DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Kindly point out where The Southern Man has stated anything that was incorrect about his adopted region.
Stupid or subversive?
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
Didn’t you libertarians have a cow when Bill talked policy and politics with Hilary?
The fact that you think only rich landowners of English descent ever held political power in the South.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That is a caricature on my argument.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The Southern Man is hardly a libertarian. *shrug*
It isn’t what you’ve said?
How can you believe in original intent and not be a libertarian?
The Constitution was designed to be adaptable through the political and judicial process. Its adaptability gives it stability- the hallmark goal of conservatism. Libertarians harp on original intent and thereby try to impose upon the present the tyranny of the past. You libs cannot insist that Americans live in accordance with your original intent interpretation of the Constitution if Americans do not wish to do so without making yourselves dictators. The Founding Fathers had no intention of imposing their will on future generations so they made the Constitution amendable. But the Founding Fathers also made the Constitution for their posterity so they made it adaptable without amendment. The Founding Fathers made the Constitution adaptable so it wouldn’t have to be formally amended to meet the needs of the day and times. The politics and judicial review of each generation can be changed by the politics and judicial review of the next. No super-majority dependent amendment process is required. If the Constitution could only be changed by formal amendment it would have been scrapped by now.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
do they not teach american history in high school anymore?
the 14th was written and ratified BECAUSE the USSC had just ruled that the BoR only applied to the federal government. The highly racist USSC ruled that way because they had just been overruled by congress about the citizenship and individual rights of freed slaves being trampled upon by state governments.
Now, to directly address your question, the rights in the BoR are inalienable rights that are inherent in people. These rights are not granted by the government, nor are they given to us by the states. That idea is what was assumed by both the framers of the constitution and those who wrote the 14th Amendment.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the scary part is that you actually believe this bullshit.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You've developed your own definitions of these terms that are inconsistent with their adherents. *shrug*
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No.
Then explain what you said when you said:
“Back then in The South the rich farmland was all owned by English descendants. In North Carolina that was located in Raleigh and eastward. West of that were recent German and Scot-Irish immigrants who lacked political power. It was the English decedents who where Democrats and slave owners, not the immigrants”.
You are wrong on most counts.
There is no rich farm land anywhere in the South in comparison to places like Pennsylvania- and none on the Eastern Seaboard in comparison to the Midwest and Great Plains.
“In North Carolina that was located in Raleigh and eastward.”
In all likelihood the soil quality is the same on both sides of Raleigh.
“West of that were recent German and Scot-Irish immigrants who lacked political power.”
Wrong.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/110/entry
In 1739 the royal governor of North Carolina was a native Scots Highlander. This governor mad it his policy to encourage the migration of Highlanders to NC and many of them were given government land grants in the Upper Cape Fear region, i.e., not western North Carolina.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/162/entry
The Graham brothers (Graham = Scottish name?), natives of Lincoln County, North Carolina (western half of the state) had a succession of political offices before the Civil War.
Other Scots/Irish/Germanic descendants with political power from western North Carolina include:
The late U.S. Senator Jesse Helms
James Holshouser, North Carolina’s first Republican governor since Reconstruction (a distant relative of mine).
James K. Polk, the son of a successful slave-owning farmer of Scots-Irish descent in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (western half of the state) eventually served in Congress, served as governor of Tennessee and eventually served as President of the United States- all without being a rich landowner of English descent living in eastern North Carolina.
Good Luck
New member
Very simple: the government is out of control if it starts operating outside the limitations placed on it by the Constitution. If the government starts tapping communications of its citizenry under a wartime mandate without the constitutionally mandated warrants, they are out of control - they are violating a specific constitutional protection. It does not matter if some people agree with the actions of the government, if they are outside the limitations, then it is out of control. If people WANT the government to have more authority, there is a method by which that authority can be legitimately added. Simply TAKING the authority under "new interpretation" is NOT what the Constitution is about. If we allow government to interpret their own limitations, then it is essentially a government without limitations. THAT is when the Constitution becomes meaningless - when we allow the very government it was designed to limit to interpret those limitations.
It is easy to be stupid. You got that right. But if I were you, I would not make being stupid your job. And I do not know where you studied, but you should go demand your money back.
Since when do all words have only one meaning? Many words in the English language have more than one meaning. When a word has more than one meaning, the meaning is derived from the context of the statement.
