Posted on 06/24/2011 5:40:23 AM PDT by Steve495
What a hit piece on the Founding Fathers. I could barely get through three of five pages of Richard Stengel’s article in Time magazine online today. He twists the US Constitution like every good liberal always does. This is nothing new. Democrat and liberal politicians have done this for years. Time to call out the BS again…
The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I’m not even going to mention the Electoral College.
Read more stupid liberal interpretations of the U.S. Constitution and the conservative reply...
(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...
I’ve had an interesting experience arguing with a leftist who was either unwilling or unable to understand the plain language of the 10th Amendment.
When slamming the founding fathers, I think a writer shows poor judgment by deciding to discuss how the founding fathers treated California and South Dakota. By doing so, the writer risks looking a wee bit stupid.
This isn't even true. The framers came out of Philly with a Constitution that lacked a Bill of Rights. Not that a bill of rights was a novel idea--several states had them. Many framers opposed having a bill of rights, but it was added later, in the first Congress.
The more I read this type of stuff, the more motivated I am to finish my short book explaining the American government. Hopefully, it will be a big seller and give people some easy to understand insight on the thinking behind our government. Especially, the thinking behind institutions like the senate and the electoral college, one of the most brilliant electoral devices ever devised.
How many more freaking times do we have to explain the “blacks are three-fifths of a person” to them... Good grief...
Some people just need to disappear in the dead of night.
To be that miseducated suggests Mr Stengel went to an ivy league university.
The first is the founders knew about insurance. Insuring risk and lose goes back many hundreds of years.
Probably more important, 'Health Insurance' as Obama and company are trying to implement, is not insurance at all. It's not a sharing of risk or lose. It's a sharing of medical costs. From each according to ability, to each according to need. That not insurance. It's Communism.
The left is playing word games and the right is letting them get away with it.
but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being
... no knowledge of history
that women were not allowed to vote
Where does it say *that* in the U.S. Constitution?
and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy.
Idiot. Again, ignorant of history, and of the entire purpose of *having* a Senate instead of just the House.
“To be that miseducated suggests Mr Stengel went to an ivy league university.”
Well said.
And true.
I can only come up with ONE possible business model, that works, that Time might be following:
They hope that Obama forms a dictatorship or monarchy, and that they could become one of the official news organs, because they (Time) have demonstrated such loyalty to communism and fascism over the decades.
No other business model works.
“’Health Insurance’ as Obama and company are trying to implement, is not insurance at all”
I agree. Quietly, many states have prohibited the sale of true ‘health insurance’, which would insure against catastrophic injury, etc.
Instead, we are all forced to simply pool resources. What possible ‘risk’ are we insuring against, when insurance pays for check-ups? Its a known expense...which would probably cost less, if we kept middle men out of the transaction.
I must do a poor job of articulating this, because I get the ‘you heartless bastard’ look when I try to explain it to people.
I would love to have catastrophic health insurance, which prevents me from being financially wiped out, if the worst case happens...and office visits, prescriptions, physicals, immunizations, etc. could be paid for out of pocket (these are known expenses, not risk). Sadly, this is not available to me.
Obamacare kicks it up a notch, and re-defines ‘insurance’ at a federal level.
People in a condition of involuntary servitude were counted as 3/5ths for the purposes of apportionment. Indians not taxed were counted as zero. It all had to do if you were part of the system (a taxed Indian counted as one), a slave of the system (counted as 3/5ths), or not part of the system at all (an Indian not taxed = 0).
It would be in the interest of the Slave States to have them count as one. The 3/5ths compromise indicated that the elected Representative of a Slave State did not completely represent the interests of his slave constituents - but at best only 3/5ths of his interests.
Women voting was not mentioned in the Constitution - voting requirements were left up to the States.
For the last forty years, leftists have been dreaming of a fundamental alteration of U.S. government and society. With Obama in office, they see their chance.
Richard Stengel writes: “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”
Yes, it does. The Tenth Amendment says: “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.”
Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, James Madison explained the original understanding of the document in Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
So, Ricard, are you ignorant, stupid, or a liar? Or perhaps more than one. Whatever. Time editors should have known better. Probably they did, but hey, ever time Time stoops to a new low that doesn’t seem possible, they do it again next week and stoop even lower than the winner of the Jamaican national limbo contest.
But no matter, with circulation sinking faster than the Titanic, in a couple of years no one’s going to care what the digital remnants of Time are honking about. After all, at that point the Time website will be just one of honking billions.
That struck me as the dumbest thing in the excerpt. At least the 'three-fifths' and 'two Senators' issues are actually IN the Constitution. I think the writer has probably never read the document.
Even odder is the fact that before becoming editor at Time, Rick Stengel was head of the National Constitution Center and Museum on Independence Mall in Philadelphia.
Two senators per state was so “crazy” that our Founding Fathers made it the ONLY part of The Constitution that COULD NOT be amended.
That alone identifies the directness and unequivocable nature of their intent.
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.