Well, at least old Gripey Gus hasn’t lost all sense of reality.

Tragically accurate.

Oh boy, more taxes, and another federal mandate all ready to balloon out of control. I can’t wait!

Goth guy with the nose that looks like a 2 car garage is right. It’s over teabaggers and GOP mules!

Unfortunately its not single-payer, but this will do.

Dem poll numbers once signed will jump tremendously.

” In terms of debt it will be huge… ”

For all you assholes who supported it, I hope you like paying for it.

I can’t even watch this atrocity tonight. I am catching 300 on TBS. Inspiring stuff…
You have many slaves, Obama, but few warriors. It won’t be long before they fear our votes more than your whips.

I am sure the Kraut’s point will be lost on the Republican, but the law is a fact, now. We were the last western democracy to insure its citizens. We now join the other great democracies. And, there is no going back. Why? Every so often some twit comes up with the idea of abolishing Social Security or Medicare. But, they are now cornerstones of our economy. Abolish one, and W’s drive over the economic cliff looks like skipping rope. Secondly, despite all the rhetoric and some of the problems with our universal health care systems, no one in Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scandinavia, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and all the other great democracies would consider for a moment changing. So, the Kraut is saying, start working to effectively tweek the system or risk irrelevance.

A thousand nations of the Obama empire descend upon us. Their arrows will blot out the sun! We will fight in the shade!!!!

Progressive’s… they fail America’s test. And a man who fancies himself a god feels a very human chill crawl up his spine.

I will pray tonight that Charles is wrong. Otherwise, America, as she was founded, could be gone. Unfortunately, I think that’s been the goal of libs and progressives all along. Bring on the hate, I simply do NOT care what you libs say anymore.

The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god-king can fall.

You bring the crowns and heads of conquered kings to my city steps. You insult my queen. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I’ve chosen my words carefully, Progressive’s. Perhaps you should have done the same!

America, as she was founded, could be gone.

When America was founded only white male land owners could vote or hold office. Women were second class citizens and slavery was allowed. America, as it was founded is long gone.

Obama: You take pride in your logic. I suggest you employ it. Consider the beautiful land you so vigorously defend. Picture it reduced to ash at my whim! Consider the fate of your women!

Give them nothing! But take from them everything!

Obama: Unlike the cruel men before you, who demanded that you stand, I require only that you kneel.

“Goodbye my love.” He doesn’t say it. There’s no room for softness… not in America. No place for weakness. Only the hard and strong may call themselves Americans. Only the hard, only the strong.

JamesA1102:

Let’s not forget that it was a Constitution founded in personal liberty and limited government that corrected all of those mistakes.

>Let’s not forget that it was a Constitution founded in personal liberty

This bill increases personal liberty. No longer can you get dumped by an insurer due to a condition or get turned down when buying insurance due to a preexisting condition. Why can’t you see that? This bill has made America more free than before.

>limited government that corrected all of those mistakes.

Nope.

Someone’s got sand in his pussy. Awww, what’s wrong, does your pussy hurt, Mr. Krauthammer?

Every so often some twit comes up with the idea of abolishing Social Security or Medicare. But, they are now cornerstones of our economy.

Two failed, mis-managed, and bankrupt cornerstones of our economy that are dwarfed by the takeover of 17% of the economy. Obama hmself justified this legislation but constantly telling us our healthcare is broken. His solution: take the “broken” Medicaid program and make it available to 45 million more people.

This bill increases personal liberty — Why can’t you see that? This bill has made America more free than before.

Probably has something to do with the Government requirement to purchase their health plan, or face penalty. Governmental mandates kind of seem in a way a little sort of the opposite to personal liberty.

m:

You’re failing to look at the other half of the equation. It eliminates pre-existing conditions and does some other laudable things, but only does so by, for example, raising taxes on others (which infringes on their liberty) and requiring people who don’t want to buy insurance to do so (under the threat of fine and/or imprisonment). By your thinking, some twisted soul could argue that slavery increased personal liberty by giving plantation owners more free time so that they didn’t have to spend as much time in the fields. You have to look at both sides of the equation: the party that is being granted the benefit and the party who is sacrificing to provide it. In a constitutional republic, you NEVER “increase” freedom by voting to infringe on someone else’s freedom for your own benefit.

And, yes, Social Security and Medicare all popular, but they are swiftly headed for financial collapse because they are and always were ponzi schemes. What is happening in Greece right now is instructive. They are bankrupt because for generations they have borrowed money to finance social programs that they can’t afford. Even now, in the midst of collapse, their people are protesting in the streets FOR MORE BENEFITS! We are now doing almost the same thing. We all know that we can’t pay for the promises we’ve already made. But rather than changing course in hopes that we can avert the coming disaster, we are making more, larger promises that we can’t keep. Even if you believe in Obamacare in principle in an ideal world, it is suicidal to be creating a new entitlement now.

m says:
March 22, 2010 at 2:44 am
>Let’s not forget that it was a Constitution founded in personal liberty

This bill increases personal liberty. No longer can you get dumped by an insurer due to a condition or get turned down when buying insurance due to a preexisting condition. Why can’t you see that? This bill has made America more free than before.

