I am just curious, but how many of you knew that our Declaration of Independence was not signed on July 4, 1776?And given that it wasn't, why in hell are kids taught that is the day it was, in schools? Instead of the actual date it was.
Not too bad. I will take this as a correct answer. Drafted in 1787. Ratified in 1789.Any of you know the first right guaranteed in the Constitution? Not counting Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness which are pretty general (i.e. elastic clauses). Any of you read Jefferson's thoughts on the matter and his description of the discussions among the Founders? Hint: It was listed first because the Founders considered it paramount and the most important of all our rights.
My guess would have been the right to form our own government?But I guess that would be Declaration and not the actual Constitution as well.
Nor were they all gathered together in one room for the signing.They all straggled in over time to place their signature on the Founding document.Unlike today, where Congress critters are pampered spoiled brats, our Founders actually worked to survive, but what they did then, is what few see in our Representatives today, Statesmanship, where they sacrificed, and through action of principle put their lives and treasure on the line for Freedom and Liberty for genrations to come.
No LibDave hasn't vanished. I just don't appear daily. I am also far from Liberal. I am Libertarian which probably makes me more Conservative than most all of you.That said, the correct answer is the right to equal taxation for equal representation or more succinctly the right to property. And no, the Bill of Rights isn't the only thing in the Constitution which guarantees your rights. In other words, if the US government fails to abide by The Constitution it is no longer the legitimate government of The People of the United States. It essentially establishes the order of hierarchy as flowing from The People TO the US government under the terms listed in the US Constitution.The original Constitution containing the various Articles of the Constitution are just as relevant in terms of guaranteeing the rights of The People. The original Constitution was submitted to The People for Ratification (and discussed at length in the Federalist Papers). After much discussion an debate The People liked what they saw but thought the details weren't sufficiently defined in certain cases. They therefore demanded the Constitution be Amended by the Founders before it be ratified. Since the Original Articles of the Constitution provided just such a vehicle for Amending the Constitution this became a possible option for altering the original submission of the Constitution.The Founders were very much split as to whether they should tear up the original and completely rewrite it according to the desires of The People or whether they should keep it as submitted and just add Amendments through the amendment process defined therein. Most notably Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were all opposed to using the Amendment process. Their reasoning being the original articles as well as the Declaration of Ind. clearly implied the rights of The People were inalienable. And here they were, before it was even ratified, amending these rights. They feared this might give the impression the future government might have the ability to limit or even restrict the inalienable rights of The People. Without their support (these 3 were VERY well respected) it was doomed. To overcome the impasse the Founders decided to add the 9th And 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights.These Amendments were discussed at length in the Federalist papers as well as among The Founders and The People. Nowadays they seem to be largely ignored. What they mean is "just because we have enumerated these previous 8 amendments it doesn't mean the Government has the right to increase its power over the people". All rights guaranteed are inalienable and they are mutually exclusive. This means you won't find any of these specific rights of The People to be in conflict with another and any prior right specific may never be reduced through further action. In other words, even if 90% of The People and the US Government decided we no longer have the right to Freedom of Religion it wouldn't be possible to restrict the right (or any other right) as they have previously been defined and specified. These amendments further place a lithmus test on any future Amendments considered. Not only may future Amendments not conflict with prior rights, any future amendment must increase the Power of The People, not the Power of the Government. In other words, should the people decide they desire to further restrict the powers of the government they may do so through the Amendment process but the Amendments must not remove power from the People.Back to the discussion of the first right (and considered the foremost right by the Founders) it is the Right to Property. The Founders considered this the most essential right provided by any respectable government. It was considered before Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech even. They almost listed it prior to We The People. Inherent in the clauses on equal taxation for equal representation is their unanimous agreement on the protection of the Right to Property. No bill may be passed which doesn't apportion the payment or the benefit according to ones representation.Now much has been made about the "slaves are counted as 3/5" clause. Many African American's point this out as evidence of racism among the Founders. Although this may or may not have been the case, the use of the 3/5 clause to support it is without merit. The fact is, the 3/5 clause was added at the insistence of the slave states because they desired MORE representation. It had nothing to do with them believing blacks are only 3/5's of a white man. The Slave states would have gladly counted them as being worth 10 whites in regards to selecting the number of representatives. It was merely a compromise in regards to choosing how much representation each American received and by this how taxes and benefits are to be apportioned. After Emancipation the 3/5 count had no weight. Essentially it is a property rights and taxation discussion.According to later writings by Jefferson, if I pick up a stick laying freely upon my ground and by my labor whittle it into an arrow its ownership is guaranteed and its protection therein must be foremost the concern of a government of The People. This is Jefferson's way of emphasizing the discussions among the founders. Not only is right to property the foremost right, what this entailed at the time was an understanding of what is meant by property. Specifically it appears to have stemmed from the writings of John Locke and Adam Smith as to the real definition of Wealth. Property is wealth (including debt) which has been obtained through free contract of ones Labor. In other words, this doesn't just include wealth of currency (currency is debt) but anything obtained through the use of your labor.For "Originalists" such as the recently deceased Antonin Scalia the writings of Jefferson detailing the intent of the Founders are of great importance as they describe the original intent of the Founders and the US Constitution. In this respect one has trouble reconciling the current state of affairs with the original charter giving legitimacy to the US government. The Income Tax Amendment was specifically required because it violated a previous right specified as an inalienable right of the People. Namely the right to equal taxation for equal representation. The government decided it wanted to violate this right. This necessitated the need to Amend the Constitution. Yet by this fact it clearly involves restricting a right of The People and therefore doesn't pass the lithmus test defined in the 9th and 10th Amendment. This is obviously a logical impossibility. They are mutually exclusive and therefore one or the other is in violation. The Income Tax Amendment is either in conflict with an inalienable right of the People making it a violation of previously defined rights or it is completely without meaning or necessity. Any meaning or necessity it holds would bring it in violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The Constitution is the Charter given to the US Government by The People giving the US Government legitimacy.
I certainly will not attempt to wade through, refute or approve The War and Peace missive above. I will however take umbridge with the following: In actuality, the Constitution is a compact among the creators of the general government, the States,if you will, each having met in convention for the sole purpose of ratification or non-ratification of the Constitution. It was not and never intended to be a collective agreement between all the people. The sovereign States were the creators of the Compact ( the Constitution ) which formed the union.
So the term "We The People" is a reference to the Founding Fathers? And the Founding fathers needlessly sought the unanimous approval of the citizens from every state for there own edification and amusement?