On Jun 16, 4:38 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > Wow!! You do make some amazing and unverifiable facts.
> > The US Constitution was the product of 13 colonies which had severe > > differences of opinion on many vital matters, including (notably) slavery. > > I don't think so. Which of the 13 states in 1776 were against slavery? The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. At that time, the non-slave states were: Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island. New York and New Jersey followed afterwards. Some de facto slavery actually existed in various forms and degrees even in these states, but not officially. The Declaration of Independence was ratified on July 4, 1776, at which time, abolition movements began in some of the northern colonies, and soon spread. But it is the Constitution which marks the beginning of the United States of America as a single, unified nation with a powerful central authority. Even then, the entrenchment of this authority took a generation and a civil war. > > A compromise was hammered out, but one which had such > serious flaws that it led eventually to open rebellion and one of the > bloodiest civil wars in history. Further civil strife led to further modifications, such that the rights of the landed gentry have now become the rights of all citizens, and to some extent, even the rights of illegal immigrants. > > But not to be found in the original intentions of the constitution > which was a republican document and not a democratic one (not in the way we > mean it today) The Founders disdained democracy, and favored republicanism. Only landowners had the right to vote. There were small American rebellions for a number of years after the withdrawal of British troops from the continent. The Supreme Court was sometimes ignored. Indeed, it took quite a while for the new nation to get it right, so to speak, to translate what was on paper to facts on the ground. > > Flawed though it is, the essential principles of the Constitution have > > sustained it for longer than any other written constitution in the modern > > world (AFAIK). > > Name one! > > Those principles include the idea that government is to be regarded somewhat > like fire, a useful servant, but > a cruel master. Drawing from the English tradition, (as well as Greco- > Roman) the US Constitution enumerates specific, limited powers of > > government, ensuring that there is a balance of power among the > > branches, and that there are internal checks to prevent overreach. > > How do you think it was different from England? To understand that, one must have read the Federalist Papers, which were philosophical statements underpinning the eventual US Constitution. Chief among these principles was the civil equality of all men (a principle paradoxically ignored in reference to slavery). > > > But no constitution, even a flawless one, can compensate for a > > citizenry that is not vigilant and jealous of its rights. > > Overreach by the federal government in the US has become so extreme > > that only belatedly is the populace beginning to awaken to the threat > > of tyranny. > > > Laws are being passed behind closed doors--- without even having been > > READ by the congressmen voting on it. > > 60 percent public opposition to this process has not dissuaded the > > Congress from carrying on in this fashion. > > Unlike in the UK, we cannot call for elections, they are scheduled on > > 2, 4, and 6 year intervals. > > In what way do you think "we" can call an election? As I understand it, a vote of no confidence triggers the process. In the US, we can in fact trigger a "recall" election, if a plebiscite determines a signiciant enough lack of public confidence. This process removed Gray Davis, the former governor of California, when shortly after his election, the state debt was discovered to be far in excess of his reports during the campaign. But it is far from the normal way of doing things. > > The election scheduled for November has been preceded by a number of > > preliminary referenda which have put the feds on notice that they are > > in for a shellacking. However, instead of pulling back, the feds have > > accelerated their efforts to put in place a legislative agenda that > > will be difficult to repeal. > > > The fear now is that they may have planned to attack Iran before the > > elections, giving the government a pretext to declare a national > > emergency, and to delay (or rig) elections. > > Try reading Agamben;s "State of Exception" Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, among other controversial actions deemed unConstitutional by some scholars. The US has a little known provision for "Continuity of Government," originally planned as a response to a nuclear attack on Washington, DC. This CoG plan has morphed into something more than that, including provision for an unelected oligarchy to take over. However, key elements of the plan remain secret. Supposedly, this plan will not be implemented short of a devastating and crippling attack on the nation's government centers. But the infrastructure is there, and has reportedly been tested by some sort of low-key rehearsal recently, mostly in computer simulation. According to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/coop_cogp.htm ",,,these plans -- also known as a shadow government -- achieved some press attention post-9-11. In March 2002, media reported that "75 or more senior officials [had] been living and working secretly outside Washington since Sept. 11 in case the nation's capital is crippled by terrorist attack." Congressional leaders of both parties said that they were unaware of these contingencies. " [End quote] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
