The US Constitution (not the ship)

[bowlinggreen]

^ So Biden would get it. Not the worst case.

It doesn't seem clear as to how we would go about getting another president, it is apparently up to congress.

[natas777]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

I was wondering what you folks in the UK think of our first amendment. I know you have "hate-speech" laws over there, and you have religious figures still sitting in the House of Lords, which is anathema to how we do things in the USA.

Though the US did introduce the god thing in the 1950s as an anti-communist measure. But yes, the House of Lords and religious figures in it are anachronisms that have no place in a democracy.

[tsunamiSD]

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution has again come into the news because of the Trump presidency. So it looks like 'the Donald' might be in for even more litigation...

I said 'again' because before the election Newt Gingrich had claimed that Hillary Clinton had broken the clause with the Clinton Foundation. I wonder if he will now tell his buddy that he has to put all of his business holdings in a blind trust - just handing over to relatives won't cut it. At the same time he might want to tell Donald that he will have to pay a lot of money to the IRS over the way his charitable foundation was used...

[Arturo2nd]

Somehow folks keep discussing the rights of the people and wanting the federal government to watch out for the little guy. In fact, the United States Constitution was written expressly to protect the rights of the wealthy against the overwhelming mass of small farmers, tenant farmers, and day laborers who had somehow gotten the mistaken idea that since they had done the bulk of the fighting in the Revolutionary War and against the Indian tribes, they were entitled to a share of the wealth. The document was most carefully designed by the upper class and their lawyers to ensure that would not happen.

Neither the federal government nor any of the state governments is a democracy. All are republics designed to ensure that no true rabble rousing populist can overthrow the status quo. When a Huey Long type figure threatens the system assassination can always be arranged to restore the balance.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

In fact, the United States Constitution was written expressly to protect the rights of the wealthy against the overwhelming mass of small farmers, tenant farmers, and day laborers who had somehow gotten the mistaken idea that since they had done the bulk of the fighting in the Revolutionary War and against the Indian tribes, they were entitled to a share of the wealth.

Did you skip the whole Jefferson v. Hamilton and Democratic-Republicans v. Federalists? I know American history tends to skip the Jeffersonian Presidency (when he became a Federalist in disguise, a total hypocrite from his pre-administration), but they usually don't skip such prior, during the Adams administration.

Washington was hated by almost everyone, but because he was a Revolutionary War Hero, history tends to reduce how much they knock him. But the US media was notorious to Washington, as bad as King George prior to it. But Adams gets the brunt of it. Everyone hated Adams, and it was also very similar to the US media bias today. Even Hamilton had to capitulate on Adams in the Electorate, making him a 1-term President.

Hamilton was for a large debt, and a national bank, while Jefferson was against it. It wouldn't be repealed until the Jackson administration, many decades later. Of course, the Jackson administration itself is a rather interesting study.

Jefferson regularly argued that it was the wealthy north trying to use the small farmers, and their slave labor, without recognizing the cost of labor without slavery. That was always the 'intellectual' argument from the south, the ones where they didn't consider themselves 'superior' over blacks. The minority saying, "Yes, we'll give up slavery, when you find an economic approach that allows it."

It's important to understand and recognize this because it's why civil rights did not improve much for 100 years after the civil war. Why many slaves just went back to work on plantations at substandard pay rates and still very hard conditions.

Also ... did you miss the whole reality that was the anti-captalist debate?

Some of the Continental Congress, especially the south, wanted to outlaw capitalism, arguing it was British Companies that resulted in oppression of 1770+, the outlaw of the press (only the crown could define one, no longer of individual assembly -- hence the 1st Amendment, it's about the press, 'individual free speech' is just the required support to assemble into one) very early on, and the resulting outlaw of militias by 1775 (again, only the crown could define such, no longer of individual assembly -- hence the 2nd Amendment, let alone why the National Guard is not a militia from a Constitutional standpoint, but that's another story, it's about the militia, 'individual gun ownership' is just the required support to assemble into one).

In the end, the argument was made that capitalism protected small farmers as much as large farmers, and the main issue with the British system was the resulting oligarchy where the companies controlled the crown. To outlaw capitalism was to end all wealth, including the smallest, who couldn't lobby the gov't as well as the larger any way. This was also the undoing of the communist system, and is still debated in the corruption of socialist countries today, with large monopolies of corporations.

Even today, oligarchies are the problem. You can have entirely socialist governments with monopolies and the problems continue. It's always going to be the need to protect small from the large, and the irony is that the more "business regulations," the more the larger entities can lobby, while the smaller cannot. The level of special interest with the increase size of government is self-defeating. Every anti 'big business' law ends up being a big stick used against the small, who cannot afford lawyers. The US IRS is a perfect example of this when it comes to 'finding new revenue,' don't get me started, seen it first-hand as a small business myself.

