[paraclete]

Tom I would be much more concerned about your own democratic institutions than being concerned about the governance of other nations.

I haven't heard you complain about Putin yet, will you want to intervene if he is elected President again?

[TUT317]

Yes and Hitler was voted in too. Chavez has dismantled the democratic institutions .
The scenario is quite real. One person one vote one time is a template well established by start up tyrannies.

Hi Tom,

These countries were are notoriously unstable. So any comparison is difficult.

The problems associated with WW1 Germany and a country that was largely agrarian up until the 1920's.

Can you come up with a different example?

Tut

[tomder55]

Tut of course if the people are content and the country is stable then there is a good chance the people would have no need to protect themselves from the government . So the comparison only applies to nations that are unstable I would think.
Is there that possibility here ? Who knows ? Was Bismark Germany (Prussia) considered a stable nation before WWI ?

[tomder55]

Tom I would be much more concerned about your own democratic institutions than being concerned about the governance of other nations.

I haven't heard you complain about Putin yet, will you want to intervene if he is elected President again?

We aren't talking about intervention here. We are talking about a free person's right to defend themselves against all threats... including their own national government if needed. Clearly if our government always adheres to the Constitution then the probability of the need decreases.

[paraclete]

Why waste time Tut he just wants to justify his eighteenth century constitution

[tomder55]

I would say that a Constitution amended 27 times is not an 18th century construct anymore .

If the people want to reverse the
2nd amendment there are provisions to do so. It won't be the 1st amendment reversed .

[TUT317]

I would say that a Constitution amended 27 times is not an 18th century construct anymore .

If the people want to reverse the
2nd amendment there are provisions to do so. It won't be the 1st amendment reversed .

Hi Tom,

This is only true if you don't view your constitution as an 18 century construct amended 27 times. You tend to go for the 18 and 19th historical exemplary illustrations. Any particular reason for this?

Tut

[smoothy]

Because its important NOT to lose touch with the original intent of the document...

That is part of the strength of it... every swinging can't pick whatever interpretation they want, and its not subject to every whim of the moment.

[TUT317]

Because its important NOT to lose touch with the original intent of the document...

That is part of the strength of it....every swinging can't pick whatever interpretation they want, and its not subject to every whim of the moment.

Seems to be some disagreement here.

Which is it?

[smoothy]

Seems to be some disagreement here.

Which is it?

Except for the fact you can't use a derivative of the name Richard... D I c k that was entered immediately after "swinging"... because it was auto censored... which left my post disjointed.

It means the constitution CAN be amended through a specific process that discourages whims of the day from changing it... but real, honest issues can.

It is a document written in plain English... not legalese, it means what it says... and because it does, one has to consider the terminology and thought processes of the writers. They didn't mince words or twist the meanings of them, like Bill Clintons famous comment "it depends on what the definition of the word IS is."

[TUT317]

except for the fact you can't use a derivitive of the name Richard ... D i c k that was entered immediately after "swinging"....because it was auto censored...which left my post disjointed.

It means the constitution CAN be amended through a specific process that discourages whims of the day from changing it...but real, honest issues can.

It is a document writen in plain English...not legalese, it means what it says.... and because it does, one has to consider the terminology and thought processes of the writers. They didn't mince words or twist the meanings of them, like Bill Clintons famous comment "it depends on what the definition of the word IS is."

Was language more precise now than what it was then?


Tut

[TUT317]

except for the fact you can't use a derivitive of the name Richard ... D i c k that was entered immediately after "swinging"....because it was auto censored...which left my post disjointed.

It means the constitution CAN be amended through a specific process that discourages whims of the day from changing it...but real, honest issues can.

It is a document writen in plain English...not legalese, it means what it says.... and because it does, one has to consider the terminology and thought processes of the writers. They didn't mince words or twist the meanings of them, like Bill Clintons famous comment "it depends on what the definition of the word IS is."

Was language more precise then than it is now?


Tut

[TUT317]

Was language more precise then than it is now?


