The Constitution Party of the United States of America.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : The Constitution Party of the United States of America.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author Message
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1235032 - Posted: 22 May 2012, 12:56:51 UTC - in response to Message 1234844.
Last modified: 22 May 2012, 12:58:56 UTC

skildude,

and bobby,

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.~ Alexander Hamilton

Wikipedia, is a very poor source of information. Anyone can change it without a peer review, even you.

There was no tax benefits to states in the time of our founding. The states took care of themselves. There was no spending that was outside of the Constitution. As I said, look to the Louisiana Purchase for that hard fought battle in Congress. You didn't did you? Nor did anyone else here for that matter.

It is clearly enumerated what is to be taxed, and how to tax, and what that money is to be used for. And for the most part it did happen that way. It wasn't until 1913 [Wilson, the first socialist President, who by the way lied and got us into WW1] did we go wrong.

The question I asked was if the Dems are the party of Peace then why isn't one asking for their National Guard Troops back from a unconstitutional war? Try that question first. You don't seem to be any good at the other one.


Does the link indicate that for you the "Original Constitution" means without the Bill of Rights?

I saw your post about the Dems being the "party of Peace". It did not appear to be directed at anyone in particular. "You Dems say you are the Party of Peace and love", I'm not sure who has said that about the Democratic Party, I certainly do not recall having done so, however as betreger rightly says, the description is not accurate, though it seems likely that one or two have protested the wars to which you refer, just as it seems likely one or two from other parties have also protested.

The Bill of Rights.

LOL, about the rest. I understand that you are new to our Country. Perhaps you came here after the war in Nam? Both Prez the one killed and the one who took his place were Dems engaged us deeper into the war. The Party of Dems claimed the party of peace, on campus schools across the Country, perople burned draft cards. Started riots, 1968...

Don't worry Im about to take a bite out of the Repubs too.....

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8683
Credit: 24,966,045
RAC: 29,074
United Kingdom
Message 1235035 - Posted: 22 May 2012, 13:04:42 UTC

Party of peace sounds expensive. It either means back off in every negoiation with foreign powers, thereby giving everything away, or building up military strength and keeping it that way so no-one will attempt to challenge you, and accuse you of bullying.

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,278,550
RAC: 3,880
United States
Message 1235059 - Posted: 22 May 2012, 14:22:47 UTC - in response to Message 1235016.

Indeed it is, and from your perspective you might see nearly everything as socialism - once your vantage point is far enough to the right, the world seems very left wing.

You want something closer to socialism -- try Sweden

For most of the Europeans I correspond with, the US is about 7 or 8 with the Democrats at 6 and the Teapublicans at 9+. The Constitution Party (such as it is) would be pretty much off the scale.




Well, that's your opinion.

My opinion is the US as a whole seems to be about 3.5 and dropping fast.


Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1235122 - Posted: 22 May 2012, 20:51:57 UTC
Last modified: 22 May 2012, 20:57:34 UTC

Lets see if we can tease out intent of the founders/framers.

Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner freed all of his slaves. Most of the Federalist did free their slaves. Many didn't own slaves. And it a fact that more slaves were white then black in the 13 states, Indentured 3 to 7 years. So, the question is not who is a slave but what is a person?

Jefferson..."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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The founding documents are two fold. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. United States Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1808, at the end of Jeffersons term as President. The man himself along with the Court set into motion the end of slavery.

Many Ladies durning this time also voted, owned land, and enjoyed the same rights as men.

Blackmen held public office.

Being the Christian Nation that we 'were', the Jewish People also had Worship here due to Jefferson himself.

I hold by the Constitution as it was written, and the intent of the Rule of Law. All People, born or unborn, regardless of sex, race or Creed are endowed by their Creator as free.

The only thing needed was to draw a line though the words 3/5ths and place whole persons born or unborn, regardless of sex, race or Creed may be taxed at age..., etc, etc, etc...


The founders against slavery and reasons why...

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
—George Washington

“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”
—John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

“[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.”
—Charles Carroll [CATHOLIC,smile.], Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.

“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they …[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].”
—John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.

“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.”
—John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.

“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.”
—Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.

“[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.”
—Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.

