|
|
Author
|
Topic: united States vs. United States
|
|
|
John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/849b.jpg)
Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-22-2002 01:32 PM
Interesting paper. Shows what you can do with a certain body of facts. On the other hand, the author completely disreguards the accepted concept of our "living constitution", the idea that we are not the same society today as we were in 1789, and that we have "evolved" over those 200 plus years into something quite different. Article 10 of the Bill of Rights was a bone thrown to the Anti-Federalists in order to get them to support the Constitution. Yes, it still applies today, but so does the concept that when a state law and a federal law are in conflict, the federal law takes presedence.It is difficult to understand that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, people thought of themselves as "Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, Virginians, etc." There really was no concept of a united country as we know it today. So...Don't go disobeying any federal laws because you think they infringe on the rights of the states.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/299c.jpg)
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 06-23-2002 04:33 AM
The problem with the idea of a "living constitution", that allows for a changing society, is that the constitution would be in peril and our country would eventually fall. In reality, our constitution is written to allow for necesarry changes in the case of a major societal change that would adversely impact the union as a whole. Such things as racial, voting, alchohol, are all things that have been altered by laws and amendments, but have not affected the union or the document as a whole.Now attempting to control something like guns, most would say that the second ammendment is a throwback from the days of king george. Fair and just citezens of USA are entiteled to take protection into thier own hands if necessary, sometimes in areas where police are powerless to stop crime. In the USA, in cities that have overwhelming numbers carrying concealed guns, the crime rates are low. In cities where those numbers carying are small, the rates are up. The only other answer is to allow a total police state, but the constitution does not allow for that either. The whole thing is just dumb anyway. What the hell do I care, I live in Utah, where we all are going to heaven because we are all mormon. Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/660a.jpg)
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 06-23-2002 10:15 AM
John, it can be fairly successfully argued that most laws enacted by those in a representative system are designed for one thing - to keep those who have the power to make laws, and to a lesser extent their supporters, in power.Using this as a core theory, it isn't difficult at all to understand the concept of a confederation of autonomous states banded together for common defense. NATO was a modern example of a confederation of independent country/states. The result of the forced political interchange within NATO during the cold war was a precursor to a unified europe, as much as England fighting against the colonies eventually led to a strong Federal government in the U.S.; a government which didn't include loyalist Canada. When viewed from this perspective, it becomes readily apparent why the lower and middle classes relate so well to revolutionary documents and ideas, and why the upper classes are more likely to claim "we've grown beyond the Constitution." Revolutionary documents generalize the concepts of "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" and "The people have rights!" into a form that the common people are willing to support to the death, even though the intent of the documents is less to give rights to ALL the people (eg: slaves) and more aimed at lopping off the governmental head and elevating the larger group of disenfranchised patricians into that position. AFAICT, there never is a distinct right or wrong in politics, but only an uneasy truce between the haves and have-nots, which politicians play for personal gain and power. Simplisticly, revolt generally comes when the have-nots are feeling particularly stressed, but revolts are usually unsuccessful. Successful revolutions come when a large portion of the "haves" begin to feel disinfranchised or overtaxed by power and wealth converging to an ever smaller and more exclusive group of people. I realize the above is a gross oversimplification and disservice to the nuances of history, but may be helpful in attempting to understand the rhetoric of politics and the canonization of the Constitution.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/660a.jpg)
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 06-25-2002 06:16 PM
John and Leo, after dealing with usenet buffoons for a number of years, it is a welcome change to discuss this subject with educated individuals such as the two of you.John, about all I can add is that when one references "The French Revolution" it can be important to qualify "Which one?" ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/smile.gif) Leo, You are correct about the "very real danger." Britain will soon come to a choice point where it has to choose between direct and formal alliance with the U.S. or the same with the E.U. I do not envy the people of Britain or their elected leaders. There is no question in my mind that the current crop of merchant princes want at least a partial world government. To paraphrase the Irish curse, until that time I think "our days will be interesting."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|