(April 2, 2013 at 4:51 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: I posted the link to the phrases which do. A euphemism does not change the substance of the matter. What kind of world would this be if a euphemism itself could change the very nature of the subject described? The term "final solution" as it is writen on Eichmans calculations doesnt make the systematic murder of 6 million people prittier in any way.
The founding fathers may have used a euphemism, yet it is clear that they meant slavery with it, to somehow fantasise arround the idea that they could have meant something else is outright historic relatevism which eludes away from the fact that the US founding fathers eighter saw the issue of slavery as a matter as insignificant as the buisness releationship between a landlord and his servant or that they were cowards who didnt dare to speak and write of the matter as it was to be seen. To have a euphemism in a historic document and to then read it and understand it just like it was meant to be read by the writer is wrong. One has to read it whilest keeping in mind why a euphemism was used, and in this case it only leaves the two options I noted above.

None of those phrases create the right to own slaves. They either allude to slaves (and indentured workers), or imply that slavery is legal. There is a difference between a law and a right.

Article I, Section. 2 merely mention that "non-free" persons are counted as 3/5 of other persons. (does not create a right to own slaves, nor creates any actual law regarding slave ownership...it merely expresses their worth in a census)

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1 states that the migration or importation of "such persons" will not be prohibited until 1808. (does not create a right to own slaves, nor creates any actual law regarding slave ownership...it merely states that migrating/importing "such persons" is not illegal)

Article IV, Section. 2 states that "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State" can escape from that state to another. (does not create a right to own slaves, nor creates any actual law regarding slave ownership...it merely states that anyone who owes service or labour in a state cannot escape to another state to avoid it. That can apply to slaves and to indentured workers, or prisoners being forced to work.)

So, no actual laws are created concerning the ownership of slaves, or setting up actual rights to own slaves. Slavery was legal at the time, but was not included in the constitution; only rules pertaining to it (and other things) were. The constitution is not the end-all document of laws; it doesn't contain anything explicit concerning the illegality of murder, for instance. Nor did it contain anything explicitly concerning the legality of drinking tea.

Quote:The constitution gives it`s subjects the right to own property. The constitution is also writen in a way which regards slaves to be nothing alse but property - so the constitution does give the right to own slaves. In a 18th century mind set in which a slave was nothing else but property it is as unnececery to meantion the right to own slaves as it is to mention the right to own a house or tea cup. The only reason why slavery is mentioned in this document in it`s euphemistic way is because of the "Summerset case and Knight case" which took place shortly before in the British mainland and ended with the abolishment of slavery in England and Scotland. Yet the notes on slavery in the constitution only assures to the subjects living under it that slavery will not be abolished and that a slave holder need not fear that a fleeing slave will not be returned, let alone that a escaping slave has some kind of right to claim liberty.

The constitution gives the right to own property. It doesn't stipulate what that property is, so any right to own slaves is implicit, not explicit. Shell already told you the reason why slavery wasn't mentioned by name in the constitution, and she has far more credibility in this area than you do, given that she writes about American Revolutionary History for a living.

Quote:

Quote:In other words, it would say something along the lines of "The right of the people to own slaves shall not be infringed". Substitute the word "slaves" for anything that roughly means the same thing. It doesn't matter, because there are no such phrases in the constitution.

o really?

Quote:"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due . . ."

this is a legal guarantee that a "runaway slave" has to be returned to it`s owner because the slave is the owners property. that phrase is only possible if the owners right to his slave is already accepted as a unchangeable fact. Thereby the quoted phrase clearly guarantees a slave holders right to his slave.

How does that even come close to "The right of the people to own slaves shall not be infringed"? People "held to service or labour" includes slaves, but also indentured workers, and even people under contractual obligation to work. It in no way sets up a right to own slaves. At best, it sets up a right not to be swindled out of work owed.

Quote:It does, as the phrase quoted above shows. And not only that one, but also the phrase previously quoted which underlines that the matter shouldnt stand for debate until 1808. To argue that the wishy washy phrasing somehow changes the real life consequences of the matter is absurd. What matters is how it was seen then, how it was interpreted then and why it should not be forgotten.

That was not explicit! It was implicit and ambiguous, because it covered people other than slaves too...

Quote:To list what people can do with slaves is pritty much useless if slavery was illegal.
No code of law in any country of the world guarantees the right to own a computer - but every code of law includes regulations and laws on internet criminality. You are simply viewing the document whilest thinking that slavery would somehow be so special that it deserved being mentioned itself. Slaves where seen as simple property and not as we see them today. By giving regulations on what can be done with slaves the document and it`s writers act upon the fact that slavery is something acceptable.

Right, and nobody is saying that slavery wasn't legal in the constitution. We agree with you there, but there is a difference between something being legal, and something being "a right in the constitution" or "explicitly stating that something is not outlawed in the constitution". Tea drinking was legal, but there is no explicit right in the constitution for drinking tea, nor is there an explicit law which states that tea drinking is not illegal.