“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”
—Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four… (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. “To the Citizens of the United States.”

“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”
—James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.

“It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others… and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.”
—John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy.”

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,893,745
RAC: 2,788
United States
Message 1235200 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 0:07:50 UTC - in response to Message 1235032.

The Bill of Rights.

LOL, about the rest. I understand that you are new to our Country. Perhaps you came here after the war in Nam? Both Prez the one killed and the one who took his place were Dems engaged us deeper into the war. The Party of Dems claimed the party of peace, on campus schools across the Country, perople burned draft cards. Started riots, 1968...

Don't worry Im about to take a bite out of the Repubs too.....


Does this mean you consider the Bill of Rights a part of the Original Constitution? You see you have not yet answered the pretty straightforward question, when you say "Original Constitution" what do you consider a part of that document? If you consider some amendments a part of the original, which ones are they?

I was not in the US in the 1960s, I arrived in 1999, and have lived here ever since. I was aware that it was under JFK and LBJ that the Vietnam "police action" started, that it was under FDR that the US entered WWII, under Truman the US entered the Korean "police action", and under Woodrow Wilson that the US entered WWI. These were all Democratic Party candidates for President. I am also aware that it was under George H.W. Bush that the US entered the first Guld "conflict", and under George W Bush that the US entered into the "War on Terrorism" including armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. These were both Republican Party candidates for President.

I am not sure how either party can claim to be the "Party of Peace" in a general sense, though either may have had advocates for peace at different times, and claimed to have been the "Party for Peace" with respect to a specific conflict.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1235210 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 0:33:50 UTC

Yes I do believe the Bill of Rights is part of the Original Constitution. The 11, we can do no better then God in making law.

I also believe that we could have stopped right there with 11 and still had freedom for everyone called--person, born as well as unborn, regardless of race, sex or Creed. God makes no such distinction, we all have a soul.

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2495
Credit: 5,222,828
RAC: 8,171
United States
Message 1235249 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 2:14:15 UTC - in response to Message 1235210.
Last modified: 23 May 2012, 2:14:39 UTC

Yes I do believe the Bill of Rights is part of the Original Constitution. The 11, we can do no better then God in making law.

I also believe that we could have stopped right there with 11 and still had freedom for everyone called--person, born as well as unborn, regardless of race, sex or Creed. God makes no such distinction, we all have a soul.

ID, I believe you believe what you state, a more interesting question is what life experiences caused you to think that way?
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1235256 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 2:45:04 UTC - in response to Message 1235249.
Last modified: 23 May 2012, 2:48:35 UTC

Yes I do believe the Bill of Rights is part of the Original Constitution. The 11, we can do no better then God in making law.

I also believe that we could have stopped right there with 11 and still had freedom for everyone called--person, born as well as unborn, regardless of race, sex or Creed. God makes no such distinction, we all have a soul.

ID, I believe you believe what you state, a more interesting question is what life experiences caused you to think that way?


What does life experiences have to do with a honest understanding of what the founders framers gave us in rule of law?

We are a Christian Nation that is a Constitutional Republic made up of states that are Democracies that have Constitutions of their own. At the end of this the People rule themselves by right of voteing on issues and sending one of their own into office by once again, the power of vote.

The Federal Government is clearly confined by the Federal Constitution. The states are free to regulate their affairs as long as their Constitution does not conflict with the Federal one. Everone is free in their own state but must follow state and local laws as well as Federal ones.

The intent of the founders and framers was to push down as much law making to the county level, placing power into the hands of the people were it belongs. If the people are to rule themselves power must rest in their hands. If self-rule is to last the people must have a selfinterest.

What does life experiences have to do with a honest understanding of what the founders framers gave us in rule of law? A honest understanding of slavery. You need not be black to become a slave. When you give your God Given rights to someone who does not have your best interest at heart, you become a slave to that person. When you give your tax due to government and dont ask what they are spending it on, you have become a slave. When you allow them to spend more then they take in, then your children become slaves. When they spend more then that, then the unborn become slaves as well. The unborn now come into this world in debt to the tune of around 200,000$.

The question is---who is to be master, thats all. Not my life experiences.

