Obama lives large off the taxpayer dime...

[Tunnelcat]

Maybe you aught to read a bit more on that subject.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... nd-Slavery

Uhhh, reading that, they all kinda glossed things over to make some people or states happy and yet still keep slavery around. They obviously weren't too motivated by principle to really put Negro rights into the Constitution back then. Read John Adam's comment in the third paragraph in the link below. He specifically mentions Negros in his back and forth letters and comments with his future wife Abigail. Looking into this, it would have been better to use a more personal example, like women's rights, which most men were vehemently against back then. And those poor Native Americans, who were persona non gratis, were definitely left out, and they were here first.

http://voices.yahoo.com/remember-ladies ... 05519.html

In fact, the word "male" was specifically used in section 2 of the 14th Amendment, outraging women fighting for their own voting rights.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

[Will Robinson]

Indeed, I have no problem with changing the constitution as far as term limits and the things having to do with how the government works, but I am vehemently opposed to removing any protected rights.

How about adding new protected rights? I'm guessing the Founding Fathers had no concept of ever giving black slaves the same Constitutional rights as other citizens.

What rights do you think these supposed black slaves need since slavery is illegal and if they were to exist they would be immediately set free by the authority, and thus no longer be slaves nor able to claim a 'slaves new protected special right', by virtue of their freedom?

Your logic is why there is too much law and government. Stop trying to fix what isn't broken by building up government! Including making gestures by passing un-necessary law...

[callmeslick]

What rights do you think these supposed black slaves need since slavery is illegal and if they were to exist they would be immediately set free by the authority, and thus no longer be slaves nor able to claim a 'slaves new protected special right', by virtue of their freedom?

Your logic is why there is too much law and government. Stop trying to fix what isn't broken by building up government! Including making gestures by passing un-necessary law...

either you are unaware of US History, or you misread TC's post altogether.....I really am hoping it's the latter. You did hear that we had slavery for 190 plus years, right?

[CUDA]

Indeed, I have no problem with changing the constitution as far as term limits and the things having to do with how the government works, but I am vehemently opposed to removing any protected rights.

How about adding new protected rights? I'm guessing the Founding Fathers had no concept of ever giving black slaves the same Constitutional rights as other citizens.

and exactly what right would you like to give them that they are not already afforded in the constitution? Are you saying you would like to give them additional rights? Are you saying you want the constitution to make blacks a special privileged class of people? Or are you saying you prefer to make the constitution discriminatory to other races compared to blacks?

[Will Robinson]

What rights do you think these supposed black slaves need since slavery is illegal and if they were to exist they would be immediately set free by the authority, and thus no longer be slaves nor able to claim a 'slaves new protected special right', by virtue of their freedom?

Your logic is why there is too much law and government. Stop trying to fix what isn't broken by building up government! Including making gestures by passing un-necessary law...

either you are unaware of US History, or you misread TC's post altogether.....I really am hoping it's the latter. You did hear that we had slavery for 190 plus years, right?

Right, I did hear something about that. I also was operating under the assumption that there are no slaves to give a 'new protected right to'. So it made me wonder what new law/right she is proposing.

[CUDA]

What rights do you think these supposed black slaves need since slavery is illegal and if they were to exist they would be immediately set free by the authority, and thus no longer be slaves nor able to claim a 'slaves new protected special right', by virtue of their freedom?

Your logic is why there is too much law and government. Stop trying to fix what isn't broken by building up government! Including making gestures by passing un-necessary law...

either you are unaware of US History, or you misread TC's post altogether.....I really am hoping it's the latter. You did hear that we had slavery for 190 plus years, right?

TC called for special rights non discriminatory rights for blacks. Please show me where they don't already have that constitutional right.

[flip]

They were not included in the thinking of the Constitution. Considering the status quo of the day, women and minorities had to be given explicit rights. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about economics. Lincoln made a brilliant military and political decision to make it about slavery, thereby effectively dividing the South. Otherwise, that war would have lasted much longer than it did.

