The United States Constitution is under attack. It is seen by many as being an antiquated document written by men that could not have possibly taken into account the technological society that we inhabit. They were, as I hear often from folks that don't necessarily agree with me ideologically, a bunch of white, rich, and powerful men creating a system of government that would benefit their riches and power in the best possible way. That is a bunch of poppycock, but such is the rantings of people who actually don't understand the design of the template of the Constitution. Those that oppose the Constitution would rather it be a living and breathing document that can be changed at the whims of society, rather than the rigid set of standards it actually stands for.
Someone once said to me the 2nd Amendment was out of date because it doesn't mention M16s.
Politicians, when faced with questions about their unconstitutional actions, simply parrot, "Where in the Constitution does it say I can't do that?"
As a social contract between the newly formed federal government and the States, the Constitution was not meant to be a list of no-nos, but instead a document that contains enumerated powers expressly granted to the federal government. If the authority is not vested in the central government, then they do not have the power. If the federal government, and the people, wish for the federal government to add an authority to their list of things they are allowed to do, then the Congress can propose an amendment and offer it to the States for ratification, in essence, asking the States for permission to have that additional power.
The process, and the dynamics of the original intent of the Constitution regarding the federal government, have not been followed. While all of these people wish to point their fingers at the Constitution as a failed document, we must remind them that it is unlikely that the Constitution can fail when it isn't being followed in the first place. America prospered under the principles offered by the Constitution, and as we have moved away from those principles, difficulties have arisen as a consequence to our unwillingness to maintain a system adhering to the United States Constitution.
How can we blame the Constitution for our problems when more than 85% of the federal government's actions and monetary spending is not within the boundaries set by the Constitution? We have an executive and judicial branch reaching far beyond their granted allowances, and a legislature and 50 States too afraid to flex their constitutional muscles. The people have been conditioned to believe lies, and even so-called conservatives argue with me regarding the original intent of the Constitution because they believe what they have had hammered into their skull by the establishment their entire life.
Somebody wrote in a thread I was participating in, recently: Remember when the original Constitution was written WOMAN couldn't vote or have a say until the 19th amendment in 1919.. So really how "Great were these guys"?And look how long it took to get rid of slavery.. Fascinating and unfortunate Fact: The rhetoric in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about liberty, freedom, being created equal, and so on, was seldom considered applicable to blacks, slave or free. Seen a subservient race, they were excluded from consideration as members of society and had few rights.
The writer of that little piece of ridiculousness revealed a massive streak of ignorance about history, and the United States Constitution,
Women's Rights
It is worthy to note that, as carefully articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and inferred in the Constitution, that the founders wrote these documents, and designed our American System, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." We are not a Christian nation in the sense that a Muslim nation is an Islamic Nation, for we are not a theocracy, and the founders specifically articulated that we were not to have an established church (First Amendment), but that said, our nation, and its founding, was heavily influenced by Christian values, and Christian ethics. Christianity has been the dominant faith throughout the history of this country. Historically, there is a certain group of nations that have been largely Christian, and these Christian-dominated nations are also the same nations with the best record when it comes to women's rights. Only Israel, where Judaism is the dominant faith, can compete on the record of women's rights, and the kinship between Christians and the Israelites is an important reality when recognizing the relationship between the Jewish people and the Christians of today.
John Adams, the second President of the United States, and signer of the Declaration of Independence as a representative for the State of Massachusetts, was not present at the Federal Convention of 1787. The influence of John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, who were both in France at the time of the construction of the Constitution, was significant, however. Adams was a well-known patriot, a lawyer by practice, and an important part of the founding of the United States.
Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, was involved in the political life of her husband. He went to her for advice, and comfort, respecting her greatly. She was, in fact, respected by all who knew her. When the United States emerged as a new nation, she wrote a letter to her husband, advising him to ensure the ladies were not forgotten.