"Not relevant"? I am certain the meaning of a word changed significantly in 7 whole years. Don't act like a fucking moron. (Besides, I meant to type "1780s" but the s didn't come out.) But typo or not, the meaning of a word IS relevant. Trying to state it is not because of a 7 or 11 year difference is plain fucking stupid. Meanings can change over a few decades or centuries. But not over 7 or 11 years when the word/phrase is being used in 1791 by the same men who used it in 1780. This kind of tripe just shows you're getting rather desperate in finding an argument.
Anyway, the phrase "well regulated militia" was not an uncommon phrase in 1775, nor 1780, nor 1787, nor even 1791. The phrase can be found in many documents of the time(s), especially militia documents of the states. It was understood at that time to mean a well provisioned militia, with provisioned being both arms and ammunition. The idea was that the militia would be well regulated (provisioned) by the people's own actions (since they WERE the militia) lessening any obligation on the part of the states to come up with the revenues necessary to keep their militias armed and ready.
Did you study the statements of the people who wrote and promoted the 2nd Amendment? Did you find any contradicting them? They made it VERY clear what they intended by it, and why they thought it an essential addition to our Constitution.
First point: they meant for the PEOPLE themselves to be the militia. So unless you are going to argue that these men, who were writing amendments to the Constitution SPECIFICALLY to protect the rights and liberties of the individual, would include in their protections a statement that the PEOPLE need to be "well regulated" by the government, then the term "well regulated" must mean something other than the definition you insist on using.
Second point: The primary intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly stated to be so the PEOPLE can take up arms against their own government if such action is needed. Hence the central, independent clause of the 2nd Amendment stating, quite clearly "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
These men had just finished fighting a war for their independence. They remembered clearly that one of the first actions taken by King George against the rebelling colonists - even before they signed the Declaration of Independence - was to send out his troops to confiscate the arms of the coloninists. It was the colonists of Lexington and Concord defending against this mandate that triggered the Battle of Old North Bridge, thus setting off the Revolutionary War. As such, they wanted to assure that the government they were setting up were never granted the authority to disarm the people.
Last edited:
Good Luck
New member
You are kidding, right? I thought you said you were a student of the Civil War era. Did your studies stop when the shooting stopped?
The chain of events defines the intent. SCOTUS rules that the BOR does not apply to the states. Congress writes and passes the 14th Amendment and 3/4 of the states ratify it. Gee, whiz, Wally, I wonder why they did that?
Of course, those who disagreed with it challenged it. Litigation was allowed because the Constitution specifically gives each and every one of us the right to petition the government for grievances. (see Amendment 1) The petitioning process is accomplished through litigation.
Truly, go get your money back. Those who provided your education did a shitty job.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. When I’m referring the “The South” I’m referring to The South, not PA, the Midwest, or the Great Plains.
2. Raleigh is the lowest part of the Piedmont and is therefore a mix of residual soils with relatively large areas of alluvium in the wide valleys, some of the best tobacco growing areas in the US. In general the further up the Piedmont the narrower the valleys and the less alluvium, therefore poorer farmland. East of Raleigh is the coastal plain which is nearly all alluvial deposits, high organic content, flat, high groundwater, and therefore the best areas to grow cotton. Both tobacco and cotton were the principle cash crops during the period being discussed.
3. Scots are not Scots-Irish. After 1707 Scotland became part of Great Britain. When referencing “England” during this period it obviously means Great Britain.
4. Polk was one of the few non-English ancestry with political power during this time period., but in general, political power resided with the rich landowners of English descent.
And just how do you determine what those limitations are if you don’t interpret the meaning of the Constitution? Tell me point blank how Congress went beyond its constitutional limits when it created Social Security. Tell me how Social Security does not regulate commerce between the states; between the U.S. and foreign countries and with the Indian tribes considering how it regulates employment practices for people that are engaged in commerce that Congress is entitled to regulate according to the Constitution.
You mean the Founding Fathers didn't define intent?
You made it sound as if there was something about the soil that Englishmen in the South owned that gave them political power when the owners of better quality land elsewhere did not derive the same power from their land.
Furthermore, you were talking specifically about North Carolina in the post I was answering. I have shown that the best land in that colony/state was not always owned by people of English descent and that people of English descent did not always have political power. Face it. You spouted off about topics that you little understand and have been shown to be a fool.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Since you've resorted to ad homs here it is clear to any casual observer who has the correct interpretation of North Carolina history- The Southern Man. *shrug*
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you seriously have to ask that? what does SS have to do with interstate commerce?