[Spidey]

Indeed, I have no problem with changing the constitution as far as term limits and the things having to do with how the government works, but I am vehemently opposed to removing any protected rights.

How about adding new protected rights? I'm guessing the Founding Fathers had no concept of ever giving black slaves the same Constitutional rights as other citizens.

Oh, I’m very much in favor of adding more rights to the protected list.

For example:

The right to not have the government snooping around in your private communications.

The right not to be penalized for making, or "not" making personal purchases.

As a start…anyway.

I also have a problem with the bastardization of the bill of rights…it should never have been used as the continuation of misc. amendments, there should have been a separate document for that purpose, therefore dismissing this misconceived idea that the bill of rights wasn’t a core principle.

And as I look at history, that dammed abomination called “prohibition” was a disgrace attached to a document called “The Bill of Rights”! I mean the idea that “taking” someone’s rights should hold a place in such a document…

[Will Robinson]

...
I also have a problem with the bastardization of the bill of rights…it should never have been used as the continuation of misc. amendments, there should have been a separate document for that purpose, therefore dismissing this misconceived idea that the bill of rights wasn’t a core principle.

And as I look at history, that dammed abomination called “prohibition” was a disgrace attached to a document called “The Bill of Rights”! I mean the idea that “taking” someone’s rights should hold a place in such a document…

Amen Brother!
They should have created a document called Future Attempts at Petty Partisanship to list such indulgences....and used bathroom paper to print it on...

[flip]

Hehe, exactly. We should be adding to the Bill of Rights. Not trying to figure out how to limit them.

[callmeslick]

I'm pretty sure that TC intended the words to mean that we, as a nation, tend to ADD rights to the Constitution, and gave the example of freeing slaves and giving them the same basic rights as others. TC can clarify.

[CUDA]

I'm pretty sure that TC intended the words to mean that we, as a nation, tend to ADD rights to the Constitution, and gave the example of freeing slaves and giving them the same basic rights as others. TC can clarify.

say what you mean. Mean what you say.

That is NOT what she said

[Spidey]

Spin at work.

Twist twist, spin spin...oh what a relief it is.

[Foil]

How about...?

Are you saying..? Are you saying...? Or are you saying...?

TC called for...

I'm pretty sure that TC intended...

That is NOT what she said

---------

Guys, try letting tunnelcat clarify, before making assumptions about what she did or didn't mean.

[callmeslick]

I'm pretty sure that TC intended the words to mean that we, as a nation, tend to ADD rights to the Constitution, and gave the example of freeing slaves and giving them the same basic rights as others. TC can clarify.

say what you mean. Mean what you say.

That is NOT what she said

yeah, CUDA, that WAS pretty much what she said, in the context of the discussion, no less. The discourse was around staying with a status quo set of principles or expanding them past the framers intents. She cited black slaves, noted the realities as the framers and others saw them in the 18th century, and referred(clearly, IMO) to the fact that we amended to update the rights of those folks.

[CUDA]

Lets break it down for you.

How about adding new protected rights? I'm guessing the Founding Fathers had no concept of ever giving black slaves the same Constitutional rights as other citizens.

so lets paraphrase

"How about adding new protected rights giving black the same Constitutional rights as other citizens."

I'm guessing that TC forgot the part of the Declaration where the founding fathers said. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

some colonists were pro slavery some where against. to blanket statement that there took no though in it when they drafted the constitution is spoken out of pure ignorance

[callmeslick]

CUDA, first off, you know better than to confuse the Declaration(we were still a colony, and had no plan to be a separate nation yet) with the Constitution. And yes, including black people WAS an addition of rights,as was suffrage for women.

[Foil]

Guys, try letting tunnelcat clarify, before making assumptions about what she did or didn't mean.

[callmeslick]

damn, you take all the FUN out of it!

[flip]

Heh, Foil's like a policeman, sit around long enough with nothing to do, they start making stuff up

[Foil]

<waves baton>

[flip]

Heh I like you Foil. You have a sense of humor.

