• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

"Exploding" would be another civil war.

"Imploding" would be a mutual agreement to divide up the country so that one can live in a safe zone with people who share common cultural values.


Happy New Year!
 
"Exploding" would be another civil war.

"Imploding" would be a mutual agreement to divide up the country so that one can live in a safe zone with people who share common cultural values.


Happy New Year!


Bur didn't the last attempt to "implode" and divide up the country not result in a civil war ?
 
Bur didn't the last attempt to "implode" and divide up the country not result in a civil war ?

Well, yes.

Because President Lincoln did not have the good sense to say "Best wishes to you Southerners. Hope that you will eventually decide to rejoin the Union."

Scholars say that slavery would have eventually died out because of technological advances and because England was leading the way to the abolition of slavery. There would have been a massive number of slaves escaping to the North, so plantation owners would have realized that they would have to start paying some wages.

Instead, what happened? Mr. Lincoln was responsible for a four-year slaughter that killed at least 800,000 young men and poisoned the relations between two ethnicities up to this very moment.

Happy New Year
 
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:


EVERYTHING you are seeking Constitutionally seems to have already been delivered. The entire Bill of Rights and four or five other Amendments seem to address this stuff.

Is there something else that you feel is required Constitutionally?

 
Well, yes.

Because President Lincoln did not have the good sense to say "Best wishes to you Southerners. Hope that you will eventually decide to rejoin the Union."

Why would that have been good sense ?

Would he not have been abandoning the unionists in the South ?
Would it not have made the USA a weaker country as well as setting up a rival for the rest of the continent ?

Could any liberal politician countenance the existence of the slave supporting Confederacy ?

Scholars say that slavery would have eventually died out because of technological advances and because England was leading the way to the abolition of slavery. There would have been a massive number of slaves escaping to the North, so plantation owners would have realized that they would have to start paying some wages.

Which scholars ?

The Confederacy would be able to replace runaways and even if slavery was abolished say 100 years or so later, it would have been replaced with an equally repugnant South African style "apartheid"
So yes, maybe the blacks get a pittance of a wage check but equality ? No way

Instead, what happened? Mr. Lincoln was responsible for a four-year slaughter that killed at least 800,000 young men and poisoned the relations between two ethnicities up to this very moment.

And the Confederate armies were not responsible for any of those deaths at all

Do you support any US involvement in any wars ever ?
 
EVERYTHING you are seeking Constitutionally seems to have already been delivered. ...
For starters, as stated in my comment you quoted: 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.
 
For starters, as stated in my comment you quoted: 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.

Could you give an example of what you propose ?
 
Could you give an example of what you propose ?
Postamble to follow.
Preamble said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Postamble (rough draft 1.0):
We the People acknowledge that:
* The land that became the United States was inhabited by People and the results of colonization were not Just.
* Africans were People and their enslavement was not Just.

We sincerely apologize for these injustices. We will work to achieve Justice.
 
Postamble (rough draft 1.0):
We the People acknowledge that:
* The land that became the United States was inhabited by People and the results of colonization were not Just.
* Africans were People and their enslavement was not Just.

We sincerely apologize for these injustices. We will work to achieve Justice.


That is beyond terrible, you could argue it means that Native American are justified in evicting the descendants of European settlers back to Europe

What does "not just" translate to ?

Was it unjust to evict the Dutch from "New Amsterdam"
Was the invasion of Canada in the war of 1812, unjust ?

The Constitution should look forward, not back. It should not be filled with retroactive, guilt ridden angst.
 
That is beyond terrible, you could argue it means that Native American are justified in evicting the descendants of European settlers back to Europe

What does "not just" translate to ?

Was it unjust to evict the Dutch from "New Amsterdam"
Was the invasion of Canada in the war of 1812, unjust ?

The Constitution should look forward, not back. It should not be filled with retroactive, guilt ridden angst.
You are overreacting.

