The US Constitution is Incapable of Dealing with Racism in America.

[Rich2018]

Some people did want the monarchy and the idea was floated to them...

Sure...SOME people

...there was the Newburgh letter/conspiracy in which George Washington was to be the King.

... and Alexander Hamilton wanted to have an Elective Monarchy... were there would a ruler for life, unless impeached.

Well there you go

The concept of an American king was not completely opposed.

 

[Montgomery]

Why is de-criminalizing drugs extremist in the USA, but not elsewhere in the developed word ?
Where is your evidence of that ?
Why would no American citizen take a pragmatic view ?



Why isn't the de-criminalization of drugs not a solution ?
What are the drawbacks in your mind - and what evidence do you base those on ?

Suffice to just say that you mentioned all drugs and I mentioned some drugs. There's no immediate need to pursue the question until you elaborate further on what you're asking.

Canada hasn't abused the issue to the extreme as did the US, in which it must be addressed soon, due to overcrowded prisons and Christian dogmatic nonsensical beliefs.

 

[Montgomery]

There is no way to "solve racism" in a free society any more than there is a way to solve jealousy, anger, contempt, sexism, against religion X. etc.

There is a way, but it's not appropriate as a solution in any democracy. And that is by force of authoritarian actions by the police force of murder of the victim race in broad daylight on the streets.

It serves as a warning to black men that they will be dealt with in a similar manner if they commit even the smallest crime against the ruling white man's system. There are likely other solutions, and I expect there are, but perhaps none that can be applied in the US in which racism has become systemic.

 

[trixare4kids]

It's all indicating a breakdown of the US system and the US Constitution has no way of dealing with the issue.

Of necessity to hold the union together, the US Constitution was devised and written to appease all of the individual states/ parties. It's quite likely that made it incapable of dealing with racism in a sure and final way.

Other countries lost their right to hold slaves and were able to deal with the issue more thoroughly. America didn't put the matter to bed and now it's stuck with the problem in the 21st. century, where demands of humanity are calling for the issue to be rectified. And America seems to be resisting coming to an answer.
Hence, the tyranny of the Trump regime that has rode the issue into the WH, to his advantage.

Can the US Constitution save the country? Is it equipped with the necessary means to stop an authoritarian who is intent of fascist rule? Or will some other mechanism need to deal with the problem?

So there are NO racists or problems with racism in Canada then?? Since when?

Yes, the US constitution will save our country. Worry about your own country's social problems.

 

[Paradoxical]

It's all indicating a breakdown of the US system and the US Constitution has no way of dealing with the issue.

Of necessity to hold the union together, the US Constitution was devised and written to appease all of the individual states/ parties. It's quite likely that made it incapable of dealing with racism in a sure and final way.

Other countries lost their right to hold slaves and were able to deal with the issue more thoroughly. America didn't put the matter to bed and now it's stuck with the problem in the 21st. century, where demands of humanity are calling for the issue to be rectified. And America seems to be resisting coming to an answer.
Hence, the tyranny of the Trump regime that has rode the issue into the WH, to his advantage.

Can the US Constitution save the country? Is it equipped with the necessary means to stop an authoritarian who is intent of fascist rule? Or will some other mechanism need to deal with the problem?

I think we are all against slavery. re you finding slave owners in your neck of the woods? Turn them in.

 

[Montgomery]

I am not a racist. I treat everyone the way that I want to be treated, regardless of their religion, race, skin color, gender sex, or otherwise. It is conservative religion of all faiths that allows people to defend their racism and bigotry behind the claim that god commends them to act in that manner, so it's not their fault, it's not wrong and you cannot force them to change without trampling on their claimed religious rights.

I am not a fan of the current state of Israel. All people deserve the absolute equal right to live in peace and harmony in that area and everywhere else, be it Jew, Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Christian, or any other religion or lack thereof. I see the current Zionist Israel as little different than apartheid South Africa under P.W.Botha.

So you think that people have a right to be racists, based on their religious learning from the bible?
A racist would certainly believe that would be a more sacred right than the right of black people to be treated as equals.