[Tunnelcat]

Indeed, I have no problem with changing the constitution as far as term limits and the things having to do with how the government works, but I am vehemently opposed to removing any protected rights.

How about adding new protected rights? I'm guessing the Founding Fathers had no concept of ever giving black slaves the same Constitutional rights as other citizens.

and exactly what right would you like to give them that they are not already afforded in the constitution? Are you saying you would like to give them additional rights? Are you saying you want the constitution to make blacks a special privileged class of people? Or are you saying you prefer to make the constitution discriminatory to other races compared to blacks?

Great! I go away for a day and the whole place blows up over what I said. I only said "adding new protected rights" for blacks, because our illustrious founding fathers either didn't have enough fortitude, or had some of their own racial biases themselves, to fight Southern bigotry and slavery. ALL PEOPLE should have gotten the same rights status when they originally wrote the Constitution. That's what it says. But was it their intention that Africans and even some Europeans be afforded that same equality? They did write the words in the document, but did they really mean them to apply to ALL? EVERYONE? Probably not I'm guessing, because many states in this union had their own idea of rights, in the South mainly, and black Americans never enjoyed those Constitutional Rights they were supposedly afforded. They WERE SLAVES, with NO freedom, NO rights and NO more rights than mere property. We had to fight a Civil War over the whole idea.

When a group of citizens becomes a subclass by action, inaction, or omission, by definition, they will need new protected rights to bring them the same level of equality that most of us citizens enjoy, since the Constitution cannot technically be rewritten after it's creation. It can only amended. Wrongs need to be righted and those amendments are in essence "special rights", since they have to be named in a special document. I'm NOT for giving people rights above and beyond what everyone else in entitled to. But why is it that those of the original protected class, white people mainly, always knee jerk and scream special treatment when the people who are in the subclasses WANT the same rights as they have. Whites have enjoyed those Constitutional rights for over 2 centuries. Despite what the founding fathers claimed, that all men were created equal and also hold those Creator endowed inalienable rights, they didn't enforce that ideal throughout the whole country, because they catered to the bigots and slave owners in the South. If anything, Southerners got their"special rights" to keep blacks as slaves. If blacks feel entitled to more than their far share of rights today, I don't begrudge them that feeling since their ancestors went through hell. Even today, there is still strife and hatred. Racism is still alive and well and I don't see it disappearing anytime soon.

I'm guessing that TC forgot the part of the Declaration where the founding fathers said. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

You've completely ignored the fact that the founding fathers held women in so low of esteem and stupidity, that they didn't even give them the right to vote when the new country was formed. They were just as bigoted and shortsighted as any other men of the day, if not more so for the times. They weren't Gods. They were flawed human beings, like the rest of us.

[callmeslick]

Let's go back even a step further, TC. The voting pool, at the outset, consisted of male property owners. I you were poor, you didn't vote. Further, as Senators were hand-chosen by state elites, only the wealthy and influential had ANY say in who was elected to the Senate.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You've completely ignored the fact that the founding fathers held women in so low of esteem and stupidity, that they didn't even give them the right to vote when the new country was formed.

I'd just like to say that I think your perspective on pre women's rights history is disgustingly narrow. I think I've made it clear that I don't defend the numerous ways that people wrong each other, and have throughout history, but there is another angle to pre women's rights that you conveniently don't seem to be aware of. Once upon a time (and still so in my family, and indeed in the Christian church), leadership was considered a man's responsibility. I'd bet anything that some of these men in history that you're scorning actually had the council of their wives in their day-to-day dealings, as I've seen with my own parents.

[Will Robinson]

TC, you are correct, the Constitution can't be rewritten and instead can only be amended.
You are incorrect, however, to imply the amendment you seem to be asking for wasn't already put in place.
148 years ago, in December of 1865, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

If you knew that then please go on to describe exactly what your proposed amendment would say to free the slaves....who are not slaves...who are all dead and their children were never slaves....in a country where our President is a black man....
What special right needs to be written into law that black men and women don't already have?