>limited government that corrected all of those mistakes.

Nope.

M,either you haven’t been listening to the Dems and BO or you want what they do 9which I think is the case). They have stated repeatedly that the goal is to become a one payer system. Now tell me, how just that enhance personal freedom when you don’t have a choice.

Al Sharpton: ‘The American Public Overwhelmingly Voted for Socialism When They Elected President Obama’

I’m hoping my father is right when he says that if we take back Congress, we will use reconciliation to repeal what they’vd done (which by then will probably include cap n trade, amnesty, and who knows what else), and then use reconciliation to ban reconciliation in the future. God willing.

Michelle F:

Even if they were to use reconciliation (which is problematic), Obama can veto it. There’s no way Republicans are going have a 2/3rds majority in both house of Congress (the amount needed for an override) after November (I don’t know if that has ever happened in American history). The only way to repeal this thing is to defat Obama in ’12. To which I say, let’s roll.

Amen Finch! Although perhaps we can get someone those squishy dems back after they go home and hear from the folks that elected them. If we run on a platform of repealing it, I think we have a great chance. I think Rush is right though, now that it’s passed the Dems will NOT mention it again and hope the voters are as stupid as THEY think we are. But we’re not going to let that happen. Should be a fun couple of years. A battle for the soul of America. Bring it!

I’ve heard from quite a few BO voters that said they would NEVER vote for him again. Of course, I do live in Utah. More telling is where my parents live, in the liberal bastion of Washington, they are hearing the same thing. My dad says the Obama stickers are few and far between now.

Let’s not forget that it was a Constitution founded in personal liberty and limited government that corrected all of those mistakes.

Wow you really don’t know your history. Opponents of the constitution thought is was a too large expansion of the federal government. They wanted to stay with the Articles of Confederation which had a much more limited government.

Plus, when it was first written there was no Bill of Rights. Many states would not support the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was added. And those personal liberties were only guaranteed to white male land owners. The Constitution didn’t correct any of those mistakes when it was founded, it reinforced them counting Black slaves as only 3/4s of a person.

James, the “3/5s Compromise” was actually developed because the House was based on States’ population while slaves held no voting power. It was instituted to limit the influence of slave owners. And they were not counted as black slaves, they were “all other persons”. A technicality, but it was worded so the Constitution was not stating you could own another human.

Some of the opposition to the BOR was because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game for politicians.

The “real royal king” predictably hasn’t done any research beyond what the politicians, & equally uninformed liberals on campus who have probably not gone more than two days without extracurricular drugs in their system have been saying.
That being the case, I’ll fill him in on some of his glaring errors:

Switzerland’s health care system relies almost entirely on a system of private insurance.
There also is a growing reliance on the private sector in the financing and delivery of health care in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711.cfm

Here’s an article about Germany’s defection to privatization: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=10172
The German economy is also struggling with recession and rising unemployment.

Canada’s own Prime Minister came HERE for his surgery, despite that oh-so-wonderful government health care at home. You know, the one where pets can get immediate health care at private clinics, but people have to wait weeks/months/years for the bureaucrats to figure out if they’re worth it.
In Italy, also, waiting times for surgeries can be many months.
But perhaps RRK has never heard of “cancer”?

Here’s another article bemoaning Canada’s health care problems:
Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

France is cutting care because of high costs, and investigating American-style co-pays.
Oh, and 10% unemployment is the norm in France, where they have now been gripped in their worst recession in three decades.

Spain boasts the highest unemployment rate in Europe, which is over 20%. Spain is also broke.

But my favorite is the UK (which actually includes Ireland, royal).
Britain considers privatization because, well, they’re broke: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/22/budget-job-losses
And 9 year olds are being denied a heart operations up to three times due to bed shortages (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1172552/Girls-heart-operation-cancelled-THREE-times-shortage-hospital-beds.html).
They also left a newborn baby to die because he was born just 2 days short of the “national standard”: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

Britain has already banned life prolonging drugs to those with terminal cancer because they cost too much (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html).

How’s THAT for cost-effective compassion?

Most compelling of all, many UK doctors want to refuse treatment to the old and unhealthy, such as your friends (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html) and think dementia sufferers have a “duty to die” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008).

In Luxembourg, health care includes private health care. Patients also have the right to choose their doctor, specialist and hospital. These issues are still being contended in obamacare, and since obama & congress have lied so many times already, there’s no way of knowing what’s really in it, or whether the American people will be allowed these freedoms by the tyrants in office.

