Guns and Nazi Teabaggers

It's flawed because it explicitly denotes the value of a black man, against the value of a man.

But that's obviously not where it's flaw ends, either. I already mentioned the changes that I think need to happen in this country, including either law, or constitutional amendments, adding massive amounts to the (currently ineffectual) bill of rights.

 

It didn't have to include those caveats because it was accepted as a truth, regardless. It was accepted that it was a white mans world, and others were not needed to be included. You can't really say 'racism and sexism is wrong from the get go' and that's apparent in the constitution. Unless you are saying those that wrote it were not tied to prejudices of the time, and wrote the constitution for future generations to include no racism or sexism.
It would be nice if that were true.
Why does the original constitution now include amendments?
One that you hold close to your heart?
The original constitution obviously did not include that amendment did it?

The original constitution allowed for amendments:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So it does allow for 'flaws' to be ironed out.

Was Obama talking about he current version or the original version?

 

But guys, the constitution doesn't say anything about black people being less equal, nor about women being less equal; that was due to the people morality at the time. Which is what makes me think you guys have not read the constitution, it doesnt say "White men have the right to life liberty and property" but it say "all men." So I agree with what you guys are trying to say, that people were immoral back then, but the constitution doesn't not advocate/support racism or sexism in anyway! It was just the mortality and the cultural difference of the times! Let's not forget, this was like 200 years ago! I'm standing up for our Liberties such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and our right to a trial!

Imagine if we were forced to be catholic, if we weren't allowed to express ourselves or if the government soley decided if one was innocent or guilty. In this way, those were not negative Liberties. I agree that these rights should've been available to everyone and not just white males, but as I said 200 years ago they didn't morally see their wrong doing. However, today, every citizen is entitled to these rights, and the mere mention of slavery hardly outweighs all the positive Liberties in the document. I doubt our founders knew that one day it would apply to women and African Americans, but again, I feel that was a flaw in the people of that time, and not a flaw which was converted to the document, as the document doesn't force slavery, racism or sexism at all!


Our bill of rights isn't even followed as is, therefore I imagine it would be hard to add Amendments while our current government system is taking them away..

 

Get over your negative/positive rights thing.

Nobody here but you seems to be arguing about that.

I don't know the context, but assume that obama meant that it was a system of negative rights, where you're presumed to NOT have rights unless the constitution says so. Of course, he's helped to make it so that you have NO rights, no matter what the constitution says..... but that's not the point here.

Back to your liberal problem: sure, I agree, it's a problem that the bill of rights isn't followed. Go back a page or two, I offered what I think needs to be done. Because I like soapboxing, I shall roughly repeat it here: Everything from strong welfare to dramatic progressive taxes and political campaign/finance changes, to a dramatically expanded bill of rights or other legislation enumerating more rights, with very strong teeth to hold law enforcement agencies who violate rights financially liable and their officers criminally liable, restructure the way government works and isolate it from corporate or organized money, legalize all drugs and launch public health campaigns instead, end the military as we know it, single-payer healthcare as a right, and lots more.

Also, the government running the lottery is a travesty and a crime against the citizens of this nation.

Again, that's liberal. No concessions to your NWO friends, none of that bullshit. Kick the lot out and start fixing what they've broken. Fake liberal is what we have now.

A good way to do this would be starting through proportional repersentation for different parties, but we know that's not going to happen, because well, it would threaten the status quo.

And all of this would require people to get off their asses, find good candidates, and vote for them. In other words, it's down the shitter we go

 

Lol, well I agree on some things, disagree on others. I am against corporate oney on free speech, but I'm also against universal healthcare (and you know that all these rich healthcare industries support Obamacare, so they must be making money off of it somehow)

I don't support the NWO, infact, I've spoken against it not to long ago in this thread. But I am Liberal in the way of human rights, however, I'm def not about raising taxes! (of course if one abolished all the corruption, I'm sure there would be tons of money to distribute. The bailout money alone would've been $20,000 per citizen to spend as they like! I'd rather money and policy go to the people rather than elite bankers, but government corruption has gone way too far..

 

All but article VI and X are negative proscriptions. They set out individual liberties by stating what the government and citizens may not do to one another. That is what makes them "negative". Shall not = negative proscription; shall = positive directive.

 

@StpLSD25: I shall hereafter deem your dogged refusal to acknowledge your misunderstanding of the commonly accepted definition of "negative liberties" as a narcissistic parsing disorder. That is a positive statement.

I shall not accept your implication that I'm an annoying know-it-all, based only on the fact that I know what "negative liberties" means and you apparently, just don't get it. That is a negative assertion.

 

I gave this post the thumbs up because it made me laugh so hard I almost peed my pants and laughter just makes this crazy world more bearable for everyone. I had a fleeting moment of regret at gaining this good cheer at your expense, but let's face it, you did an admirable job of setting yourself up for it.

You know, if you refrained from calling people who disagree with you stupid and making such vast and ridiculous pronouncements about what other people think (because we really only know our own minds and only interpret the minds of others based on what they say or write or do, which is only a momentary fragment of a whole mind, btw) discussions like this would be more enjoyable for you and others. If you invest more heavily in the exchange of ideas and opinions and less heavily in always being right, you will learn more, enjoy it more and when you're wrong (we all are at times) it won't be such a bitter pill to swallow.

 

I'm conservative in the libertarian/traditionalist sense, and I am strongly opposed to the war on drugs. Also opposed to legislation against gambling, prostitution, abortion, and barring gay marriages. I don't think people like roorshack know what the terms actually mean, outside of mainstream media applications.

 

....And I don't think you read a fuckin' thing I wrote.

 

Actually I did. In between dry heaving.

 

Reading and comprehension can be mutually exclusive events for some folks.

 

You're a witty one Joan. I like it. Question, are you hot?

 

LOL! Absolutely, but I think it may just be the post menopausal hormones.

 

This is the simplest I can put it:

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789.
The United States Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Constitutional amendments are added to it, altering its effect. The first ten amendments, ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791, are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of twenty-seven amendments). Principles of the Constitution, as amended, are applied in courts of law by judicial review.

If the 1787 Constitution was flawless there wouldn't have been need for amendments, would there? Why do you think something is constitutional or unconstitutional? If it wasn't for, what some considered flaws, and subsequent amendments, you couldn't be able to be on top a hill with a sniper rifle in your hands, could you?

The issue we are talking about here:

The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolishes slavery and authorizes Congress to enforce abolition. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) in part, defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship. Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen the right to vote due to her sex. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater the right to vote on account of his or her age.

To be fair, I did ask him why it was still in his signature (after it's meaning was explained more than once).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube

Obama On Negative And Positive Liberties

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-on-negative-positive-liberties

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-OhMXzfSY4"]President Obama Highlights The "Flaws" With The Founding Fathers & Their Consititution - YouTube

 

I'll change my signature, but Obama is seriously full of rhetoric. For someone who constantly violates the constitution, he has a lot of good propaganda to spew about it.

 

His propaganda is "good" only because most of his sheep followers are so badly brainwashed. I sure don't buy any of the bullshit he spews. Nothin' more than an empty suit reading off a teleprompter what somebody else wrote for him.

 

Hurrah! Maybe replace it with the idea he isn't a Christian. Not to your taste?

Pressed_Rat

Who wrote his books?

 

Ever heard of a ghost writer?