Americans a broken people?

[TemplarSpartan]

Somewhat unrelated, but a post a page or so back made me think of it: I remember reading something that said the american constituation originally said something along the lines of 'the black man is worht 3/5 of the white man'. Is this actually true? I'd look it up, but tired, ****ty internet and lazy.

I believe this is the Three-Fifths Compromise; here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise

 

[Banastre]

Anyone who already didn't know that America is a broken society is an idiot.

 

[mdk31]

Anyone who already didn't know that America is a broken society is an idiot.

My, that's a mighty broad brush you've got there.

 

[Banastre]

Anyone who already didn't know that America is a broken society is an idiot.

My, that's a mighty broad brush you've got there.

Easy when you've generally only got two colours to choose from, and one paint bucket is much larger than the other. (no, this is not referring to racism)

 

[Elenmmare]

I just read a page and a bit of people referring to the 'government' as if it were a static, immortal object. What makes you think that the government is anything other than a body of governed-by-peers competitors who are just as clueless as the people?

 

[Mage246]

[me=Mage246]waits for obligatory "more clueless than the people" comment[/me]

Archiepoo where are you?

 

[Archonsod]

I'm going to be honest and state that I don't understand what you're saying, so I will instead turn the subject back onto Amendment 10 where we can continue the debate from a place I believe I understand.

Your interpretation of the amendment is fine, it's your understanding of the government which is flawed. As a democratic government it's mandate is drawn directly from the people. It can therefore enact any powers reserved to the people in it's capacity as the political representative of the people.

Or in simple terms, there is no difference between the United States Government and the People of the United States as political entities.

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

I just read a page and a bit of people referring to the 'government' as if it were a static, immortal object. What makes you think that the government is anything other than a body of governed-by-peers competitors who are just as clueless as the people?

Because, no matter who you vote for, you still get the Government

 

[Taimat396]

Point.

I suppose 'and looking happy about it' would be a right. Though they tend to call it patriotism nowadays.

Patriotism today typically means accepting anything the government tells you while screaming that those who don't agree with you are evil.

Bending over and looking happy about it. Like I said

Somewhat unrelated, but a post a page or so back made me think of it: I remember reading something that said the american constituation originally said something along the lines of 'the black man is worht 3/5 of the white man'. Is this actually true? I'd look it up, but tired, ****ty internet and lazy.

I believe this is the Three-Fifths Compromise; here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise

Ah, thanks. When you remember random stuff like that you tend to remember them incorrectly, and it seems I did.

 

[Heafodban]

Your interpretation of the amendment is fine, it's your understanding of the government which is flawed. As a democratic government it's mandate is drawn directly from the people. It can therefore enact any powers reserved to the people in it's capacity as the political representative of the people.

Or in simple terms, there is no difference between the United States Government and the People of the United States as political entities.

While it is true that the central government can take any new power, in order to do it legally it must first pass an amendment to the constitution that gives it that power in order to override the tenth amendment's dictation. When the central government wanted to create an income tax they first had to pass the sixteenth amendment.

The constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land, that means that it holds people over the people as well as the central and state governments. I believe your argument, that the central government can gain any power legally without creating a new amendment granting it that power because it is the people and the people have the final say, is incorrect.

And if you're arguing that because the tenth amendment reserves power to the people, and because the central government IS the people that it can do anything reserved to the people, then I'd have to point out that if the constitution actually allowed that, then they wouldn't have put the limitation of the central government because they would have realized that the central government would be granted all the powers of the people.

It seems like the constitution doesn't count the people and the central government as a single unit, and so even if in theory the central government is the people, legally in the United States it is not.

 

[Archonsod]

The constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land, that means that it holds people over the people as well as the central and state governments.

The constitution is a piece of paper. If the government decide to ignore it what precisely is it going to do, give them a nasty paper cut?

I believe your argument, that the central government can gain any power legally without creating a new amendment granting it that power because it is the people and the people have the final say, is incorrect.

So the people of the US may not govern themselves? I'll be expecting a rescindment of the declaration of independence then, and a few centuries back taxes on that tea

I'd have to point out that if the constitution actually allowed that, then they wouldn't have put the limitation of the central government because they would have realized that the central government would be granted all the powers of the people.

And the writers of the constitution were infallible? Why allow the government to pass amendments then, given they could simply amend clause one to read "the following is a work of fiction"?   The limitation is designed to prevent any one branch of government becoming more powerful than the others (although it failed in that area quite some time ago), it does not dictate what the government may do on behalf of the people.

It seems like the constitution doesn't count the people and the central government as a single unit, and so even if in theory the central government is the people, legally in the United States it is not.

Erm, you might want to look at what the three branches which constituent the federal government are.

 

[Austupaio]

The constitution is a piece of paper. If the government decide to ignore it what precisely is it going to do, give them a nasty paper cut?

