VAX or FIRED

Fogdog said:

Tell us how race-based chattel slavery can be part of a foundation that is individual liberty.

Click to expand...

Hiddengems said:

The USA was founded on individualism.

Click to expand...

mooray said:

Everyone individually got together to form a government.

Click to expand...

Hiddengems said:

It doesn't say that anywhere in the bill of rights.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Click to expand...

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787 to debate what form of government the United States should have, there were no contemporary democracies in Europe from which they could draw inspiration. The most democratic forms of government that any of the convention members had personally encountered were those of Native American nations. Of particular interest was the Iroquois Confederacy, which historians have argued wielded a significant influence on the U.S. Constitution.

What evidence exists that the delegates studied Native governments? Descriptions of them appear in the three-volume handbook John Adams wrote for the convention surveying different types of governments and ideas about government. It included European philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu, whom U.S. history textbooks have long identified as constitutional influences; but it also included the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indigenous governments, which many of the delegates knew through personal experience.

“You had the Cherokee chiefs having dinner with [Thomas] Jefferson’s father in Williamsburg, and then in the northern area of course you had this Philadelphia interaction with the Delaware and the Iroquois,” says Kirke Kickingbird, a lawyer, member of the Kiowa Tribe and coauthor with Lynn Kickingbird of Indians and the United States Constitution: A Forgotten Legacy.

Since the U.S. had trade and diplomatic relationships with Native governments, Kickingbird says, thinking the constitutional framers weren’t familiar with them is like saying, “Gosh, I didn’t know the Germans and the French knew each other.”

READ MORE: How the US Constitution Has Changed and Expanded Since 1787

Similarities and Differences Between the Iroquois Confederacy and the US Constitution

The Iroquois Confederacy was in no way an exact model for the U.S. Constitution. However, it provided something that Locke and Montesquieu couldn’t: a real-life example of some of the political concepts the framers were interested in adopting in the U.S.

The Iroquois Confederacy dates back several centuries, to when the Great Peacemaker founded it by uniting five nations: the Mohawks, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, the Oneida and the Seneca. In around 1722, the Tuscarora nation joined the Iroquois, also known as the Haudenosaunee.
Together, these six nations formed a multi-state government while maintaining their own individual governance.

This stacked-government model influenced constitutional framers’ thinking, says Donald A. Grinde, Jr., a professor of transnational studies at the University of Buffalo, member of the Yamasee nation and co-author with Bruce E. Johansen of Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy.

The constitutional framers “cite the Iroquois and other Native governments as examples of [federalism],” he says. “Marriage and divorce is taken care of right in the village; it’s not a thing that the national government or the chiefs have to do with. Each tribe might have its own issues, but the Iroquois Confederacy is about…unification through mutual defense and it conducts foreign affairs.”

The chiefs of the six nations were hereditary rulers, something the framers wanted to avoid, given their grievances with Britain’s King George III. Still, the framers “did seek to borrow aspects of Iroquois government that enabled them to assert the people's sovereignty over vast geographic expanses since they found no governments in Europe with these characteristics,” Grinde and Johansen write in Exemplar of Liberty.

Congress Formally Recognizes Iroquois Influence

The fact that many of the framers looked to Native governments for inspiration didn’t stop them from viewing Native people as inferior. This disconnect is evident in a 1751 letter from Benjamin Franklin describing the need for the 13 colonies to form a “voluntary Union” similar to that of the Iroquois Confederacy:

“It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests.”

The United States’ bias and violence against Native Americans may have helped obscure the framers’ interest in their governments. However, public awareness of this connection increased around the 1987 bicentennial marking the 200th anniversary of the Constitution.

“Oren Lyons, who was a Faithkeeper for the Iroquois Confederacy, went to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and broached this subject,” Grinde says. “And then I went down to Washington and testified before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs.”

This motivated the committee’s chair, Daniel Inoue of Hawaii, to help Congress pass a 1988 resolution formally acknowledging the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy on the U.S. Constitution. In addition to this recognition, the resolution reaffirmed “the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution”—an acknowledgement of the legitimacy and sovereignty of Native nations and their governments.