As for Belgium and the rest of these countries with socialized medicine, most of them have euthanasia. Which, in light of the UK doctor comments regarding the treatment of the sick and elderly, isn’t exactly comforting despite obama’s promise not to “kill gramma.”

Especially since the Netherlands already did it.
You see, the Netherlands government discovered 1,000 of life-ending actions without request; 8,750 patients in whom life-sustaining treatment was withdrawn or withheld without request (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/euthanasia/eu0014.html)

Here are more Fun Facts on the UK’s NHS:

Britain says “No” to heart drug that could save thousands of lives
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246209/Doctors-fury-NICE-bans-2-day-heart-drug-dronedarone-help-40-000-patients.html

UK rejects drug for liver cancer because (drum roll) it costs too much
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8367614.stm

Banned cancer drugs better than NHS ones:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4138237.ece

Recently, an NHS patient died of thirst. He was 22, and had even called the police to try to get a drink of water. He was at an NHS teaching hospital:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255858/Neglected-lazy-nurses-Kane-Gorny-22-dying-thirst-rang-police-beg-water.html

Bloody wards, dirty needles, sick drinking from vases
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-real-lessons-of-this-nhs-disaster-1909596.html

Patients ‘routinely neglected’, 100s died in filth
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253438/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-routinely-neglected-patients.html#ixzz0gWOdaQS8

Hospital caused ‘unimaginable suffering’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7039285.ece

Ain’t socialized medicine great?
And aren’t you glad our leaders and the media kept all these facts from our eyes?
Royal, how does that make you feel? Still believe everything they tell you?

MartiniShark, you can’t expect James to know the true history of this country, because it’s not taught. You have to actually seek it out, and the libs or just fine with the inaccurate version. It fits their amican hating template to perfection.

Right you are, Charley. The bill is as attractive as you are grotesque.

James, the “3/5s Compromise” was actually developed because the House was based on States’ population while slaves held no voting power. It was instituted to limit the influence of slave owners. And they were not counted as black slaves, they were “all other persons”. A technicality, but it was worded so the Constitution was not stating you could own another human.

Conversely, it was worded so the Consititution was not stating that you could not own another human either. The Founding Fathers were very clever about that, hence the euphamism “all other persons”. They didn’t want to be seen as endorsing the institution of slavery even though they were. Which is the point. When the Constitution was originally written, it was not a perfect document but it has evolved over time with the country and it & the country are still evolving ‘in order to form a more perfect union’.

Some of the opposition to the BOR was because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game for politicians.

That’s based on a fictional quote from an episode of the West Wing. ‘If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.’

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/myers.html

MartiniShark, you can’t expect James to know the true history of this country, because it’s not taught. You have to actually seek it out, and the libs or just fine with the inaccurate version. It fits their amican hating template to perfection.

At least I learned on how to spell America correctly. LMAO

James Madison was the one who fought for that language to keep from permanantly instituting slavery in the Constitution: “Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” (His own entry). The reason for their euphamism was for the sake of keeping the union intact, and in fact all the early wording in the Constitution was geared towards regulation and eventual abolishment. They put it off to keep southern states in the Union but suspected it would become a battle at some point, however they wanted the country to be more established to endure such a fight.

That’s based on a fictional quote from an episode of the West Wing.
Wow, that is such a farcical claim I do not know how to react. You have GOT to be kidding me with that, right? Trust me, I don’t take historical cues from primetime. For openers I have never watched an episode of that show. Secondly, a quote: “
A specific bill of rights remained unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a bill of rights.” That was not from Martin Sheen, that would be James Madison again, spoken a few seasons before “The West Wing” debuted.

Jelperman, you need to get some new material. Don’t you have homework to do?

James Madison was the one who fought for that language to keep from permanantly instituting slavery in the Constitution: “Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” (His own entry). The reason for their euphamism was for the sake of keeping the union intact, and in fact all the early wording in the Constitution was geared towards regulation and eventual abolishment. They put it off to keep southern states in the Union but suspected it would become a battle at some point, however they wanted the country to be more established to endure such a fight.

That still doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution as originally written allowed for slavery and it was in no way geared for any regulation or abolishment. Thus, going to the original point, the Constitution only granted personal liberty to a small group of the people, not to all of them.

Wow, that is such a farcical claim I do not know how to react. You have GOT to be kidding me with that, right? Trust me, I don’t take historical cues from primetime. For openers I have never watched an episode of that show. Secondly, a quote: “A specific bill of rights remained unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a bill of rights.” That was not from Martin Sheen, that would be James Madison again, spoken a few seasons before “The West Wing” debuted.

Well if you had bothered to read the quote and concept had become viral over the internet and is cited on many other websites that thought it was a real quote.

And Madison’s quote does not support your original claim that, “Some of the opposition to the BOR was because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game for politicians.”, just that Madison thought a BOR wasn’t needed because the original constitution as written already protected those rights.