Tut

Sorry about the double post.

Which is it? The second one.

Tut

[tomder55]

The founders left plenty of support documentation to get a clear definition as to their rationale ,and what they were trying to accomplish .

The amendments did not come out of thin air either . There is a public record of the debates before they were passed .

Therefore it is easy to determine what is the original intent regardless of the changes in the language over the years.

The constitution has been amended 27 times as the people have determined it is required . That is why it has lasted as a governing document for 223 years .

[smoothy]

Was language more precise now than what it was then?


Tut

Sorry... Issues at work I can't speak about on a forum.

They weren't prone to the degree of Bullsh*t and smoke and mirrors then as politicians are today.

It was written so every man and woman could understand it...


If you write it in anything like Ancient Sumarian... you are always at the mercy of someone doing the translation with an agenda telling you something other than what it actually says.

[paraclete]

We aren't talking about intervention here. We are talking about a free person's right to defend themselves against all threats ....including their own national government if needed. Clearly if our government always adheres to the Constitution then the probability of the need decreases.

Clearly Tom that is a nonsense, since the constitution did not protect the right of southerners to defend themselves in the mid eighteen hundreds from a government set on invading its own territory.

[smoothy]

Clearly Tom that is a nonsense, since the constitution did not protect the right of southerners to defend themselves in the mid eighteen hundreds from a government set on invading its own territory.

That was a Civil war because those southerners decided they didn't want to be part of the same country the northerners were for a number of reasons.

The Political correctness movement wants to pretend it was about freeing slaves... that was done more to punish the south than for any other reason.

[paraclete]

Yes a true Republicans v Democrats conflict. Unresolvable ideological differences, in fact, a free the slaves conflict with the no slavers on the other side this time. No compromise, does any of this sound familiar?

[tomder55]

I beg to differ . It was always about slavery . I also beg to differ in that there is absolutely NO provision in the Constitution for the disolution of the union.

Further ; the northern states took NO action against the Southern insurrection until the southern states attacked a Federal fort.
I give you General and President US Grant's thoughts on the subject from his autobiography.

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves.

If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.

Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result.

In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,—"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer."
...

The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United Status will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.

Slavery was an institution that required unusual guarantees for its security wherever it existed; and in a country like ours where the larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and well-to-do population, the people would naturally have but little sympathy with demands upon them for its protection.

Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution.

They were enabled to maintain this control long after the States where slavery existed had ceased to have the controlling power, through the assistance they received from odd men here and there throughout the Northern States.

[B]They saw their power waning, and this led them to encroach upon the prerogatives and independence of the Northern States by enacting such laws as the Fugitive Slave Law. By this law every Northern man was obliged, when properly summoned, to turn out and help apprehend the runaway slave of a Southern man. Northern marshals became slave-catchers, and Northern courts had to contribute to the support and protection of the institution.

As Grant correctly pointed out ;what the South did was revolution... for which they were defeated . Now that revolution may have some rationale in the wording of our Declaration of Independence except for this caveat. For the South to be honest about their reason ;they would've had to admit that their revolution was NOT about liberty ;but the continuance of a 'peculiar institution' that brutally enslaved people .

[tomder55]

Yes a true Republicans v Democrats conflict. Unresolvable ideological differences, in fact, a free the slaves conflict with the no slavers on the other side this time. No compromise, does any of this sound familiar?

Again the wrong reading of our history. Between the founding and the Civil War there were a number of compromises . The most prominent was the Missouri compromise . Perhaps that formula would've held. But ;the Supreme Court drove the nail in any further such grand bargains when they decided the Dredd Scott decision which effectively nullified the Missouri compromise.
As Grant pointed out that led to the intollerable situation where a free northern man was compelled to hunt down fugitive slaves even if that person was morally opposed to slavery.

The real reason the south left was because the influx of immigrants in the North would've eventually given the north the numbers to force the abolition issue.

So the southern 'gentlemen ' concocted a number of periferial causes that all tied in directly to their ability to enslave people.