patrick.net

Thomas Jefferson did not write the constitution, you simple ass.
He was the ambassador to France, and in France while it was being written.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
James Madison kept Jefferson informed during the constitutional process, that's as close as Jefferson came to having any impact on the document. He was a listener...

Dan8267 says

The people who actually wrote the original.

The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

- Thomas Jefferson

Honey, all the founding fathers had input. I was clearly speaking of that, not who penned the actual words.

The U.S. Constitution brought together, in one remarkable document, ideas from many people and several existing documents, including the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

constitutionfacts.com

Unless you are trying to redefine the word "actually", you were anything but clear...

Dan8267 says

I was clearly speaking of that,

Dan8267 says

The people who actually wrote the original.

The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

- Thomas Jefferson

One more idea for our new constitution: high inheritance taxes. It is very common among Republicans to argue two contradictory things:

1. everyone should rise or fall on their own efforts (meritocracy)
2. it is wrong to tax inherited wealth

But inherited wealth is the exact opposite of meritocracy.

Many people pay lip service to meritocracy but get very het up about inheritance taxes, or death taxes as they like to call them. It is often said that inheritance taxes represent double taxation but in many cases that isn't true; for middle-class people, their biggest asset is usually their home on which capital gains tax is not paid. Similarly, business owners only pay capital gains tax when they sell; by definition, if they are passing a company on to their heirs, they have not sold.

If one assumes that an economy functions best if the most talented people rise to the top, then inherited wealth rigs the deck. There is a lottery effect; if your parents owned property, or die early (before they spend their savings on nursing care), then you have a big advantage over others who may be just as hard-working or talented. Wealthy people already pass on a lot of advantages to their children; they can afford better education, and a better environment at home (more books, quiet places to study etc).

History, as well as fiction, suggests that being born to inherited wealth is not normally a spur to greater effort; instead, life is devoted to social display or indolence. The world hardly needs a new class of Bertie Woosters.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/03/inequality

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

That's what amendments are for.

Wow - I figured it would be another 6 months before this argument reared its ugly head again. You know the Progs are sensing doom in 2016 with Hillary and beginning to accept that Obama's legacy is circling the drain lower than Carter when they start up the "get rid of the Constitution" nonsense.

Whenever Democrats lose power from the voters, the same Left-wingers begin the same arguments about how America is incapable of being governed by our Constitution and form of government.

This is a damning observation...

socal2 says

Whenever Democrats lose power from the voters, the same Left-wingers begin the same arguments about how America is incapable of being governed by our Constitution and form of government.

socal2 says

Whenever Democrats lose power from the voters, the same Left-wingers begin the same arguments about how America is incapable of being governed by our Constitution and form of government.

Reminds me of a joke during the Clinton years:

Q: "What do you call people who propose 146 amendments to the Constitution?"

A: "Conservatives."

Progs and Libs are manic. But they have the same script year after year depending on their political fortunes.

All of 2 seconds ago, most of the major Progressive political writers and politicians were all saying that the Republican party was dead with the age of Obama and that Republicans need to become more Liberal or go the way of the dinosaur. Yet Republicans refused to die or become more Liberal and managed to capture the majority of the following offices giving Republicans more controlled political seats since the 1930's:

- Majority of State Legislatures
- Majority of State Governors
- Majority of US House Seats
- Majority of US Senate Seats

And if a Republican wins the White House next year (as seems likely) the same Progs will be writing how America is ungovernable and that we need to get rid of States (Dan already has a thread started) along with getting rid of our Constitution.

SoftShell says

Unless you are trying to redefine the word "actually", you were anything but clear...

Misquoting a person is the worst way to support a point.

Are you saying that Thomas Jefferson had no influence on the concepts and principles in the Constitution? Go ahead and write a paper on that and see how it's peer reviewed.

I stand by my point and nothing you said have invalidated it. Not even the people behind the Constitution, both the direct authors and the indirect designers, believed that the first Constitution would also be the last. They did not intend it to used, almost unchanged, for over 200 years. Are you really trying to argue otherwise?

Also, are you really trying to argue that Thomas Jefferson isn't a founding father as defined by

The U.S. Constitution brought together, in one remarkable document, ideas from many people and several existing documents, including the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

Many of the United States Founding Fathers were at the Constitutional Convention, where the Constitution was hammered out and ratified. George Washington, for example, presided over the Convention. James Madison, also present, wrote the document that formed the model for the Constitution.