I didn’t bother to read it because of the asinine charge that I cribbed a TV program. I didn’t quote the show, I was giving you Madison’s initial belief about the BOR. Madison was an original government-limiting founder and only delved into crafting the BOR after the anti-Federalists would not ratify the Constitution without that doc.

The original Constitution did allow for slavery — a concession to ensure that they would have all the colonies on board — but the careful wording was in fact aimed towards regulation and abolishment. You initially said “it reinforced them counting Black slaves as only 3/4s of a person”, but as I pointed out the 3/5s Concession was to limit slaveholder influence, and the wording they used avoiding the use of “slaves” was to avoid instituting it in the document (Madison’s quote above). They wrote a limitation that there would be no regulation for a set time of 20 years but made no definitive statement that it would never be abolished — because they saw a time where government would be able to regulate the slave business. Again, to appease the southern territory. Jefferson himself made mention of such during the crafting stages. Slavery was a reality at the formation that had to be dealt with but they did in fact act with an eye towards abolition one day.

I didn’t bother to read it because of the asinine charge that I cribbed a TV program.

No the charge was that many websites have cribbed it from a TV program based on a fictional quote. If you bothered to read the link you would have seen that was the point.

I didn’t quote the show, I was giving you Madison’s initial belief about the BOR. Madison was an original government-limiting founder and only delved into crafting the BOR after the anti-Federalists would not ratify the Constitution without that doc.

But Madison’s initial belief wasn’t, as you put it, because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game for politicians but rather because he felt the BOR was unnecessary and redundant.

The original Constitution did allow for slavery — a concession to ensure that they would have all the colonies on board — but the careful wording was in fact aimed towards regulation and abolishment.

How was it aimed at regulation or abolishment? What article or amedendment does that? Just repeating it over and over again will not make it true.

You initially said “it reinforced them counting Black slaves as only 3/4s of a person”, but as I pointed out the 3/5s Concession was to limit slaveholder influence, and the wording they used avoiding the use of “slaves” was to avoid instituting it in the document (Madison’s quote above).

Yes it was to limit slaveholder power but by counting black slaves as only 3/5s a person reinforced the notion that blacks were not full human beings and thus it was ok to enslave them.

And yes they were very clever in using the euphamism “all other persons’ but that doesn’t change the fact that they were allowing slavery to continue or that they were not granting full rights to women and only letting white male landowners to vote.

They wrote a limitation that there would be no regulation for a set time of 20 years but made no definitive statement that it would never be abolished — because they saw a time where government would be able to regulate the slave business. Again, to appease the southern territory.

What limitation? Where is that in the Constitution.? How could they put a limitation on an institution that they weren’t even admitting existed?

Jefferson himself made mention of such during the crafting stages.

Jefferson??? He wasn’t at the Constitutional convention, he was Minister to France at the time.

Slavery was a reality at the formation that had to be dealt with but they did in fact act with an eye towards abolition one day.

How? You keep on saying that but present no proof. There is nothing in the Constitution to limit slavery or to lay the groundwork for its eventual abolition.

The reason I didn’t bother to read the link is this: I first heard of the concept of the BOR allowing govt. leeway when I was in middle school, long before that show was conceived. You will have to allow the possibility that Sorkin adapted this concept into his scripts, he did not come up with the concept himself. Therefore any mention of it is not directly attributable to Sorkin, and I did not quote him or your referenced websites. (Let me know if I bring up a concept that was alluded to in “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” as well, just in case I need to distinguish a fact apart from that script.)

You really should read some other docs besides the Constitution itself, like the Federalist papers and the meetingsof the Constitutional Convention, where the compromise derived. You are choosing to ignore the quote I gave you from Madison on why he did not use the term “slavery”, specifically to avoid it being incorporated in the Constitution. Why would he take that step then? One of the primary challenges at the convention itself was the distinction between the Northern and Southern states regarding slavery. And it was at the Convention where they mandated the 20 year moratorium on restricting the slave trade but left it open-ended so they could deal with it in the future. Again, this was all done not to entrench slavery but to keep the southern states on board and keep from fracturing the nation — hence the 3/5 Compromise.

The Convention was all about the battle over slavery, with Northern states declaring their opposition to the practice. One of the most debated speeches at the convention came from the Penn. Governor where he called slavery “nefarious” and declared slaves should be freed and allowed to vote. You can decry the existence of it but many of the founders were trying even then to push back against slavery, which differs from the picture you wanted to paint them into. And I never said Jefferson was at the convention. Years before, in his “Notes on Virginia” he made comments where he indicated this country had a pall on it due to slavery — all while he had slaves himself.

And yes, the voting rights of blacks and women were not initially allowed. That is because the founders wanted voting to be done by those who were land and property owners, and blacks and women had no such right in that era. However this was changed via amendments to the Constitution, meaning government was no longer permitted to restrict the rights of those citizens.

