That's why it's important to decipher the Constitution rationally as time passes. The point was, we'd still consider African-Americans property and three-fifths of people if we strictly abided the Constitution and felt it was immune to time and societal requirements. We changed that, and for the good.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Prigg vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. They respectively clarify and establish precedence for exactly what that constitutional clause applies to when it comes to slavery.
That's why it's important to decipher the Constitution rationally as time passes. The point was, we'd still consider African-Americans property and three-fifths of people if we strictly abided the Constitution and felt it was immune to time and societal requirements. We changed that, and for the good.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Pardon the page long quotes.
And you are wrong, it was regarding slavery:
Clause 3: Fugitive Slave Clause
“ No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. ”
When first adopted, this clause applied to fugitive slaves and required that they be extradited upon the claims of their enslavers. This practice was eliminated when the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. In 1864, during the Civil War, an effort to repeal this clause of the Constitution failed.[3]
If you wish to interpret it that way, but you are wrong. It may have been applied to slaves, however, it was not written for slaves. You must remember there were still serfs paying their dues and this was just as easily applied to them.
That's why it's important to decipher the Constitution rationally as time passes. The point was, we'd still consider African-Americans property and three-fifths of people if we strictly abided the Constitution and felt it was immune to time and societal requirements. We changed that, and for the good.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Prigg vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. They respectively clarify and establish precedence for exactly what that constitutional clause applies to when it comes to slavery.
See above. Once again, applied to, not written for.
Dekron is right on this one, folks. The U.S. Constitution never expressly supported or protected slavery, it merely recognized its existence within the United States. Only when the 13th amendment was adopted did it take a side; against slavery.
Dekron is right on this one, folks. The U.S. Constitution never expressly supported or protected slavery, it merely recognized its existence within the United States. Only when the 13th amendment was adopted did it take a side; against slavery.
A little history for you.
The Constitutionn was originally supposed to guarantee Life, Liberty, and Property, meaning that your property could not be siezed by the government in a manner which had been practiced by European Kings. However the North objected to the use of the word 'Property" as it could have been interpreted to guarantee the rights of the slave owners. The Southern slave holding interests wanted "Property" in as a guarantee. The phrase was dropped, and a compromise reached, in which the Constitution would remain neutral on the issue of slavery. The South never would have consented to a statement that denied slaves as property, and the North never would have consented to a statement that recognized slaves as property.
Thus "Pursuit of Happiness" was substituted to balance the statement. Exactly what is the "right to pursue happiness", anyway? Like, someone is going to take away your right to try and be happy?
That's why it's important to decipher the Constitution rationally as time passes. The point was, we'd still consider African-Americans property and three-fifths of people if we strictly abided the Constitution and felt it was immune to time and societal requirements. We changed that, and for the good.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Prigg vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. They respectively clarify and establish precedence for exactly what that constitutional clause applies to when it comes to slavery.
See above. Once again, applied to, not written for.
You can say that of everything we hold constitutional, but what would be the point? It's as if you told me the second amendment isn't "regarding" handguns, only to be proven wrong, and then turn around and say "it applies to handguns, it wasn't written for them". Awesome? It's good you've learned something.
I think that the problem folks have with this clause is that some interpet it to mean that the constitution was endorsing slavery in some form, this was NOT the case at all.
It was written in to 'pacify' the owners of the slaves who escaped to a free state.
Dekron is right on this one, folks. The U.S. Constitution never expressly supported or protected slavery, it merely recognized its existence within the United States. Only when the 13th amendment was adopted did it take a side; against slavery.
A little history for you.
The Constitutionn was originally supposed to guarantee Life, Liberty, and Property, meaning that your property could not be siezed by the government in a manner which had been practiced by European Kings. However the North objected to the use of the word 'Property" as it could have been interpreted to guarantee the rights of the slave owners. The Southern slave holding interests wanted "Property" in as a guarantee. The phrase was dropped, and a compromise reached, in which the Constitution would remain neutral on the issue of slavery. The South never would have consented to a statement that denied slaves as property, and the North never would have consented to a statement that recognized slaves as property.