Maybe in America but not in any other modern democratic country in the world!
Maybe in some remote African country where they worship voodoo dolls or the village shaman?

 

[trixare4kids]

I think we are all against slavery. re you finding slave owners in your neck of the woods? Turn them in.

According to Google, they're plentiful in number, racists that is, in Canada.

Racism In Canada Is Ever-Present, But We Have A Long History Of Denial | HuffPost Canada Life (huffingtonpost.ca)
"It's tempting for Canadians to fall back on the idea that we're not as racist as Americans."

 

[Montgomery]

I think we are all against slavery. re you finding slave owners in your neck of the woods? Turn them in.

You might be opposed to slavery but you Americans certainly cling to your racism against black people. Wouldn't that allow a return to slavery in the sense that you don't value the lives of blacks as much as you value white lives.

 

[aociswundumho]

No it's not
And why would I scream for a policy that utterly failed like Prohibition ? - the most stupid piece of legislation in the history of the developed world
Seriously no other country (in the developed world) would even consider it. Only rabid American right-wingers

Right wingers were against prohibition on personal liberty grounds - people have the right to buy alcohol if they choose. The prohibition movement was strictly left-wing, as it was mommy-statism on steroids.

No, alcohol was legal. Prohibition made it illegal.

Wrong. Alcohol was not illegal, and just prior to the Volstead Act passing, people bought insane amounts of booze to stock up.

It's clear you don't understand what de-criminalization is and are unable to distinguish it from legalization

Decriminalization is when there are no penalties for use or for mere possession. That was a case for alcohol prohibition - possession and use were completely legal. This is the model you called a "catastrophic failure", and now you want that for currently illegal drugs.

 

[Lisa]

So you think that people have a right to be racists, based on their religious learning from the bible?
A racist would certainly believe that would be a more sacred right than the right of black people to be treated as equals.

Maybe in America but not in any other modern democratic country in the world!
Maybe in some remote African country where they worship voodoo dolls or the village shaman?

Racists/bigots in the US definitely, such as the Klan try to hide their bigotry behind the bible but the courts have often ruled against them. Conservative religious belief in the US is the last refuge of the bigot.

The homophobic baker in colorado who refused service to a gay couple tried to hide his bigotry behind the bible, as did the Nuns who tried to overrule the birth control protections of the ACA.

 

[Vadinho]

So you’d let drug cartel sicarios and leaders and gang members who committed murders out of jail? Why? There’s no reason to “forgive all felonies“; that is far too broad a brush.

I would not let violent offenders off the hook. Why would you think I would?

 

[Bodi]

There is a way, but it's not appropriate as a solution in any democracy. And that is by force of authoritarian actions by the police force of murder of the victim race in broad daylight on the streets.

It serves as a warning to black men that they will be dealt with in a similar manner if they commit even the smallest crime against the ruling white man's system. There are likely other solutions, and I expect there are, but perhaps none that can be applied in the US in which racism has become systemic.

Not systemic...

 

[Tigerace117]

I would not let violent offenders off the hook. Why would you think I would?

Because you said “forgive all felonies for drug related convictions“ and a hell of a lot of those are violent.

 

[Paradoxical]

According to Google, they're plentiful in number, racists that is, in Canada.

Racism In Canada Is Ever-Present, But We Have A Long History Of Denial | HuffPost Canada Life (huffingtonpost.ca)
"It's tempting for Canadians to fall back on the idea that we're not as racist as Americans."

I never go to HuffPo and did so only because you posted it. They are a disgusting group of far left radicals who see racism under every bed and on every corner. The case they mentioned is absolutely ridiculous suggesting that Canadian cops are so evil they pushed a black person off the balcony. this is the same BS we get here in America where anything bad that happens to a black person is because a white guy hated black people. In this case, for no reason at all, they just push someone off a balcony.

I'm tired of these liberals doing this crap, Trixaire.

 

[Paradoxical]

You might be opposed to slavery but you Americans certainly cling to your racism against black people. Wouldn't that allow a return to slavery in the sense that you don't value the lives of blacks as much as you value white lives.

