Note the seeming inability of L.B. to follow a train of thought and present cogent arguments that are on-topic. My frustration shows through.
However, there is a ray of hope. W.R. comes through with some pointed, intelligent comments. Finally, someone who is thinking it through and making a case for their perspective using logic and reason!
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1776, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The Constitution was written in 1787, and it was ratified in 1789.
L.B.: Thanks for the correction.
Me: The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting.
L.B.: Constitution, that's a big joke. If the Constitution would have been followed back in 1789, Indians, Negros and woman would have been able to vote and would have had the same opportunities as every good white male.
Me: The constitution does not mention slavery, until the 13th amendment abolished it.
L.B.: See!!! That's what I'm saying, get off your damn High Horse now! You Christians these days are worse than the Pharisees that spit on Jesus. Don't even pretend like you know what I'm talking about. Hypocrites that try to pretend like America's past is squeaky clean and was formed by good religious people who were oppressed in Europe. And then you made this perfect country that had white picket fences and squeaky clean white churches.
Me: What??
L.B.: Yes you want to give me a history lesson yet you choose to ignore America's real past. The past you are longing to go back to. Pin point the exact time you want to go back to. Is it 2002, 1985, 1963, 1945, 1812, 1776 or maybe 1492? Work with me here.
Me: I'm not ignoring anything. There are some shameful things in America's past. If there is someone who has said different, I challenge you to provide the quote.
We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past.
You went off on some bizarre thing about Christians and Europe. Who knows what you're talking about?
L.B.: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/
L.B.: W.R., check out the link above to find out who we're arguing with. He actually defended Dr. Laura...lol. He's also posting his debates with us. He's going to make us famous!!!!
Me: You are kept anonymous on my blog. I note for the record that you have yet to address my remarks.
L.B.: OK, I'll address one of your points. You stated above..... " When the U.S. was discovered is a matter of history and evidence." So what is the evidence and history? Tell us.
Me: This is extremely frustrating. Do you even know what we have been discussing for the past 4 or 5 hours? Why are you jumping back to something from way back on Monday, something written in a completely different context and a on different topic?
Let me help you out. "The Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and woman from voting." Or how about, "We are talking about the Constitution, not America's past."
Do you have some comments about these kinds of things, or not?
L.C.B.: The Constitution gave the right to vote to all of its legal citizens. Negros were not given citizenship until the 1860s, Women sufferage came at the turn of the 20th Century, Native Americans were not allowed citizenship until 1921. The dates I gave are not precise but you get my point. Please give me the article where the Constitution did not prevent Indians, Negros and women from voting?
Me: Hi. L.C.B. Show me in the Constitution, prior to the amendments, where anyone is given the right to vote: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Me: Please note that I am referring to the Constitution itself, and not the body of law that may have existed at the time.
L.C.B.: Jo your accusation of Christianity not facing up to our history is wrong. You are making this charge on an assumption, and it shows how little you know about your Dad had his minstry, and the people I associate with. Rich has been nothing but supportive and encouraging to me and was active in generational repentance, and reconciliation back when I was in Bozeman.
L.B.: Woodrow Wilson, our President during World War I, once said: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do."- Amen Brother, Amen! Got this one from your blog Rich
Me: L.C.B., I love you and your wife. You have been such a blessing in my life, and I am proud to call you "brother." May the God of our salvation pour out blessing upon you.
L.C.B.: The 14th Amendment, article two grants the right to vote, before that States had the power to regulate, voting seemed to be an implied right since they had to choose electors.
L.B.: Dad, I'm not trying to ruin your friendships and relationships. I'm simply engaged in a debate with Rich. He is trying to win the debate using exact literal definitions. He's defending the constitution as if it were written by God himself. I am attempting to point out to him that Beaver Cleaver is fiction as is the story of the Pilgrims. The history is what it is, no more, no less. He's blinded by right wing propaganda though.
Me: Exactly. The Constitution doesn't grant the right to vote at all, it is assumed. The 14th amendment had to codify the right to vote since states had discriminatory laws founded in racism.
Me: I'm pointing out what the Constitution says, L.B. You don't appear to know what it says. You also infer a whole lot of stuff I have never said.
I have challenged you repeatedly to address what I have said, but you persist in selecting random thoughts.
It is ironic that you would accuse me of being blinded by ideology when all you seem able to spout is left wing ideology. I'm guessing that the real problem we have here is that you don't like people disagreeing with you.
