4 ms·

The US is a lost cause for anyone on the bad side of the government for any particular reason, crimes committed or not. What really gets me though is that peop

The US is a lost cause for anyone on the bad side of the government for any particular reason, crimes committed or not. What really gets me though is that people are truly shocked that the piece of paper held up as some illusion of rights is, like everything else, simply not worth the paper it is printed on. This is a document that has been used to justify slavery, prohibition, woman as property, Jim Crow laws, the "sanctity" of marriage etc. If history shows us anything it is that regardless of whatever is written down, the laws of the land will be made by the popular opinion of those that have power, and how they interpret things. The USA is no different than Rome, feudal Europe or France under Napoleon, despite the best intentions of its founders.

clarkmoody 13y ago
Slavery was the issue that almost destroyed the Union before it formed and nearly destroyed the Union again in 1860. But it seems we worked that one out. Prohibition was instituted through the proper constitutional channel of the amendment process -- and repealed the same way. You may view it as the extreme opposite of the gay marriage issue today: a sweeping prevailing mindset that turned out to be a really bad idea in the long run. As for women, Jim Crow we worked those out too. I can't respond to your '"sanctity" of marriage' comment, because all I'm getting is vague left-wing ire. Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard. Why is the 9th Amendment there at all? Does the government treat us as serfs or as sovereigns? The Constitution is not perfect: it did not foresee the level of political activism present on the Supreme Court throughout the years. The Court has been amending the Constitution for far too long without proper oversight. We should not be able to predict the votes of the Justices, since most of us are not constitutional scholars. Yet we can... The USA is different than most countries throughout history, but it has lost its way. The latest NSA / IRS news could be seen as simply the last in a long train of 'repeated injuries and usurpations' to and of our Liberty.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Really? Have you lived outside of the USA at all? Because I fail to see how anyone who has can make this statement. Life is no better or worse. The constitution does absolutely nothing. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard This says more about American culture than it does anything else. Of course Canada survived without a constitution for most of it's existence, the UK still doesn't have one, and Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. In fact, most countries in the world don't have a constitution as America knows it to be. They seem to be doing just fine. The USA is different than most countries throughout history, No, actually, it isn't. The principles of the USA were in place in Athens and Rome thousands of years ago, the Magna Carta and the Republic of France more recently. Stop believing your own mythology.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    > the UK still doesn't have one The UK does not have a codified constitution. There still exists a set of laws and conventions that make up the UK constitution.
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      Ergo it doesn't have the same thing the US does.
      - regularfry 13y ago
        The only thing it's lacking is a snappy one-page document.
        run4yourlives 13y ago
        ... that can be referred to in front of a judge and supersedes everything else.
    - 13y ago
mtgx 13y ago
What annoys me most is that while Brazilians and Turkish people are willing to start revolutions over seemingly unimportant things, Americans aren't willing to even protest (in the streets, like real protests are done) these things which seem much worse.
- kzrdude 13y ago
  not unimportant, you probably need to see it in context.
- dotpavan 13y ago
  Wall St. protests (mostly small compared to the others you mentioned) did happen.. People do express their dissatisfaction, though it seems to be dwindling with more acceptance of whatever is being thrusted upon them.. Just wondering how committed are the sports fanatics in US/Latin America/India or movie fanatics in India and then comparing the (missing) outrage when liberties are at stake.
- shpxnvz 13y ago
  I'm curious what purpose you see for protests in a representative democracy? It is not intended that our government make law to suit small groups of very vocal people, but rather that the will of the people be expressed, through equal representation, by elected members of government. Obviously our system does not quite work as intended, but I'm not sure I see how protesting in the street could be effective, or if it was effective how that could be a feature rather than a bug?
  - ianterrell 13y ago
    Protests serve the same purpose as newspapers, blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, phone calls, letters, etc: they're for communication. You might not be able to afford that billboard on the street corner, but you can afford to stand there with signs and still attract attention. Protesting is mass communication for time instead of communication for money. Personal example: Nearly every time I've seen a group of picketing workers outside an office building has been the first I've heard anything of their employers' practices. Even if I might care as a customer, why would I know about it?
strlen 13y ago
Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws and hopefully anti-gay marriage laws etc.. could not have been ended without the 14th amendment and the Bill of Rights. 14th amendment is what overrode state-level majoritarianism (in states that had a white majority) and state terrorism/white minority rule (in states like South Carolina which did not). The constitution and judicial review are not perfect, but they're far better than than naked and unchecked power of government(s). "Women as property" did not occur in the United States. Denying suffrage rights to women as well as difficult of divorce were unjust, but us wasn't a particularly bad offender in that respect: many civilized countries gave women the vote after US did; many US states gave women the right to vote long before the right was extended nation-wide. > The USA is no different than Rome, feudal Europe or France under Napoleon, despite the best intentions of its founders. Well, I'd think there are some subtle differences, don't you think? If you're going to compare US to any other country, compare it to UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. You'll find 1) the human rights records of all of these countries are on average similar 2) they're still far better than most other places, including other western countries. I do think that a written constitution is better than de-facto basic law and custom: e.g., freedom of expression has been particularly strong in US due to the first amendment. Which is why warantless surveillance is such a big deal: even amongst liberal democracies US is probably not the worst offender here, but (to use your parallel to Rome) this may be the proverbial Rubicon -- plain disregard for the text of the US constitution for "reasons of state" or "greatest good for the greatest number." I will argue this: the "rights revolution" (namely extension of constitution to restrict federal and state governments) happened contrary to the worst _literal_ intention of the founders. The fact that we were able to preserve the "meta" spirit of the founding movement without codifying the repressive prescriptive mores of the 18th century is a huge testament to the constitution.
- vacri 13y ago
  many US states gave women the right to vote long before the right was extended nation-wide Well, 'some', not 'many'. And they kept repealing it, too. New Jersey had it for 17 years (if you owned enough property... very unusual for women of the time), Wyoming for 18, and Utah women were given the vote, voted the wrong way, and then had it taken from them. That's not empowerment, that's being a political football.