Thus "Pursuit of Happiness" was substituted to balance the statement. Exactly what is the "right to pursue happiness", anyway? Like, someone is going to take away your right to try and be happy?
It was a fill phrase.
I already knew this, and I think you are referring to the Declaration of Independence which expresses an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally property). But thank you for reinforcing my post.
The wet dream of all these nuts over on the Hannity forums and elsewhere is a new Civil War. They love to talk about how they are sure their National Guard would refuse to fire on people from their own state. Can we say "Living in the Past"? Will one of these fanatics pull a gun on a townhall or try to shoot a representative? Possibly. But even if they try, and even if they manage to wound or kill a member of congress without any one else getting shot in the process, this would act as more of a setback to the Conservative movement than anything else prior. If this were to take place I would just hope that the blowback on some of the worst agitators would be enough to put an end to this crap
Laserwolf, I hate to say this but I think it is a whole hell of a lot more serious than you and others think it is. I don't think we are talking about just a few people, but a good many of the listenership of certain individuals and those impacted by the economy. If you ask me, I saw this ball rolling last August when the economy started tanking and I forsee the economy taking another nosedive later this year.
You assume open violence at townhalls, like shootings, will cause 'blowback' and actually bring the insanity to a halt. I think it will only embolden some people, and have a snowball affect. Things like the birther conspiracy, death panels, concentration camps, Obama as Hitler/anti-christ, and assorted other made-up BS should have NEVER even made it to the main-stream media. Those things should have caused your 'setback's and your 'blowback's but I am not seeing it. I see certain media people covering their butts now, but that's because they anticipate it getting worse.
A relative of mine came to me and was talking about how they had just found videos of people training with machine guns and crap, and that the whole thing looks like they want to start a civil war or revolution and that it's getting scary out there. No sh!t. That's exactly what they're doing, and what they want, and there is plenty of crazy out there IMO.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
Originally posted by Gazenthia Originally posted by Laserwolf The wet dream of all these nuts over on the Hannity forums and elsewhere is a new Civil War. They love to talk about how they are sure their National Guard would refuse to fire on people from their own state. Can we say "Living in the Past"? Will one of these fanatics pull a gun on a townhall or try to shoot a representative? Possibly. But even if they try, and even if they manage to wound or kill a member of congress without any one else getting shot in the process, this would act as more of a setback to the Conservative movement than anything else prior. If this were to take place I would just hope that the blowback on some of the worst agitators would be enough to put an end to this crap
Laserwolf, I hate to say this but I think it is a whole hell of a lot more serious than you and others think it is. I don't think we are talking about just a few people, but a good many of the listenership of certain individuals and those impacted by the economy. If you ask me, I saw this ball rolling last August when the economy started tanking and I forsee the economy taking another nosedive later this year.
You assume open violence at townhalls, like shootings, will cause 'blowback' and actually bring the insanity to a halt. I think it will only embolden some people, and have a snowball affect. Things like the birther conspiracy, death panels, concentration camps, Obama as Hitler/anti-christ, and assorted other made-up BS should have NEVER even made it to the main-stream media. Those things should have caused your 'setback's and your 'blowback's but I am not seeing it. I see certain media people covering their butts now, but that's because they anticipate it getting worse.
A relative of mine came to me and was talking about how they had just found videos of people training with machine guns and crap, and that the whole thing looks like they want to start a civil war or revolution and that it's getting scary out there. No sh!t. That's exactly what they're doing, and what they want, and there is plenty of crazy out there IMO.
A lot of those people were delusional for yeard as far back as Ruby Ridge and Waco. They were saying the government this, Anti-christ that, coming war this, blah blah blah. I remember when they said President Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ because his name had six letters for first, middle and last: 6.6.6. I shit you not.
These chunkleheads were saying that as far back as then, they just didn't have a proper catalyst. Now they are saying Obama is clearly the anti-christ because of all the signs, fingerprints, one world order, Mark of the Beast and the Bible says there is going to be a race/civil war.
