Marxism of the Right (A paleoconservative pot pontificates on libertarian kettles)

The practice of slavery was an exception to the principles of liberty in the Constitution. Assisting escaping slaves did not violate those principles, it violated the exceptional 'property rights' of slave owners.
By accepting the peculiar institution as 'legal' under the Constitution, - the framers acknowledged that some humans did not have life & liberty, -- that they were property.. This was an exception to the rule..
Get it [the principle] yet?

I don't get it yet.

I'm starting to doubt you want to, -- or ever will..

The founders had all kinds of exceptions to equality under the law and applied the law to various classes of humans in various ways. Examples: Minors, women, and men without property.

Men without property are free to acquire it, women have been 'freed', and minors are still exceptions, as most all can agree..

_____________________________________

BTW, -- you raised the 'slavery' issue back at #122, after I'd posted about the:

Constitutional duties of persons [ALL residents] under U.S. or State jurisdiction:

Jon Roland
Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties
Address:http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

Did you ever intend to 'connect the dots' between our Constitutional duties, and your objections to Constitutional flaws?
Do you feel that such flaws absolve you of responsibility to support its basic principles?

The practice of slavery was an exception to the principles of liberty in the Constitution.

Only for those that saw the slaves as worthy or deserving of liberty.

"Only"? Are you among those who don't?

The slave holders valued the "principles of liberty" for certain classes of humans, but not others.

This is true. And your arguments seem to be defending them. Why?

So did the Founders who opposed slavery. Almost all Founders saw no reason to include women, for example, in the class of "those allowed to vote".

As I noted before, there were flaws in the Constitution & its founders. But they got the basic principles correct, even if some of the details needed amendment.

Some Founders opposed slavery, and for different reasons. But they found that another principle, the principle of a strong national defense, won out over the conflicting "principles of Constitutional liberty" and the other reasons for opposing slavery.

Obviously.. So we agree that ratification & union ruled the day. - However, they knew flaws [like slavery] could be corrected, -- as they were.

The fact remains, -- we all are obliged to support our Constitutions principles.

Constitutions principles are not "vague" at all. You just imagine them that way because it suits your politics.

It is you that imagine that I have said that our Constitutional principles are vague. What I had said is that "your Constitutional principles" are vague. There is a clear difference. Furthermore, I did not just say it as though it were grand pronouncement as you so often do, I explained how "your" Constitutional principles are vague.

I posted a thread about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it into a flame fest with personal insults.

Hmmm, I've not been to that thread. Sounds like a little imagination of false persecution here.

Dream on that you've discredited Article VI, wherein "judges & all fed & state officials are specifically included; -- Article VI does not specify any exclusions."

I did not say anything that can be even remotely interpreted to discredit Article VI of the US Constitution. I did however (several replies back), correct you on your inaccurate citing of Article VI as requiring that we support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land," further advising you to "go re-read it." I assume you did, and discovered your error. But instead of admitting your error, as any honest honorable person would do, you chose to twist Article VI to fit your purposes by using a spurious claim that it does require it, as "it does not specify any exclusions."

Up until this statement of yours (that Article VI "does not specify any exclusions"), I believed you to be at least a Constitutional strict constructionist. But this "Article VI" position you have taken is the opposite of strict constructionism. So in my next reply I told you that it "sounds a lot like a judicial activist position." In your reply back, you conveniently failed to answer the point, resorting instead to ranting about what is "logically obvious" and what "is not logical" with regard some vague notion of yours having to do with an 'obligation' and a false assertion regarding an "exemption." So I then replied back "that you ran at high speed from the challenge that this interpretation of Article VI is nothing more than judicial activism." Finally you reply:

Your off the wall opinion that I or Roland interpret Article VI as authorizing activism is not a 'challenge', its ludicrous.

First off, it is not my "opinion," that you "interpret Article VI as authorizing activism." I've never said it, I've never as much as implied it. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Second, the name "Roland" has never appeared in any prior reply written by me, here on this thread or, on any other thread at any time in the past. I don't even know who he is, let alone what his opinions are. Why would you say that I have an opinion on how Roland interprets anything?

Yep, everyone must obey valid Constitutional laws. - That is NOT a vague & phony statement..

I agree, and I never once said otherwise. So Why bring it up?

Our Constitutions principles are not "vague" at all. You just imagine them that way because it suits your politics.

Oh. When you use the the words "Constitutional principles" they are most certainly vague.

Only to you.

First off you have interchangeably used on this thread Constitutional principles, laws of the land, and even the Constitution itself. You have also used the same term "Constitutional principles" for describing that well written concise piece the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles." In short it is impossible to know what you are talking about when you use the two word term "Constitutional principles." I call that vague.
Your delusion of grandeur really shows itself, especially in how you handle almost every disagreement with you. That is that you turn so many of the disagreements with you into a disagreements with the constitution and/or the Constitutional principles.

I posted a thread [ entitled "Declaration of Constitutional Principles."] about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it [this issue] into a flame fest with personal insults.

Hmmm, I've not been to that thread. Sounds like a little imagination of false persecution here.

