Isn't the US Constitution tyranny?

[crimresearch]

Yep, look at that. You can't even come up with an honest insult, and your behavior is like that of a dishonest, vilifying troll.

I think Claus' question is just a tad out of line historically, along with some of his numbers, and his definition of "tyranny".

I'm not sure why he took this tack, except perhaps to troll out the lunatic righties... He sure did that.

Ohh!! lawzy me!! Old Massah JJ done caught me lookin' in the dictionary agin, after he warned me 'bout that.

Maybe if I runs and fetches his mint julep he won't call me a 'rightie' no mo...or have the moderators whup me fo bein' uppity.



Don't you just love it when JJ's hood slips?

 

[Cleon]

Let me answer Claus' question for Shanek.

No, it is not tyranny, because it is exactly as the Founding Fathers (pbut)

Man, I only made it that far before I snorted Coke out my nose...

intended it. And they specifically said 'We The People' so they were backed by everyone and were forcing the constitution on no one, because that wouldn't be in line with their Libertarian principles.

Being forced by government to flush your toilet with no more than 1.6 gallons of water... THAT'S TYRANNY! (Note the caps...)

(Shane, I love ya dude, but you gotta admit, this is FUNNY...)

 

[BPSCG]

Concur with BPSCG and crimresearch on this one (not responsible for any perturbations caused by the dearly departed rotating in their graves), but CFL is way out here.

Hutch, you generally do just fine when you don't venture out of your sphere of expertise, i.e., The Late Unpleasantness...

So the limits of freedom were there; but certainly not tyranny in any sense of the word. And the way the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written allowed for the changes, allowed for the future, allowed for the fundamental fairness.

But it didn't come all at once. History take time.

 

[BPSCG]

Claus is demanding that someone prove that presence of a constitution equals absence of a constitution.

I don't see that anywhere in his hypothesis. What i do see is simply a claim that a constitution written by a tiny group of male white landowners and adopted by the rest of the male white landowners is necessarily a tyranny.

I find that a mystifying claim, since the U.S. government, as it existed in 1790, was as far from a tyranny as anything that then existed in the entire world. Accordingly, I looked up the definition of "tyranny", to see if there was a definition I was missing.

There wasn't, so I asked Claus what definition of tyranny he was using.

Still waiting...

 

[crimresearch]

I don't see that anywhere in his hypothesis. What i do see is simply a claim that a constitution written by a tiny group of male white landowners and adopted by the rest of the male white landowners is necessarily a tyranny.

I find that a mystifying claim, since the U.S. government, as it existed in 1790, was as far from a tyranny as anything that then existed in the entire world. Accordingly, I looked up the definition of "tyranny", to see if there was a definition I was missing.

There wasn't, so I asked Claus what definition of tyranny he was using.

Still waiting...

Let's see...where were we before JJ decided to try to derail with the race card?

Oh yeah...

*IF* the definition of tyranny includes absence of a constitution
(as in the provided example), then equating a constitution with tyranny is a non-starter.

OTOH, If Claus has fabricated his own personal Sooper Sekrit woo-woo definition of tyranny, along the lines of 'when the people who would have been considered slaves by the Crown, were governed for a time by a constitution voted on by those who rejected the Crown, then it must be tyranny'....
then he is trolling.

Again.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think Claus' question is just a tad out of line historically,

The US Constitution was ratified in 1788.

along with some of his numbers

They are from the 1790 US Census.

and his definition of "tyranny".

I am going what those who consider the Constitution antidotal to tyranny say:

To some, a standing army would inevitably lead to tyranny. Government would find the temptation to use it irresistible in the long run. As it happens, that view was too extreme. The Constitution does appear to have prevented it, anyway.
Source

The thinking behind the Constitution was argued out in the coffee-houses, printing-shops and bordellos of Europe (and New England) over several centuries. A common consensus was that a standing army is inevitably the tool of tyranny, something reflected in the body of the Constitution. The contentious issue is what replaces it - some defensive strategy being necessary - without itself becoming a tool of tyranny. From which argument, I think, derives the Second Amendment. If all (male) members of the community have a right to serve when a militia is mobilised, the militia cannot be monopolised by one interest against another. And the right to keep arms at home, rather than have them locked in a local arsenal available only to authority, means that mobilisation is meaningful.
Source

No, that would be the Constitution that represents the will of the people, as enacted by the states.

