kurtster wrote:
Awwwww isn't that just precious? Kurtster twisting the merits of the Constitution to fit his myopic & xenophobic world view.
 
As I stated before, you really don't get any leeway to discuss the merits of the Constitution or your appreciation of it when you continue to support a clown who would seek to destroy it to benefit himself and put himself above it. And if destroy is too harsh a word... then at least significantly cripple it. Putin Jr.

 Steely_D wrote:

that thought went through my mind too. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Which is somehow different from a straight up democracy?

 kurtster wrote:
Kurt, I appreciate the effort and think it's a worthwhile discussion.

Appreciating that statement, please take the following as a conversation over a few beers down the street.  The challenge is friendly fire...

You commented on 2 things that I don't follow.   "Those already here", for which you've been chastised quite a bit already, and flexibility. 

The US was a colony at the beginning of the process we're reflecting on.  Its focus was on loyalty and support, not jobs, homelessness, and drug trafficking.  The colonies would have welcomed anyone, from anywhere, that professed allegiance and would support the separation from England.  The notion of "here now" is a way to ring-fence British citizens into being "one of us".  The perversion that somehow it was meant to focus solely on those already here is a twisted spin on the Dred Scott case, which concluded that anyone born in the colonies (including most notably slaves), was covered under "We the People".  It was about including those (previously excluded) who were here, not excluding those who weren't.

Interpretation.  Perspective.  Flexibility.

This is where the Right puts itself in a box.

When you take the position that the Second Amendment was about personal freedom and not defending the country from the British, you must fall back on "what the founders intended" in favor of common sense in light of modern society.  Rules can be changed?  Really?  You can't suggest that... the Second Amendment is religion, handed down by the Gods... and then suggest that everything else is "flexible".  Anyone holding on to the 2nd amendment tightly will need to contort their arguments and positions in every way possible to work back toward "it's not what the founders intended".  I agree with you, they would have intended flexibility.  They would likely have a completely different view of immigration, guns, and just about everything else.

There is no way that the founders considered issues for a world where a private citizen owns a company that is working to take people to Mars.  What they thought was incredible for the time, but the times have changed, and so must our application of the guiding principles upon which the country was founded.  Principles are what matter.

I gotta get another beer...want one?

to clarify that a bit:

The beauty about a rights-based system is that it allows a society to set a minimum of prescriptive behavior and maximises individual liberty. 

To put it into plain text: as long as you don't go around violating the rights of your neighbours, they have no right to start telling you what to do. 
("cut your hair, go to church, etc."). Or more extreme, if someone wants to change their gender, that is their right and it is none of your business as it doesn't violate any of your fundamental rights.

So if you properly understand the spirit behind the constitution you shouldn't be getting so upset about "untoward influences from outside" etc.  It is sufficient just to protect basic inalienable rights as the US has always tried to do.
But from what I see coming out of the MAGA crowd, it is precisely these sorts of transgressions that they are peddling as being "American." 
I would argue they are precisely the opposite.

 kurtster wrote:
..so, yes, pretty much indeed the direction you were going. 

That there needs to be some form of arbitration goes without saying. And, yes, I welcome your opposition to mob rule. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Not at all where I was going or even thinking for that matter.  The yet incomplete thought is that the Constitution does among other things, protects the citizens from untoward influences from the outside.  The way things are done somewhere else shall not influence say, things like decisions made in our justice system.  That our national sovereignty is about more than just our borders.

That the Constitution is a set of rules that also says how these rules can be changed.  But that the beginning point of view will always come from the Founding with primary considerations made for those who are already here.  Those who come later will adopt to the established ways and work within the system to get a consensus for change as opposed to change based upon mob rule.

This is very loosely put but I found that I had to make it clear that this was not about expressing any desire to keep anybody out.

I dunno Kurtster, I see your pain and sense of loss. But I can't help thinking it is self-inflicted. 

This whole political era is dominated by questions of identity, not just in the United States, but globally. The old traditional lines of national borders are getting eroded by global trade, global crises and the free movement of goods and people. It is understandable that many people want to fall back on the old familiar lines where they felt secure, but that is ultimately not going to help any of us. 

So this attempt to shoehorn the constitution into a form that is fundamentally exclusive, i.e. to keep foreigners and "strange" toe-licking people out, is understandable, but pretty futile. That was not the underlying spirit behind the constitution, nor the European enlightenment of which it was born. In fact it was precisely the opposite: to protect people's fundamental rights, even when they start licking their toes in public, or worship a God that is strange to you, or criticise the King, burn the flag or any other of the myriad bizarre things that people do.