This covers the main issues related to the US Constitution.

"Not Just" is synonymous with unjust, injustice, immoral, unethical, wrong, etc.

Are we not still struggling with the fallout from these unresolved issues?

Additionally, the Republican Party is basically the South and the Democratic Party is basically the North.
 
You are overreacting.

To the most reactive suggestion for a Constitution ever
More a note of apology than a Constitution

This covers the main issues related to the US Constitution.

"Not Just" is synonymous with unjust, injustice, immoral, unethical, wrong, etc.

Are we not still struggling with the fallout from these unresolved issues?

Additionally, the Republican Party is basically the South and the Democratic Party is basically the North.


The main issues related to the Constitution is how the country will be run, not how it used to be run (or how badly that might have been).
 
To the most reactive suggestion for a Constitution ever
More a note of apology than a Constitution
An apology-plus in a Postamble is a stand-alone constitution?

The main issues related to the Constitution is how the country will be run, not how it used to be run (or how badly that might have been).
The US Constitution has three main sections: marketing, codification of federal government, and sales addendum.
 

Another record set for deaths of Americans due to the virus yesterday, but still falling a bit short of 4000.
 
An apology-plus in a Postamble is a stand-alone constitution?

No, and never should be

No constitution should be (or include) an apology.

The US Constitution has three main sections: marketing, codification of federal government, and sales addendum.

Regarding how the country shall be run, not how it might have been run in the past.
 
For starters, as stated in my comment you quoted: 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.

What are the amends you desire be made and by whom to whom?

What is the change you seem to want to see made in the preamble?
 
What are the amends you desire be made and by whom to whom?

What is the change you seem to want to see made in the preamble?
From #103:

Postamble (rough draft 1.0):
We the People acknowledge that:
* The land that became the United States was inhabited by People and the results of colonization were not Just.
* Africans were People and their enslavement was not Just.

We sincerely apologize for these injustices. We will work to achieve Justice.
 
From #103:

Postamble (rough draft 1.0):
We the People acknowledge that:
* The land that became the United States was inhabited by People and the results of colonization were not Just.
* Africans were People and their enslavement was not Just.

We sincerely apologize for these injustices. We will work to achieve Justice.

With the greatest respect, what you wrote here is about as stupid as anything I've ever read anywhere.

I have an interest in the methodologies employed to victimize the students processed by our public Schools.

Were you matriculated recently?

Again, with the greatest respect, the PREAMBLE precedes the actual body of the Constitution which is simply the framework by which the Framers hoped to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government and structure its branches.

It was written as an introduction, perhaps a mission statement is more accurate, and seems to describe some pretty lofty aspirations. None of those aspirations conflict with your brain washed idiocy above.

The implementation of the laws limited by the Constitution are what they are. These were inflicted BY the "posterity" on whom the preamble wishes only the "Blessings of Liberty".

The "posterity" today includes all people who are citizens. The laundry list of things hoped for is a pretty good one. LITERALLY revolutionary at the time.

No event you wish to address was perpetrated by the United States, not yet established, when the Preamble was written. The preamble says it is trying to do six things; not ALL things.

Out of curiosity, are you laboring under the mistaken impression that Africans are the only group of people who were ever enslaved?

<snip>
We the People of the United States, in Order to

form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
<snip>
 
With the greatest respect [chuckle], what you wrote here is about as stupid as anything I've ever read anywhere.

I have an interest in the methodologies employed to victimize the students processed by our public Schools.

Were you matriculated recently?

Again, with the greatest respect, the PREAMBLE precedes the actual body of the Constitution which is simply the framework by which the Framers hoped to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government and structure its branches.

It was written as an introduction, perhaps a mission statement is more accurate, and seems to describe some pretty lofty aspirations. None of those aspirations conflict with your brain washed idiocy above.

...
I got about halfway through your screed.
 
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?

There's where all credibility is lost.
 
Back
Top Bottom