Constitutionality of Obamacare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

And yet, because of the system the Founders established for America the door was opened, directly leading to the abolishment of slavery in America and the granting of suffrage for women.

---

Really? Vermont abolished the slavery almost 15 years before it joined the union, the French abolished slavery many decades before America...
In fact had the united states never became independent country the slavery would have been abolished some 30 years earlier than it did, so if anything the founding fathers hindered the abolition of slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Give credit where credit is due.

---

It is great that the founding fathers had broader understanding of the constitution than many today seem to have and recognized that the society can and likely will change and doesn't need to remain slave to whatever worldview they held at that time. Now that was really good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

(And when you say that they, meaning the founders, didn't mean to abolish slavery, I don't believe that history will support that view. And as for women's rights - like I said before, I think the world had to catch up with the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution. And obviously, for the most part, at least in America, it has.)

---

So your proposition is that they really wanted to, but the american society was really backwards and wouldn't have it. Do we know how many of them were slave owners who just freed their slaves and hired free workers in their place? As far as I remember the first president was really inventive in finding ways to keep his slaves, since having to do the job in Philladelphia the state law would grant them freedom after 6 months.

Why can't we just call the white white, the black black, and any shade of gray that shade of gray?

Vermont abolished slavery in 1777. Before the Constitution was written. Good for them. They Got on board before everyone else, but they got the message, no doubt, from the Declaration of Independence the year before.

From the Vermont State Constitution:

"I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore, no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like."

Sound familiar?

Anti-slavery in France was inspired by the same enlightenment movement which inspired the American founders.

The slave trade was ended in France in 1794 (18 years after America's independence), but was re-instituted by Napoleon in 1802, and didn't end, again, until 1848. Considering France's involvement in our revolutionary war, prior to their initial ending of slavery, what inspiration did they receive from us?

Is it really important who did what first?

The point is that that slavery did end, and that due to the very same principles this country was founded on.

"...but the american society was really backwards and wouldn't have it."

Well, that is a blanket statement. Obviously some of American society was backwards. Those that were, as you remember, attempted to succeed from the Union and a civil war was fought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Is it really important who did what first?

---

Not to me, you seem to bt the one to assign the founding fathers some almost exclusive wisdom. They all came from Europe and as you noted were influenced by the same modernist ideas that progressive people at the time shared. They were not perfect, and neither was the constitution, or the state they created, so the argument 'but they did it that way, and if we do it otherwise we are doomed' looks rather week to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

"...but the american society was really backwards and wouldn't have it."

Well, that is a blanket statement. Obviously some of American society was backwards. Those that were, as you remember, attempted to succeed from the Union and a civil war was fought.

---

It is and it isn't, in a representative democracy the representatives can override the will of majority if they think it's necessary, but that can be a political suicide and is almost never attempted.


Principles are nice, but all by themselves they don't do much. In america it took almost 200 years to recognize that the principles the country was found on actually apply equally to all and implement laws that protect all citizens equally.

Now may be your great grandchildren would live in a country where the constitution guarantees a certain level of health care and will consider you the same way people today consider their slave-owning great grandfathers? Who knows? It wouldn't be the same country, for sure, but this doesn't automatically mean it will be a better or a worse one.

Wow, this response must almost definitely be someone who has never done research. Everything you mentioned was research funded privately by private individuals, but not public funds. My point was that private industry performs and funds the best research and most publicly funded research is useless. I am sorry you aren't smart enough to know the difference. But then again, it says Ithica, NY so I would expect such things. Unlike some I know about the antibody responses to viruses, and guess what, private companies make those vaccines and pay for the research behind them. I am sorry that you do not understand my point, nor do you know the facts about your counter argument. I do not hand out advice, but you really should think about getting your facts straight in you arguments, because unlike most people who think you are intelligent with such a statement, there are those of us who see the stupidity in your argument. As before, some of us have published research and know what we are saying when we make a statement.

Ask yourselves this question..... Of all the countries in the world, which country has had more people migrate to, emigrate to and otherwise beat the door down to get into that country ???:aargh:
What is the problem with the USA???:aargh:
Ultimate solution, take a hike.:rofl2:
Even the entire United Nations decided to move here !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JERRY
~~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Not to me, you seem to bt the one to assign the founding fathers some almost exclusive wisdom (yes, they were wise, weren't they). They all came from Europe (Only nine were born outside the U.S.) and as you noted were influenced by the same modernist ideas that progressive (enlightened) people at the time shared. They were not perfect, and neither was the constitution, or the state they created (no not perfect, but please explain the mass exodus [30 million +] of immigrants moving away from Europe and to the United States during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Guess it was even less perfect there. Not perfect, but explain the continuing millions of legal and illegal immigrants coming into the U.S.), so the argument 'but they did it that way, and if we do it otherwise we are doomed' looks rather week to me (look again).



It is and it isn't, in a representative democracy the representatives can override the will of majority (within guidelines) if they think it's necessary, but that can be a political suicide and is almost never attempted (apparently more than you think).


Principles are nice, but all by themselves they don't do much (true, they require action to be effective). In america (nice touch) it took almost 200 years to recognize that the principles the country was found on actually apply equally to all and implement laws that protect all citizens equally (was the country on a time schedule?).

Now may be your great grandchildren would live in a country where the constitution guarantees a certain level of health care (which level will it guarantee?) and will consider you the same way people today consider their slave-owning great grandfathers? (Oh? and how is that??) Who knows? (If you do, please tell) It wouldn't be the same country (Is that not your sincerest desire?), for sure, but this doesn't automatically (no, not automatically) mean it will be a better or a worse one (well, which do you choose?).

---

A few comments in red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

They were not perfect, and neither was the constitution, or the state they created (no not perfect, but please explain the mass exodus [30 million +] of immigrants moving away from Europe and to the United States during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Guess it was even less perfect there. How do you explain the continuing millions of legal and illegal immigrants coming to the U.S.?).

---

No explanation necessary as your statement is irrelevant. Your argument is that the original constitution the way it was written and meant then is the best option for today's society, so whether it was the best option at that time is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

It is and it isn't, in a representative democracy the representatives can override the will of majority (within guidelines) if they think it's necessary, but that can be a political suicide and is almost never attempted (apparently more than you think).

---

I thought we're talking about the founding fathers and the constitution (as nobody can fill me in on Obamacare). So which one(s) of them broke with the prevalent opinion on slavery and attempted to put real action behind the high principles, the way their neighbors in Vermont did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

was the country on a time schedule?.

---

You tell me - what is the appropriate delay before recognizing the self-evidence that all humans are endowed with certain rights and starting to treat all humans in the same way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

It wouldn't be the same country (Is that not your sincerest desire?), for sure, but this doesn't automatically (no, not automatically) mean it will be a better or a worse one (well, which do you choose?).

---

Actually yes, my desire is for any country in the world to be a better one tomorrow than it is today. And I suspect that most people desire the same, although I'm sure that there are plenty who see the betterment of country A as a direct consequence of the worsening of country B, so they would have a list of countries they would prefer to be worse off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrsell63

Ask yourselves this question..... Of all the countries in the world, which country has had more people migrate to, emigrate to and otherwise beat the door down to get into that country ???:aargh:
What is the problem with the USA???:aargh:
Ultimate solution, take a hike.:rofl2:
Even the entire United Nations decided to move here !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JERRY
~~~

---

I did ask myself this question and you may be surprised at the answer I found. Do look it up....

Page 19, here we come!!!!!:D

Page 19? I'm only on page 5