...

Because without a Constitution, the only difference is the number of targets when it comes time to overthrow the tyranny.
Source

Majority rule is minority ruled. It's a form of tyranny, one our founders tried their best to avoid.
Source

There is no doubt that the Constitution itself is a very good case of a minority ruling. "Tyranny", that is.

 

[CFLarsen]

What a pathetic joke.

Can you elaborate?

 

[CFLarsen]

I find that a mystifying claim, since the U.S. government, as it existed in 1790, was as far from a tyranny as anything that then existed in the entire world.

Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that it is tyranny. I am asking if it is.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Your definition of tyranny is based on comments made by Capedodger and Shane ?





Did you get their permission?

 

[Suddenly]

Let's see...where were we before JJ decided to try to derail with the race card?

Let me see what horrible racist things jj said...

Yep, look at that. You can't even come up with an honest insult, and your behavior is like that of a dishonest, vilifying troll.

I think Claus' question is just a tad out of line historically, along with some of his numbers, and his definition of "tyranny".

I'm not sure why he took this tack, except perhaps to troll out the lunatic righties... He sure did that

Did I miss something here? What part of this is JJ trying to "derail with the race card?"

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by shanek
Majority rule is minority ruled. It's a form of tyranny, one our founders tried their best to avoid.

There is no doubt that the Constitution itself is a very good case of a minority ruling. "Tyranny", that is.

Well, then, using shanek's provided defintion, the Constitution does, in fact, represent a form of tyranny. Fancy that.

I suppose some mitigation could be provided by pointing out that the Constitution includes provisions for amending itself. So, a potentially self-defeating tyranny, perhaps.

 

[BPSCG]

Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that it is tyranny. I am asking if it is.

Thanks for the clarification.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, are you nuts?

Next topic.

 

[Grammatron]

Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that it is tyranny. I am asking if it is.

Is that all? Ok I'll help you out then!

The answer is: No.

Why?

Because that's not what tyranny means, perhaps you meant to use another word.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that it is tyranny. I am asking if it is.

Oh..


That would be ' no ' ..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let me see what horrible racist things jj said...



Did I miss something here? What part of this is JJ trying to "derail with the race card?"

This should be a lot more interesting than the OP.. Particularly in light of the recent clarification by Claus.

 

[Kerberos]

I have to agree with Grammy, BPSCG etc. and the thread strikes me as somewhat pointless. The original US Constitution obviously doesn't match modern standards, but it clearly isn't tyrannical except by Shaneks definition. but then any system of government past, present and almost certainly future was, is and will be tyrannical by Shaneks standards.

 

[Suddenly]

Is that all? Ok I'll help you out then!

The answer is: No.

Why?

Because that's not what tyranny means, perhaps you meant to use another word.

I dunno about another single word:

"A system with less than universal sufferage?"

ok... one word... Asystemwithoutuniversalsufferage"

 

[jj]

Don't you just love it when JJ's hood slips?

Another outright lie from crimresearch.

Yes, I will report this.

I require your admission that I am in fact active in the civil rights movement, and am not anyone who one normally thinks of as "wearing a hood".

NOW, liar, retract it. NOW.

 

[CFLarsen]

BTW, your including children in the population count is incredibly misleading. Would you allow my 1 year daughter to vote? I am sure she would loved to pull the levers.

Had you read my post, you would have discovered what the data in the census covered. However, it is wrong to imply that I included 1-year olds.

 

[Grammatron]

I dunno about another single word:

"A system with less than universal sufferage?"

ok... one word... Asystemwithoutuniversalsufferage"

I didn't say an English word. For all you know there's a Dannish word that means exactly that.