238 Years Ago Today

[SicEmBaylor]

238 years ago today, our forefathers took the first step in casting off the yoke of British tyranny. Products of the European enlightenment, they cast aside the centuries old belief in the absolute authority of Church rule and accepted belief that regal rule was the divine will of God. Authority was delegated directly to the individual from the creator rather than authority directly given to a single ruler. To that end, the individual was sovereign and delegated only as much power to others as he desired and willed.

Our forefathers were determined to create a nation in which the individual would be free to retain as much individual sovereignty as possible. They believed the individual had a right to exercise his or her liberty to the extent that they ought to be free to do as they please so long as they harmed neither person nor property. The implementation of this belief was less than perfect, but it was hoped that our nation would gradually move further and further toward that perfect ideal.

Instead, we have gradually moved further and further away from it. The loss of individual liberty in this country has been so extreme over the previous two centuries that our nation barely resembles that which was originally created.

On the anniversary of the first shots fired in the name of liberty, we have a President throwing a temper tantrum over a failure to further restrict one of our most fundamental rights as Americans while the Congress quietly passes a bill further eroding our individual right to privacy. How far we've come....

[TAFBSooner]

. . . but it was hoped that our nation would gradually move further and further toward that perfect ideal.

That's an interpretation that was added after the fact. I think the founding fathers wanted free from the crown, and crown corporations, but had no intention, or even conception, of extending that freedom to women, non-whites, etc.


How far we've come....

But I agree with your overall point that we are devolving away from the freedoms we used to enjoy. Or, "I remember when this was a free country."

[SoonerorLater]

I agree with you in sentiment but the country you romanticize about never existed in reality. In 1775 when they were at the opening salvo of independence from Great Britain there were those in power who wanted nothing more than to take the place of British Rule. Before the ink was dry on the Constitution certain people were already starting to usurp our liberties. I would suggest to you that peoples liberties have been trampled throughout our history. Early on people enjoyed more freedom not from benevolent government but because of the ability of people to move westward to then uncharted territories to get out from under the thumb of repressive government. Finally you just run out of places to hide. All governments will overstep their authority under the guise of the greater good of all. Always have, always will.

[cleller]

Our forefathers would have also had quick severe punishment for any Islamics that tried to push them.

[SicEmBaylor]

That's an interpretation that was added after the fact. I think the founding fathers wanted free from the crown, and crown corporations, but had no intention, or even conception, of extending that freedom to women, non-whites, etc.



But I agree with your overall point that we are devolving away from the freedoms we used to enjoy. Or, "I remember when this was a free country."

You're misinterpreting. They definitely did not believe in universal suffrage and neither do I. I think extending the right to vote has led to the gradual degrading of our liberties and values.

I'm talking about freedom of acting not suffrage. There's a slight difference although you can easily argue that the former is impossible with the latter though I'd vehemently disagree with that argument.

However, even with the issue of slavery it was indicated at the Constitutional Convention that most of the anti-slavery delegations believed that slavery would eventually peter out. A mistake that most people make is assuming the big debates and arguments within the Constitutional Convention were between slave and anti-slave delegations. This was not the case. The major debates and arguments were between large states and small states -- slavery was a very minor side show in the overall scheme of things.

[SicEmBaylor]

I agree with you in sentiment but the country you romanticize about never existed in reality. In 1775 when they were at the opening salvo of independence from Great Britain there were those in power who wanted nothing more than to take the place of British Rule. Before the ink was dry on the Constitution certain people were already starting to usurp our liberties. I would suggest to you that peoples liberties have been trampled throughout our history. Early on people enjoyed more freedom not from benevolent government but because of the ability of people to move westward to then uncharted territories to get out from under the thumb of repressive government. Finally you just run out of places to hide. All governments will overstep their authority under the guise of the greater good of all. Always have, always will.

This is all true and not inconsistent with what I said. The idea is greater than its implementation. However, they knew and understood that would happen which is why they went to such pains to craft a Constitution that spread authority out to the degree that it did. They tried very hard to handcuff the authority of the Federal government by specifically enumerating their powers.

They tried of course but the evil nature of man's ambition clearly proved too great. Alexander Hamilton is a perfect example of this.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

They definitely did not believe in universal suffrage and neither do I.

So which legal citizens would you like to see not allowed to cast a vote?

Honest question at this point. The insults will come later. :D

[FaninAma]

The ability to voluntarily join together and form a common government has been forever removed. As a result there is no true mechanism to hold our government accountable.

We are now seeing the enslavement of the productive segment of society by those who subsist on government largesse.