L.B.: 19th Amendment
Though the Constitution originally made no mention of a woman's right to vote, it was implied by society — women simply did not have the right. The 14th Amendment actually made things worse, by codifying the suffrage right to men only, when its Second Clause punished the denial of suffrage to men (though this still did not officially deny women the right). As early as 1848, groups met to discuss how to further women's rights, and the franchise, it was decided, was the best place to start. But America was not ready, and the suffragists, as they were called, were branded as immoral.
Famous women's rights leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton tried to make a stand after the Civil War, to have the language of the 14th Amendment include women, though the issue was thought too volatile by most, and passage of the amendment was thought to be in grave jeopardy if such a provision were included. Anthony later used the 15th Amendment as rationale for voting in a New York election, and though she was tried and fined for voting, the ordeal proved an impetus for the eventual guarantee of voting rights for women. By 1918, about half the states had granted women full or partial voting rights; the stature gained by women involved in the temperance movement also helped push the suffragist movement along. The support of women to the war effort convinced many more, even President Woodrow Wilson, who had been staunchly opposed to a federal suffrage amendment. On June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress, and it was ratified on August 18, 1920 (441 days).
L.B.: Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress..., shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is essentially what gave Native Americans the right to vote. This is why the Town of Browning had white Mayors and a 90% Native population from 1919- 1964. Most Natives own another type of property that is held in trust by the U.S. Government and is not taxable to the State, County or any other municipality. If they lived on this type of property, they could not vote in State elections. This Amendment changed all that. Take that State of Montana!
S.G.: All human beings (men, women, any & all races) are born sinful & all cultures have some corruption so all governments of man are subject to this wicked nature until all of the people from the top on down are subject to Jesus. Yes even though many (not necessarily all) of the founders of the government did have christian roots. It's not much different than today in that just because someone says they are a christian doesn't make it so. Especially in politics where the candidate will often say whatever is popular to get the votes. When the whites did all of the wicked & terrible things that were done it was largely motivated by greed then too. There is nothing inherently wrong with the constitution just the people who ignore the parts they don't like & use it as they want to. The Bible is the perfect word of God, but many evils have been committed hiding behind religion (again sinful man using whatever is convenient to their sinful motives) But that is an whole other can of worms. : D
L.C.B.: Interesting, so we all learn something and read the Constitution to boot
W.R.: Rich...on the one hand u claim going back to the almighty original constitution is the answer...and we all know what and whom the Framers had in mind when they wrote the document. On the other hand u point out that in the face of people and their actions the Constitution is meaningless ...law and govt are social constructions defined by the people. The people starving during the Great Depression defined it and they got unions, workers rights, social security and welfare. The people of the civil rights era defined it and helped bring equality and protections for all of us. The protections these people fought for are exactly what most people who say they are against Big Govt are for while they so piously sit in church and pretend that they are for the poor and downtrodden from whose very children they wish to take food, healthcare, and education!
W.R.: At one point we had laissez fairre type government and where did it get us? Bush and clinton nearly brought down the economy with "less govt/more deregulation" thinking. Now that is a matter of history and fact...very recent history and... fact!
And if u really believe govt shouldn't regulate morality...let's start with abolishing laws against same sex marriage, abortion, drugs, and in fact any other crime ... Why is it ok to regulate those "sins" but not unbridled thievery and greed on Wall Street? Laws are passed to control those who can't live within the accepted rules of society.
What exactly IS your point...your goal in this debate Rich because YOU seem to get upset when the holes in your argument are pointed out.
W.R.: To correct my statement below... I meant to say that saying u r against Big Govt is code for "I don't want to help the poor and I don't think inequality should be addressed because me and mine are just fine." WWJD???
Me: W.R., Thank you for the insightful and provocative comments. Wow, I have been waiting for such a response. I'll try to address all of your points as I get time.
First, I did not claim that going back the ORIGINAL Constitution was the answer. I claimed that returning government to its constitutional limits was the answer. The problem: Government is too powerful and corruptible. Corporations and special interests want to influence that power. Solution: Remove the government's ability to give payoffs to its corporate cronies and powerful interests by removing its ability to exceed its constitutional authority.
Second, the Constitution is only as meaningful as any other law, to the extent it is obeyed. The Constutition is the highest law of the land. It creates, defines, and limits government. It must be obeyed, or if it is found wanting, it must be amended. It cannot be ignored.
Me: Again, the Constitution is about government. It only mentions the rights of the people in passing as it describes the limits of government, i.e., "Congress shall make no law..." This amendment does not grant us free speech or freedom of assembly, it tells government what it cannot do!
Our rights pre-exist government. The Declaration says they are unalienable (cannot be separated), endowed by our creator. Government's job is to "secure" our rights (make them safe).
So, the injustices perpetrated over the course of the history of this country are in direct violation of its founding principles and founding documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment