Somehow No One Seems To Think

For the past 35 years I've been a self study
of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul

Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong,
however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have
meant genocide in the pre-1800's. At the time, the debate over the
issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should
end, but rather how to end it.
Again in pre-1800, post colonial America, only _landowners_ had a
vote. The F&F's debated at length over the issue of how to establish a
system of land grants so that _landholders_ could vote as well.
As far as the electoral college goes, how else can a democratic
republic be without such a system? Democracy in itself is mob rule.
The F&F's knew that say, New York shouldn't elect the president and I
for one agree with that premise yet today.
So you see Paul. If the _original_ system was "flawed",
involuntary servitude may still be in effect yet today. Woman may still
be without a voice or a vote. And some vast city called "Voteropolis"
would elect our nation's president.
The F&F's devised a system of self-government which will always serve
those willing to exercise their rights to participate in it. A federal
system serving the interests of individuals, not just the majority, for
the sake of an entire nation.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.

That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
$50 that says Kunich will remain confused.

That's not much of a bet, is it? There's not much hope of him *not* remaining
confused.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

These'll be folk heroes and probably be working for MoveOn, or Obama
by next week. His Pastor, Wright, is already being painted as a
victim.

Cite on the positive commentary by left-leaning people of stature on this, please?
As well, how about a cite by a left-leaning person of stature painting Wright as a
victim?

Along those lines, why is it that Wright and Obama have been such a focal point?
Yeah, the media say that Wright is "un-American" and has said "anti-American" things.
The media demands that Obama "denounce" Farrakhan when Obama did not ask for his
endorsement. Yet there no focus on McCain and his religious backers, John Haggee or
Rod Parsley and their un-American statements. McCain sought out those guys for their
endorsements.

Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're white, it's a
different story.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../03/17/wright/

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 22, 5:17 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Here's a quote:

"Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a
specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or
belief systems."

Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.

Fascists are by definition conservatives. Your definition it pure
bull****. All you need is a dictionary.

Ron nailed it earlier with this statement: "Orwell was right, "nazi" and "fascist"
have become synonyms for stuff we want people to hate." And Tom needs more than a
dictionary.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
(Michael Baldwin) wrote:

The often prophetic Tom Kunich wrote,"Somehow No One Seems To Think"


Tom, so far your subject/header phrase has been _supported_ in this
threads replies!

Mike, the only person that has written anything that supports the subject/header
is the original poster, Mr. Kunich himself. He picked a phrase out of some wacko
rightwing site that agreed with some aspect of his hate- and fear-filled worldview
and posted it. He got the mocking he earned.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mar 23, 7:43*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
For the past 35 years I've been a self study
of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul

* Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong,
however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have
meant genocide in the pre-1800's. *At the time, *the debate over the
issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should
end, but rather how to end it.

Bull****. For a self-professed old guy who evaluates
the ignorance of his under-25 colleagues, your
knowledge of history is crap. Many representatives
of the slave states argued that slavery was both
permanently economically necessary, and morally justifiable.

Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into
the constitution was a desperate and morally repugnant
deed. They did it because they felt keeping the free
and slave states in the same union was more important
for the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't
written it in, the slave states could have taken their
ball (and chain) and gone home. But these people
also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw.
Nothing is perfect; pretending that the Republic was
not born in sin, when the three-fifths rule was written
into the Constitution, is willful blindness.

Ben

In article ,
" wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:43*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
For the past 35 years I've been a self study
of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul

* Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong,
however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have
meant genocide in the pre-1800's. *At the time, *the debate over the
issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should
end, but rather how to end it.

Bull****. For a self-professed old guy who evaluates
the ignorance of his under-25 colleagues, your
knowledge of history is crap. Many representatives
of the slave states argued that slavery was both
permanently economically necessary, and morally justifiable.

Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into
the constitution was a desperate and morally repugnant
deed. They did it because they felt keeping the free
and slave states in the same union was more important
for the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't
written it in, the slave states could have taken their
ball (and chain) and gone home. But these people
also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw.
Nothing is perfect; pretending that the Republic was
not born in sin, when the three-fifths rule was written
into the Constitution, is willful blindness.