[Sergeant Thorne]

If blacks feel entitled to more than their far share of rights today, I don't begrudge them that feeling since their ancestors went through hell.

A right either is or is not a right. You cannot have more than your rights without taking from someone else's rights; Just to get your confusing use of the word out of the way. I cannot have a right to own my property and a little bit of yours, or else your right to own your property has been infringed upon. I put it to you that you folks are playing a dangerous game in trying to get a government to yield anything beyond just straightforward justice. You know, if a department were created and tasked with bringing instances of infringement on the rights of black Americans to court for trial I would be all for it, but no-one seems to be able to come up with something that legitimate.

[Tunnelcat]

You've completely ignored the fact that the founding fathers held women in so low of esteem and stupidity, that they didn't even give them the right to vote when the new country was formed.

I'd just like to say that I think your perspective on pre women's rights history is disgustingly narrow. I think I've made it clear that I don't defend the numerous ways that people wrong each other, and have throughout history, but there is another angle to pre women's rights that you conveniently don't seem to be aware of. Once upon a time (and still so in my family, and indeed in the Christian church), leadership was considered a man's responsibility. I'd bet anything that some of these men in history that you're scorning actually had the council of their wives in their day-to-day dealings, as I've seen with my own parents.

Thank God, or we women would still be locked in the paternal stone age in our supposedly free country. Women didn't GET right to vote until August 8, 1920, almost a 150 years AFTER the country was formed. We didn't get some parity with men until 1964. That's a looooooooong time to finally get the rights we should have had when the Constitution was framed. And by the way, I think most church's, and corporations even, could use that woman's touch of leadership.

TC, you are correct, the Constitution can't be rewritten and instead can only be amended.
You are incorrect, however, to imply the amendment you seem to be asking for wasn't already put in place.
148 years ago, in December of 1865, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

If you knew that then please go on to describe exactly what your proposed amendment would say to free the slaves....who are not slaves...who are all dead and their children were never slaves....in a country where our President is a black man....
What special right needs to be written into law that black men and women don't already have?

If you're going to go that route, I say that when the Constitution was written, it should have been enforced equally and evenly AS WRITTEN. No special exceptions, or rights (wink, wink), for powerful slave owners and the Southern States, or even the Founding Fathers themselves, if they had true principles that is. The Founding Fathers were genius in what they created, yet flawed in their application because of their time and place in history. Since they were slave owners as well, it was a little too inconvenient to free their own slaves or to cripple those Southern state's economies and still give them the same rights afforded every other citizen in this new country. They waffled on their own principles and created a nightmare. It took a very bloody war to finally set free black Americans. They may be free now, but the bitter legacy of submission still remains today, because civil rights were won only a short few decades ago, not long enough to purge the bitterness from the memories of the people who lived it. Maybe in a few generations from now, things will be forgotten and people will move on.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/ar ... 2slave.htm

A right either is or is not a right. You cannot have more than your rights without taking from someone else's rights; Just to get your confusing use of the word out of the way. I cannot have a right to own my property and a little bit of yours, or else your right to own your property has been infringed upon. I put it to you that you folks are playing a dangerous game in trying to get a government to yield anything beyond just straightforward justice. You know, if a department were created and tasked with bringing instances of infringement on the rights of black Americans to court for trial I would be all for it, but no-one seems to be able to come up with something that legitimate.

Well, when rights afforded you in a binding document are STILL denied you because of a trait you have no influence over, what other way is there for obtaining those rights? It took until 1964 for blacks to get the same civil rights we've all enjoyed since the founding of the country. Isn't that a very long time to be repressed and marginalized, when our Founding Fathers originally GAVE them those rights in writing and yet somehow, were still denied to them? If you don't like "special rights" designations, what's the best way to correct a wrong, long after that wrong has been cemented into a culture as a way of life?

[Will Robinson]

...