The reason I didn’t bother to read the link is this: I first heard of the concept of the BOR allowing govt. leeway when I was in middle school, long before that show was conceived. You will have to allow the possibility that Sorkin adapted this concept into his scripts, he did not come up with the concept himself. Therefore any mention of it is not directly attributable to Sorkin, and I did not quote him or your referenced websites.

Then I guess your middle school didn’t bother to teach about the 9th amendment.

You really should read some other docs besides the Constitution itself, like the Federalist papers and the meetingsof the Constitutional Convention, where the compromise derived. You are choosing to ignore the quote I gave you from Madison on why he did not use the term “slavery”, specifically to avoid it being incorporated in the Constitution. Why would he take that step then? One of the primary challenges at the convention itself was the distinction between the Northern and Southern states regarding slavery.

Please I have read them. And it doesn’t change the original point that the Constitution as originally written only secured personal liberties for white male landowners and no one else. It completely allowed for slavery and just used a clever euphemism to get around using the word slavery.

And it was at the Convention where they mandated the 20 year moratorium on restricting the slave trade but left it open-ended so they could deal with it in the future. Again, this was all done not to entrench slavery but to keep the southern states on board and keep from fracturing the nation — hence the 3/5 Compromise.

But it was not in the constitution itself. Nowhere in the document. Regardless of any side deal, there is no wording in the Constitution restricting the slave trade or any restrictions on slavery.
And result of the 3/5s compromise was to say that blacks were less than full human beings thus reinforcing the rationalization for enslaving them.

The Convention was all about the battle over slavery, with Northern states declaring their opposition to the practice. One of the most debated speeches at the convention came from the Penn. Governor where he called slavery “nefarious” and declared slaves should be freed and allowed to vote. You can decry the existence of it but many of the founders were trying even then to push back against slavery, which differs from the picture you wanted to paint them into.

I’m not painting picture. I’m stating historical fact. There is nothing in the constitution to limit or regulate or lay the groundwork for abolishing the institution of slavery. You can quote Madison all you want but the original Constitution allowed for slavery. Now you may want to try to paint some Disney version of American history but it still doesn’t change the facts.

And I never said Jefferson was at the convention.

No you said, “Jefferson himself made mention of such during the crafting stages.” which implied that he was involved in the writing of the constitution. Now that I pointed out that he was Minister to France at the time, you’re trying to backpeddle.

And yes, the voting rights of blacks and women were not initially allowed. That is because the founders wanted voting to be done by those who were land and property owners, and blacks and women had no such right in that era.

There you go again showing you just don’t know history. Women did have the right to own land and property. They inherited from their fathers and husbands when they died. Women and blacks were not barred from full rights because they didn’t own property. They were barred simply because they were women and blacks.

For one, I have no clue on Earth what the hell the 9th Amendment has to do with your charge that I stole a quote from “West Wing”. However — Madison and others initially resisted a BOR because of that fear of government expansion I mentioned, THEREFORE said fear had to exist BEFORE the 9th Amendment was written. Follow that flow-chart? Madison then wrote the 9th to appease that fear.

>It completely allowed for slavery and just used a clever euphemism to get around using the word slavery.
You are correct, it was a clever euphamism. But you do not want to acknowledge why that euphamism was used. It was not a trick to keep slavery legal, Madison wanted to keep “slavery” out of the Constitution to avoid institutionalizing it. Very big difference.
Now I told you about the original intent of the landowners holding voting rights, and I said it allowed for slavery with the change in term, but you are electing to overlook the writers intent, that the Northern States were already “Free” at the time, and to overlook how they limited the influence of the slave owners with the “3/5 Compromise”. It was not to say they were “less than full human beings” as you charge, but to limit the slave holder influence since they would not grant slaves voting rights. That was the point you initially brought up, and it was created at that Convention. And if you had read the notes from the Constitutional Convention as you claimed you would then know The Northern Framers favored abolition at that time, which is where the 20 year arrangement was crafted as well. You also are choosing to gloss over the need to reach that compromise to keep the union in tact.

And you may can call it backpeddling all you want, I said Jefferson’s “Note” predated the convention — meaning they were discussing the subject even before the Constitution was ratified, which was my entire point. This ain’t “Disney-fication”, it was a response to your contention that slavery was written into the Constitution with intent, when clearly it was battled over. Again, the Northern States we already free at this time. I know that detail is uncomfortable for you to accept, but yes, there were numerous Framers resisting slavery. Look up Governor Morris’ “Curse of Heaven” speech, where he challenged slaves’ classification as property and if they were to be fully counted then they should also be given the right to vote.

For one, I have no clue on Earth what the hell the 9th Amendment has to do with your charge that I stole a quote from “West Wing”.

First, I never accused you of stealing anything so don’t put words in my mouth. That’s just dishonest.