Where do you find this to be true in the general populace? <May I see evidence of widespread "racism" in America?

Where in the eff do you people come up with this nonsense? Someone on HuffPo or CNN like Don Lemon says we are racist and you believe it?

 

[danielpalos]

It's all indicating a breakdown of the US system and the US Constitution has no way of dealing with the issue.

Of necessity to hold the union together, the US Constitution was devised and written to appease all of the individual states/ parties. It's quite likely that made it incapable of dealing with racism in a sure and final way.

Other countries lost their right to hold slaves and were able to deal with the issue more thoroughly. America didn't put the matter to bed and now it's stuck with the problem in the 21st. century, where demands of humanity are calling for the issue to be rectified. And America seems to be resisting coming to an answer.
Hence, the tyranny of the Trump regime that has rode the issue into the WH, to his advantage.

Can the US Constitution save the country? Is it equipped with the necessary means to stop an authoritarian who is intent of fascist rule? Or will some other mechanism need to deal with the problem?

I agree to disagree. Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

The problem is that there must simply be not enough morals to go around to faithfully execute it.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[Antiwar]

No Constitution can deal with "racism."

Because of a terrible mistake that British colonists made in 1619, Americans in 2020 are simply experiencing the inevitable consequences.

#######

The situation will NEVER be resolved.

It is intractable.

So long as there is a "United States of America," there will be "racism."

I mostly agree with the first half and mostly disagree with the second half.

The "discovery" of the land that became America and the enslavement of Africans were based in racism. The Constitution solidified those because it didn't address those- at best it was by omission. So there was obviously structural racism.

No, the Constitution cannot change thoughts, but it can be changed. And part of the change can be changes to our laws.

We can also add to or change things like the Preamble and officially acknowledge, apologize, and say that we'll work hard to make amends.

And heads and hearts can be changed:

This is how Black people get killed

Here are three segments of today's "Democracy Now!" You can listen, read, or watch, once the website is caught up. I listen over the radio. These stories made me cry because I empathize with the suffering, feel bad that "my people" still struggle with treating othered people well, and because...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Rich2018]

Suffice to just say that you mentioned all drugs and I mentioned some drugs. There's no immediate need to pursue the question until you elaborate further on what you're asking.

Canada hasn't abused the issue to the extreme as did the US, in which it must be addressed soon, due to overcrowded prisons and Christian dogmatic nonsensical beliefs.

OK

Why is de-criminalizing SOME drugs extremist in the USA, but not elsewhere in the developed word ?
Where is your evidence of that ?
Why would no American citizen take a pragmatic view ?



Why isn't the de-criminalization of SOME drugs not a solution ?
What are the drawbacks in your mind - and what evidence do you base those on ?

 

[Rich2018]

Right wingers were against prohibition on personal liberty grounds - people have the right to buy alcohol if they choose. The prohibition movement was strictly left-wing, as it was mommy-statism on steroids.

Nope, its origins were with the religious, RW temperance movement:

The movement was taken up by progressives in the Prohibition, Democratic and Republican parties, and gained a national grassroots base through the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. [/quote]

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Religious groups are still a malignant influence on the Republican party.

Wrong. Alcohol was not illegal, and just prior to the Volstead Act passing, people bought insane amounts of booze to stock up.

Wrong, alcohol was illegal under prohibition - though an exemption was made for churches to use wine for religious purposes

Decriminalization is when there are no penalties for use or for mere possession. That was a case for alcohol prohibition - possession and use were completely legal. ...

Absolutely false, it was illegal to have bought massive stocks of alcoholic drink, prior to prohibition and simply consume them


"The three distinct purposes of the Act were:

1. • to prohibit intoxicating beverages,
   • to regulate the manufacture, production, use, and sale of high-proof spirits for other than beverage purposes,
   • to ensure an ample supply of alcohol and promote its use in scientific research and in the development of fuel, dye, and other lawful industries

"No person shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Act, and all the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to the end that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented."

Volstead Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Personal use was no defense

And you are completely wrong.