Seriously ... I'm tired of seeing this shallow argument, clearly devoid of US history, based on the logic of the US media, who treats everyone like 8 year olds.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by profvolup

Did you skip the whole Jefferson v. Hamilton and Democratic-Republicans v. Federalists? I know American history tends to skip the Jeffersonian Presidency (when he became a Federalist in disguise, a total hypocrite from his pre-administration), but they usually don't skip such prior, during the Adams administration.

My statements were based on my recent reading of "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" edited by Ralph Ketcham, "Founding Myths: Stories that Hide Our Patriotic Past" and "Founders: the People Who Brought You a Nation" by Ray Raphael, "The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States" by Gordon S. Woods, "Witnesses at the Creation: Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and the Constitution" by Richard B. Morris, and "The Federalist Papers" by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, Edited by Clinton Rossiter with an Introduction and Notes by Charles R. Kesler. I have not completed the last work, but was struck by the dim history of prior democracies and republics surveyed by Hamilton in Essays #17 through #20. It should be noted that we are fast approaching the roughly 250 year life span of most previous experiments in these forms of government.

Federalist, Anti-Federalist, or what would later be Democratic-Republican, the men who drafted the U.S. Constitution were men who had wealth and owned property. One cannot read Madison's notes on the debates without becoming quite clear on the framers common objectives. They were very concerned about the spread of democracy and the desires of the less fortunate to use the political powers of their numbers to redistribute wealth. The southern planters were greatly concerned about moves to abolish slavery. The debates have continued since that day, but the Constitution ensures that the forces of wealth and privilege have a firm grip on the legal structure that maintains their power.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Federalist, Anti-Federalist, or what would later be Democratic-Republican, the men who drafted the U.S. Constitution were men who had wealth and owned property.

Yes, many were extremely wealthy. But a few were what we might consider 'upper middle class' today. The concept of 'wealth' merely meant you owned land.

Yes, some of the families ended up being worth 1,000x some 75-100 years later, because they were early. But at that time, 'wealthy' just meant property. There was a crapload of land in the colonies, and not many colonists.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

One cannot read Madison's notes on the debates without becoming quite clear on the framers common objectives. They were very concerned about the spread of democracy and the desires of the less fortunate to use the political powers of their numbers to redistribute wealth.

No, they were concerned about the issues with simple Democracy, and the pitfalls it lead to with both the Greek and Roman systems. Simple Democracies fail as simple majorities vote away their rights overnight.

They realized there had to be a balance, or the US would become the Roman Empire overnight. Unfortunately, long-term, this is still becoming the issue.

The US Supreme Court is one of the most ideal examples of this, the inability to make law, but given the absolute power to interpret the Constitution. They are decided upon by meritocracy and confirmation, instead of election.

Simple Democracies have been and always will be a problem. People start voting in what they want the government to provide. That's always been the problem with every, simple Democracy.

Heck, we Americans are so spoiled, and think we can afford everything. I've never seen so much of the nation in denial over this. We are already spending money we don't have ... and have been doing such for nearly 40 years, and insanely so since '08.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

The southern planters were greatly concerned about moves to abolish slavery.

Of course, because even the Southerners who were willing to give up slavery (a minority, but they still existed) expected the North to offer a way out. The North refused, and still continued to refuse to address the issues even in the 1870s, after the civil war, which is why it persisted another century.

Again, you're making this so shallow, way, way too shallow.

I really cannot stand many authors who do this, or people who read into what they are saying. It's extremely important to understand what they were saying. They were purposely keeping some of the power out of the direct hands of a simple majority for a reason.

Constitutional Amendments require a supermajority of the states to agree for a reason. They are Superlaws, not simple laws. It's key to understand why that is important.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

The debates have continued since that day, but the Constitution ensures that the forces of wealth and privilege have a firm grip on the legal structure that maintains their power.

No, simple Democracies do that. The US Constitution prevents the common American from voting away their rights overnight.

Take the 1st Amendment for example. Right now there is a huge attitude to restrict it, because of the irresponsibility of the US media -- just as there was during the Adams and, ironically again, Jefferson administrations. Over 60% of Americans want restrictions on the US media.

But because of the 1st Amendment, the US media will continue to be free, and the US Supreme Court will ensure such.

[profvolup]

If you're going to make an argument about the oligarchy that are the UK and, even more so, French systems, which the US system is quickly becoming as well, make that argument. But this simple "they were wealthy, so they created the oligarchy" attitude of the US' framers, and trying to tie that to the US Constitution, without any examples, is really not sticking as far as I'm concerned.

