Herman Cain in fight for Presidency (Perry, Dallas: appointed, camp, living in)

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by Box

Um you just compeletly contradicted yourself in that post.

Sort of. My point was that, via the original poster, the purpose of the Constiution, as originally written by the founders, was NOT to protect specific sub groups or, in her/his words, "minorities". The purpose was to protect the rights of ALL from the intrusion of government. It has been a modern construct to apply and confer rights and privleges beyond those of other groups. And, according to your link, the only peoples or group that dont potentially qualify, to at least some degree of extra protection or special privilege, is straight white christian males.

Ultimately a strict constitutionalist rejects such an openly biased situation as unsustainable, long term.

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by RoslynHolcomb

I'm amazed at the number of people who believe this country was set up under the principle of majority rule. Madison said in Federalist #10 "Majority rule is tyranny." The last thing the Founding Fathers wanted was majority rule. They had lived under those principles and knew better.

Sure. That is why we are a Republic and not a pure Democracy. But, as we elect the leaders who create the laws, it is still majority rule, if just slightly watered down.

[FlyingFox]

Originally Posted by tigers84

Sure. That is why we are a Republic and not a pure Democracy. But, as we elect the leaders who create the laws, it is still majority rule, if just slightly watered down.

Yes, but there are limitations on what the majority can pass. It doesn't matter if Congress passes a bill authorizing slavery or allowing for the extra-judicial execution of all Wall Street bankers. It's unconstitutional. That was my point. There are no "special" protections for minorities but the majority cannot infringe upon minorities' constitutional rights (or anyone's constitutional rights) no matter how many votes they have.

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by FlyingFox

Yes, but there are limitations on what the majority can pass. It doesn't matter if Congress passes a bill authorizing slavery or allowing for the extra-judicial execution of all Wall Street bankers. It's unconstitutional. That was my point. There are no "special" protections for minorities but the majority cannot infringe upon minorities' constitutional rights (or anyone's constitutional rights) no matter how many votes they have.

I think and assume we are all familiar with the idea of Checks and Balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.

You said the Constitution was written/created to protect minorities. FALSE. It was written so that the presiding government entity, the british monarchy up until recently, could not impose laws and regulations upon the people of the (to be) USA, and thereby to secure the right of each INDIVIDUAL's "inaliable rights".

And, of course, minorities cannot infringe upon the majority's consititutional rights, no matter how much they scream and shout

[Box]

Originally Posted by tigers84

Sort of. My point was that, via the original poster, the purpose of the Constiution, as originally written by the founders, was NOT to protect specific sub groups or, in her/his words, "minorities". The purpose was to protect the rights of ALL from the intrusion of government. It has been a modern construct to apply and confer rights and privleges beyond those of other groups. And, according to your link, the only peoples or group that dont potentially qualify, to at least some degree of extra protection or special privilege, is straight white christian males.

Ultimately a strict constitutionalist rejects such an openly biased situation as unsustainable, long term.

If we were to go by the purpose of the original constitution a good chunk of Americans would be disenfranchised. The constitution isn't perfect and thats why the founding fathers gave us the ability to amend it.

[arjay57]

Jim Galloway raises an interesting point.

Booker T. Washington, the first great leader of African-Americans in the post-slavery era, who emphasized economic self-reliance above all else — including the immediate pursuit of social equality — is a nonperson at the King Center. He is an invisible man.

Some might consider the historical slight to be inconsequential. But it goes some distance toward explaining the hurdle that still faces Herman Cain and his — so far — surprisingly successful quest for the GOP presidential nomination.

****

“Many African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view,” Cain said.

“Brainwashed” is a harsh word. “Historically conditioned” would be more appropriate.

****

Separated by a century, Cain and Washington are certainly not peas in a pod. Cain — like Obama — swims in political currents that Washington couldn’t sanction.

“What troubled us about Booker T. was that he did not give us a timetable. When, then, would we be able to assume political and social equality with white folks?” said Marcellus Barksdale, a professor of history and African-American studies at Morehouse College.

In the mid-’60s, Barksdale was two years ahead of Cain at Morehouse. The professor said Washington and his former classmate have much in common. “They converge when they’re talking about self-help among black folk,” he said. “They are alike in the sense that they believe by hard work and by your own efforts, that you can make it.”

Herman Cain and the ghost of Booker T. Washington | Political Insider

[cityrover]

Its all for a distraction from ron paul. they are trying to swarm him with puppets

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by Box

If we were to go by the purpose of the original constitution a good chunk of Americans would be disenfranchised. The constitution isn't perfect and thats why the founding fathers gave us the ability to amend it.

actually it is perfect, but right off the bat it was never enforced. because if they tried to enforce it, it would have never passed. irony. we all have the same rights, as long as you are a white male and own land. YAY! otherwise, well..... we muddied it up and still can't figure it out, 300 years later

the amendments, well about 6 of them are completely redundant to the original text.

[Box]

Originally Posted by cityrover

actually it is perfect, but right off the bat it was never enforced. because if they tried to enforce it, it would have never passed. irony. we all have the same rights, as long as you are a white male and own land. YAY! otherwise, well..... we muddied it up and still can't figure it out, 300 years later

the amendments, well about 6 of them are completely redundant to the original text.

Wait...so you're saying that it's so perfect that it couldn't be enforced because it would disenfranchise and anger the masses?

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by Box

Wait...so you're saying that it's so perfect that it couldn't be enforced because it would disenfranchise and anger the masses?

Yes. Think about it. It is perfect from the standpoint of what it aims to achieve but it cannot (or arguably could not at the time) because it stepped on people's interests..

There is a disjoint between intent and plausability, if that makes sense