Click to expand...

canndo said:

Let's leave the romanticism behind as well. This country was formed for a single purpose, it wasn't "inherent rights" as the founders seem to have forgotten that women, blacks and Indians might also have been born with inalienable rights. It wasn't religious freedom as the colonists traveled here not to enjoy religious freedom but to impose THEIR religion on others, ask the witches about that.

The point was originally to establish a country where the rich could keep more of their profits. Everything else was incidental to that goal.

One more thing..this "America is a judeo christian...." "based on the ten commandments.."

Yeah, nowhere in the founding documents will you find anything paralleling or echoing any of those commandments.

Click to expand...

canndo said:

Let's leave the romanticism behind as well. This country was formed for a single purpose, it wasn't "inherent rights" as the founders seem to have forgotten that women, blacks and Indians might also have been born with inalienable rights. It wasn't religious freedom as the colonists traveled here not to enjoy religious freedom but to impose THEIR religion on others, ask the witches about that.

The point was originally to establish a country where the rich could keep more of their profits. Everything else was incidental to that goal.

One more thing..this "America is a judeo christian...." "based on the ten commandments.."

Yeah, nowhere in the founding documents will you find anything paralleling or echoing any of those commandments.

Click to expand...

mooray said:

The founders understood the apparent conflict and wrote our founding documents as a means of correcting something in the future, something they would never have been unable to correct at the time. It took nearly a century before the country was even halfway ready to make the first major change and we fought a war over it. Many of them studied philosophy and if you read some of their private writings, greed was hardly a motive. There isn't a person alive today in politics that I'd put ahead of them. The days of philosophical leaders are gone and even the days of legal leaders are mostly gone. All that's left is "ooohhh shiny".

You'll find plenty of alignment in between christian stuff and law, but ultimately it doesn't matter, because...what are you going to do, reject a principle just because someone that sucks believes the same? Maybe hitler thought people should help old ladies across the street, but that doesn't mean he owns it. You can still believe in helping old ladies across the street without having any association with hitler. I'm not a big fan of christians or christianity as most commonly practiced right now, but I'll stand by avoiding the seven deadly sins in my behavior, because it aligns with I think is right regardless of anyone else.

Click to expand...

HGCC said:

People's car!

Click to expand...

canndo said:

Let's leave the romanticism behind as well. This country was formed for a single purpose, it wasn't "inherent rights" as the founders seem to have forgotten that women, blacks and Indians might also have been born with inalienable rights. It wasn't religious freedom as the colonists traveled here not to enjoy religious freedom but to impose THEIR religion on others, ask the witches about that.

The point was originally to establish a country where the rich could keep more of their profits. Everything else was incidental to that goal.

One more thing..this "America is a judeo christian...." "based on the ten commandments.."

Yeah, nowhere in the founding documents will you find anything paralleling or echoing any of those commandments.

Click to expand...

mooray said:

The founders understood the apparent conflict and wrote our founding documents as a means of correcting something in the future, something they would never have been unable to correct at the time. It took nearly a century before the country was even halfway ready to make the first major change and we fought a war over it. Many of them studied philosophy and if you read some of their private writings, greed was hardly a motive. There isn't a person alive today in politics that I'd put ahead of them. The days of philosophical leaders are gone and even the days of legal leaders are mostly gone. All that's left is "ooohhh shiny".

You'll find plenty of alignment in between christian stuff and law, but ultimately it doesn't matter, because...what are you going to do, reject a principle just because someone that sucks believes the same? Maybe hitler thought people should help old ladies across the street, but that doesn't mean he owns it. You can still believe in helping old ladies across the street without having any association with hitler. I'm not a big fan of christians or christianity as most commonly practiced right now, but I'll stand by avoiding the seven deadly sins in my behavior, because it aligns with I think is right regardless of anyone else.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

where are you going with this?

Click to expand...

canndo said:

Authenticity and honesty.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

you do know that this is 2021 and not 1780-ish, don't you? A lot has happened since the founders wrote the constitution. What's this stuff you said about Judeo-Christian society supposed to mean?

Click to expand...

canndo said:

Greed? No, it was all about taxation.

The founders were all rich. Some more than others. High moral ideology might have been a convenient adjunct but the stated purpose (all that really counts) was taxes. Unlikely they would have formed a new country over anything else, just not immediate or weighty enough.

Click to expand...

canndo said:

Tell that to our conservative constructionist court, not me.

Click to expand...