If anything, the US Judicial system was praised early on by many free thinkers in Europe as revolutionary, finally allowing the 'little man' to fight against 'the system' and 'its backers.' The right to trial by jury was ground breaking. And the use of a dedicated branch to interpret Supreme Law, one that didn't answer to anyone, and were life appointments, has continued to work out extremely well.

Every system has corruption. Every system has control. The key is to put balances in there that does their best to stop them. The framers of the US wanted to prevent another "Indies-type Company" from running the nation. We made it 200 years, until about the '90s, before the super-conglomerates really started to form in the US. It was also around the same time the US Congress repealed most of the laws that prevented different media companies from owning multiple markets.

We also stopped teaching US Civics in schools in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. We've really fucked ourselves in the last 50+ years. We totally flunk math and science, which is why even environmentalists get tired of the self-defeating, poorly proliferated views of allegedly 'pro-environment' Americans who claim they 'understand science.

That has had very, very little to do with the US Constitution and its framers. If anything, they were successful in prolonging freedom, from the damage we're doing to ourselves today.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by profvolup

Yes, many were extremely wealthy. But a few were what we might consider 'upper middle class' today. The concept of 'wealth' merely meant you owned land.

Yes, some of the families ended up being worth 1,000x some 75-100 years later, because they were early. But at that time, 'wealthy' just meant property. There was a crapload of land in the colonies, and not many colonists.

And some of the wealthiest were about to bankrupt themselves with land speculation schemes.

Originally Posted by profvolup

No, they were concerned about the issues with simple Democracy, and the pitfalls it lead to with both the Greek and Roman systems. Simple Democracies fail as simple majorities vote away their rights overnight.

They realized there had to be a balance, or the US would become the Roman Empire overnight. Unfortunately, long-term, this is still becoming the issue.

They were very concerned about the democratic movement that had taken control of the state government of Rhode Island and was enacting a variety of debtor relief and leveling schemes. Similar movements were afoot in Connecticut and Massachusetts as well.

Once again, we are seeing the two and a half century lifespan that seems to be the fate of popular governments. The American Republic seems to be following the path blazed by The Roman Republic where the empire building and prolonged military adventures undermined the government.

Originally Posted by profvolup

Simple Democracies have been and always will be a problem. People start voting in what they want the government to provide. That's always been the problem with every, simple Democracy.

Heck, we Americans are so spoiled, and think we can afford everything. I've never seen so much of the nation in denial over this. We are already spending money we don't have ... and have been doing such for nearly 40 years, and insanely so since '08.

Why should we be different? I was just reading about Japan with its national debt at 230+% of GDP and their currency printers working overtime. History is littered with tales of monarchs who bankrupted their realms.

Originally Posted by profvolup

Again, you're making this so shallow, way, way too shallow.

Yes, I was ignoring a slew of other issues to make the point that the Constitution was drafted by the gentry to protect its interest. The Articles of Confederation created a toothless national government that was being undercut by ambitious men in the state governments. All the states and, therefore, the people of the United States were being endangered by the movement towards splintering into smaller entities. The creators of the new government had to balance the interests of small states and large states, agrarian and commercial states, slave states and states on the path of abolishing slavery, creating an executive function to command the military and administer and enforce the laws enacted by the legislature, and establishing an ultimate judicial authority.

One of my college history professors remarked nearly fifty years ago that the American Revolution was much more a coup d'etat than a revolution. I would disagree with him. The adoption of Enlightenment ideals expressed in the creation of our system of governments and distributed power is the true revolution.

However, the Bill of Rights was not part of the original document and was only adopted as the price of ratification of the many men who were not willing to rely on the good faith of the government and implied freedoms. The willy-nilly infringement of our Constitutional rights by the federal government in the name of "security" makes it an ongoing question as to whether the Bill of Rights will turn into empty rhetoric. I am told that both the Soviet Union and the current Russian constitution guaranteed similar rights to their citizens. I do not think that we can trust men like Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas to protect the rights of ordinary citizens, or the current bunch of politicians on the national scene to appoint justices who will.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

And some of the wealthiest were about to bankrupt themselves with land speculation schemes.

Several were criminals. Dude, a number were corrupt people. But I don't understand what any of that has to do with the US Constitution, or its design.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

They were very concerned about the democratic movement that had taken control of the state government of Rhode Island and was enacting a variety of debtor relief and leveling schemes. Similar movements were afoot in Connecticut and Massachusetts as well.

And what did the US Constitution and early US Courts do?

They eliminated debtor prisons! So ... are you trying to only prove my point?!

Do not confuse the Crown's "rule" with the Constitutional Congress' "leadership"! Seriously! Several in the Congress were trying to 'mend the relationship' with the Crown. It was the majority ... at first. But then ... they gave in.

And without the Crown, most agreed, the age of debtor prisons and indentured servitude was not going to be the way of the new "States." Unfortunately there were still many schemes, because the new, federal "United States," were "hands off."

Catch-22, especially when it comes to Civil Rights.

Again ... I really think you're being way, way too shallow here.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Once again, we are seeing the two and a half century lifespan that seems to be the fate of popular governments. The American Republic seems to be following the path blazed by The Roman Republic where the empire building and prolonged military adventures undermined the government.

Yes, but where in the US Constitution is that the cause?

The US media blames W. for everything. But where is the blame on those who actually voted?! Especially those who had the exact same access to intelligence that W. did?!

It was 'pork for war votes.' Just as Eisenhower said ... the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. He left out "Congressional" in the final edit, not wanting to piss of Congress, much like George Washington learned within his first few months too.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Why should we be different? I was just reading about Japan with its national debt at 230+% of GDP and their currency printers working overtime. History is littered with tales of monarchs who bankrupted their realms.

Japan went to negative interest rates.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Yes, I was ignoring a slew of other issues to make the point that the Constitution was drafted by the gentry to protect its interest.

And others. That's the thing.

The criminals, the lesser folk, the others ... they were represented. You claim they were not. But they were!

The US is no longer the land of opportunity, because of the lobbying. We've let our federal government become too big ... too powerful! Why is everyone for giving them more power?

If you want to give the government more power, at least do it locally ...
- The state and local governments that do not have the power to declare war
- The state and local governments that fund 88% of all education
- The state and local governments that fund the supermajority of law enforcement and healthcare

Too many Americans in the last 2 generations are so ignorant of this, and civics. They think if we gut the military, which is now only 1/5th of the US budget (it's lowest in over a half-century), that we can afford all sorts of stuff. But that's because they don't realize the US state budgets, when combined, are bigger than the US federal!

In the end ... we have to cut all spending ... military, education, healthcare ... and a lot of crap that is just waste ... across-the-board! The idea that war alone has caused the problem is missing the point. It's the pork! The pork baby!

Originally Posted by Brian249x

The Articles of Confederation created a toothless national government that was being undercut by ambitious men in the state governments.

No one argues that it was a good idea. Every state having veto power was a major issue. But it was hastily passed for a reason.

Ignore it ... like the League of Nations in the 20th Century.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

All the states and, therefore, the people of the United States were being endangered by the movement towards splintering into smaller entities. The creators of the new government had to balance the interests of small states and large states, agrarian and commercial states, slave states and states on the path of abolishing slavery, creating an executive function to command the military and administer and enforce the laws enacted by the legislature, and establishing an ultimate judicial authority.

Which is why the almost fucked up by not including a Bill of Rights.

9 of the 13 states balked and refused to ratify the US Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added. Heck, NY didn't even ratify until it was available.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

One of my college history professors remarked nearly fifty years ago that the American Revolution was much more a coup d'etat than a revolution. I would disagree with him. The adoption of Enlightenment ideals expressed in the creation of our system of governments and distributed power is the true revolution.

So ...

If you're for 'distributed power' ... why are all US federal agencies nearly anchored in DC? Why have we let Fairfax County Virginia overtake Westchester County New York as the richest county in the US?

Why?

You're not looking at the causes ... the real ones!

Originally Posted by Brian249x

However, the Bill of Rights was not part of the original document and was only adopted as the price of ratification of the many men who were not willing to rely on the good faith of the government and implied freedoms.

Yes, I've talked about this before. You can go back and see it in various threads I've been involved in.

In fact ... wasn't this thread created because I kept bringing this up when anything about guns, or Clinton, or Trump, etc... came up?

Originally Posted by Brian249x

The willy-nilly infringement of our Constitutional rights by the federal government in the name of "security" makes it an ongoing question as to whether the Bill of Rights will turn into empty rhetoric.

Yes, when have I said otherwise?

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I am told that both the Soviet Union and the current Russian constitution guaranteed similar rights to their citizens. I do not think that we can trust men like Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas to protect the rights of ordinary citizens, or the current bunch of politicians on the national scene to appoint justices who will.

That's why there are 9.

Because when a few judges fail, the others pick up. I want those 2 because they call others, when they fail. It's not just those 2! It rotates based on topic! No one talks about that. They just listen to the US media, instead of reading the actual rulings, including the dissenting.

Yes, I'd love it if we had 9 Libertarian judges. But we don't.

Removing 2 Conservatives will just mean the 'individual rights' the Progressives 'don't care about' will be lost. And then when those added Progressives are ousted, then the 'indidividual rights' the Conservatives 'don't care about' will be lost.

I want Libertarians in those spots ... but that's not going to happen.