Second, you stated “Some of the opposition to the BOR was because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game for politicians. I merely pointed out that this arguement is bogus and based on that fictional quote from the West Wing which has been picked on as an real quote.

Third, the 9th Amendment applies because it states, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.. And remember the BOR was presented as one document. The 9th Amendment was not added later so your contention that “opposition to the BOR was because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game” when that exact concern was already addressed within the Bill of Rights itself.

However — Madison and others initially resisted a BOR because of that fear of government expansion I mentioned, THEREFORE said fear had to exist BEFORE the 9th Amendment was written. Follow that flow-chart? Madison then wrote the 9th to appease that fear.

No originally you quoted Madison, “A specific bill of rights remained unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a bill of rights.” which means he just thought it was redundant. and therefore not needed. Now you’re changing your tune.

You are correct, it was a clever euphamism. But you do not want to acknowledge why that euphamism was used. It was not a trick to keep slavery legal, Madison wanted to keep “slavery” out of the Constitution to avoid institutionalizing it. Very big difference.

No it was a euphamism to avoid the issue all together.

Now I told you about the original intent of the landowners holding voting rights

No actually you didn’t. You just acknowedged it.

I said it allowed for slavery with the change in term, but you are electing to overlook the writers intent, that the Northern States were already “Free” at the time, and to overlook how they limited the influence of the slave owners with the “3/5 Compromise”. It was not to say they were “less than full human beings” as you charge, but to limit the slave holder influence since they would not grant slaves voting rights. It

The writers intent was to avoid the issue of slavery completely. And despite anyone’s good intention by counting blacks as 3/5s a human being had the result of considering blacks as sub-human therefore rationalizing the institution of slavery for another 70 years. And they not only denied voting rights to slaves but they allowed for the disenfranchisement of those rights for many free blacks in the north and to all women.

And if you had read the notes from the Constitutional Convention as you claimed you would then know The Northern Framers favored abolition at that time, which is where the 20 year arrangement was crafted as well. You also are choosing to gloss over the need to reach that compromise to keep the union in tact.

Not glossing over anything. I just pointed out that the Constitution was not founded in personal freedom because it limited full rights to only a small group of people and excluded many others. And regardless of the intent of Northerns who favored abolition the original document in did not in any way lay the groundwork to address any of those inequities.

And you may can call it backpeddling all you want, I said Jefferson’s “Note” predated the convention — meaning they were discussing the subject even before the Constitution was ratified, which was my entire point.

No you didn’t in your original statement. You said, “Jefferson himself made mention of such during the crafting stages.” which implied that Jefferson was involved in the writing of the Constitution. It was only after I pointed out that he was Minister to France at the time that you backpeddled and corrected your original statement.

This ain’t “Disney-fication”, it was a response to your contention that slavery was written into the Constitution with intent

I never said that, again you’re dishonestly putting words in my mouth.

Again, the Northern States we already free at this time. I know that detail is uncomfortable for you to accept, but yes, there were numerous Framers resisting slavery.

Please, again you are dishonestly putting words in my mouth. But despite the fact that there was those who opposed slavery, when the original Constitution was written it allowed for slavery and only granted full rights to white male land owners. So despite their intentions, they did nothing to end slavery or to extend personal liberties to all the people.

Look up Governor Morris’ “Curse of Heaven” speech, where he challenged slaves’ classification as property and if they were to be fully counted then they should also be given the right to vote.

Despite any speech there was nothing in the constitution to reflect it. You can talk in circles all you want about the Framers intentions but in the end the Constitution as originally written did not guarantee personal liberty for all but only to white male land owners.

You are being utterly closed-minded on this and are so determined to be right you don’t want to be correct. For one, I did not put words in your mouth, I said it was your “contention”. You continually say it “allowed” for slavery when that was a major, major compromise. As for putting words in mouths you said I placed Jefferson at the Convention; no I didn’t. The crafting stages (as I wrote) for this country took years. The Constitutional Convention itself was not a brief meeting but a months-long process.

I merely pointed out that this arguement is bogus and based on that fictional quote from the West Wing which has been picked on as an real quote.
How can an argument rooted in fact or opinion be fake? Some framers did not want a Bill of Rights, and for the reasons stated — “West Wing” did not create that theory. I never quoted the show but talked about the Framer’s wishes at the time, and said I had heard this concept long, long before that program. Sorkin adopted that argument into his program maybe, but it certainly did not originate there.

The 9th Amendment was not added later so your contention that “opposition to the BOR was because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game” when that exact concern was already addressed within the Bill of Rights itself.
Are you trying to confuse yourself? Madison and others had their concerns and did not want a BOR initially – so how could that concern already be addressed in the 9th Amendment when it was not yet written? That is in fact talking in circles. They did not want a BOR at first, then when they wrote it they included that concern in the 9th. How could it already be addressed in the BOR when they said they opposed crafting a BOR?