Other U.S. Founding Fathers were not there, but made significant contributions in other ways. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Convention. He kept abreast of the proceedings in Philadelphia by carrying on correspondence with James Madison. John Adams, as ambassador to Great Britain, wrote "Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America." Thomas Paine wrote the influential pamphlet "Common Sense," which immeasurably influenced the philosophy reflected in the Declaration of Independence. One of the U.S. Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, was initially opposed to the very idea of the Constitution! He wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution. However, when an agreement was made to add a "bill of rights" to the Constitution, Henry fought hard for its ratification.

The term "framers" is sometimes used to specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution. "Founding Fathers" often refers to people who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood.

If Fox News said what I said, you would be defending it. Clearly you are only interested in who wrote the post, not what was written. You are the very definition of a troll, so go fuck off.

zzyzzx says

That's what amendments are for.

Amendments are one mechanism, but for large reforms they are ineffective. Amendments are like software patches. I'm talking about a complete rewrite with a new architecture. Patches are shitty ways to accomplish that.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

If you liberals ignore the rights that are written right into the constitution now, there isn't much hope that you'll suddenly change to actually care about human rights...

Are you really that stupid or just bullshitting? Conservatives have been the enemies of human and civil rights throughout our history while liberals have been their champions.

Who was in favor of slavery? Conservatives.
Who was in favor of segregation? Conservatives.
Who was in favor of lynching? Conservatives.
Who was against blacks being allowed to vote? Conservatives.
Who was against women being allowed to vote? Conservatives.
Who was against allowing blacks and whites to marry each other? Conservatives.
Who is against allow people of the same sex to marry each other? Conservatives.
Which Supreme Court justices said that it's okay for you to be stripped searched and body cavity searched, a process that literally meets the FBI's and Justice Department's legal definition of rape, for an alleged traffic violation? Conservatives.

So, how exactly are liberals fucking over human rights and how exactly are conservatives upholding them?

Ask a conservative to justify his statement and he runs away.

Dan8267 says

So, how exactly are liberals fucking over human rights and how exactly are conservatives upholding them?

Taking aside that all the evils listed above came from the Democrat party.

The Liberals, Progressive, Democrats (whatever you want to brand yourself today to hide from your deplorable past) is the party of unrestrained abortion and eugenics which eclipses all the past vile Democrat racist policies of the past. Millions of lives snuffed out with Dr. Mengele picking through the dismembered arms and legs looking for organs to sell.

How on earth can you claim Liberals are upholding "human rights" when your party is the party of killing MILLIONS and MILLIONS of unwanted babies?

socal2 says

Taking aside that all the evils listed above came from the Democrat party.

Oh, no, let's address that bitch. All the evils listed above came from the Southern Democratic Party (aka Dixiecrats) when it was composed entirely of conservatives who left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party in the 1950s and 1960s due to Nixon's Southern Strategy. Today's Democratic Party has only one thing in common with that Democratic Party: the name. Similarly, today's Republican Party is similar to the pre-Sourthern-Strategy Republican Party in name only. To say otherwise is a complete and blatant lie.

Of course, it's understandable why you would lie. You are ASHAMED of the behavior of conservatives, regardless of which party they control, and rightfully so. So you must distort to the truth and hope the audience gets confused. By criticizing the pre-1950s Democratic Party you are criticizing today's Republican Party and conservatives. The very people you are calling evil are the people in today's Republican Party or their ancestors. Game, set, match, bitch.

socal2 says

The Liberals, Progressive, Democrats (whatever you want to brand yourself today to hide from your deplorable past) is the party of unrestrained abortion and eugenics which eclipses all the past vile Democrat racist policies of the past.

