9 ms·

It's the other way around. The America the constitution talks about never existed. Most especially if you were black or female, but even if you were white and

It's the other way around. The America the constitution talks about never existed. Most especially if you were black or female, but even if you were white and male if you were poor, or a union organizer, or a communist, or an anarchist, or a protester, or a striker, or a member of an unusual religion. In fact basically it was a pack of lies for anyone not already in the mainstream elite. And if you are in the mainstream elite in 2013, rest assured, this one does not apply to you either. In fact, the virtue of the constitution is that as a lie, it has inspired people to strive to demand it become true. And slowly by piecemeal, always hard fought for, always opposed, the golden age of the past that never existed is being constructed in the present.

icebraining 14y ago
Or a descendant of Japanese people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - phil 14y ago
    Michelle Malkin notwithstanding, it's pretty fucking cut and dried, and a national shame.
  - vonmoltke 14y ago
    In addition to what phil said, Michelle Malkin is Filipino (and born in Philly), not Japanese. In anything, that would make her biased in favor of the internment.
  - venus 14y ago
    Michelle Malkin is not Japanese, and her book received near-universal condemnation from civil rights groups, historians and asian-americans alike. It's disturbing to me that you're referencing this piece of crap to make an apparently sincere argument that internment might actually not be a bad thing. That's all it takes, huh? edit: original comment by sp332, apparently deleted in shame > That's not as cut-and dried as it seems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment This Japanese woman wrote a defense of the internment.
    - sp332 14y ago
      I didn't know she wasn't Japanese. But really I was trying to find a link to the introduction since she's a lot more convincing than just me saying "someone thought it was a good idea."
      - saraid216 14y ago
        Malkin really doesn't qualify as a credible source for, well... anything. You would have been better off pulling her bibliography.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        What is the supposed rationale for Japanese internment being a good idea? Was it the supposed danger to the Japanese themselves from retribution? Why didn't that happen elsewhere, where they were not interned, if so? Was it the risk that Axis sympathizers would sabotage the war effort? If so, why did this never happen in Hawaii, which was so full of Japanese-descended Americans that internment simply could not be done?
        sp332 14y ago
        The specific point that I recall was that it was impossible to ask Japanese living in America to deny one of their countries and adhere completely to the other. They were both Japanese and American and would therefore be hopelessly compromised if they had to pick a side.
        mikeash 14y ago
        And yet, that was clearly not the case (e.g. the large Japanese population in Hawaii that was not "hopelessly compromised"), so that's a pretty bad justification.
        venus 14y ago
        Sort of makes me wish America would declare war on the Philippines. Be sure to visit Malkin in her camp after a few years to ask for her updated opinion on the matter! After all, it would be impossible to ask her to deny one of her countries ...
- crusso 14y ago
  The Japanese American Internment was the result of Roosevelt's extra-Constitutional power grab. The Founders had no intention for Congress to ever abdicate so much power to the Executive.
  - andrewflnr 14y ago
    That's the point. There have been extra-constitutional things going on from day one.
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  that mar on our history should be a warning to everyone that wants the government to provide (whether it be retirement, medical, food, whatever) - the government giveth, and the government taketh away, as long as we are unresisting.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Hold on, exactly what are you saying is the connection between e.g. socialized medicine and the Japanese internment? You seem to be saying there is one, but hell if I can figure out what it's supposed to be.
  - JulianMorrison 14y ago
    You really think it would have helped to resist? In a war? Also compare the fate of the native Americans who resisted.
crusso 14y ago
While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree, the general spirit of the Constitution has been severely eroded and is being destroyed. The beauty of the Constitution was that it limited the powers of the Federal Government, allowing people to make more decisions for themselves at the individual, local, and state levels. One needs only to look at the legislative and judicial history to see that the Tenth Amendment has been largely nullified in favor of increasing Federal power. One needs only to look at the budget of the Federal government which is up around 24% of the GDP to realize that it is rather unconstrained by the narrow scope of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. It was a good idea, but the best set of rules in the world can't constrain people who refuse to live by them.
- Retric 14y ago
  Arguably the interpretation of the Constitution has changed little. It's society that's has changed. Consider, the impact of actually having cars vs people walking and the amount of constitutional protection when doing each. Cellphones and Credit cards can be traced. Email made it practical for large scale mail interception. Even just the amount of interstate commerce is so radically altered that virtually every transaction crosses state boarders. EX: Used a credit card to buy local grain, that now involves multiple states.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree If by "some segments" you 95% of the population who isn't a white, male, landowner. > The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. This is middle school civics drivel. The dominant force in the Constitutional process were the federalists, who wanted a very strong central government. The federal government we have today is based on a reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause, which was always intended to be a very broad power and was a key piece of what the federalists wanted out of the new constitution. All that's happened since then is that we've gone from being largely self-sufficient farmers to people who even argue with each other over channels of interstate commerce.
AutoCorrect 14y ago
bitter, party of one. Actually, the OP had it right the first time. We've made progress on some fronts even as the government has been growing and trying to circumvent others. Women and blacks can now vote, something which was not true in the start of this great experiment. You seem to forget (or never knew) that there is a constant tension between a government and it's citizens: the government wants more power, and the people usually want more freedom. Although if you look at the majority today, they'd rather have big brother take care of them. caveat emptor
Torgo 14y ago
You are right, we are not losing our rights, we are losing the facade.