You keep saying they avoided the issue when actually battling with the South is what was taking place. The Southern states were fighting against them, they were not dodging the issue. They had to insert certain aspects to maintain the Union, at the South’s request. I never said this was a perfect document but I will not agree they wrote this to justify slavery when it was in fact an issue heavily battled over at the time. In fact the “3/5s of a person” is a misnomer; it was a ratio devised, 5 voting whites for every 3 slaves, counted against the population to put a limit on representation of slave owners. They did not deem slaves to be less of a person. Again, it was a compromise between the delegates — call it bi-partisanship, or reaching across the isle. Nobody declared slaves were only 60% human.

I agree with you on the clever wording and use of euphamisms, what you need to do is ask yourself, “Why?” Why did Madison work at remitting the term “Slave” from the document, including within the provision of returning escaped slaves to their Southern owners? Because, as he stated, he did not want the document to stipulate you could treat men as property. He was not justifying the ownership, he was working to keep that from being indoctrinatred. As you said, So despite their intentions, they did nothing to end slavery or to extend personal liberties to all the people. So again, Why? Because the Southern States fought hard and would not accept this. It was either compromise or have the Civil War take place decades earlier.

The whole reason I have gotten into this discourse is because a while back I held these same thoughts, that the Constitution was a racist document which justified slavery, and that it deemed slaves as less than human. Over the years many people guided me on the process that was behind crafting the Constitution and I found out it was not such a stark creation, that there were many battles over the components and the wording inserted therein. It wasn’t a bunch of racist white guys empowering themselves, it was a seminal process of creating a nation, and it was very contentious. Of the delegates at that Convention less than half were in fact slave owners, so the country was already in the process of abolishment in a way. I also came to appreciate that while the Constitution permits slavery Madison and others took great pains to keep it from becoming a legal certainty.

I had many teachers giving me the racist mantra behind the document but I had to find out on my own the nuances that went into creating it, including the strong opposition to slavery at that convention and the efforts many framers took to opopose it.

You are being utterly closed-minded on this and are so determined to be right you don’t want to be correct.

Funny I’ve been thinking the same thing about you. But I have the facts on my side.

For one, I did not put words in your mouth, I said it was your “contention”.

No you said, your charge that I stole a quote from “West Wing”.

Which I never did, so you did put words in my mouth. Like I said I have the facts on my side.

You continually say it “allowed” for slavery when that was a major, major compromise.

The constitution did allow for slavery. That was the compromise to continue to allow for slavery which is why the institution of slavery continued for another 70 years. Again, I have the facts on my side.

As for putting words in mouths you said I placed Jefferson at the Convention; no I didn’t.

You infered that he was at the conventions then I called you on it and you backpeddled.

The crafting stages (as I wrote) for this country took years. The Constitutional Convention itself was not a brief meeting but a months-long process.

The push for a constitional convention was begun by Madision in 1786 and the convention net during the summer of 1787. Jefferons became Minister to France in 1785 and was not involved.

How can an argument rooted in fact or opinion be fake?

How is it rooted in fact? Because you say so? You haven’t provide on shread of evidence that there was opposition to the BOR because as you stated “because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game for politicians. “ The opposition was to the Constitution because it didn’t include a Bill of Rights. Some of the original framers did thing a Bill of Rights was not needed because they felt it redundant but not for the reason you stated.

Are you trying to confuse yourself? Madison and others had their concerns and did not want a BOR initially – so how could that concern already be addressed in the 9th Amendment when it was not yet written? That is in fact talking in circles. They did not want a BOR at first, then when they wrote it they included that concern in the 9th. How could it already be addressed in the BOR when they said they opposed crafting a BOR?

You’re the one talking in circles. Why would there be opposition to the BOR for the reason you stated when it had been already addressed within the BOR itself. You’ve been backpeddling and talking in circles ever since I showed that your original statement was bogus.

You keep saying they avoided the issue when actually battling with the South is what was taking place. The Southern states were fighting against them, they were not dodging the issue. They had to insert certain aspects to maintain the Union, at the South’s request. I never said this was a perfect document but I will not agree they wrote this to justify slavery when it was in fact an issue heavily battled over at the time. In fact the “3/5s of a person” is a misnomer; it was a ratio devised, 5 voting whites for every 3 slaves, counted against the population to put a limit on representation of slave owners. They did not deem slaves to be less of a person. Again, it was a compromise between the delegates — call it bi-partisanship, or reaching across the isle. Nobody declared slaves were only 60% human.

It may have been heavily battled over but in the end the abolitionists capitulated and the Constitution allowed the institution of slavery to continue. While the intent may not have been to declare a slave as 60% human that was the result in the minds of many. The problem is you just want to consider their intent and total ignore the results of their actions.