1. Liberals, progressives, and Democrats are three different things. The fact that you do not distinguish between them demonstrates the sheer level of your willful ignorance.
2. Liberals and progressives, and today's Democrats have never, ever been for the eugenics of the past. You're thinking of conservatives.
3. Liberals, progressives, and today's Democrats have never, ever been for unrestrained abortions. Roe v. Wade, which is want the vast majority of Americans want, says that women have an unrestricted right to abortions during the first trimester. Once again, you are ignorant of the facts.
4. First trimester abortions are not morally or ethically wrong. See this classic thread.
5. It is both ridiculous and despicable to claim that abortions, even late term ones, are anywhere on the level of slavery, mass child rape, and genocide, which is exactly what conservatives have done throughout our nation's history. And yes, having sex with a 14-year-old slave girl is child rape. A slave, by definition, cannot consent or refuse.
6. If you actually gave a damn about preventing abortions, you would be against polluters who are responsible for far more abortions via miscarriages than expected mothers are. Every time you support polluters you are performing abortions on unborn offspring from a few hours after conception to a few hours before birth and everywhere in between.

socal2 says

How on earth can you claim Liberals are upholding "human rights" when your party is the party of killing MILLIONS and MILLIONS of unwanted babies?

A fertilized egg is not a baby, no matter how many times you assert that it is. Strangely, you conservatives have no problems killing millions of actual babies when they are living in other countries. How many babies and pregnant women died because of Bush's illegal war in Iraq? Far more than get aborted in the United States and that's including embryos and zygotes.

Not a baby. It does not have a brain. It does not have a mind. It does not have a soul, and neither do you.

no misquoting...here it is...jefferson did not "actually write" the constitution. You use him as a reference below.
He may have offered some input from France...that's not the same as "actually writing" as you state below.

Dan8267 says

So basically you're saying that it's impossible to write a better Constitution than the original. You know who would disagree with you? The people who actually wrote the original.

The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

- Thomas Jefferson

Dan8267 says

Misquoting a person is the worst way to support a point.

Dan8267 says

Not a baby. It does not have a brain. It does not have a mind. It does not have a soul, and neither do you.

In the videos (that you fail to address - or even watch?) the doctors are picking through a tray of baby arms and legs looking for organs like livers and hearts to sell for medical research.

This is not a 1st trimester abortion.

In other videos, the doctors are openly musing about delaying abortions and adjusting the procedures to better harvest organs from older and more developed babies.

You Progs OWN this atrocity since you go ape-shit even at modest abortion restrictions (ban at 20 weeks to match the rest of Europe). So I really don't care to hear monster supporters like you as you try to revise the Democrat's party deplorable history of slavery, segregation and Eugenics.

Something more modern indeed.
Just one rule...

1)Gay cakes for all. It only comes in one flavor and one size, you are required to make it, taste it, and like it.

No, I did not say that, you did.
I am saying Jefferson did not actually write the original.

Dan8267 says

Are you saying that Thomas Jefferson had no influence on the concepts and principles in the Constitution?

No, I did not say that, you did.
I am saying Jefferson did not actually write the original.

Dan8267 says

Also, are you really trying to argue that Thomas Jefferson isn't a founding father

No. I am interested in preserving whatever's left of the Merriam Webster dictionary.
When i read something like "The people who actually wrote the original", I expect to see a reference to one of founding fathers who sat around the table in the room where the constitution was being put to paper".
I was disappointed by your reference to someone who was sitting in a wine bar in Paris at the time...

Dan8267 says

Clearly you are only interested in who wrote the post, not what was written.

Why is Dan pimping Jefferson as an authority for his Constitution argument anyway?

Doesn't Dan know that Jefferson was a big slave holder? Using Dan's ability to revise history, that means Jefferson must have been an evil Conservative, teabagger!

I don't think we'll know until around 2am EST....when Georgies closes...unless they have wifi there...

socal2 says

Why is Dan pimping Jefferson as an authority for his Constitution argument anyway?

Doesn't Dan know that Jefferson was a big slave holder? Using Dan's ability to revise history, that means Jefferson must have been an evil Conservative, teabagger!

socal2 says

Doesn't Dan know that Jefferson was a big slave holder? Using Dan's ability to revise history, that means Jefferson must have been an evil Conservative, teabagger!

Yes, and he was also a slave rapist, and both actions were evil and hypocritical. That doesn't negate the fact I presented that the founding fathers did not intend the first Constitution to be the only one. They expected to last a few years or decades and then be replaced by something better. Is anyone denying this?

Dan8267 says

Yes, and he was also a slave rapist, and both actions were evil and hypocritical. That doesn't negate the fact I presented that the founding fathers did not intend the first Constitution to be the only one. They expected to last a few years or decades and then be replaced by something better. Is anyone denying this?

Dude - using *YOUR* rules where you label millions of southerners as evil racists based on the actions of Democrats a generation before, that means Jefferson is an evil monster and can not be used as an authority on anything.