[SicEmBaylor]

So which legal citizens would you like to see not allowed to cast a vote?

Honest question at this point. The insults will come later. :D

I believe passage of a basic civics test should be required. Giving everyone teh right to vote moves us precariously close toward democracy and our FF were rightfully distrustful of democracy which is why they designed a republic.

[ouwasp]

So which legal citizens would you like to see not allowed to cast a vote?

Honest question at this point. The insults will come later. :D

Not speaking for sic'em, but myself... I'd be okay with a simple poll test in English. Just a few multiple choice questions to see if the prospective voter has any idea about the structure and function of our gov't.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not speaking for sic'em, but myself... I'd be okay with a simple poll test in English. Just a few multiple choice questions to see if the prospective voter has any idea about the structure and function of our gov't.

Exactly.

[SicEmBaylor]

Benefits include ensuring those who vote have at least basic political knowledge, they know how to speak English, they can read, and making it something to achieve would likely make people more responsible with their vote.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

But you would be excluding the people that got Obama elected!

[SicEmBaylor]

But you would be excluding the people that got Obama elected!

My sincerest hope is that this would lead to somewhat better public officials, but I certainly don't think much better of the typical GOP Presidential nominee than I do Obama or any other Democrat nominee. For things to change on that front, there needs to be a shift in the GOP's powerbase.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

You mean a Republican candidate who isn't on his death bed and has more of a personality than a rotten turnip? Preposterous!

[Soonerjeepman]

I was asking my 5th graders....not but 1 could tell me the 7 continents....crazy.
course they all could tell me obama was president~

[SicEmBaylor]

I was asking my 5th graders....not but 1 could tell me the 7 continents....crazy.
course they all could tell me obama was president~

Government education at its finest. When I was in 5th grade, I could name every single one of Clinton's then current cabinet members, their function, the role of each branch of the Federal government, the role of the state v. federal government, the name of our governor at the time (Keating), both of our US Senators, and my Congressional Rep. And I knew more than a thing or two about them.

If I had waited for my public school to actually teach me something then I'd still be waiting.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

Government education at its finest. When I was in 5th grade, I could name every single one of Clinton's then current cabinet members, their function, the role of each branch of the Federal government, the role of the state v. federal government, the name of our governor at the time (Keating), both of our US Senators, and my Congressional Rep. And I knew more than a thing or two about them.

If I had waited for my public school to actually teach me something then I'd still be waiting.

Congratulations. You must be the smartest mother****** ever. Tell us about the time you beat Kasparov at chess. Ooh or the one where you taught Eisenhower about battlefield strategy. Good grief we got us a regular Gump over here.

[SicEmBaylor]

Congratulations. You must be the smartest mother****** ever. Tell us about the time you beat Kasparov at chess. Ooh or the one where you taught Eisenhower about battlefield strategy. Good grief we got us a regular Gump over here.

It isn't a matter of being some sort of genius. It's an issue of interests....some kids are into cars, some are into planes, some are naturally good at math, etc. etc. Everyone has an area in which they're interested and motivated to learn. Politics and history were mine.

My point was that if I knew all of that in 5th grade then it isn't unreasonable to expect 5th graders to know very basic principles of American government such as how many branches of government there are, the basic role of the President/Congress/SC, etc.

It doesn't take Stephen Hawking to know any of that. And, yet, as he indicated most students couldn't tell you any of that information. They can't tell Asia from North America on a map. I wouldn't be all that surprised if they couldn't find their own state on a map.

Also, FYI: Eisenhower wasn't a battlefield strategist -- he was a strategic strategist not a tactical strategist....and also Eisenhower was a staff officer his entire career. Another fact I never learned in public school....

[SoonerInFortSmith]

So you're telling me he didn't learn anything about battlefield strategy at West Point? I know I'm arguing semantics here but good lord you sure can twist words to suit your needs. And I personally feel sorry for any fifth grader who has THAT MUCH of an interest in government and politics. Go play tag or pinch some girls or something.

[SicEmBaylor]

So you're telling me he didn't learn anything about battlefield strategy at West Point? I know I'm arguing semantics here but good lord you sure can twist words to suit your needs. And I personally feel sorry for any fifth grader who has THAT MUCH of an interest in government and politics. Go play tag or pinch some girls or something.

Of course he learned battlefield strategy. My point was that if you're going to use Ike as an example then I wouldn't have gone with his tactical prowess.

I had a few other interests in 5th grade, but 5th grade is when the political bug bit me.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

I love you SicEm. You're one weird SOB but you're our weird SOB dammit.

That was the booze talking.