What was the purpose of the Bill of Rights

[Master PO]

Rights are based on power, philosophy like natural rights only plays a part insofar as it influences peoples opinions. Lets take slavery as an example. For all the pontificating about natural rights, certain people were stripped of the basic liberties by the power of government. The constitution cannot protect against true mob rule, it only requires the mob be large enough to have a 2/3 majority on congress and 3/4 of the state legislature. Slavery was ended when the slave owners were beaten into submission with violence. Certain states continued to violate the rights of blacks until the federal government forced them to stop.

The declaration of independence was mere words and did nothing to prevent the massive and hypocritical violations of rights perpetrated by the government when this country was founded. However, the philosophical concepts were convincing and did inspire later generations to take action and push for greater liberty.

slaves were look at as property and not people.

what is why the argument of the 3/5 clause.........people or property

 

[LiberalAvenger]

We're not a democracy

Technically not. But in the American spirit, yes.

 

[zstep18]

The constitution cannot protect against true mob rule, it only requires the mob be large enough to have a 2/3 majority on congress and 3/4 of the state legislature. Slavery was ended when the slave owners were beaten into submission with violence. Certain states continued to violate the rights of blacks until the federal government forced them to stop.

The Supreme Court is one protection against mob rule. A Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, no matter how much of Congress supported it.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

The Supreme Court is one protection against mob rule. A Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, no matter how much of Congress supported it.

Congress can impeach supreme court members.

 

[rathi]

The Supreme Court is one protection against mob rule. A Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, no matter how much of Congress supported it.

A mob can amend the constitution, nothing the court can (legally) do.

 

[rathi]

slaves were look at as property and not people.

what is why the argument of the 3/5 clause.........people or property

That is precisely my point. The supposedly inalienable rights of the slaves were violated at the whims of those in power.

 

[zstep18]

Congress can impeach supreme court members.

Yes, but only if the Supreme Court justice commits an impeachable offense.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Yes, but only if the Supreme Court justice commits an impeachable offense.

It would not be that hard. Follow the money and sperm.

 

[zstep18]

A mob can amend the constitution, nothing the court can (legally) do.

True.

I was just thinking about laws passed by Congress which were not amendments to the Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

That is precisely my point. The supposedly inalienable rights of the slaves were violated at the whims of those in power.

it was only 3 state's what wanted slavery, the other 10 did not, the founders needed all 13 of them TOGHETER to fight the British,, they could not be divided in their mission to have independence.

during the constitution convention the 3/5 clause was not about race it was about power and who would rule congress, the north or the south, the north said if you want to count then as vote, then they are men, the south stated they were property.

by the NORTH counting BLACKS as 3/5 of a person ,they will able to keep the south from totally dominating the house.

also in the constitution the founders sought to end slavery by doing away with it importation in 1808.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person"
"

the founders believed slavery would be over in 20 to 30 years after the ratification of the constitution.

 

[rathi]

it only 3 state's what wanted slavery, the other 10 did not, the founders needed all 13 of them TOGHETER to fight the British,, they could not be divided in their mission to have independence.

during the constitution convention the 3/5 clause was not about race it was about power and who would rule congress, the north or the south, the north said if you want to count then as vote, then they are men, the south stated they were property.

by the NORTH counting BALCKS as 3/5 of a person ,they will able to keep the south from totally dominating the house.

also in the constitution the founders sought to end slavery by doing away with it importation in 1808.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person"
"

the founders believed slavery would be over in 20 to 30 years after the ratification of the constitution.

You are only proving my point here. Natural rights were being trampled all over the place in the name of political expediency. The status of slavery was entirely based on power, not any kind of philosophical concept.

 

[head of joaquin]

We're not a democracy

Sure we are. A representative democracy. That's why we vote.

 

[head of joaquin]

slaves were look at as property and not people.

what is why the argument of the 3/5 clause.........people or property

Yeah and Southern slave owners claimed that natural law supported slavery. That's the thing about natural law -- anybody can use it for anything. It allows the powerful to do pretty odious things with the moral certitude of being "natural".

That's why like Hobbes, the founders rejected natural law and based the constittution on rights.

 

[Master PO]

Sure we are. A representative democracy. That's why we vote.

you also vote in republican government also, but power is directly and indirectly in the hands of the peoples vote

democracy power is the hands of the people to vote only directly, and that leads to tranny, because one ,1 few, and the elective are above be corrupt.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or---> elective<------------------, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”

democracy is democratic government ......America was created to republican government, practicing republicanism, ....know as mixed government, separation of-----------> representation.

 

[Master PO]

Yeah and Southern slave owners claimed that natural law supported slavery. That's the thing about natural law -- anybody can use it for anything. It allows the powerful to do pretty odious things with the moral certitude of being "natural".

That's why like Hobbes, the founders rejected natural law and based the constittution on rights.

ignorance...on your part

 

[jwzg]

democracy power is the hands of the people to vote only directly, and that leads to tranny...

.

Please don't tell me your are talking about this kind of tranny:

 

[Master PO]

Please don't tell me your are talking about this kind of tranny:

lol..:2razz:...its good to see their is still humor among the forum