Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The founders would throw Eve Ensler out on her ass if she mouthed off about her vulgar notions of what comprises civil discourse at the Constitutional Convention. .
People get kicked off this forum, too, but those who do not meet our standards are free to go elsewhere without persecution. It is not the business of the US government to ban public discourse that is beneath the standards of the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, and arrest violators..
People get kicked off this forum, too, but those who do not meet our standards are free to go elsewhere without persecution. It is not the business of the US government to ban public discourse that is beneath the standards of the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, and arrest violators..
No one is suggesting that it is.
I'm not a lawyer or a policeman. I'm a citizen who thinks that we can do better than this. In that sense, I believe that I am closer to the intent of the Founders than the ACLU and their supporters.
The entirety of the intent and the spirit if the Constitution is contained in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
All the rest of the Constitution is just procedural boilerplate, and the Amendments, as stated in their own Preamble, are provided as safeguards against the "misconstruction or abuse" of the Constitution.
So, the correct interpretation of any clause in the Constitution is the interpretation that supports and defends the principles delineated in the Preamble. And those are principles that would continue to apply in full, regardless of how "times change".
It is also important to read the wording of the Ten Amendments. They are not about the rights of the people. Those are already granted by default. The Ten Amendments are about limiting the state's power to infringe on those rights.
Re: last sentence, just exactly who are you referring to in "...limiting the state's power..". By "state's" do you mean federal government?
But the Preamble is the law of the land. Anything that preceded it is not, and can only be used as a guide into what the founders might have been thinking. The Declaration of Independence and other documents that preceded the Constitution are not the law of the land, and have no force of law nor evidence of constitutionality.
Given that the founders did write many things before the Preamble to the Constitution, it must be conceded that the Preamble reflects a concise summary of their intent. The founders knew they were writing a constitution, and it must be presumed that they thought the matter through.
Anything you discover that was written before the Constitution can very well be a minority opinion, and as such, cannot be used to infer the intent of the writers of the Constitution itself.
Actually, the preamble is unenforceable "contextual statement". However, it has no effect and is not enforceable in and of itself.
Re: last sentence, just exactly who are you referring to in "...limiting the state's power..". By "state's" do you mean federal government?
Either one. The same principle of constitutionality applies to both the federal government (a 'state', in the context of sovereignty), or the several states (where federal power does not limit them).
An open question for the Forum members: was the compromise over slavery entered into because the delegates assumed that the practice would fade away on its own (and had already begun to do so as tobacco cultivation was declining and the cotton gin had not yet been invented), or was there some other reason for the decision to forego banning slavery in the Constitution (I believe that the vote was very close on that issue -- with a majority of only one or two votes to leave slavery untouched)?
Madison saw very well what was going to happen with the states in regard to slavery. He is not alone here. Found in the Saturday, July 14, entry of his Notes of Debates in the Dederal Convention of 1787.
Here: http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0714.htm
The next move is end the slave trade by 1800, located in the Friday, August 24th entry,
Quote:
Governour LIVINGSTON, from the Committee of Eleven, to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the 4th. Sect & the 5 & 6 Sect: of the 7th. art: 2 delivered in the following Report:
"Strike out so much of the 4th Sect: as was referred to the Committee and insert — "The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports."
Mr. WILSONthen moved to insert "three fourths of" before "the several Sts" which was agreed to nem: con:
Mr. MADISON moved to postpone the consideration of the amended proposition in order to take up the following,
"The Legislature of the U. S. whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Legislature of the U S:" *7
Mr. HAMILTON 2ded. the motion.
Mr. RUTLIDGE said he never could agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not interested in that property and prejudiced against it. In order to obviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition: *7 "provided that no amendments which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the 4 & 5 sections of the VII article" — The postponement being agreed to,
On the question on the proposition of Mr. Madison & Mr. Hamilton as amended
N. H. divd. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo ay.
There are a multitude of different personalities in the picture here. The name of the game was to get it signed. If you read the August 25th entry, there are some very strong opinions noted. No "they thought". And even the game of, taxing would discourage the slave trade.
I am sure that were those that believed that time would take care of it. Those would have been few and far between and they weren't at the debates.
I also think that it should be noted that from this annotation from another document:
Quote:
For example, in 1774, the First Continental Congress prohibited the importation of slaves into the United States and banned American participation as a way of asserting the colonists' economic independence and attaching the moral stigma of slavery to Britain. In 1787, South Carolina temporarily prohibited the slave trade in order to prevent debtors from purchasing slaves rather than repaying creditors. Some Virginians feared that continued imports threatened to reduce their slaves' value and diminish the profitable export of Virginia's surplus slaves to the Deep South and West.
The invention of the cotton gin in 1792 had stimulated demand for slaves to raise short-staple cotton. By 1825, field hands, who brought $500 apiece in 1794, were worth $1500.
One of the things that isn't mentioned of course is that while there was a very real desire to end not just the slave trade but slavery there is a great fear of the repercussions.
If we move a little farther ahead from the debates to 1791, this event here scared the bejeezes out of those that owned plantations in the south. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/DIASPORA/HAITI.HTM
An open question for the Forum members: was the compromise over slavery entered into because the delegates assumed that the practice would fade away on its own...
There wasn't any debate over the issue of slavery per se, slavery being pervasive throughout the United States with one sole exception of Massachusetts, but there was great controversy over how slaves would figure into the proportionment of representatives.
With half the delegates hailing from states where slaves were one quarter to half of the population there sole concern was increasing their proportional representation in the proposed Congress, the idea of fixed representation having been rejected.
So the issue came down to whether to count slaves a a full member of a state for the purposes of enumerating representation in the Congress or 3/5th as proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman.
Ovcotto, these individuals would have a lot less of a fall if they were not placed on such pedestals to begin with.
The miracle of all miracles during this convention is that for as much alcohol that was consumed and as divided as these individuals were on many things, and the hatred that some individuals had for each other--nobody was murdered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