TC, you are correct, the Constitution can't be rewritten and instead can only be amended.
You are incorrect, however, to imply the amendment you seem to be asking for wasn't already put in place.
148 years ago, in December of 1865, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

If you knew that then please go on to describe exactly what your proposed amendment would say to free the slaves....who are not slaves...who are all dead and their children were never slaves....in a country where our President is a black man....
What special right needs to be written into law that black men and women don't already have?

If you're going to go that route, ...

...They may be free now, but the bitter legacy of submission still remains today, because civil rights were won only a short few decades ago, not long enough to purge the bitterness from the memories of the people who lived it. Maybe in a few generations from now, things will be forgotten and people will move on....

The 'route' I'm going was a simple request for you to explain what the amendment you think is missing would contain. Not too hard to understand the question but your answer is obtuse.

Instead of restating what we already know, that there is a history of bigotry and a resulting resentment, try and answer the question!
What "special rights" for black people are you asking to be placed in an amendment?!?

Do you just want to go on about past injustices and offer up platitudes by making statements like that because it makes someone, you or others, feel good to hear it?
Or did you really mean it when you suggested there was a missing element in our current Constitution and Bill of Rights?

If you are just gushing bleeding heart stuff then go ahead, there is certainly a target audience for that kind of rhetoric but I was under the impression you actually had something of substance to lay out for us.

The premise that there is something still unjust within our laws and government holding black people down is an effective tool used by despicable people to keep black Americans voting for the leftwing. I want to know if you are just selling that story or can explain what specifically is missing in our foundation as it is written today.

[flip]

I think the reality is that blacks were not even considered human by a great deal of people, so just by that implication, it would make sense to think they were not considered when the Constitution was wrote. How else could people justify the enslavement and abuse of someone, unless they considered them nothing more than live stock. I even remember in 6th grade, they tried to tell us that ★■◆● actually meant sub-human. Not because it does, I am still not clear on the actual definition to this day, but because that was the association they wanted us to make. Race is and will always be a deep-seated problem here and a perfect and predictable tool to maintain a divided constituency.

[Will Robinson]

... Race is and will always be a deep-seated problem here and a perfect and predictable tool to maintain a divided constituency.

I can only be a useful tool to control a subset of the constituency if the false narrative that only the democrat party is 'color blind' is maintained.
There is no inherent racial bias, pro or con, to any political party. There are only perceptions to be fostered and managed.

[callmeslick]

... Race is and will always be a deep-seated problem here and a perfect and predictable tool to maintain a divided constituency.

I can only be a useful tool to control a subset of the constituency if the false narrative that only the democrat party is 'color blind' is maintained.
There is no inherent racial bias, pro or con, to any political party. There are only perceptions to be fostered and managed.

I agree completely, Will. Prior to 1952 or so, the Democrats managed those perceptions poorly. Nowadays, it is the other party paying the price for doing so.

[Tunnelcat]

Instead of restating what we already know, that there is a history of bigotry and a resulting resentment, try and answer the question!
What "special rights" for black people are you asking to be placed in an amendment?!?

Any amendment about rights is essentially special rights, because that amendment refers only that class of people that wasn't included or referred to in the original document. I'm not FOR giving anyone special rights above and beyond what ALL people are guaranteed in the original Constitution. It's just semantics. Quit nitpicking.

Do you just want to go on about past injustices and offer up platitudes by making statements like that because it makes someone, you or others, feel good to hear it?
Or did you really mean it when you suggested there was a missing element in our current Constitution and Bill of Rights?

If you are just gushing bleeding heart stuff then go ahead, there is certainly a target audience for that kind of rhetoric but I was under the impression you actually had something of substance to lay out for us.

The premise that there is something still unjust within our laws and government holding black people down is an effective tool used by despicable people to keep black Americans voting for the leftwing. I want to know if you are just selling that story or can explain what specifically is missing in our foundation as it is written today.

