Isn't the US Constitution tyranny?

[Skeptical Greg]

Better yet how about some facts to back up that assertion, instead of an appeal to popularity...

I seem to have ticked off a few woos and posers here and there.

All you have to do is point out where jj played the race card in this thread ...


Already showed where you played it..


We are waiting...

 

[Suddenly]

Better yet how about some facts to back up that assertion, instead of an appeal to popularity...

I seem to have ticked off a few woos and posers here and there.

Sure!!!

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.

And you responded with the following two posts:

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?

And...

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

It seems plain on the face of the above that the first to mention race in anyway was you.

That is, unless you can educate us as to the racism we are missing in jj's post.

Ergo, as Diogenes said

What is obvious, is that crimresearch is the only one playing a race card here by claiming someone else did, when they didn't.

All the above is present in this thread.

Your turn!!

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Isn't the US Constitution tyranny?

It is by todays standards, but back in 1790 democracy of the land-owning white men was a vast improvement over monarchy.

And, of course, it's completely relevant that at the time only landowners were taxed. Remember, it was taxation without representation. But the rights applied to everybody.

If Claus is doing his usual harping on about democracy, then I once again have to point out that our founders saw democracy for the tyranny that it is and sought to avoid it. They formed this country to be a republic instead.

 

[Hutch]

My turn--and I have some advantage, as I have actually met jj and broken bread with him and his family.

I would stake whatever modest reputation I may have acquired on the board that jj is no racist. However, he does not suffer those he deems fools and has demonstrated an acid tongue towards said fools.

I await with bated breath to find out if I am a woo or a poser per crimresearch......

 

[shanek]

As pointed out, Claus is trolling by demanding proof for a negative.

So since Dictionary.com defines 'Tyranny' as:

noun: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.).

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

Far be it from me to defend Claus's trolling, but I think definition #3, "Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly," is quite important. Tyranny can come from anywhere, even a Constitution.

And no, our Constitution isn't perfect. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. The Constitution in its preamble only claimed to be more perfect than what came before it.

 

[jj]

That is, unless you can educate us as to the racism we are missing in jj's post.

I'm waiting, too.

I expect him to fully retract his accusations if he can't show this, and since it's not present to be shown, that rather does show him up for the vilifying liar that he is.

He's upset, I suppose, because he called me a woo in another thread, and I bit him on that one, too.

His game, lately, is clearly to deliberately insult people left and right, in my opinion, just to cause arguments and waste people's time.

I suspect that s/he figures any real-life harm s/he manages is good, too, since his/her lies attack the pro-fact types of people.

He reminds me of Ranger75 over at scepticforum in a twisted, sick sort of way.

 

[shanek]

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

Yeah, it was.

 

[Kerberos]

Far be it from me to defend Claus's trolling, but I think definition #3, "Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly," is quite important. Tyranny can come from anywhere, even a Constitution.

In theory, but I doubt that there has ever been a constitution that granted any party absolute power, there will always be some limitation, though it might not be observed or have been meant to be observed.

 

[shanek]

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

I don't see how. The Constitution doesn't allow for majority rule, minority rule, or anything of the kind. It sets out very limited powers that the US government has. The government can't do anything beyond that, no matter what any group of people, no matter what size, say. It can only be changed through the very difficult process of amendment.

 

[CFLarsen]

And, of course, it's completely relevant that at the time only landowners were taxed. Remember, it was taxation without representation. But the rights applied to everybody.

Patently false.

Blacks were not free, women couldn't vote. White men were free and could vote.

If Claus is doing his usual harping on about democracy, then I once again have to point out that our founders saw democracy for the tyranny that it is and sought to avoid it. They formed this country to be a republic instead.

I'm not. Why don't you simply address my OP, instead of imagining things?

 

[shanek]

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.

I wouldn't say that all governments of all time were tyrannies. Some were certainly worse than others, but I'm unaware of any government that didn't at least do something tyrannical. I wouldn't call our US government a tyranny, but it certainly does many tyrannical things.

Is the Constitution a tyranny? I'd say not, but there have certainly been tyrannical aspects to it. The clauses supporting slavery were certainly tyrannical; they were wiped out by the 13th Amendment. the 14th Amendment was quite tyrannical to the southern states after the Civil War, but after all this time the tyrannical portions are no longer relevant. The 18th was certainly tyrannical, but it was repealed by the 21st. I would argue the 17th is tyrannical, since it takes away the representation the states had in Congress. The 16th certainly is, and is really the only part of the Constitution that allows the government to directly restrict the people.

It's a continuum, not a black-and-white thing.

 

[shanek]

In theory, but I doubt that there has ever been a constitution that granted any party absolute power, there will always be some limitation, though it might not be observed or have been meant to be observed.

Probably depends on how you define "absolute." If you mean absolute in every little thing ever, probably not. But I'd call black slavery absolute tyranny, because they claimed absolute power over that area of life. I'd call the 1.6gpf toilet restriction "absolute power" (although to a very minor and subtle degree), because if they can do that, what restrictions are there on anything else they could do? They're at least claiming the power, if not actually wielding it. Certainly I would think what happened to José Padilla would be considered tyranny.

 

[Earthborn]

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

Robin?! Is it really you?

Marian

 

[Bruce]

I keep reading stuff about a race card, but to be honest, I don't even know what race any of ya'll are.

You all look like black text to me.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I keep reading stuff about a race card, but to be honest, I don't even know what race any of ya'll are.

You all look like black text to me.

Oh, really?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't see how. The Constitution doesn't allow for majority rule, minority rule, or anything of the kind. It sets out very limited powers that the US government has. The government can't do anything beyond that, no matter what any group of people, no matter what size, say. It can only be changed through the very difficult process of amendment.

I'm not saying that the content of the Constitution exemplifies tyranny; the adopting of the Constitution itself could be viewed as tyrannical (under your "rule of the minority" clause) as it was assuredly a governmental document drafted and ratified by a relatively small minority of the people who would fall under its sway.

I also agree with the others who have stated that this is essentially a useless point. ETA: well, no point other than something for CFL to taunt you with, at least.

 

[CFLarsen]

I wouldn't say that all governments of all time were tyrannies. Some were certainly worse than others, but I'm unaware of any government that didn't at least do something tyrannical. I wouldn't call our US government a tyranny, but it certainly does many tyrannical things.

Is the Constitution a tyranny? I'd say not, but there have certainly been tyrannical aspects to it. The clauses supporting slavery were certainly tyrannical; they were wiped out by the 13th Amendment. the 14th Amendment was quite tyrannical to the southern states after the Civil War, but after all this time the tyrannical portions are no longer relevant. The 18th was certainly tyrannical, but it was repealed by the 21st. I would argue the 17th is tyrannical, since it takes away the representation the states had in Congress. The 16th certainly is, and is really the only part of the Constitution that allows the government to directly restrict the people.

It's a continuum, not a black-and-white thing.

You are missing the point, I'm afraid.

The US constitution was forced on a majority by a minority. That makes it tyranny. By your definition of the word.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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.

Here is part of you first post:

Now, only white men over 21 who owned property could vote in 1787, but let's be generous and include all white men 16 and over, since that's what we have data for.

That accounts for 20% of the whole population.

You specifically mentioned "16 and over" vs. "whole population." I cannot see how to take this without including 1-year olds as part of the excluded 80%. Am I missing something?

But my bigger question for you is can you find a less tyrannical government in 1790? If not, this turns your original question into "Was the least tyrannical country in 1790 tyrannical?" This is a simple question to answer - By contemporary standards it was the freeest but by today's standards it was fairly repressive.

CBL

 

[CFLarsen]

You specifically mentioned "16 and over" vs. "whole population." I cannot see how to take this without including 1-year olds as part of the excluded 80%. Am I missing something?

Ah, I see what you mean. You want me to include only those who are not men, but otherwise fulfill the conditions?

The data doesn't allow for that, I'm afraid. It simply groups "white females" as one. Would it be fair to simply assume that the number of females under 16 is approx. the same as the number of males under 16?

ETA: We would have to assume the same distribution for slaves as well.

But my bigger question for you is can you find a less tyrannical government in 1790? If not, this turns your original question into "Was the least tyrannical country in 1790 tyrannical?" This is a simple question to answer - By contemporary standards it was the freeest but by today's standards it was fairly repressive.

The issue is not about what governments that are the most tyrannical. The issue is: Writing and ratifying the US Constitution was an act of tyranny.

 

[jj]

Robin?! Is it really you?

Marian

WTF?