They somehow think because of his historic election, this is the undeniable trigger. The hatespewers on the radio/tv were too greedy for money and ratings, so they eagerly fed their fears. Rush, Hannity and Beck never realized the true population of Crazytown, USA.
Politicians tapped into this for votes and political gain (Teabaggers are cool! We support your meetings!) and McCain even let it go on for a while during the election because he was getting a nice bump in the polls staying quiet.
Now the other politicians who've been fanning this (except for screwball Bachmann) are now are starting to go.. "uh oh", because these whackadoos are yelling at anything remotely connected with Washington and "the new world order and socialism" and a few of them are carrying guns; talking about watering trees with tyrant's blood, lol. The look on some of those politicians faces (even the Republicans) was truly comical; you could see they weren't scared of losing the next election; they were scared one of those people would pull out a gun. That's why every loving one of them had security, police, personal bodyguards.. you name it.
It seems to me the same fools who are disrupting (NOT participating)in these town hall meetings are the same people who were crying not to elect Barack HUSSEIN Obama because the sky would fall on all of us.
I personally am a registered Independant. I do not hold allegiance to a certain party, I hold allegiance to my country. I therefore vote for who I think best represents the future of this country.
When these right wing fools were shouting don't vote for Barrack HUSSEIN Obama it was because they couldn't win debates on the issues. Therefore they tried to persuade people with misguided fear. The same exact thing is happening now with the debate on health care reform. They don't give a damn about voicing their opinion in a debate. All they care about is screaming so loud they drown out ALL other other voices, wether those voices are proponents or opponents.
Screaming so loud so as not to allow other people to express their views IS un-American. I hope like hell they fail.
Our spirit was here long before you
Long before us
And long will it be after your pride brings you to your end
It seems to me the same fools who are disrupting (NOT participating)in these town hall meetings are the same people who were crying not to elect Barack HUSSEIN Obama because the sky would fall on all of us. I personally am a registered Independant. I do not hold allegiance to a certain party, I hold allegiance to my country. I therefore vote for who I think best represents the future of this country. When these right wing fools were shouting don't vote for Barrack HUSSEIN Obama it was because they couldn't win debates on the issues. Therefore they tried to persuade people with misguided fear. The same exact thing is happening now with the debate on health care reform. They don't give a damn about voicing their opinion in a debate. All they care about is screaming so loud they drown out ALL other other voices, wether those voices are proponents or opponents. Screaming so loud so as not to allow other people to express their views IS un-American. I hope like hell they fail.
Maybe with all this more Americans will realize the way they are acting and it will shock enough people into realizing that this is the image they are presenting to the rest of the world. And do something to change it.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
It seems to me the same fools who are disrupting (NOT participating)in these town hall meetings are the same people who were crying not to elect Barack HUSSEIN Obama because the sky would fall on all of us. I personally am a registered Independant. I do not hold allegiance to a certain party, I hold allegiance to my country. I therefore vote for who I think best represents the future of this country. When these right wing fools were shouting don't vote for Barrack HUSSEIN Obama it was because they couldn't win debates on the issues. Therefore they tried to persuade people with misguided fear. The same exact thing is happening now with the debate on health care reform. They don't give a damn about voicing their opinion in a debate. All they care about is screaming so loud they drown out ALL other other voices, wether those voices are proponents or opponents. Screaming so loud so as not to allow other people to express their views IS un-American. I hope like hell they fail.
I actually agree with you to a point. I too do not support either Democrats or Republicans and think they are both playing this for control. Yes I actually think they are in this together to make sure NO other parties can be heard. If they provide enough distraction and reduce credibility of all those that oppse the proposed healthcare bill, the focus will not be on what is actaully in the bill, and not on the other REAL plans that are offered, but instead it will be either 1. you vote for this terrible bill , 2. you are a crazy town yelling idiot, or 3. you are inhuman and want people to die.
Those are not all the real options being presented here, and this fiasco provides just the cover they need to pass a very BIG mistake.
Yes, we need healthcare reform, but if we are going to do it we better get it right the first time.
