babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 07:52 AM
Original message |
If the Constitution Were Written Today |
Chulanowa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 08:00 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Sadly, that's not too dofferent from the way it was |
|
Considering all those "founding fathers" were rich planters who's primary goal was to be able to retain all the wealth they squeezed out of slavery, rather than paying a fraction of the sum to the King, and they purposefully restricted voting to people who were privileged with similar circumstances.
Sorry, I don't put much stock into the Founding Fathers cult. My folks were batting for the other team. Ol' Caunotaucarius can wrap his wooden teeth around a fat sweaty one.
|
zipplewrath
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. "White male landowners" |
|
The Founders tended to use the word "property owners" as much as anything, but it was strangely the "middle class" of the day to which they refered. It was the "tradesman" class. Laborers weren't what they were really talking about. Farmers, yes, who owned land, but not a farm hand. To some extent it was a revolt of the middle class against the "ruling class" of royal appointees that tended to own everything, often as absentee landlords.
Yes, there was the problem of slavery and its economic importance to certain argricultural areas. And the "grand compromise" that turned them into 3/5ths of a person was a huge mistake. A mistake that should be a warning to us all. Fundamental compromises don't necessarily do anything but entrench problems that will one day become even harder to over come. It's one thing to agree to limitations on how extensive a "public option" can be with respect to eligible applicants. It's another to say it can't exist at all.
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 08:01 AM
Response to Original message |
2. That cartoon is simultaneously hilarious and terrifying .. Recced.. |
old mark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 08:07 AM
Response to Original message |
3. It would probably never get written and certainly never be ratified. |
|
The party of NO would see to that.
mark
|
zipplewrath
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
The GOP is basically the same bunch of folks as the anti-federalist of the time. Anti-big central government. If the GOP of today had held the day back then, we'd still have the articles of confederation, if we had a country at all.
|
old mark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. And some of us would still be British Subjects. nt |
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. And have insurance that we wouldn't lose if we lost our job.. n/t |
old mark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-27-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
That queen is looking better all the time.
Hey, Brits - would ya take us back? (Don't blame you if the answer is NO...)
mark:patriot:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:48 PM
Response to Original message |