules.

In the meantime, there are enough bread crumbs on DP for you to find where I would like you to go next. It's up to you.

Regardless, you have made a great post.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the kind words.

Corruption is a thing that seems to exist if people are around. It must just be assumed that any kind of power will corrupt to some degree.

Teddy Roosevelt came pretty close to creating a third party, but it was based on him. Trump may not have a third party in mind, but the family line he presents is impressive in its upcoming longevity.

His smart, energetic and fast learning children and their spouses may be the bedrock of that new Third Party which will be the rising-from-the-dead carcass of the old Republican Party with a little T-Party sprinkled on top of and throughout it.

Given the realities of the world, making a new Political Party may be just a pipe dream. However, ala Bill Gates, it may be possible to take an operating system and create a new organization around it.

As Kennedy said in the 60's, the torch has been passed to a new generation. The thumbs down old guys are dying out.
 
TDGonDP said:
Forcing my vision is not my intention of this article. The public should indeed be brought onside if there are to be any significant changes on how we are governed.

My intention is to educate people about the historical errors that the popular myth portrays about the creating of the American Constitution. It is as much of a product of political expediency as it was about wisdom of how a society should be governed. Until Americans get around the myth, they can't move forward.

I gained a lot of insights from reading a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". The author lays bare the errors of early American history taught at the high school level. All the "negative events" are erased from this education, hence many Americans have a false sense of their own history. This contributes to where USA is today.
Click to expand...

So my teacher told us that GW chopped down a cherry tree...what does that have to do with the how each branch government chooses to interpret the document.


As a progressive I was born into a system of belief that it was the courts that defined constitutionality over laws. Although that should still be the case, we as progressives need to push Congress to pass laws and protections we have counted on the courts to uphold if challenged.

Case in point we should push that Congress...not the courts, in shine into current Civil Rights legislation protections for Americans regardless of there Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.

That should be done asap by the next Congress and President that believes in those ideals.'
 
TDGonDP said:
Americans take pride in how their 1787 constitution has shaped their country and the world....
Click to expand...

Can you give a couple of examples how the US Constitution has "shaped 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...
Click to expand...

Er no. The English Revolution in 1688 (known often as a the "Glorious Revolution) gave birth to the Revolution Settlement and the Bill of Rights.

Almost 100 years before the US Constitution

...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....
Click to expand...

Of course the US Constitution (it should always be written with a capital "C" by the way) was not a perfect document. It was a document of the late 18th century and it's vocabulary and concerns reflect this.

The fact that so many of its articles are argued over proves this. This is why having a constitution that lasts for hundreds of years is a bad thing - in the same way that laws written hundreds of years ago lose their mean/intent or purpose.


...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....
Click to expand...

The motivation for the Revolution came from the wealthy middle classes who saw an opportunity to make more money. It had nothing to do with independence or representation and everything to do with making the wealthy middle classes richer.

In the 1860's the USA had a bloody civil war - it was motivated too by the Southern establishment seeking to protect their wealth and maintain slavery. But the dirt farmers who owned no slaves and did the fighting thought they were fighting for independence.
They weren't - they were fighting for the Southern rich to keep their wealth.


...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....
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Native Americans either. In fact the people who could actually vote were a small minority of white males.

"WE THE PEOPLE" - meant "we the specific group of elite"


...while property rights were better enshrined under American law...
Click to expand...


What American law(s) have property rights enshrined in them ?


...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....
Click to expand...

What improvements were made ?

And how could the drafters of the Constitution have possibly expected political parties to not exist ?


...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....
Click to expand...

Yeah, right off the bat there were 10 amendments...better to have started again.


...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...
Click to expand...


Who, in their right mind, would think the US Constitution an infallible document ?

It should be scrapped and a new one drafted.
 
Rich2018 said:
Can you give a couple of examples how the US Constitution has "shaped the world" ?




Er no. The English Revolution in 1688 (known often as a the "Glorious Revolution) gave birth to the Revolution Settlement and the Bill of Rights.

Almost 100 years before the US Constitution



Of course the US Constitution (it should always be written with a capital "C" by the way) was not a perfect document. It was a document of the late 18th century and it's vocabulary and concerns reflect this.

The fact that so many of its articles are argued over proves this. This is why having a constitution that lasts for hundreds of years is a bad thing - in the same way that laws written hundreds of years ago lose their mean/intent or purpose.




The motivation for the Revolution came from the wealthy middle classes who saw an opportunity to make more money. It had nothing to do with independence or representation and everything to do with making the wealthy middle classes richer.

In the 1860's the USA had a bloody civil war - it was motivated too by the Southern establishment seeking to protect their wealth and maintain slavery. But the dirt farmers who owned no slaves and did the fighting thought they were fighting for independence.
They weren't - they were fighting for the Southern rich to keep their wealth.




Don't forget the Native Americans either. In fact the people who could actually vote were a small minority of white males.

"WE THE PEOPLE" - meant "we the specific group of elite"





What American law(s) have property rights enshrined in them ?




What improvements were made ?

And how could the drafters of the Constitution have possibly expected political parties to not exist ?




Yeah, right off the bat there were 10 amendments...better to have started again.





Who, in their right mind, would think the US Constitution an infallible document ?

It should be scrapped and a new one drafted.
Click to expand...

You bring up lots of good points, and I think we are reasonably close to the same mindset on this topic.

Obviously, you are not one of those people who believe in the infallibility or near-infallibility of the constitution (and note I deliberately write the "c" with a lower case letter). Unfortunately, a lot of Americans believe this document came from God or was inspired by God. But the reality is that it was most motivated by wealthy people wanting to break the shackles of the British so the wealthy could be more more wealthy.

And yes, the constitution did borrow a lot from the British model. However, the Americans were better able to apply the principles. If we take property rights, for example, a wealthy aristocrat in Britain could lose much of his property just by being on the wrong side of the aristocracy. The laws were selectively and/or poorly enforced. The Americans were much more principled in this regard. And with this principles in place, a lower class person in America could acquire wealth and not have it "legally" confiscated by the wealthy. The rest of the western world watched this and eventually adopted similar laws.

My understanding is that the founding fathers (again no capitals) understood the flaws of political parties and tried to write the constitution such that parties and factions were not to be part of the workings of government. The best they could do is not mention the political parties in the document. But soon after the constitution was written, faction formed (like Hamilton vs Madison) which quickly led to political parties. For those who aspire to positions of influence and authority, going the party route is much easier than by a more independent means. Once the ambitious ones got into law-making positions, they set things up for the benefit of the political parties.

The issues of slavery, native Americans, poor white men, and women were all addressed in my OP. I also mentioned Loyalists who were forbidden to express their political viewpoint and were eventually driven from the 13 colonies.

And yes, the USA----and all other nations---should rewrite their own constitutions. This time, ordinary people should be involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom