-Caveat Lector-
Ric Carter wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M.A. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Kris Millegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Our once great nation was founded on a single, overriding
> > principle: freedom. Not the freedom of a dog to roam
> > however far its leash extends, but the freedom of an
> > eagle -- to fly as high and far as its wings will take it.
> >
> >Ric Carter wrote:
> > 'Freedom' for property-owning English-speaking white males,
> > that is.
> >
> ><snip> additional emotive nonsense
> >
> >Can you cite the Constitutional evidence which supports your
> >assertion?
>
> That "emotive" stuff you snipped was:
>
> >A bit less freedom for non-Anglophone or propertyless white males.
> >A lot less freedom for white women, with or without property.
> >No freedom, no consideration as human beings, for non-whites.
> >Funny how particular the Founders were about allocating freedom, eh?
>
> Now, you'll note that the Constitution left it up to the states to
> define voter qualifications - in a representative democracy, voting
> is THE basis of political freedom. Whoever is denied the vote, has
> no say in the allocation and use of political power. The Founders
> chose NOT to establish any national standards on enfranchisement,
> instead retaining the status quo - and states had varied and real
> limitations on just who could vote. Had the Founders been interested
> in "freedom for all", they could have included anti-slavery, gender-
> equality, ethnic-equality, property-irrelevant language in the
> Constitution - which would then not have been ratified, of course.
>
> Instead, the Founders included language characterizing [black] slaves
> and Indians as 'fractional' humans, and left the states to empower
> whomever they wished. And in the early years of our great democratic
> republic, further bars to political freedom were emplaced in many
> states, including but not limited to the disenfranchisement of French-
> speakers in Maine and Louisiana, of Spanish-speakers in Florida and
> Louisiana; and later establishing poll-taxes and other mechanisms to
> prevent the poorer [and darker] population from taking their place in
> the body politic. Can you say "taxation without representation" ??
>
> Did the Constitution say, "Niggers and Spicks and Irish and Wimmen and
> Injuns need not apply" ??? Not explicitly, no; but implicitly, yes.
First the above writers make the mistake of associating the
Constitution with the founding of the country. Actually, the founding
was over ten years before the Constitution was ratified. The document
which should be referenced was The Declaration of Independence which was
the true founding of the nation.
Secondly, one must understand the Constitution as what it really was
and not as what it has been interpreted and changed into. It was
originally understood to be a compact between independent states forming
a federation of limited power. Before the Declaration of Independence,
the inhabitants of the colonies were subjects of the King of England who
was their sovereign. After independence they had no sovereign. It is my
understanding that at the Constitutional convention there was a dispute
over whether the states or the the federal government would be
sovereign. James Wilson settled the question by suggesting that the
people would be sovereign and assign certain powers to the state and
certain powers to the federal government. This was agreed upon. The
tenth amendment can only be understood from this standpoint. I believe
that the people who were thus the sovereigns of America were the heads
of each family. Of course, only freemen were considered the heads of
such families, but there is some evidence to suggest that free blacks
had the same status as whites in some states until the Dred Scott ruling
or at least until the Constitution. It was up to the sovereigns of each
state to determine how the legislature of each state would be chosen and
what political right might be granted. State constitutions defined these
and it was only through the incorporation (illegally, BTW) of the 14th
amendment that the federal government began to have the power to force
states to hold their elections in a federally mandated manner. While it
may be argued that since there were those who did not have full
political rights that there was no freedom, this seem to me to be
incorrect. The real question is whether or not individual rights were
protected. (Of course, we are talking here about a government of limited
power, not a socialist/fascist type of government). We make a big deal
over the fact that one gets to vote once in awhile for politicians.
Being able to vote for government officials has nothing to do with the
question of whether one is free or not. The more important question is
whether or not one's individual rights are protected by the courts. This
country was not meant to be a "representative democracy", but rather a
republic with elected representatives and some elected officials. The
importance of a republic vs. a democracy is that a republic is a
government of limited powers. The purpose of those powers being the
protection of individual rights. A government which does protect those
rights, even while limiting the franchise is preferable to a universal
democracy which does not protect the rights of the individual. South
Africa is a good example. As bad as it may have been for blacks there
during apartheid, it will inevitably become worse since their present
government is more "democracy" then "republic". The rule of law (not
just policy, but the protection of rights) is falling apart and though
it may be beneficial for some, for the majority it will be a disaster.
While during apartheid blacks could not vote, they did have access to
the courts and some expectation of having a fair trial.
Howard Davis
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
