Why California Sucks Ass!!!

[Sundae]

Those who wrote it owned slaves.

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

Jefferson might have written that "all men are created equal", but he bought and sold human beings all the same. Obviously when they wrote about men (not women, not mankind) it didn't include people of different coloured skin. After all, the Native Americans were hardly treated as equal either.

Now I don't judge present day America on its shameful history. Not slavery and not the Ku Klux Klan. I hope that I'm not judged on Colonial Britain and Amritsah. But I don't push a bigoted old piece of paper as the basis of everything that is right and true in this country.

[Sundae]

I have no issue with the average American's average regard for the foundation of your laws. It's just Radar's blinkered belief that it is the beginning and end of all possible solutions for your country that is so alien to me. Honestly, fom my POV it's the same as the convoluted "laws" Hassidic Jews follow which are apparently based ont he 10 Commandments.

Seems like there's nothing written down that can't be deified.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Honestly, fom my POV it's the same as the convoluted "laws" Hassidic Jews follow which are apparently based ont he 10 Commandments.

I'd assume Radar would see this differently. For him the Constitution is like the 10 Commandments before a few millenia of tinkering made an indecipherable mess of some pretty simple rules. He'd like to do the impossible, turn back the clock on entropy...

[Radar]

I have never said that the Constitution is the beginning or end of any solution. Government doesn't solve problems. Government is force. It should only be used when necessary and only when directed in the right way.

All possible solutions for our country rest in the hands of our citizens. They can work to solve their own problems, or seek help from each other. But government is not the answer. I don't deify the Constitution. I remember that it is the foundation of our entire government and that it was created specifically to restrict and limit the powers of the federal government.

Originally Posted by Michael Badnarik

"Good evening fellow Americans. I’d like to share a quote from George Washington: ‘Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.’ "If you lived in a log cabin, you’d require fire for your survival. You’d use the fire to heat your home and to cook your food. Fire is such a necessary part of your survival that you’d create a special place for fire. It is called a fireplace. "Government is necessary for our survival. We need government in order to survive. The Founding Fathers created a special place for government. It is called the Constitution. "Anytime the fire is in the fireplace, it is a good fire. Anytime a fire gets outside of the fireplace, it is a bad fire. Conversely, anytime the government stays within the limits of the Constitution, it is a good government. Anytime the government is outside the Constitution, it is a bad government, and it is time to stomp it out."

-Michael Badnarik

[BrianR]

In many rural areas, mail is not delivered to an address. Instead, mail is collected at the post office and the addressee must go and pick it up in person.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by BrianR

In many rural areas, mail is not delivered to an address. Instead, mail is collected at the post office and the addressee must go and pick it up in person.

The federal government should only pay for roads as far as the postal service needs them to deliver mail in a timely fashion...like freeways between cities.

I guess the states can handle roads beyond that, and this is done through gas taxes.

I pay the post office in the form of stamps to build post offices and to sort and deliver mail. Actually most of this is paid for by junk mail people, but I pay my share in this form. For the rest of the roads, I pay via gas tax. I'm always willing to pay my fair share for the services I actually use.

[Radar]

I haven't "interpreted" anything. Someone said that if we followed the Constitution, we'd have no roads. I said we would. I was correct. Post roads are roads. They are all roads. It's nice that now the government will back off from making the claim that only the government may use those roads for mail delivery, but it doesn't change the fact that all roads are post roads or the fact that nothing I've said would prevent private mail delivery. The government's bogus claims of exclusive access to these roads would prevent it, not anything I've said.

I am unfamiliar with your source so I the veracity of your claim of the roads being the exclusive domain for government to deliver mail is questionable. Even if this is the case, the government has long considered itself to have a monopoly over delivering mail and over the use of force. The government claims the Constitution applies to citizens and not to the government when it furthers governmental power and the Supreme Court agrees. The Federal government says the Constitution doesn't apply to it when it comes to slavery, pollution, and a host of other things.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The roads between Boston, NY, Philly and points south, were established long before the revolution. Indian trails became horse trails and then wagon roads.
In 1737, when Benjamin Franklin was appointed Deputy Postmaster General by the King, he was charged with placing mile posts along those roads to determine the cost of sending mail. That's why they are called "post" roads.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Undertoad]

Post roads are roads. They are all roads.

Then why did the C not just say "roads"?

[Radar]

Probably because post roads are for delivering the mail, but not all roads back then led to a post office or a delivery address. Most of the roads back then were trails or paths that led to homes as someone mentioned earlier, back then the post office didn't deliver to homes. It delivered to other post offices. But the times have changed and now all roads are used to deliver the mail.

Bruce mentions that there were posts for each mile of road. Perhaps this is the reason. It really doesn't matter though.

What matters is the U.S. Constitution grants authority to the federal government to collect taxes to pay for roads and the fact that we had roads for 137 years before the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified to create permanent income taxes. Lincoln created the first income tax in America, but it was temporary for the reconstruction effort. It did open the door for Taft though.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Radar

Probably ... <snip> ... Perhaps ...

HOLY SHIT!!!!!

Radar just said the words "probably" and "perhaps" in relationship to an issue of constitutional interpretation!

Radar, you can't have it both ways. It very much does matter what kind of roads the Constitution granted congress the power to create, because anything beyond that specific type of road is an illegal expansion of power, and the road crews hired to build those roads should refuse to do it, and must in all good conscience quit their jobs.

As you yourself have so eloquently argued before.

[smoothmoniker]

UT, quit interpreting, dammit!

[Radar]

If you're looking for someone to argue that the federal government isn't overstepping its limited authority, you won't find it with me. All roads paid for by the federal government in which postage is not carried, is an unconstitutional use of federal money and an illegal expansion of power.

Thanks for your kind words saying I have argued eloquently. It's nice to hear even though it's an attempt to be sarcastic.

I wouldn't say contractors should quit their job if they are part of an illegal expansion of power on the part of government. But if they are good citizens, they will agree not to take part in that particular project.

As far as any ambiguity goes with regard to the Constitution, don't kid yourself into thinking I've said anything that wasn't accurate and clear. The Constitution says that the federal government may collect taxes to pay for roads. UT asked why the Constitution didn't merely say "roads" rather than "post roads". I speculated as to the reason and described why the roads currently being used by mail carriers are still legitimate uses of the federal government. The words "perhaps" and "probably" were used in discussing the possible reasons behind the use of the term "post roads" by the founders; not over the actual meaning of the Constitution or the words within it.

[Aliantha]

I want to know if you're winning or not Radar? Seems to me no one much is seeing your point of view yet.

I'll check back on your progress later. lol

And about this?

Back then, as now, I was a ... better person than you

I guess you don't believe all men (or women) are created equal then?

What an arsehole. lol

[Griff]

I had written a long rant in response to Ali's misconception about the relationship between States and roads. Bruce said it nicer and better.

[mini-rant]Radar makes a mistake tying everything to the long dead document which attempted to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government. There are no longer any significant checks to the power of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Please remember that when you call for more Federal control of roads, morgages, health care, or security, you are feeding the same creature that puts American combat boots on the ground all over the planet.[/rant]