Quote:"only"??????

Yes, only. 27 changes in just over 200 years is pretty darn good.

Quote:this does not change the fact that it was changed, you are also relatevising the changes made with your possition as if they were unnececery or dont change the fact that the original is sacrosanct and perfect.

I've never argued the original was sacrosanct and perfect...never. The original didn't include anything about freedom of speech, or freedom to own guns, etc. Of course it wasn't perfect. In fact, the constitution still isn't perfect. Oh, and no document created by man should be held as sacrosanct.

Quote:which took place within the same 15 years in which all these documents were published.

it does not change the fact: An argument based on an historic promiss or right cannot justify modern policies.

So what if it took place within 15 years? It was a change to the original.

...and who is basing an argument on an historic promise? Not me. I'm not using any historical promise to justify modern policies. Have you ever seen me post "we should have guns because the second amendment says we can"? No, that's not even an argument; it's a tautology. I have many reasons why we should have guns; none of which are based on the constitution; all of them however enforce the second amendment as a good amendment to have.

(April 2, 2013 at 6:57 am)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(April 2, 2013 at 5:31 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Oh dear. Someone's PMSing...

I told everyone not to judge me for eating that cream cheese chocolate cake!

Seriously though, I seem to have forgotten the original point of this bitch fest. The Constitution isn't a sacred document. It was written by long dead white guys in another era. It just so happens that those guys were rather brilliant and gave us a document that has seen us through these past couple centuries. But if we find out that we as a country no longer wish to embody some of those values, we amend it and change our laws. Who cares wtf it originally said if we agree it's better now? (Other than for historicity's sake.)

I'm fearful that if one section of the United States constitution is disrespected and disobeyed, then the United States government will have no problem trampling upon other human rights.

---

Alongside that, I feel as if a standing army large as our current one is unnecessary for the security of our state, as effective diplomacy could be a much less bloody and expensive method of finding solutions to the conflicts of the world.

(April 2, 2013 at 3:23 am)Tiberius Wrote: Plus, nobody is pointing to the original and claiming to have a right to something. The right to bear arms is in the current constitution as well (and ironically, was not in the original). The right to bear arms was an amendment in the first place.

I'd rather not get into the current argument, but I would like to point out that it's part of the Bill of Rights, which weren't really amendments to correct anything from the Constitution, but more just to put certain politicans (and the people) at ease. Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were already freedoms felt by the American people, but politicians like Jefferson, for example, demanded that the Bill of Rights be made just to protect our liberties in any potential future attack on them.

(April 2, 2013 at 5:13 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: I'd rather not get into the current argument, but I would like to point out that it's part of the Bill of Rights, which weren't really amendments to correct anything from the Constitution, but more just to put certain politicans (and the people) at ease. Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were already freedoms felt by the American people, but politicians like Jefferson, for example, demanded that the Bill of Rights be made just to protect our liberties in any potential future attack on them.

Now carry on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, right?

If so, I'm not sure what your point is. I never said that amendments had to be corrections to the original Constitution. I just pointed out that some rights were not present in the original, and came about through amendments.

(April 2, 2013 at 5:13 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: I'd rather not get into the current argument, but I would like to point out that it's part of the Bill of Rights, which weren't really amendments to correct anything from the Constitution, but more just to put certain politicans (and the people) at ease.

No, no. Please, no. Amendments are not 'amendments' in the typical sense of the word. They are all additions. Few actually amend anything in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Bill of Rights was correcting the lack of attention to personal rights that was seen in the original document. It was a known fault before it was even ratified. In fact, at least two delegates to the Constitutional Convention that I know of refused to sign the document because it did not contain these amendments. Yes, it did appease some people, but it was certainly a necessary correction. It may not be flawless, but it was absolutely necessary.

Quote:Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were already freedoms felt by the American people,

Yes, and exercised. However, the U.S. Constitution gave the President undefined power, which gives the office a shitload of wiggle room. It gave the Federal Government a shitload of power without enough state power, etc. Those rights had to be defined because there was a new government with the power to take them away. The way to ensure they did not? Rights.

Quote:but politicians like Jefferson, for example, demanded that the Bill of Rights be made just to protect our liberties in any potential future attack on them.

Thomas Jefferson may have stamped his famous name on the fight, but I wish more people would mention George Mason and Virginia in these discussions.

At any rate, none of this really contradicts anything anyone has said here. Inherent rights or new rights, it is irrelevant.

(April 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 2, 2013 at 5:13 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: I'd rather not get into the current argument, but I would like to point out that it's part of the Bill of Rights, which weren't really amendments to correct anything from the Constitution, but more just to put certain politicans (and the people) at ease. Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were already freedoms felt by the American people, but politicians like Jefferson, for example, demanded that the Bill of Rights be made just to protect our liberties in any potential future attack on them.