 

[aociswundumho]

Nope, its origins were with the religious, RW temperance movement:

The movement was taken up by progressives in the Prohibition, Democratic and Republican parties, and gained a national grassroots base through the Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

Yes, progressives in the Prohibition, Democratic, and Republican parties. In case you don't know, progressives are left wing.

Wrong, alcohol was illegal under prohibition - though an exemption was made for churches to use wine for religious purposes

Absolutely false, it was illegal to have bought massive stocks of alcoholic drink, prior to prohibition and simply consume them

Personal use was no defense

And you are completely wrong.

No, you are wrong, as usual. It is common knowledge that possession of alcohol was legal for people to drink in their homes:

10 Things You Should Know About Prohibition | HISTORY

Ninety-five years after its inception, learn 10 fascinating facts about America’s nearly 14-year “noble experiment” in alcohol prohibition.

www.history.com

and

Unintended Consequences | Prohibition | Ken Burns | PBS

The story of the rise, rule, and fall of prohibition and the entire era it encompassed. Full film now streaming.

www.pbs.org

and

Prohibition Facts: A Guide to the US Prohibition Era | HistoryExtra

Learn all about the prohibition era with this guide to the causes, crime and considerable impact on American society from the policy that began in 1920 and spanned 13 years.

www.historyextra.com

This is the decriminalization model (which you called a "catastrophic failure") that you want for all drugs, where possession and personal use carries no penalties, but selling and manufacturing are illegal.

 

[Montgomery]

OK

Why is de-criminalizing SOME drugs extremist in the USA, but not elsewhere in the developed word ?
Where is your evidence of that ?
Why would no American citizen take a pragmatic view ?



Why isn't the de-criminalization of SOME drugs not a solution ?
What are the drawbacks in your mind - and what evidence do you base those on ?

When did we start talking about 'some' drugs and not all drugs?

 

[Rich2018]

No, you are wrong, as usual. It is common knowledge that possession of alcohol was legal for people to drink in their homes:

View attachment 67310846

It was illegal to drink alcoholic drinks - which includes beer (not sure if non-alcoholic beer existed then). Where is your disconnect ?


"The three distinct purposes of the Act were:

1. • to prohibit intoxicating beverages
   • to regulate the manufacture, production, use, and sale of high-proof spirits for other than beverage purposes,
   • to ensure an ample supply of alcohol and promote its use in scientific research and in the development of fuel, dye, and other lawful industries

It provided further that "No person shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Act, and all the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to the end that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented."

Volstead Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Use = drink

Possession was illegal, so you couldn't even posses beer let alone drink it !

QED: You are completely wrong. - as depressingly common as that is

What is the matter?
Can you not even read now ?

 

[Rich2018]

When did we start talking about 'some' drugs and not all drugs?

YOU did in post #102:

Suffice to just say that you mentioned all drugs and I mentioned some drugs.

 

[TheParser]

I mostly agree with the first half and mostly disagree with the second half.

The "discovery" of the land that became America and the enslavement of Africans were based in racism. The Constitution solidified those because it didn't address those- at best it was by omission. So there was obviously structural racism.

No, the Constitution cannot change thoughts, but it can be changed. And part of the change can be changes to our laws.

We can also add to or change things like the Preamble and officially acknowledge, apologize, and say that we'll work hard to make amends.

And heads and hearts can be changed:

This is how Black people get killed

Here are three segments of today's "Democracy Now!" You can listen, read, or watch, once the website is caught up. I listen over the radio. These stories made me cry because I empathize with the suffering, feel bad that "my people" still struggle with treating othered people well, and because...

debatepolitics.com

I like your optimism.

But 400 years of history has shown that "heads and hearts" cannot be changed.

It's too late. There is no hope for this country, which will implode sometime before or into the next century.



Happy New Year!

 

[Rich2018]

I like your optimism.

But 400 years of history has shown that "heads and hearts" cannot be changed.

It's too late. There is no hope for this country, which will implode sometime before or into the next century.

What would be an example of the country "imploding"
What would be an example of the country exploding ?