Get with the times, the Progs in Connecticut are already airbrushing Jefferson from history.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/will-the-democratic-party-abandon-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson/399722/

socal2 says

Dude - using *YOUR* rules where you label millions of southerners as evil racists based on the actions of Democrats a generation before, that means Jefferson is an evil monster and can not be used as an authority on anything.

You're still missing the point, which is that the Constitution wasn't even intended to be permanent by the founding fathers. Whether or not they were evil is irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that the Constitution should never be rewritten. If the founding fathers are evil, that's just more reason to rewrite the Constitution. The hypocrisy of slavery is yet more reason. You have not given any reason why the Constitution should never be rewritten. You have added nothing to this conversation as is typical of you.

OK, so start writing! Please post your new constitution in this thread.

I have some ideas for it:

* publicly funded elections

I'm sorry, but we already have that. The elections are funded by the ill-gotten gains of the crony-capitalists that got congress to pass laws and bailouts that made the rich richer and the poor poorer, for the last 50 years, actually ever since 1776. In other words, elections at the public's expense, and in more ways than one.

The only surefire way to make US politics reflect the will of the people is proportional representation, And get rid of the senate at the same time, they are anything but proportional in their representation.

But inherited wealth is the exact opposite of meritocracy.

Yuuup.justme says

The only surefire way to make US politics reflect the will of the people is proportional representation, And get rid of the senate at the same time, they are anything but proportional in their representation.

Yes - the Senate is profoundly undemocratic. Wyoming, with less than a million people, gets the same number of Senators as NY, CA, FL, or NY with tens of millions. Nor does it fulfill it's original role, which was to stop the Federal Government from imposing unfunded mandates on the States.

socal2 says

And if a Republican wins the White House next year (as seems likely)

Let's see: lost the 5 of the past 6 presidential elections in the popular vote.
Get the House thanks to gerrymandering - consistently lose to Dems in generic congressional total by around 2%.
Get the Senate because the fix-the-truck-on-the-front-lawn states (pop. 153), get the same two senators as everyone else.

They could well win the White House in 2016. Hell, in 2000 the Rs almost won the popular vote, and that was after 8 years of peace and prosperity under a president who took Bin Laden seriously. But they have one huge geriatric problem: their dessicated, fearful racist geriatric base, which is streaming into the funeral homes faster than fresh, pasty-faced hateful young religious fanatics can be recruited to replace them.

socal2 says

This is not a 1st trimester abortion.

Most democrats, most progressives, and most liberals oppose third trimester abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. As for second trimester abortions, that's the gray area and there will always be a gray area because a fertilized egg does not become a person in a single, discrete step.

what proof do you have that any slave he procreated with did not give herself freely?
Links please...

Dan8267 says

Yes, and he was also a slave rapist,

HydroCabron says

Let's see: lost the 5 of the past 6 presidential elections in the popular vote.

Let's see: Democrats are running Hillary fucking Clinton. That's the best you can do in that big balkanized tent you got? If she drops out due to all the criminal email and Clinton Foundation scandals, you got old pasty white Socialist Bernie Sanders waiting in the wings.

With illegal immigration and the barbarity of the abortion industry being exposed, I wouldn't be so confident in the Democrat's shaky coalition.

You REALLY think all the minorities and young and stupid millennial voters who were all dreamy for Obama will go to the effort of pulling the lever for those two old fossils?

SoftShell says

what proof do you have that any slave he procreated with did not give herself freely?

Links please...

A slave, by definition, is not free from coercion including threats against her life. What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

So, how exactly are liberals fucking over human rights and how exactly are conservatives upholding them?

Taking aside that all the evils listed above came from the Democrat party.

The Liberals, Progressive, Democrats (whatever you want to brand yourself today to hide from your deplorable past) is the party of unrestrained abortion and eugenics which eclipses all the past vile Democrat racist policies of the past. Millions of lives snuffed out with Dr. Mengele picking through the dismembered arms and legs looking for organs to sell.

How on earth can you claim Liberals are upholding "human rights" when your party is the party of killing MILLIONS and MILLIONS of unwanted babies?

Gosh. No wonder Republicans keep losing elections. It's abortion abortion abortion. Morals morals morals. God God God.
What the F is wrong with you guys? The Bible is a book written by illiterate idiots, which has already been proven wrong a million times by science, but you brainwashed wackos just don't get it.
That "like" was supposed to be a "dislike" Sorry.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

This is not a 1st trimester abortion.

