Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, personally, I loved thee constitution in it's original form, especially without all of the subjective misinterpretations and assumptions. Where in the original text did it ever say black people or women couldn't vote? Same with slavery, it's kindof like taking a test and a teacher forgetting to say that you're not allowed to cheat; we try to treat people as subhuman to make them inelligeble for it.

But anyway, back on topic. Thomas Jefferson was an awesome guy, and I'm sure he would probably agree with many of the things we agree on in this forum today, people have just twisted his meanings from their original intentions. Like phone tapping, government lynchings for "terrorists" who haven't even been proven in trial, these things tend to spit in the face of what he believed in. My only difference from his beliefs is that I believe capitalism itself can become a ruling force, and that I would take his policies a bit farther. But all in all, he was a good man by my standards. He was definitely a revolutionary in his time, who came to create an entire nation.

In many ways, she's right. The Constitution was originally written with absolutely no reference to citizen's rights. It was all about what powers which branch has. After it was written, the founding patriarchs realized their oversight and wrote up the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. And Hiroha, the Constution is written extremely vague ON PURPOSE with subjective interpretations in mind. Plus, Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was serving as ambassador to France during the entire Constitutional Convention.

Also, nowhere in the Constitution, including in the amendments, does it say anything about being able to overthrow the government. Not-so-short history lesson:
After the revolution, we had a document called the articles of confederation. People generally thought that the government it created was too weak.
The economy in Western portions of the US wasn't too great. Farmers were being heavily taxed, driven into poverty, and disenfranchised by the same government that had claimed to save them from all those things during the revolution. Suffice it to say, extreme oppression.
A farmer named Daniel Shays led an uprising in western Massachusetts.
Nationalists used this rebellion to push for a stronger government that was more able to bully it's citizens. We got the Constitution.

this was my response to her:

"its more the things written on that peice of paper that i defend then the paper itself. just like the flag. its not the flag itself i defend, its the nation and beliefs it holds(or at least held at one time.) i believe the rights stated in the constitution are given to me not from the constitution, but of the fact that i was born a human being and i do believe that everyone should have a fair shot at life. the only reason i fight for that peice of paper is because in this world, if it isnt written down, its not recognized. its lasted this long cuz there are people out there ready to die for the beliefs written on it, i would gladly be one of them. so you can say what you like about the constitution. just remember that it helped you become who you are and it allows you to speak so freely about its existence. "

yeah i remember shays rebellion and the articles of confederation from history class in high school.

i can see the validity of the argument that it wasnt meant to. but the fact is that it does give us habeaus corpus and our rights to freedom of speech and right to arms. i only fight for it because if we lose that peice of paper, they will say that it is no longer documented. then they can take what they wish from us. our homes, our dignity, our guns, our lives, etc...

you are buying into the idea that laws were actually made to protect people, when they were really meant to keep the ruling class up.


i really dont know about US history, but i can bet that whoever wrote the constitution was still protecting private interests.


what happens when you glorify laws so much is that people learn to think that you can do crimes as long as its lawful.

thats what happens to a society built by laws, instead of laws built by society. if lawmaking isnt public, then it´s not worth it. no matter what ends the people in charge have.


believing in the constitution, believing that some people wrote it to protect the people, is believing the same lies that the communists promised in russia, that everything was built to help the people. but then, any type of government and law becomes corrupt, to suit private interests. it´s merely something you would expect from the constitution.

True, the constitution is a set of laws, but my idea is that it isn't laws for the people; it's laws against the government.

If any one bit of the constitution mattered worth s**t in our country, then we wouldn't rape, enslave and silence to enforce it. But the thing is, the constitution is only a good thing when the government actually uses it, and as can be seen with George Bush, that sure as Hell isn't the case. And when it is, humanity isn't for anyone.

But still, I stand by my beliefs in what it was really supposed to mean, and I know damn well that if you were to fight for the constitution, unlike what many people think now, the government can be the ones to try to take that from you. The fault isn't in the constitution; it's in its keepers. Almost everything we find fault in within the constitution today is exactly what the founders of America feared.

The constitution isn't at fault; it's that we think it will make them keep their hands off of our telephone lines and our rights if we so choose, when our rights become as thin and fragile as the paper they were written on. When we "Die for our country" today, we completely ignore what the founding fathers intended, and thats on the road to Fascism. They never intended for us to fight for a nation, to fight for a flag, or to fight for a president; they meant for us to fight for the ability to be who we are, and for the freedom of all mankind willing, but most of all, for who we want to be.

Granted, I don't agree with Capitalism, and I never agree with the American government; but I do agree with the men who sat at a table and told their English king to shove his crown.

kindof like simon bolivar in latin america, although all around he is considered a liberator, he thought that people were too stupid for democracy.

well i kinda forgot where we were going with this but...

yes, it is maybe true that things have to be set down in stone. i think so too, but the problem is that this specific stone got vandalized, and its easier to make a new one than try to erase out all the errors in it.

maybe at the start it was a good idea, but as lawmakers started injecting their idiocies into the constitution, they ended up using the people´s weapon against the people.

):