1. create a direct pay system to doctors and hospitals doing away with insurance companies all together. This removes the 3rd party paracite from the system that drives up the costs of treatment.
2. Combine dental and medical and replace the AMA with IADMD and do away with all " specialists fees" combine all diciplines and create ONE organization that provides the BEST complete care to all . Yes, ALL means everyone. No exceptions. This is not impossible, that is a lie. Check out IADMD's plan here: www.iadmd.org/DoctorsPlan/PlanBasics/tabid/59/Default.aspx
3. Regulate the pharmaceutical industry to do away with their insane advertising , bribing of doctors and hold them accountable criminally for crimes against humanity if they throw medication that works better to the wayside in favor of medicine that keeps you dependent and is more profitable. If they do not produce it they should them allow someone else to if it is proven to be more effective. These are the reason our medications are not affordable, and why they are not producing one time fixes. They can, but they choose not to at the expense of human lives.
4. Create a unbiasd malpractice board to hand out settlements accordingly, as suggested in the IADMD plan.
The reason these core issues are not being addressed properly is that these are also the core lobbyist that are padding our politcians pocketbooks. Yes, even Obama is bought off. This is what really needs to be done, but none of our puppets in office are willing to do do that. I am against Obamas plan because it does not solve the core issues, and it does not ensure that everyone will receive the best treatment possible. When they address these issues here, I will support the politician who does. Otherwise no one who really wants " Universal Healthcare" should endorse their botched plans from either side.
Comments
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Prigg vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. They respectively clarify and establish precedence for exactly what that constitutional clause applies to when it comes to slavery.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Pardon the page long quotes.
And you are wrong, it was regarding slavery:
Clause 3: Fugitive Slave Clause
“ No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. ”
When first adopted, this clause applied to fugitive slaves and required that they be extradited upon the claims of their enslavers. This practice was eliminated when the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. In 1864, during the Civil War, an effort to repeal this clause of the Constitution failed.[3]
If you wish to interpret it that way, but you are wrong. It may have been applied to slaves, however, it was not written for slaves. You must remember there were still serfs paying their dues and this was just as easily applied to them.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Prigg vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. They respectively clarify and establish precedence for exactly what that constitutional clause applies to when it comes to slavery.
See above. Once again, applied to, not written for.
Dekron is right on this one, folks. The U.S. Constitution never expressly supported or protected slavery, it merely recognized its existence within the United States. Only when the 13th amendment was adopted did it take a side; against slavery.
A little history for you.
The Constitutionn was originally supposed to guarantee Life, Liberty, and Property, meaning that your property could not be siezed by the government in a manner which had been practiced by European Kings. However the North objected to the use of the word 'Property" as it could have been interpreted to guarantee the rights of the slave owners. The Southern slave holding interests wanted "Property" in as a guarantee. The phrase was dropped, and a compromise reached, in which the Constitution would remain neutral on the issue of slavery. The South never would have consented to a statement that denied slaves as property, and the North never would have consented to a statement that recognized slaves as property.
Thus "Pursuit of Happiness" was substituted to balance the statement. Exactly what is the "right to pursue happiness", anyway? Like, someone is going to take away your right to try and be happy?
It was a fill phrase.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject you speak. "All men are created equal" did not change. What was changed was the recognition of blacks to be included in that definition. That did not change the basis of the Constitution - it did, however, provide recognition.
Suppose there was an amendment to redefine the term "pursuit of happiness" to just "happiness". Imagine the problems then.
There was nothing changed in the Constitution on the subject I speak? That slaves were property? Not sure why you said that only to go on and agree that the Constitution was indeed fundamentally changed from a document protecting slavery and persecution of an entire race of people to one guaranteeing the freedom of all, but I'm glad you understand.
Show me, please, where in the Constitution slaves were deemed property. The 13 amendment abolished slavery. There was never slavery defined in the Constitution.
An amendment is an addition, not a change. To amend a change in the original text would result in invalidation of the Constitution.
One reference I know of, could be more:
US Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
That's not regarding slavery, that is regarding extradition of captured prisoners.
