Rodimus Prime wrote:Once again, I'm in agreement. But all that you just wrote doesn't excuse the failures of the Constitution or the failures of the men who wrote it. You're right, it will fail, because it was fallible to begin with, which was my point in the first place.
Rodimus Prime wrote:None of them. Socialism (in ALL its forms) and communism are failures outright. Capitalism is better but it can definitely be improved on. The lack of regulations on parts of it is what leads to economic and societal inequality, keeping people who work hard from rising up and having a better quality of life, while some of those who come from old money keep on cheating and manipulating the system because they can. Once in a while we have someone who either gets lucky or comes up with an idea that will make that person wealthy. That's the good part. But then more often than not that person becomes one of the 'elite' and forgets wheres/he came from once that power through wealth is acquired. It is yet another thing the Constitution is supposedly protecting us against. Everyone should have a fair chance in our legal system, yet corruption is rampant. Same goes for the industrial sector, but that can't be blamed on the inadequities of the Constitution itself, just on the inadequities of those tasked with interpreting and enforcing it.
I was going to make a long post with a point by point refutation like I did the last time, but firstly, that's a lot of work, and secondly, I don't think that's necessary. I don't think you have a problem with the constitution. You just have a problem with the people that used it.
The constitution is a legal framework. We both agree on that. That means it's a tool for building a legal system and a nation. It is a tool. Like a hammer. The constitution was meant to create a free society where the government could not dictate the lives of its citizens directly by directly telling the government what it could not do. A hammer is a tool that puts nails into wood. A hammer can also be used to cave in someones skull. And the constitution can be selectively enforced. And there's the rub.
You don't have a problem with the constitution, you seem just fine with it EXCEPT that it wasn't extended to everyone, as you see it. Part of that is true, but I believe you've fallen into a fallacy of judging the actions of the past by the virtues of the present. As they say, it was a different time. That may not make it right and you don't have to accept it. But if you want to judge these people guilty for applying it the way they did would be no different than if a time traveler came to our time and judged us all guilty for eating meat because hunting, butchering, and consuming meat is illegal in the future. You can be all kinds of upset if you want, but that's just the way it is. And as I said before, you can't change the past.
Now, on the subject of including everyone, you're right that it was exclusive before. Not because the constitution is an exclusive document. You like to say that it only applies to rich, white men and that's stupid. Nowhere in the constitution does it EVER mention race, or wealth, or sex. Again, you are judging the document of the past by the virtues of the present. Men worked outside the house, women worked inside the house. The VAST majority of the colonies were white, and the people that ran the country were rich, because if you weren't wealth you were knee deep in mud trying to farm the land. That's the way things were and most people were a bit more concerned about survival than they were what civil privilages they might or might not have had. That didn't change until much later when survival was less of a concern and people had the luxary of campaigning for those rights and privilages.
And the they got them. Slavery was done away with when we said enough and recognised blacks for who they were. We extended citizenship to everyone who was both here and not just those who were already born to citizens. We extended voting to all citizens afterwards. You want the consitution to extend to ALL peoples of the United States.
IT DOES. Your problem is that the people USING the constitution aren't applying it, and I'll agree with you there. But tearing apart the constituion won't fix that. Amending it until it fills an entire wing of the congressional library won't fix that. You want equal rights for blacks? It's already in the laws. You want equal rights for women? It's already in the laws. You want equal rights for the poor? It's already in the laws. You want equal rights for the LGBT individuals? If you're convinced that the laws so far enumerated aren't already doing that then why would another amendment fix that? In fact what amendment could you POSSIBLY add now that would somehow improve, broaden, or secure further equality among the citizens of the US? I'd like to hear it.
The truth is, I think the constiution is irrelevant in this conversation. It's a tool, and a damn good one. The problem is that it's misused. You complain that it's been selectively employed, and I'll give you that. If I'm building a house and I only use the hammer to nail in one wall, then the other three walls will fall apart. The problem is the builder, not the tool. And I can make it the best hammer ever. I can perfectly balance the weight, add computer guidance to never miss a nail, but that won't fix it. What you want is a political change. You want a governmental change, a way to force the politicians of TODAY to apply the laws equally for everyone, to stop infringing on the rights of ANYONE, and to be properly restrained as was intended by the original document. And that's fine, that's a good place to be. I think we all want that. Hell, I do believe that we've come full circle to what this whole BLM thread started as. Took a long time but we got there. Oh, and one more thing..
Burn wrote:Okay, enough with the insults.
Truthstar9, are you on this site to discuss JUST politics or are you planning to engage in other parts of the forums as well?
If he's insulted someone and you want to call him out on it, warn him, whatever, you do that. That's your job. But you are not the arbiter of where someone can or must go on the site and it is wholly inappropriate for you to even ask where or whether they will go. The forums are not exclusive to or restricted from certain members. You are a mod, not the archangel of justice, and I will be here to remind you of that.