OK, why are Republicans in many states now changing their voter laws since the SCOTUS decision? Although these changes seem legal under the guise of voter ID, in reality, they're now cutting off a lot of early voting and consolidating precincts to cover larger areas, thus making it supremely difficult for most poorer people to get access to their precincts. That's not even including the difficulty in getting a photo ID for many people. These schemes are disproportionately targeting minorities and the elderly and impeding their ability to vote. Is it so they can't vote for those nasty Democrats anymore? If there's no racial discrimination in our country today, why do blacks still feel like a subclass and march in remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King's speech, long after the passage of the Civil Rights Amendment? Because they're greedy and feel entitled? Perhaps some of that is true, it's human nature, even for whites. But no matter, you can't, or won't, see how another class of people has to do to survive in this country. It's always about you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... oting.html

[CUDA]

TC
You do realize that your argument about the poor being discriminated against to get a voter ID card is pure bull★■◆●. Those same poor that will be as you have wrongly describe it as disenfranchised from voting are already required by the federal goverment and most state government to have photo ID to receive welfare benefits and food stamps don't you? Your argument holds no water. So is the government all ready discriminating against those same poor by requiring photo ID to get their welfare benefits?

[Will Robinson]

Tc, as far as I can see any changes in voter law isn't race specific....other than human race. So if it is hard to get a card for poor people it is equally hard for poor white, yellow, brown, red people too. Not just black.

The goal as far as I can see it is to keep it difficult to vote more than once and not at all if you aren't a citizen.

And as it has been pointed out, no one cries racism for demanding they have a license or ID for all the other services and benefits they receive.
So stuff that race card back up your sleeve and save it for a game with less informed players...

And thanks for clarifying that your suggestion for an amendment to address slavery was in fact 148 years redundant.

[Tunnelcat]

Both of you do realize that the photo ID is not the main gripe of North Carolinians. There's a whole host of other impediments to voting that affect those who are poor, black and elderly, most of who are Democrats.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/30/north- ... ssion-law/

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2013/07/23 ... 3-session/

And if these restrictive laws aren't skewed race specific, poor specific and age specific, why are all these people out protesting in large numbers? Are Republicans that damn stupid?

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/08/ ... s_law.html

Both of you sit in your little cat bird seats and spout that you have no problems at all going out and voting for those who you wish, so of course you can sit there and say it's not an issue. So why don't both of you sashay over to NC and tell that to all those protestors and people of color, the elderly who can't travel easily and people born without birth certificates in many of these Republican-controlled states passing these laws. How about if some Democratic vigilante poll observer (yes, they're now legal and have expanded authority, from either party, in NC) decides they don't like your Republican looking faces and decides to challenge your votes? That could happen. That's not democracy. It's intimidation.

[Will Robinson]

So much of that is complete hype TC. For example you can already challenge anyone's vote. It doesn't mean they don't vote, it only means someone wants the ID checked because they challenge the voters legitimacy. If the challenge is proven out to be substantiated the vote is removed. No big deal.

The idea that we must let any vote with no proof of them being a registered voter is ridiculous. The claim that there is not enough evidence of past illegal voting is a joke! Only by putting some decent ID requirements in place do have any chance of knowing what is going on!

[Tunnelcat]

Uh huh. Nice that we have to have that in this supposedly free country where everyone should have no impediment to voting. Vigilante poll watchers are loose cannons and unaccountable to the other parties. I don't want some damn vigilante poll watcher, who may not like the way I look or what party I may be affiliated with, challenging my vote for any reason. It's rife for corruption and abuse and they can go shove it where the sun don't shine.

[Sergeant Thorne]

TC you nut. Which kind of "corruption" do you prefer? That which takes place right under your nose, or that which takes place behind your back?

Nice that we have to have that in this supposedly free country where everyone should have no impediment to voting as often as they can.

[Will Robinson]

Uh huh. Nice that we have to have that in this supposedly free country where everyone should have no impediment to voting. ...

That is a totally flawed premise! We never have been a country where everyone is allowed to vote. And if some are not allowed then stopping us from filtering them out is an injustice....