One flaw with the "original intent" (of the Constitution) argument is that times
change and what may have seemed like a great idea back then turns out to be not
particularly good now. The Founders knew this, and that's why they made it so the
Constitution could be ammended.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:43*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
For the past 35 years I've been a self study
of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul

Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into
the constitution was a desperate and morally repugnant
deed. They did it because they felt keeping the free
and slave states in the same union was more important
for the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't
written it in, the slave states could have taken their
ball (and chain) and gone home. But these people
also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw.
Nothing is perfect; pretending that the Republic was
not born in sin, when the three-fifths rule was written
into the Constitution, is willful blindness.

One flaw with the "original intent" (of the Constitution) argument is that
times change and what may have seemed like a great idea back then turns out to be
not particularly good now. The Founders knew this, and that's why they made it so
the Constitution could be amended.

I'm not a constitutional scholar (I reboot computers for a living), but
I don't think that's a flaw with "original intent" interpretations of
the constitution (is that still what we're talking about?) I think
"originalism" is largely a defensible judicial philosophy, and the
forseen solution for the constitution deviating from the needs and the
rights assumed for the people is the amending formula.

Women's suffrage (or for that matter, sufferage for men other than
land-owners) could not be seen to emanate from the penumbrae of the
constitution except by the most fantastical constitutional interpreter.
On the other hand, that right could be enacted through the amending
formula, and although the battle for the 19th amendment was long and
boring and (in retrospect) obviously the right side of the argument, the
system worked.

The constitution of any nation should not be seen as a perfect document.
But it's a bad idea to change its interpretation substantially outside
the means of an amendment.

That said, it is possible for a constitution to be so poorly constituted
that only re-creating it (sometimes in a fundamentally
extraconstitutional fashion; in modern times, usually by some reasonably
legitimate constitutional convention followed by a national referendum
in the best cases) can save the nation.

I don't know which nation has the hardest-to-amend constitution; Canada
has a very hard bar to attain, not to mention considerable complexity:
most substantial amendments require ratification by 2/3rds of the
provinces (ie at least 7) representing at least 50% of the population
(at present, that would have to include at least Ontario or Quebec among
the ratifiers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...ending_formula

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsucce..._the_Canadian_
Constitution

Basically, the constitution has had no substantial amendments since its
enactment.

Conversely, Singapore has a very easy amending formula (same amendment
has to be passed by the legislature twice, separated by a general
election), and the UK and Sweden have virtually no formal constitution
at all, but make it work regardless.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Mar 24, 1:30*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*Bill C wrote:

These'll be folk heroes and probably be working for MoveOn, or Obama
by next week. His Pastor, Wright, is already being painted as a
victim.

* *Cite on the positive commentary by left-leaning people of stature on this, please?
As well, how about a cite by a left-leaning person of stature painting Wright as a
victim?

* *Along those lines, why is it that Wright and Obama have been such a focal point?
Yeah, the media say that Wright is "un-American" and has said "anti-American" things.
The media demands that Obama "denounce" Farrakhan when Obama did not ask for his
endorsement. Yet there no focus on McCain and his religious backers, John Haggee or
Rod Parsley and their un-American statements. McCain sought out those guys for their
endorsements.

* *Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're white, it's a
different story.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../03/17/wright/

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * Whatever happened to
* * * * * * * * * * * * Leon Trotsky?
* * * * * * * * * * * * He got an icepick
* * * * * * * * * * * * That made his ears burn.

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard I expected your kneejerk. I had at least hoped you'd say
attacking the religious service was a bad thing. You keep harping on
me to do that with your examples, and I usually do, though sometimes
not clearly enough for your tastes.
I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group. How about
the arsons on the west coast by ELF/ALF, right wing?
All the protests that led to noraml people having their rights
voiolated over the last few days, any right wing?
The point is that the vast majority of the 'Direct Actions" are done
by, supported by, and paid for by folks from the left. They violate
the rights of other citizens, cost them money, time, and stress.
You happen to agree with most of it so it's not a problem for you. I
agree with them protesting, but not in a way that denies other people.
As for Wright I've lived with those clowns had my kids terrorised by
a nutjob evangelical precher in military housing. That's a whole other
story. I have NO sympathy. He can say whatever the hell he wants, but
he's preaching hate and inciting racist incidents. I'd equate him more
to David Duke.
I'd argue the double standard goes the other way on speech, at least.
John Rocker got run out of baseball. Reggie White's still a hero.
Bill C

wrote in message
...

Many representatives of the slave states argued that
slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
and morally justifiable.

Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.