I suspect Trump is so popular because a lot of his base see him as the quintessential American - that even a guy like him who is obviously two bricks short of a load can make it, build golden towers and marry any number of Melanias. When he hugs the flag, they go all weak at the knees and think he is the embodiment of what the country is all about and therefore there can't be any conflict between his acts and the constitution, because, hey, he is a true son of the USA.

But that is to put the cart before the horse. It is true that the constitution has created the fertile ground on which America has built its wealth... "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the Declaration of Independence puts it. But this was never meant to be exclusive and only benefit just a select group of people. It makes claims to universality, i.e. to ALL people, even illegal immigrants, because it honours their natural rights, which are inalienable. And THAT is the core of its success.
As soon as you start trying to interpret it to exclude groups, based on whatever metric, you are violating that principle and are going to ruin the very fertile ground on which American wealth is built.

/my 2c

I strongly suspect that that train derailed by itself almost immediately.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I do not understand what you mean by this.

 

When I started I thought that I did.  I've looked at the responses while I have actually done a lot of reading on the things I brought up and am trying to figure out to tie it all together to have it make some kind of sense.  The only thing I've figured out so far is that this is of very little interest to most folks.  

The events of the day lately have become mind blowing and disrupt any kind of train of thinking.  Here's an example from local news.

Deer Creek School District faces criticism after students licked toes during a fundraiser

I cannot comprehend how something like this even got off the drawing board and approved in the first place let alone what it is all by itself.  The notion that anyone would think that this kind of behaviour is normal in the first place and then to think it was worthy for public consumption; that none of the organizers would find this just plain abnormal at any level and fit for the general public.

And in OK of all places.

This is just one of many things going on that just is so utterly ridiculous that has now become normal.  Abnormal is the new normal.  And it is being accepted as normal or at least unobjectionable because they are little things that don't have anything to do with anything else. Move along boomer, ignore what appears to be a trend and that it is so far embedded now that it cannot be undone or even that it should be.  The size of the group involved to execute this event shows how deep seated this acceptance is.  It is defended by the ends justifying the means.  But we raised $150,000.

By itself, it's a tiny thing, but these tiny little things are becoming too common, imo. And they are adding up to a death by a thousand cuts.  Me ?  I'm feeling just about bled out now.

But what do I know anymore  There's too much static in the attic to think straight anymore.  Is this how gas lighting works ?
 

 Lazy8 wrote:
Lost, perhaps, in a shaggy dog hairball...

 kurtster wrote:
Do you have some kind of point here? Because I doubt that characterization would apply to, say, you.

 islander wrote:

…and what about Naomi?!?

(Electric Company reference, kids)

 haresfur wrote:
What about the ones that were progeny? Are they posterity too?

 kurtster wrote:

Point of clarification: Do future generations of the slaves owned by founders count, too? As opposed to the ones they brought over after the constitution was signed?

 islander wrote:
As a documented descendant of 3 Mayflower passengers... all of you newbies need to get off my lawn!!!

Note...there are roughly 30 or 40 million descendants running around...so we can keep the lights on when everyone leaves.

 VV wrote:

Yeah, so is it who got there first, or who has the most firepower to hold it?  And what if the second group decides they don't care about the opinion of the first?  Pretty much what happened with 'the founders'. Of course now if we line up on who is 'The Prosperity' of the founders and all of us latecomers, who has the numbers to maintain control?  I bet Ks opinion of who is most righteous would shift pretty quickly here.

Although I do think this clears up some of my confusion on his obsession with his 'provable heritage' to the may flower or something and the inalienable rights that go with that. 

 kurtster wrote:
See? This is why you get yourself into trouble. 
 
I hesitate to ask where you feel the slaves and indigenous people fit into the picture. Just collateral damage of the Founders and their progeny in their quest for prosperity & pursuit of happiness?
  
I guess that tags me as "woke" to even bring that up? Oh well, I could give two sh*ts.
 
Of course, it's no different than what other countries have done during their colonization of foreign lands... but no less troublesome.

 kurtster wrote:
The phrase "The People of The United States" does not limit to only the founders, or perhaps they may have phrased it "We, The Founders of The United States".  Anyhow, Jefferson and his committee had written that "all men are created equal", nothing about when they arrived here.

 black321 wrote:
Sorry...but they said we can have guns, and that's what makes us special in the civilized world.