For example, if I was in jail in New York, and I escaped to Maine, Maine would have to extradite me back to New York.
Read the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Prigg vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. They respectively clarify and establish precedence for exactly what that constitutional clause applies to when it comes to slavery.
See above. Once again, applied to, not written for.
You can say that of everything we hold constitutional, but what would be the point? It's as if you told me the second amendment isn't "regarding" handguns, only to be proven wrong, and then turn around and say "it applies to handguns, it wasn't written for them". Awesome? It's good you've learned something.
I think that the problem folks have with this clause is that some interpet it to mean that the constitution was endorsing slavery in some form, this was NOT the case at all.
It was written in to 'pacify' the owners of the slaves who escaped to a free state.
A little history for you.
The Constitutionn was originally supposed to guarantee Life, Liberty, and Property, meaning that your property could not be siezed by the government in a manner which had been practiced by European Kings. However the North objected to the use of the word 'Property" as it could have been interpreted to guarantee the rights of the slave owners. The Southern slave holding interests wanted "Property" in as a guarantee. The phrase was dropped, and a compromise reached, in which the Constitution would remain neutral on the issue of slavery. The South never would have consented to a statement that denied slaves as property, and the North never would have consented to a statement that recognized slaves as property.
Thus "Pursuit of Happiness" was substituted to balance the statement. Exactly what is the "right to pursue happiness", anyway? Like, someone is going to take away your right to try and be happy?
It was a fill phrase.
I already knew this, and I think you are referring to the Declaration of Independence which expresses an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally property). But thank you for reinforcing my post.
Laserwolf, I hate to say this but I think it is a whole hell of a lot more serious than you and others think it is. I don't think we are talking about just a few people, but a good many of the listenership of certain individuals and those impacted by the economy. If you ask me, I saw this ball rolling last August when the economy started tanking and I forsee the economy taking another nosedive later this year.
You assume open violence at townhalls, like shootings, will cause 'blowback' and actually bring the insanity to a halt. I think it will only embolden some people, and have a snowball affect. Things like the birther conspiracy, death panels, concentration camps, Obama as Hitler/anti-christ, and assorted other made-up BS should have NEVER even made it to the main-stream media. Those things should have caused your 'setback's and your 'blowback's but I am not seeing it. I see certain media people covering their butts now, but that's because they anticipate it getting worse.
A relative of mine came to me and was talking about how they had just found videos of people training with machine guns and crap, and that the whole thing looks like they want to start a civil war or revolution and that it's getting scary out there. No sh!t. That's exactly what they're doing, and what they want, and there is plenty of crazy out there IMO.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Laserwolf, I hate to say this but I think it is a whole hell of a lot more serious than you and others think it is. I don't think we are talking about just a few people, but a good many of the listenership of certain individuals and those impacted by the economy. If you ask me, I saw this ball rolling last August when the economy started tanking and I forsee the economy taking another nosedive later this year.
You assume open violence at townhalls, like shootings, will cause 'blowback' and actually bring the insanity to a halt. I think it will only embolden some people, and have a snowball affect. Things like the birther conspiracy, death panels, concentration camps, Obama as Hitler/anti-christ, and assorted other made-up BS should have NEVER even made it to the main-stream media. Those things should have caused your 'setback's and your 'blowback's but I am not seeing it. I see certain media people covering their butts now, but that's because they anticipate it getting worse.
A relative of mine came to me and was talking about how they had just found videos of people training with machine guns and crap, and that the whole thing looks like they want to start a civil war or revolution and that it's getting scary out there. No sh!t. That's exactly what they're doing, and what they want, and there is plenty of crazy out there IMO.
A lot of those people were delusional for yeard as far back as Ruby Ridge and Waco. They were saying the government this, Anti-christ that, coming war this, blah blah blah. I remember when they said President Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ because his name had six letters for first, middle and last: 6.6.6. I shit you not.
These chunkleheads were saying that as far back as then, they just didn't have a proper catalyst. Now they are saying Obama is clearly the anti-christ because of all the signs, fingerprints, one world order, Mark of the Beast and the Bible says there is going to be a race/civil war.