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2495
Credit: 5,222,828
RAC: 8,171
United States
Message 1235267 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 3:13:40 UTC - in response to Message 1235256.

ID, OK, but I still would find it interesting and maybe instructional to understand how you got to be where you are.
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1235284 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 4:41:26 UTC - in response to Message 1235267.

ID, OK, but I still would find it interesting and maybe instructional to understand how you got to be where you are.


I find your question as none of your damn business.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1270987 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 1:01:29 UTC

George Mason wrote, "The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree."

George Mason's views prevailed. When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1270988 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 1:06:09 UTC - in response to Message 1234725.

So, it would seem to some that our founders/framers where for slavery. They were not. Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].


The southern states were ill at ease with the layout of congress without having the 3/5 compromise. The white non slave population in the south was vastly out numbered by the white populations of the north. The southern plantation states knew it was a matter of time before they were legislatively and representatively useless. This also gave tax benefits from the Federal gov't that the south would have lost out on from the population standpoint.
They threatened to break the union if they didn't get their way.

heres a quote from Wikipedia
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War



LOL, no this isn't true and you should REALLY STOP getting you history from Wackapedia. It can be changed by anyone even you without peer review.

During the time the Constitution was drafted and accepted, there was MORE white slaves then black.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,893,745
RAC: 2,788
United States
Message 1271138 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 15:45:17 UTC - in response to Message 1270988.

So, it would seem to some that our founders/framers where for slavery. They were not. Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].


The southern states were ill at ease with the layout of congress without having the 3/5 compromise. The white non slave population in the south was vastly out numbered by the white populations of the north. The southern plantation states knew it was a matter of time before they were legislatively and representatively useless. This also gave tax benefits from the Federal gov't that the south would have lost out on from the population standpoint.
They threatened to break the union if they didn't get their way.

heres a quote from Wikipedia
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War



LOL, no this isn't true and you should REALLY STOP getting you history from Wackapedia. It can be changed by anyone even you without peer review.

During the time the Constitution was drafted and accepted, there was MORE white slaves then black.


Perhaps you can demolish the source of wikipedia's entry as easily?

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1271155 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 16:32:28 UTC - in response to Message 1271138.

and lets not forget those 3/5 persons were not allowed to vote. Only be counted as "human" for the electoral college. Basically, you had a rich white minority dominated voting block from the south that enforced policies for a nation. pretty much what Spit and lyin Ryan want today
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1271168 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 17:05:15 UTC
Last modified: 13 Aug 2012, 17:26:49 UTC

No peer review at Wackiepidiea....

Not a font of correct information.....

Did you change it for this thread?

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1271170 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 17:08:19 UTC

It's been almost 4 years since a budget was passed in the Halls of Congress.

Obamma has out spent every last prez before him. Every last one...
..not that Bush was any better but a budget was passed and at least offered

Such actions are treason to the country.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,893,745
RAC: 2,788
United States
Message 1271198 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 17:53:54 UTC - in response to Message 1271168.

No peer review at Wackiepidiea....

Not a font of correct information.....

Did you change it for this thread?


If you'd followed the link provided in my previous post you'd have seen that it was to a book. The book is the source for the Wikipedia article. I take it that as you repeated your complaint about Wikipedia, rather than attempt to undermine the verifiable source material, you are unable to demolish the argument in the source. That you resort to the 5 D's does not go unnoticed.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1271203 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 18:03:42 UTC

Morally slavery was and still is wrong. Just because it was ok with the law makes no difference. The intent WAS to make the south give up this morally wrong slavery. So, yes the south was boxed in and done so for good reason.

The deal that was struck was done so by Jefferson as well as others and done so looking into the future, They didn't want a war becuse the nation was newly formed. Impoertation of slaves was stopped till Jefferson term at Prez was over. In the deal Jefferson got D.C. in the South.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1271205 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 18:05:05 UTC

Barry Obamma is the only Prez in the history of this country that has not passed a budget.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1271206 - Posted: 13 Aug 2012, 18:06:53 UTC

I have already answered this question Bobby the fact that you have not reread what I have posted here has not gone unnoticed.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Constitution Party of the United States of America.

Copyright © 2014 University of California