icebraining 14y ago

Or a descendant of Japanese people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- phil 14y ago
  Michelle Malkin notwithstanding, it's pretty fucking cut and dried, and a national shame.
- vonmoltke 14y ago
  In addition to what phil said, Michelle Malkin is Filipino (and born in Philly), not Japanese. In anything, that would make her biased in favor of the internment.
- venus 14y ago
  Michelle Malkin is not Japanese, and her book received near-universal condemnation from civil rights groups, historians and asian-americans alike. It's disturbing to me that you're referencing this piece of crap to make an apparently sincere argument that internment might actually not be a bad thing. That's all it takes, huh? edit: original comment by sp332, apparently deleted in shame > That's not as cut-and dried as it seems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment This Japanese woman wrote a defense of the internment.
  - sp332 14y ago
    I didn't know she wasn't Japanese. But really I was trying to find a link to the introduction since she's a lot more convincing than just me saying "someone thought it was a good idea."
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Malkin really doesn't qualify as a credible source for, well... anything. You would have been better off pulling her bibliography.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      What is the supposed rationale for Japanese internment being a good idea? Was it the supposed danger to the Japanese themselves from retribution? Why didn't that happen elsewhere, where they were not interned, if so? Was it the risk that Axis sympathizers would sabotage the war effort? If so, why did this never happen in Hawaii, which was so full of Japanese-descended Americans that internment simply could not be done?
      - sp332 14y ago
        The specific point that I recall was that it was impossible to ask Japanese living in America to deny one of their countries and adhere completely to the other. They were both Japanese and American and would therefore be hopelessly compromised if they had to pick a side.
        mikeash 14y ago
        And yet, that was clearly not the case (e.g. the large Japanese population in Hawaii that was not "hopelessly compromised"), so that's a pretty bad justification.
        venus 14y ago
        Sort of makes me wish America would declare war on the Philippines. Be sure to visit Malkin in her camp after a few years to ask for her updated opinion on the matter! After all, it would be impossible to ask her to deny one of her countries ...
crusso 14y ago
The Japanese American Internment was the result of Roosevelt's extra-Constitutional power grab. The Founders had no intention for Congress to ever abdicate so much power to the Executive.
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  That's the point. There have been extra-constitutional things going on from day one.
AutoCorrect 14y ago
that mar on our history should be a warning to everyone that wants the government to provide (whether it be retirement, medical, food, whatever) - the government giveth, and the government taketh away, as long as we are unresisting.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Hold on, exactly what are you saying is the connection between e.g. socialized medicine and the Japanese internment? You seem to be saying there is one, but hell if I can figure out what it's supposed to be.
- JulianMorrison 14y ago
  You really think it would have helped to resist? In a war? Also compare the fate of the native Americans who resisted.

crusso 14y ago

While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree, the general spirit of the Constitution has been severely eroded and is being destroyed. The beauty of the Constitution was that it limited the powers of the Federal Government, allowing people to make more decisions for themselves at the individual, local, and state levels. One needs only to look at the legislative and judicial history to see that the Tenth Amendment has been largely nullified in favor of increasing Federal power. One needs only to look at the budget of the Federal government which is up around 24% of the GDP to realize that it is rather unconstrained by the narrow scope of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. It was a good idea, but the best set of rules in the world can't constrain people who refuse to live by them.

Retric 14y ago
Arguably the interpretation of the Constitution has changed little. It's society that's has changed. Consider, the impact of actually having cars vs people walking and the amount of constitutional protection when doing each. Cellphones and Credit cards can be traced. Email made it practical for large scale mail interception. Even just the amount of interstate commerce is so radically altered that virtually every transaction crosses state boarders. EX: Used a credit card to buy local grain, that now involves multiple states.
rayiner 14y ago
> While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree If by "some segments" you 95% of the population who isn't a white, male, landowner. > The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. This is middle school civics drivel. The dominant force in the Constitutional process were the federalists, who wanted a very strong central government. The federal government we have today is based on a reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause, which was always intended to be a very broad power and was a key piece of what the federalists wanted out of the new constitution. All that's happened since then is that we've gone from being largely self-sufficient farmers to people who even argue with each other over channels of interstate commerce.

AutoCorrect 14y ago

bitter, party of one. Actually, the OP had it right the first time. We've made progress on some fronts even as the government has been growing and trying to circumvent others. Women and blacks can now vote, something which was not true in the start of this great experiment. You seem to forget (or never knew) that there is a constant tension between a government and it's citizens: the government wants more power, and the people usually want more freedom. Although if you look at the majority today, they'd rather have big brother take care of them. caveat emptor

Torgo 14y ago

You are right, we are not losing our rights, we are losing the facade.