I doubt it considering how that piece of paper is little more than dust held together by a thick slab of glass.

So the people of the US may not govern themselves? I'll be expecting a rescindment of the declaration of independence then, and a few centuries back taxes on that tea

I want a refund, it was ****e Earl Grey when I very clearly ordered a winter blend.

 

[Archonsod]

Earl Grey formulated his famous bergamot flavoured tea at the age of 8?

 

[The Shadow]

The judicial branch appears to making the laws at the moment.  That's what fudged up.  (And a bunch of other stuff.)
They are saying: "You votes don't count.  Your constitution doesn't count.  We are deciding." 

 

[Heafodban]

The constitution is a piece of paper. If the government decide to ignore it what precisely is it going to do, give them a nasty paper cut?

I have never once stated that the government does not have the power to ignore the constitution, I have been arguing that the government doesn't have the legal power to, you're changing my argument and then pointing out errors with the revision you created. And the constitution is made of vellum or parchment, not paper.

So the people of the US may not govern themselves? I'll be expecting a rescindment of the declaration of independence then, and a few centuries back taxes on that tea

I have never once stated that the people may not govern themselves, I stated that in order to legally govern themselves they must follow the law.

And the writers of the constitution were infallible? Why allow the government to pass amendments then, given they could simply amend clause one to read "the following is a work of fiction"?   The limitation is designed to prevent any one branch of government becoming more powerful than the others (although it failed in that area quite some time ago), it does not dictate what the government may do on behalf of the people.

I have never once stated that the writers were infallible, and once again you seemingly make the argument that the tenth amendment can be legally ignored which flatly untrue. The constitution foes in fact dictate what and what not the central government may legally do. And while it is true that they intended for there to be what people call checks and balances with the three branches, the limitation on the power of the central government was partly to keep it from growing too strong and oppressing the people.

Erm, you might want to look at what the three branches which constituent the federal government are.

The supreme American law does not grant (therefore prohibits) the legislature branch, the executive branch or the judiciary branch any legal power that it, the supreme American law, does not grant it. Any power not given to the central government in the constitution that is acted upon by the central government is by definition of the words, illegal.

 

[Austupaio]

Earl Grey formulated his famous bergamot flavoured tea at the age of 8?

'Course he didn't, that's why it was ****e. You only gave us that crap because no one else would drink the child's tea, is that it?

 

[Elenmmare]

The constitution is a piece of paper. If the government decide to ignore it what precisely is it going to do, give them a nasty paper cut?

I doubt it considering how that piece of paper is little more than dust held together by a thick slab of glass.

So the people of the US may not govern themselves? I'll be expecting a rescindment of the declaration of independence then, and a few centuries back taxes on that tea

I want a refund, it was ****e Earl Grey when I very clearly ordered a winter blend.

Keep in mind that all you'd need is a semi bright opposition politican to shout "THEY'RE THREATENING YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND SPITTING ON OUR CHRISTIAN FOREFATHERS" and you'd have half the country revolting.

Or at least boycotting the Superbowl.
For a few minutes.

 

[Archonsod]

I have never once stated that the government does not have the power to ignore the constitution, I have been arguing that the government doesn't have the legal power to

The government is legality. You cannot break the law when you are by definition the law, it would be something of a paradox. Say tomorrow the US government declares the constitution null and void, are they doing so illegally? By what definition, the now null and void constitution? but it's void!

I have never once stated that the people may not govern themselves, I stated that in order to legally govern themselves they must follow the law.

What you've basically said is the people must follow the laws which govern them in order to decide the laws by which they will be governed. Again, something of a paradox there.

The supreme American law does not grant (therefore prohibits) the legislature branch, the executive branch or the judiciary branch any legal power that it, the supreme American law, does not grant it.

The US Government is a composite entity of three branches. The US Government as a whole is the legally elected representative of the American people. It can therefore exercise, perfectly legally, any power held by the people, in their name, because they are the legally recognised representative of the American people. That's why when the government prosecutes in court in the US, the trial is "The people vs" and not "The government vs" or "The legislature vs.", except in rare cases.
This is where you are going wrong. The constitution does not prohibit the power to the government, what it does is ensure that in order to enact something as the representative of the people, it must be acting as a representative of the people; i.e. all three branches of government must be in accord in order for such a power to be exercised. It's basically like a game of top trumps; Congress can pass any laws they like, but they cannot force the executive or the judiciary to accept or enact those laws unless they are passed as part of the power granted to the legislature. There is however nothing in the constitution which states only laws passed in this manner may be accepted.

 

[Taimat396]

The government is legality. You cannot break the law when you are by definition the law, it would be something of a paradox.

Judge Dredd managed it. Just sayin'.

 

[FrisianDude]

Didn't he just break some Judge guidelines?