In her letter, Abigail made a plea for equal rights for women, calling the male dominated culture she lived in "tyrannical," and that she hoped with the rise of the new United States, that the men of that country would be ". . . more generous and favorable to [the ladies] than [their] ancestors."
The writer of that little piece of ridiculousness revealed a massive streak of ignorance about history, and the United States Constitution,
Women's Rights
It is worthy to note that, as carefully articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and inferred in the Constitution, that the founders wrote these documents, and designed our American System, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." We are not a Christian nation in the sense that a Muslim nation is an Islamic Nation, for we are not a theocracy, and the founders specifically articulated that we were not to have an established church (First Amendment), but that said, our nation, and its founding, was heavily influenced by Christian values, and Christian ethics. Christianity has been the dominant faith throughout the history of this country. Historically, there is a certain group of nations that have been largely Christian, and these Christian-dominated nations are also the same nations with the best record when it comes to women's rights. Only Israel, where Judaism is the dominant faith, can compete on the record of women's rights, and the kinship between Christians and the Israelites is an important reality when recognizing the relationship between the Jewish people and the Christians of today.
John Adams, the second President of the United States, and signer of the Declaration of Independence as a representative for the State of Massachusetts, was not present at the Federal Convention of 1787. The influence of John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, who were both in France at the time of the construction of the Constitution, was significant, however. Adams was a well-known patriot, a lawyer by practice, and an important part of the founding of the United States.
Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, was involved in the political life of her husband. He went to her for advice, and comfort, respecting her greatly. She was, in fact, respected by all who knew her. When the United States emerged as a new nation, she wrote a letter to her husband, advising him to ensure the ladies were not forgotten.
In her letter, Abigail made a plea for equal rights for women, calling the male dominated culture she lived in "tyrannical," and that she hoped with the rise of the new United States, that the men of that country would be ". . . more generous and favorable to [the ladies] than [their] ancestors."
Adams was not the only founder to respect his wife. Aaron Burr pushed for women to receive more recognition as members of society. Aaron Burr was Vice President under Thomas Jefferson during Jefferson's first term, and Burr was a loud voice for women's rights. Burr, inspired by his intelligent wife, ensured his daughters were educated and prepared to compete against the men in the world. Burr was also one of the politicians of the day that spoke out for the rights of women, even suggesting that women should be offered by federal decree the ability to vote - a right women would not enjoy nationally until the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.
Most people would be amazed to find out that women could vote in some regions during that time period. Though the right to vote for women was not widespread, it was up to the local jurisdictions, rather than the federal government, regarding the rules of elections. The founders believed this to be a local issue, and so did not allow the federal government to impose any voting rules on the States. Most of the voting opportunities for women during that time period were for local elections, and in the frontier where women worked side by side with the men to maintain the farm, or whatever duties it took to survive in the wilds of the west. In the more populated areas, and in regards to federal elections, the tendency was for women not to be able to vote. As time progressed, national voting did become more prevalent in the frontier for women, but the States tended to buck against the changing tide of societal culture.
During the early years of the United States, women's rights was an issue that was discussed, and debated, in the Halls of Congress. The nature of our system, however, prevented the federal government from forcing the States to all comply with a voting standard. The whole idea behind the creation of the federal government was for the central government to handle external issues, and if the new federal government was able to force themselves on the States on a local issue like voting, it would create a precedent that would open the door for the federal government to force itself upon the States on other issues, as well. So, the founders did not include a woman's right to vote in the federal constitution. The States would have to come to that decision themselves, as individual, sovereign, autonomous entities.
In other words, the failure to include women's rights in the Constitution was not necessarily a matter of sexism as much as it was a matter of a separation of powers between the federal government, and the States. Voting was considered an internal issue, therefore something that needed to be decided by the States, unless it came to a point where an amendment was proposed and ratified. Because of the political environment, and the societal norm regarding the role of women, an amendment granting a uniform rule of voting rights across the country would not have been ratified by the States prior to the twentieth century.