clarkmoody 13y ago

Slavery was the issue that almost destroyed the Union before it formed and nearly destroyed the Union again in 1860. But it seems we worked that one out. Prohibition was instituted through the proper constitutional channel of the amendment process -- and repealed the same way. You may view it as the extreme opposite of the gay marriage issue today: a sweeping prevailing mindset that turned out to be a really bad idea in the long run. As for women, Jim Crow we worked those out too. I can't respond to your '"sanctity" of marriage' comment, because all I'm getting is vague left-wing ire. Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard. Why is the 9th Amendment there at all? Does the government treat us as serfs or as sovereigns? The Constitution is not perfect: it did not foresee the level of political activism present on the Supreme Court throughout the years. The Court has been amending the Constitution for far too long without proper oversight. We should not be able to predict the votes of the Justices, since most of us are not constitutional scholars. Yet we can... The USA is different than most countries throughout history, but it has lost its way. The latest NSA / IRS news could be seen as simply the last in a long train of 'repeated injuries and usurpations' to and of our Liberty.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Really? Have you lived outside of the USA at all? Because I fail to see how anyone who has can make this statement. Life is no better or worse. The constitution does absolutely nothing. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard This says more about American culture than it does anything else. Of course Canada survived without a constitution for most of it's existence, the UK still doesn't have one, and Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. In fact, most countries in the world don't have a constitution as America knows it to be. They seem to be doing just fine. The USA is different than most countries throughout history, No, actually, it isn't. The principles of the USA were in place in Athens and Rome thousands of years ago, the Magna Carta and the Republic of France more recently. Stop believing your own mythology.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > the UK still doesn't have one The UK does not have a codified constitution. There still exists a set of laws and conventions that make up the UK constitution.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    Ergo it doesn't have the same thing the US does.
    - regularfry 13y ago
      The only thing it's lacking is a snappy one-page document.
      - run4yourlives 13y ago
        ... that can be referred to in front of a judge and supersedes everything else.
  - 13y ago

mtgx 13y ago

What annoys me most is that while Brazilians and Turkish people are willing to start revolutions over seemingly unimportant things, Americans aren't willing to even protest (in the streets, like real protests are done) these things which seem much worse.

kzrdude 13y ago
not unimportant, you probably need to see it in context.
dotpavan 13y ago
Wall St. protests (mostly small compared to the others you mentioned) did happen.. People do express their dissatisfaction, though it seems to be dwindling with more acceptance of whatever is being thrusted upon them.. Just wondering how committed are the sports fanatics in US/Latin America/India or movie fanatics in India and then comparing the (missing) outrage when liberties are at stake.
shpxnvz 13y ago
I'm curious what purpose you see for protests in a representative democracy? It is not intended that our government make law to suit small groups of very vocal people, but rather that the will of the people be expressed, through equal representation, by elected members of government. Obviously our system does not quite work as intended, but I'm not sure I see how protesting in the street could be effective, or if it was effective how that could be a feature rather than a bug?
- ianterrell 13y ago
  Protests serve the same purpose as newspapers, blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, phone calls, letters, etc: they're for communication. You might not be able to afford that billboard on the street corner, but you can afford to stand there with signs and still attract attention. Protesting is mass communication for time instead of communication for money. Personal example: Nearly every time I've seen a group of picketing workers outside an office building has been the first I've heard anything of their employers' practices. Even if I might care as a customer, why would I know about it?

strlen 13y ago

Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws and hopefully anti-gay marriage laws etc.. could not have been ended without the 14th amendment and the Bill of Rights. 14th amendment is what overrode state-level majoritarianism (in states that had a white majority) and state terrorism/white minority rule (in states like South Carolina which did not). The constitution and judicial review are not perfect, but they're far better than than naked and unchecked power of government(s). "Women as property" did not occur in the United States. Denying suffrage rights to women as well as difficult of divorce were unjust, but us wasn't a particularly bad offender in that respect: many civilized countries gave women the vote after US did; many US states gave women the right to vote long before the right was extended nation-wide. > The USA is no different than Rome, feudal Europe or France under Napoleon, despite the best intentions of its founders. Well, I'd think there are some subtle differences, don't you think? If you're going to compare US to any other country, compare it to UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. You'll find 1) the human rights records of all of these countries are on average similar 2) they're still far better than most other places, including other western countries. I do think that a written constitution is better than de-facto basic law and custom: e.g., freedom of expression has been particularly strong in US due to the first amendment. Which is why warantless surveillance is such a big deal: even amongst liberal democracies US is probably not the worst offender here, but (to use your parallel to Rome) this may be the proverbial Rubicon -- plain disregard for the text of the US constitution for "reasons of state" or "greatest good for the greatest number." I will argue this: the "rights revolution" (namely extension of constitution to restrict federal and state governments) happened contrary to the worst _literal_ intention of the founders. The fact that we were able to preserve the "meta" spirit of the founding movement without codifying the repressive prescriptive mores of the 18th century is a huge testament to the constitution.

vacri 13y ago
many US states gave women the right to vote long before the right was extended nation-wide Well, 'some', not 'many'. And they kept repealing it, too. New Jersey had it for 17 years (if you owned enough property... very unusual for women of the time), Wyoming for 18, and Utah women were given the vote, voted the wrong way, and then had it taken from them. That's not empowerment, that's being a political football.