BS, -- here's what you said about that thread back at #117:

jackbob wrote:
I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" [by Jon Roland] yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written.

Your off the wall opinion that I or Roland interpret Article VI as authorizing activism is not a 'challenge', its ludicrous.

First off, it is not my "opinion," that you "interpret Article VI as authorizing activism." I've never said it, I've never as much as implied it. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
Second, the name "Roland" has never appeared in any prior reply written by me, here on this thread or, on any other thread at any time in the past.
I don't even know who he is, let alone what his opinions are. Why would you say that I have an opinion on how Roland interprets anything?

Why? -- Your own words belie you, thats why..

BS, -- here's what you said about that thread back at #117:

jackbob wrote:

I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" [by Jon Roland] yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written.

But that is not what I wrote in my reply #117. What I wrote is:

I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written.

The "[by Jon Roland]" was not in my text. As I have said, "the name "Roland" has never appeared in any prior reply written by me." Your inserting his name into my text, then using it to quote me the way you did went way beyond any clarity or reference purpose. Such misquoting is deceptive at best. I say fraudulent.

You then state that you "posted a thread [entitled "Declaration of Constitutional Principles."] about our Constitutions principles." You further added: "Now you seem bent on turning it [this issue] into a flame fest with personal insults."

After making this accusation, you give my apparent answer to it:

Hmmm, I've not been to that thread. Sounds like a little imagination of false persecution here.

Of course my reply here was not to your above sentence as you re-wrote it here. My reply was to:

I posted a thread about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it into a flame fest with personal insults.

The subject of the imagined false persecution I accused you of was the "thread" on which it was mysteriously happening, and not "[this issue]" which you conveniently added to your own words in this reply after I posted my reply that you quoted. Again as usual, taking my words out of proper context.

At any rate, your attempt to use my reply #117 as some kind of proof that I "seem bent on" turning that thread and/or the Declaration of Constitutional Principles "into a flame fest with personal insults, fails as it does in your attempt to say that I am being dishonest regarding my not knowing what Jon Roland's opinions are on anything.

First off, when I posted #117 on Sunday, March 13, 2005 it was directed to your #115 that you posted just a few minutes prior. Jon Roland's name was not mentioned in either of our replies. It was in your #115 that you provided a link to the new FR thread on the Declaration of Constitutional Principles which you had also just posted a few minutes before that.. I of course didn't need to go to that thread, as I said I had just finished reading them "yesterday" which would have been Saturday March 12, 2005. I of course was well able to find the Declaration at its own web page outside of FR, as you provided a link to it early Friday evening, March 11, 2005. I read the Declaration that Friday evening, finishing it that Saturday prior to your posting a new thread at FR on it. The fact that I had said that I had just finished reading it the day before, dismantles your use of my #117 as proof that I had been to the FR thread you dedicated to it, as you had just started that thread a few minutes prior to my saying that I had already read it.

Now as far as Jon Roland goes, the off FR web page that the Declaration is on, which you provided a link to in you reply #91 on Friday, March 11, 2005 does not mention his name. As a matter of fact, no author is named. No supporting organization is provided. Nor are there any links on the page to any home page it might be connected to, or links to any other page of any kind. In other words its a dead end page, that links to nothing more. Thus I could not have picked up Roland's name there.

As for the FR thread that you provided a link to in your reply #115 which I was responding to in my reply #117, I just went to today and looked at it. I see that you posted only a small portion of the Declaration. The authorship, you have as "unknown." At any rate, your citing my reply #117 as proof that I was not being honest, when I said that I knew nothing of Jon Roland's opinions on any thing, does not hold up to scrutiny. My #117 does not prove me a liar in that regard either.

This brings us full circle back to your statement:

BS, -- here's what you said about that thread back at #117.

That was in reply to my comment that:

Hmmm, I've not been to that thread. Sounds like a little imagination of false persecution here.

Which was in reply to your comment:

I posted a thread [ entitled "Declaration of Constitutional Principles."] about our Constitutions principles. Now you seem bent on turning it into a flame fest with personal insults.

With the last sentence revised by you, after the fact, with out giving fair and proper notice, to read:

Now you seem bent on turning it [this issue] into a flame fest with personal insults.

So when did I go to that thread flaming? Not on Sunday 13th when I first became aware of its existence, nor the next day Monday the 14th, not even on Tuesday the 15th, and still not on Wednesday the 16th. It of cource would be to late as of 6:05a.m. my time, on Thursday the 17th as that is the day you accused me of having done so in your reply #138.

So what have I had to say about the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" that you also accuse me of being bent on "turning it... into a flame fest with personal insults"?

In my #117 which you site as proof, I wrote:

I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written. Needless to say, I had a few disagreements with it. But out of fairness to it, I don't recall ever reading anything longer than 4 or 5 paragraphs that I didn't find disagreement. At any rate, its clear unambiguous presentation of constitutional principles and law, in such a short presentation will have a most positive impact. I want to see this document get wide dissemination and reading. Its well worth the read.

Earlier on this thread, I pretty well established your delusion of grandeur. Now we can add to it an imagination of false persecution. I wonder, if we add them up together, what they might equal.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.