And like it or not the Constitution did allow slavery to continue and grow:

- Article I, 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. (Thus allowing the importation of slaves for another 20 years without any regulation).

- Article IV, Section 2: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. (Thus, prohibiting assistance to escaped slaves and requiring them to be returned to their owners. )

You’re also ignoring the historical context of the period. By 1787, slavery was starting to die out in the South. That was until the invention of the cotton gin in 1794. So with the prohibition on Congress to regulate or limit the slave trade on one hand and the cotton gin on the other, the result was that slavery flourished. So despite the intentions of some of the Framers to end slavery the result was that they helped the institution to continue for other 70 years.

I agree with you on the clever wording and use of euphamisms, what you need to do is ask yourself, “Why?” Why did Madison work at remitting the term “Slave” from the document, including within the provision of returning escaped slaves to their Southern owners? Because, as he stated, he did not want the document to stipulate you could treat men as property. He was not justifying the ownership, he was working to keep that from being indoctrinatred. As you said, So despite their intentions, they did nothing to end slavery or to extend personal liberties to all the people. So again, Why? Because the Southern States fought hard and would not accept this. It was either compromise or have the Civil War take place decades earlier.

Because it was a clever dodge to keep northern abolitionists happy while still allowing for slavery to continue. You keep wanting to give them a free pass and ignore the consquences of what they did but they deserve to be judged by history for both the good and the bad they did. You’re just trying to whitewash their actions and make excuses.

I agree with you on the clever wording and use of euphamisms, what you need to do is ask yourself, “Why?” Why did Madison work at remitting the term “Slave” from the document, including within the provision of returning escaped slaves to their Southern owners? Because, as he stated, he did not want the document to stipulate you could treat men as property. He was not justifying the ownership, he was working to keep that from being indoctrinatred. As you said, So despite their intentions, they did nothing to end slavery or to extend personal liberties to all the people. So again, Why? Because the Southern States fought hard and would not accept this. It was either compromise or have the Civil War take place decades earlier.

I’m not saying that the Civil War should have taken place decades earlier. But we shouldn’t content that the Constitution was not a perfect document when it was originally written. It was not founded in personal liberty, at least not in personal liberty for all. Women were excluded so were blacks. That is a historical fact that you cannot dispute. That was the reality of the constitution despite the intentions of some of the framers.

The whole reason I have gotten into this discourse is because a while back I held these same thoughts, that the Constitution was a racist document which justified slavery, and that it deemed slaves as less than human.

I never used the word racist. I just said the constitution was not perfect and only allowed full rights to white male landowners. As far as slavery while not ever mentioning the word it did nothing to limit or regulate it nor did it lay the groundwork for its abolishment. While they word slavery is never used the constitution does recognize the institution and allowed it to flourish.

It wasn’t a bunch of racist white guys empowering themselves,

Again I never used the racist, you did. But in the end they did empower themselves and left out women, blacks and others from being allowed full rights.

Of the delegates at that Convention less than half were in fact slave owners, so the country was already in the process of abolishment in a way.

That was until the constitution included provision to protect the institution and the invention of the cotton gin.

I also came to appreciate that while the Constitution permits slavery Madison and others took great pains to keep it from becoming a legal certainty.

I had many teachers giving me the racist mantra behind the document but I had to find out on my own the nuances that went into creating it, including the strong opposition to slavery at that convention and the efforts many framers took to opopose it.

It not only premitted slavery but prohibited any regulation on it for 20 years allowing the institution to flourish and continue for another 70 years. So despite the intentions of many of the framers, slavery grew and it resulted in the Civil War.

Why would there be opposition to the BOR for the reason you stated when it had been already addressed within the BOR itself.
I see now I get it– some Framers did not want to create a Bill of Rights, but they did not have to worry about a BOR because of what was in the Bill of Rights. So when Madison and others said a BOR wasn’t needed all they had to do was look at the 9th amendment — before they wrote it. Makes ense now.

You are right , you sold me – bunch of dopey white dudes managed to accidently build a great nation based on their desire to own people. How wrong I was.

I see now I get it– some Framers did not want to create a Bill of Rights, but they did not have to worry about a BOR because of what was in the Bill of Rights. So when Madison and others said a BOR wasn’t needed all they had to do was look at the 9th amendment — before they wrote it. Makes ense now.

But according to the quote of Madison’s that you originally posted “A specific bill of rights remained unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a bill of rights”, Madison though a Bill of Rights was redundant. His opposition was not for the original reason you gave “Some of the opposition to the BOR was because leaders felt by listing those rights as protection against government intrusion it could be interpreted that anything not in the BOR would be fair game for politicians.” because that very issue was already by the 9th Amendment of the BOR.

You are right , you sold me – bunch of dopey white dudes managed to accidently build a great nation based on their desire to own people. How wrong I was.

Wow, way to take the high road. But I had the facts on my side and you didn’t so I can understand your frustration.