Most democrats, most progressives, and most liberals oppose third trimester abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. As for second trimester abortions, that's the gray area and there will always be a gray area because a fertilized egg does not become a person in a single, discrete step.

Not bad Dan. There is hope for you. Sadly, you eventually convince me there isn't every time.

Yet you have zero proof there was any coercion. You just draw conclusions and apply them to the entire populace of slaves and slave owners.
A slave master in love with a "slave in name only", and with reciprocating love from the woman, would not, by definition, force sex onto her.
By your generality below, you are stating there was never a case, given the tens of thousands of possibilities, that a slave owner and slave would not have fallen in love with each other.
Given that you have a modicum of intelligence, I find it hard to believe that you don't already know this.
So the obvious conclusion is that you just shitted out a sentence to work the insult "what manner of scum" into the conversation.
Well done, GeorgieBoy! Well done!

Dan8267 says

A slave, by definition, is not free from coercion including threats against her life. What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

SoftShell says

that a slave owner and slave would not have fallen in love with each other.

https://www.Q1IMzT2bWok

SoftShell says

What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

https://www.66X8a-hY0kE

Strategist says

Gosh. No wonder Republicans keep losing elections. It's abortion abortion abortion. Morals morals morals. God God God.

What the F is wrong with you guys? The Bible is a book written by illiterate idiots, which has already been proven wrong a million times by science, but you brainwashed wackos just don't get it.

One doesn't have to be religious to understand that killing unborn babies for convenience is a major ethical dilemma. You only has to have a basic understanding of Science, Biology, Ethics and Law to be uneasy with this practice.

And it is not Republicans always bringing up abortion. The last 2 presidential election cycles had Obama and the Democrats running on the "War on Women" meme scaring all the Nancy-boy Democrats and the women that Republicans were going to steal their lady-parts. McCain and Romney stayed miles away from the abortion debate.

What these videos are doing is exposing the monstrous lie that people like Dan and the Democrats are still perpetuating that abortions only involved scraping out a couple cells or a cyst. Now we have leading Planned Parenthood doctors and managers on video talking about delivering live babies (infanticide) and delaying abortions to allow the baby to get bigger to better harvest the organs to sell.

Most normal people with a basic understanding of Science have major qualms about this practice and are no longer able to hide behind euphemisms of "choice" or "reproductive health".

People like Rand Paul are already turning the debate around on Democrats when he said a few months ago "Ask the DNC if it's OK to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus".
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-paul-ask-dnc-head-if-its-ok-to-kill-a-7-pound-baby-in-the-uterus-dws-responds/

One more idea for our new constitution: high inheritance taxes. It is very common among Republicans to argue two contradictory things:

1. everyone should rise or fall on their own efforts (meritocracy)

2. it is wrong to tax inherited wealth

But inherited wealth is the exact opposite of meritocracy

Each person should be free to pursue happiness, liberty and improve their lot in lift. The reason why the Enlightenment happened, and why Europeans got on boats was to escape the elitism (lobbyists), fifedoms (unions), pharisees (expanding corrupt government).

The fact that the regressives did an end run around the Constitution and the intent of the bill of rights, does not mean we need to overturn what is still the most progressive government foundation ever. We just need to go back to basics and overturn the power created by elitism (lobbyists), fifedoms (unions), and pharisees (expanding corrupt government).

Entitlemented says

The fact that the regressives did an end run around the Constitution and the intent of the bill of rights, does not mean we need to overturn what is still the most progressive government foundation ever.

The Progs want to ban the Bill of Rights too!

https://www.eiZFXkmofgI

OK, so start writing! Please post your new constitution in this thread.

I have some ideas for it:

* publicly funded elections

* absolute prohibition on secret courts

* absolute prohibition on national security letters

* a right to privacy in all your electronic communication unless you are specifically named as a suspect in a crime

* specifically affirming that corporations and unions are not legal persons. only "natural born" humans are persons.

* prohibition of income tax and sales tax, to be replaced with a land value tax and tax on radio spectrum

+1

Dan8267 says

A slave, by definition, is not free from coercion including threats against her life. What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

A major forgotten idea from the Enlightenment: Authority and Power corrupts the wielder worst of all.