Slavery
The reality of the times that the Founding Fathers lived in was that the leadership of the country was white, and slavery was a worldwide phenomenon. Slavery of white people by Muslims and some African Cultures, was also widespread, and pre-dated slavery of blacks by whites in the New World and Europe. The men of Early America recognized that slavery was a sin, and in fact, though he owned slaves himself, Thomas Jefferson was an abolitionist. But the economic realities of the time dictated that slavery was a necessary part of the system. Besides, slavery was so embedded in the Southern States, it was unrealistic to believe that the government could just flip a switch to abolish slavery without consequence.
In the South, where slavery was the law of the land, the States were largely rural. In the antislavery north, many of the representatives demanded that the Constitution be used to abolish slavery once and for all. The problem was that if the Constitution was used as an instrument to abolish slavery, the ratification votes needed in order for the Constitution to be the law of the land would never be achieved. The Constitution needed support from both the north, and the south, in order to go into effect.
Since the South was largely rural, and the North was industrious and heavily populated, a question of the appropriation of representation became an obstacle to the ratification of the Constitution. If only whites were counted for the purpose of representation in Congress, the north would dominate the House of Representatives, and the South would never be willing to ratify the Constitution. If slaves were counted as whole persons, combined with the population of the slave owners, the South would dominate the House of Representatives, and the Northern States would never be willing to ratify the Constitution. Therefore, in order to ensure that both the north and south were willing to ratify the new constitution, a compromise had to be made to ensure that based on population, the representation in the House of Representatives was fairly equitable. The compromise was to count each slave as three-fifths for the purpose of enumeration so that the appropriation of representatives to Congress would be about equal between the north and south.
Governor Morris, a strong opponent to slavery, in reference to the Three-Fifths Clause, argued, "Upon what principle is it that the slave shall be computed in representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. . . the admission of slaves into the representation. . . comes to this: that the inhabitants of Georgia and South Carolina . . . shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind than the citizens of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who view with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice."
The three-fifths clause had nothing to do with the worth of any individual, and everything to do with reducing the number of representatives to Congress from Southern States with large slave populations. To count slaves as a whole person for the purpose of enumeration would grant to the southern states enough representation to overpower the northern states in Congress, thus making it more difficult to stop pro-slavery bills, and more difficult to enact anti-slavery bills.
Thomas Jefferson believed that the State of Virginia could be moved away from slavery. Jefferson's desire to abolish slavery made him optimistic about change in Virginia. He recognized, however, that the geographic distinctions between the two disparate regions would make it difficult to abolish slavery in the southern states. He explained, "Where the disease is most deeply seated, there it will be slowest in eradication. In the Northern states, it was merely superficial and easily corrected. In the Southern, it is incorporated with the whole system and requires time, patience, and perseverance in the curative process."
The Founding Fathers, Jefferson included, did not believe it was the federal government's place to force the abolition of slavery upon the States. Ending slavery needed to be the decision of each individual State. The States, according to the Constitution, have original authority, which gives them the power over all issues other than those delegated by the States through the Constitution to the federal government. Therefore, since slavery was a State issue, it would go completely against the principles of the Constitution for the federal government to force abolition upon them.
In the Constitution, however, the framers did take steps towards the eradication of slavery. They used a strategy consistent with the principles of the Constitution. In Article I, Section 9, the Constitution authorized the Congress, in 1808, to pass legislation to abolish the Atlantic Slave Trade. The founders believed that would begin the process of the abolition of slavery, but it still needed to be up to the States to make the final decision on banning slavery. In the interest of the concept of federalism, and State Sovereignty, the final decision to ban slavery had to be up to the States, individually.
-----
As for the Constitution itself, and the principles of freedom it represents, in the end, it is up to us. Freedom is a gift we may never fully understand, until we are willing to fight for it. And, understand that it is not up to the federal government to do what is right. That belongs to us. Protecting liberty is the task of each individual American.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment