I have to say it really makes me sick to see some people turn their backs on our Constitution

[Xicano]

And turn their backs on it so easily. Not to mention also on our party's principles. Sickening, just plain sickening.

[Frosty1]

1. You mean like they did during the bush years?

:shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. That's what he means. He's upset about decades of Repukes -

and of course, he fought tooth and nail during all those decades.

Unlike Jane Hamsher and Ralph Nader and their handful of fans, who sat on their gigantic behinds all those decades doing nothing, but are now accepting Republican funds to hurt our Democratic president.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nightrain]

2. knr. probably out of desperation.... sad... sad that people are in that place too...

[madrchsod]

3. i do`t think they are who they say they are

or they do not understand history.

[Xicano]

5. That would explain a lot wouldn't it.

Gawd I hope the majority of our party isn't like some of these folks.

Thanks madrchsod.

[asdjrocky]

8. Everyone talks about the Constitution here.

It's a good document, but it was the rich white mans document. If you dig a little deeper in history you'll find the document made almost everyone who signed it a very, very rich white man. Dig a little, you'll find it.

Now, the real deal, is the Bill of Rights. That is the peoples document.

[glitch]

9. Most people when talking about the Constitution include the Bill of Rights.

Along with subsequent civil rights laws. Like addenda to a contract.

FWIW I usually include the Declaration of Independence, the principles of the Iroquois Nation and the Magna Carta, precedents on which the Constitution is based. I think of all of them when I see people in our government and citizens of our country trashing the Constitution.

And calling it a rich white male document disparages what it was built upon and what was built from it, that it was intentionally built to grow and every attempt to grow it every since.

[asdjrocky]

10. The Constitution was a document written for the rich.

I see the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as two sides, perhaps, of the same coin. Good side, bad side.

The guiding philosophy for the Constitution was Alexander Hamilton, his guiding philosophy was this: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people.... Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government."

The Federalist Papers is a road map for Corporate welfare for the rich and laissez-faire for the people. See Whisky Rebellion, how the railroads were built with millions of free acres of land to the barons and one to two dollars a day for the workers. Or in the 1920s when Mellon cut taxes for his wealthy friends, spurring the great depression. I could go on. My point is, all of this is protected under the Constitution, a paper designed to prevent class struggle heavily weighed in favor of the moneyed interest. I don't see it so much as an imperfect document as malignant document.

The Constitution has always be a document by and for the rich in constant battle with the Bill of Rights.

[hansberrym]

13. Yeah, its a damn shame Hamilton got that House of Lords thingy into the Constitution.

For god sakes man, do some reading!


And blaming the excesses of the Roaring 20's and the subsequent Great Depression on the Constitution of 1787 plus the Bill of Rights is a bit much, the problems of 1920's had far more to do with the creation of the Fed. Reserve (Note that Madison vigorously opposed a central bank)

Your are correct that the Const. was set up to prevent class struggle, it was intentionally anti-democratic in that regard. As in Federalist 10, the idea is to spread power around so that no one faction can gain complete control.


How do you explain rhe recent bailouts of the super rich? These were not authorized by the Const. as originally written, but rather by the expanded powers read into the Const. by the supposedly progressive court's beginning in the late 1930's. However, the populist reforms meant supposedly to aid the common man have instead further empowered the bankers.

[asdjrocky]

14. I've done a lot of reading, have you?

Have you read Howard Zinn? Chomsky? Charles Beard published a book in 1931 you might want to read.

The Constitution has been a blue print for the rich and how to stay that way for more than 200 years.

[HughMoran]

11. That's a pretty broad statement

What specifically are you talking about?

[MineralMan]

12. The entire Constitution?

I doubt it. Could you specify which parts of the Constitution you're addressing? It's difficult to have a discussion when the topic is so broad.