Now carry on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, right?

If so, I'm not sure what your point is. I never said that amendments had to be corrections to the original Constitution. I just pointed out that some rights were not present in the original, and came about through amendments.

Yes. But I saw your point as, "even the right to bear arms was an amendment", displaying how they have altered the Constiution over time, correct? But I say that's a poor point due to how quickly the first ten amendments were passed. Right to bear arms, unlawful search and seizure, and many of the first ten amendments were already rights that Americans had, but were not put on paper yet.

Remember, the Constiution was ratified in 1787, but they created a "rough draft" of the Bill of Rights by 1789 (and even then it can be assumed they had been working on it for at least a year prior), so I don't believe you can make the comparison between the first ten amendments and the ones passed there after when talking about how the Constitution has been altered.

Americans didn't have any official rights until either the feds or the state gave it to them. You cannot say people had a right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights. People just did bear arms, as it was a sort of expected thing. It wasn't a right. If it was, who gave it to them? They were a brand new country with a brand new government that had yet to say they had a right to bear arms. Who gave them the right to turn away searches without a warrant, etc.? No one. We're not born with these rights. Some of the things were just accepted, but certainly were not rights by any definition I know.

(April 2, 2013 at 5:29 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Yes. But I saw your point as, "even the right to bear arms was an amendment", displaying how they have altered the Constiution over time, correct? But I say that's a poor point due to how quickly the first ten amendments were passed. Right to bear arms, unlawful search and seizure, and many of the first ten amendments were already rights that Americans had, but were not put on paper yet.

Remember, the Constiution was ratified in 1787, but they created a "rough draft" of the Bill of Rights by 1789 (and even then it can be assumed they had been working on it for at least a year prior), so I don't believe you can make the comparison between the first ten amendments and the ones passed there after when talking about how the Constitution has been altered.

This thread is about guns...the right to bear arms was an amendment, which is an example of how the original Constitution has changed. I mean, the word "amendment" kinda means exactly that...

So yes, I think I can make a comparison between the Bill of Rights and the ones passed afterwards. They may have been quickly appended to the Constitution after it was ratified, but they were still amendments, and they go to show that the Constitution wasn't ever a "perfect" document.

@ ShellB, I worded my post wrong. They weren't considered rights, but they were things that American people had the ability to excersise prior to the Bill of Rights, because, as you say, for example, bearing arms was an expected thing.

(April 2, 2013 at 7:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 2, 2013 at 5:29 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Yes. But I saw your point as, "even the right to bear arms was an amendment", displaying how they have altered the Constiution over time, correct? But I say that's a poor point due to how quickly the first ten amendments were passed. Right to bear arms, unlawful search and seizure, and many of the first ten amendments were already rights that Americans had, but were not put on paper yet.

Remember, the Constiution was ratified in 1787, but they created a "rough draft" of the Bill of Rights by 1789 (and even then it can be assumed they had been working on it for at least a year prior), so I don't believe you can make the comparison between the first ten amendments and the ones passed there after when talking about how the Constitution has been altered.

This thread is about guns...the right to bear arms was an amendment, which is an example of how the original Constitution has changed. I mean, the word "amendment" kinda means exactly that...

So yes, I think I can make a comparison between the Bill of Rights and the ones passed afterwards. They may have been quickly appended to the Constitution after it was ratified, but they were still amendments, and they go to show that the Constitution wasn't ever a "perfect" document.

I'm not arguing it's a perfect document. In fact, I agree with your initial point. There's a reason we have the ability to pass amendments.

But here's something I think we have to agree to disagree on. I don't think it's fair to compare the Bill of Rights, which were beginning to be penciled almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified, to amendments much later on in history. The original document was not interested so much in addressing the people's rights, but more to establish a strong central government. The Bill of Rights was the government's way in securing the American people's rights.

They're considered "amendments", but hell, there were people and states objecting to even ratifying the Constitution without the promise of a Bill of Rights. They're so close to one another, to compare the Bill of Rights to say, the 20th amendment, is unfair, in my opinion.

(April 2, 2013 at 6:22 pm)Shell B Wrote: Americans didn't have any official rights until either the feds or the state gave it to them. You cannot say people had a right to bear arms before the Bill of Rights. People just did bear arms, as it was a sort of expected thing. It wasn't a right. If it was, who gave it to them? They were a brand new country with a brand new government that had yet to say they had a right to bear arms. Who gave them the right to turn away searches without a warrant, etc.? No one. We're not born with these rights. Some of the things were just accepted, but certainly were not rights by any definition I know.

John Locke would have disagreed with your assessment. Chapter Nine of his Second Treatise of Civil Government titled Of the Ends of Political Society and Government basically boils down to one simple concept. Individuals can do anything except that which is forbidden by law, and the state may do nothing except that which is authorized by law.