They somehow think because of his historic election, this is the undeniable trigger. The hatespewers on the radio/tv were too greedy for money and ratings, so they eagerly fed their fears. Rush, Hannity and Beck never realized the true population of Crazytown, USA.
Politicians tapped into this for votes and political gain (Teabaggers are cool! We support your meetings!) and McCain even let it go on for a while during the election because he was getting a nice bump in the polls staying quiet.
Now the other politicians who've been fanning this (except for screwball Bachmann) are now are starting to go.. "uh oh", because these whackadoos are yelling at anything remotely connected with Washington and "the new world order and socialism" and a few of them are carrying guns; talking about watering trees with tyrant's blood, lol. The look on some of those politicians faces (even the Republicans) was truly comical; you could see they weren't scared of losing the next election; they were scared one of those people would pull out a gun. That's why every loving one of them had security, police, personal bodyguards.. you name it.
"TO MICHAEL!"
It seems to me the same fools who are disrupting (NOT participating)in these town hall meetings are the same people who were crying not to elect Barack HUSSEIN Obama because the sky would fall on all of us.
I personally am a registered Independant. I do not hold allegiance to a certain party, I hold allegiance to my country. I therefore vote for who I think best represents the future of this country.
When these right wing fools were shouting don't vote for Barrack HUSSEIN Obama it was because they couldn't win debates on the issues. Therefore they tried to persuade people with misguided fear. The same exact thing is happening now with the debate on health care reform. They don't give a damn about voicing their opinion in a debate. All they care about is screaming so loud they drown out ALL other other voices, wether those voices are proponents or opponents.
Screaming so loud so as not to allow other people to express their views IS un-American. I hope like hell they fail.
Our spirit was here long before you
Long before us
And long will it be after your pride brings you to your end
Maybe with all this more Americans will realize the way they are acting and it will shock enough people into realizing that this is the image they are presenting to the rest of the world. And do something to change it.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I actually agree with you to a point. I too do not support either Democrats or Republicans and think they are both playing this for control. Yes I actually think they are in this together to make sure NO other parties can be heard. If they provide enough distraction and reduce credibility of all those that oppse the proposed healthcare bill, the focus will not be on what is actaully in the bill, and not on the other REAL plans that are offered, but instead it will be either 1. you vote for this terrible bill , 2. you are a crazy town yelling idiot, or 3. you are inhuman and want people to die.
Those are not all the real options being presented here, and this fiasco provides just the cover they need to pass a very BIG mistake.
Yes, we need healthcare reform, but if we are going to do it we better get it right the first time.
1. create a direct pay system to doctors and hospitals doing away with insurance companies all together. This removes the 3rd party paracite from the system that drives up the costs of treatment.
2. Combine dental and medical and replace the AMA with IADMD and do away with all " specialists fees" combine all diciplines and create ONE organization that provides the BEST complete care to all . Yes, ALL means everyone. No exceptions. This is not impossible, that is a lie. Check out IADMD's plan here: www.iadmd.org/DoctorsPlan/PlanBasics/tabid/59/Default.aspx
3. Regulate the pharmaceutical industry to do away with their insane advertising , bribing of doctors and hold them accountable criminally for crimes against humanity if they throw medication that works better to the wayside in favor of medicine that keeps you dependent and is more profitable. If they do not produce it they should them allow someone else to if it is proven to be more effective. These are the reason our medications are not affordable, and why they are not producing one time fixes. They can, but they choose not to at the expense of human lives.
4. Create a unbiasd malpractice board to hand out settlements accordingly, as suggested in the IADMD plan.
The reason these core issues are not being addressed properly is that these are also the core lobbyist that are padding our politcians pocketbooks. Yes, even Obama is bought off. This is what really needs to be done, but none of our puppets in office are willing to do do that. I am against Obamas plan because it does not solve the core issues, and it does not ensure that everyone will receive the best treatment possible. When they address these issues here, I will support the politician who does. Otherwise no one who really wants " Universal Healthcare" should endorse their botched plans from either side.