(no subject)
Jul. 16th, 2009 10:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
primroseburrowsOkay, I asked this question on Facebook and so far the crickets are chirping away.
The question is this: If the United States Constitution is to be taken exactly as the Founding Fathers intended, then wouldn't only white men of property get to vote? Because um. That's what "all men" meant to the powdered-wig set. And yeah, I know that "All men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, but the two documents are written with the same mindset.
My other question is: Why are so many Americans in such denial that there is an unwritten Constitution? Because there is. If there weren't, the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to say that Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, because the word isn't in the original document, and militias would be running around shooting muskets at everyone. Well, okay, maybe not so much with the muskets, but you get my point.
In other news, they gave Nibbles an Awful Awful, yaaaay!!
See?
The question is this: If the United States Constitution is to be taken exactly as the Founding Fathers intended, then wouldn't only white men of property get to vote? Because um. That's what "all men" meant to the powdered-wig set. And yeah, I know that "All men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, but the two documents are written with the same mindset.
My other question is: Why are so many Americans in such denial that there is an unwritten Constitution? Because there is. If there weren't, the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to say that Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, because the word isn't in the original document, and militias would be running around shooting muskets at everyone. Well, okay, maybe not so much with the muskets, but you get my point.
In other news, they gave Nibbles an Awful Awful, yaaaay!!
See?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-17 03:05 am (UTC)NIBBLES!
I've always said that while those two historical documents are a good guide to live by, if taken literally they'd set this country back, well, three hundred years. Very few things in history are timeless and can be easily applied to the modern world.
Of course, I've been saying this about the Bible for years.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-07-17 03:14 am (UTC)As for the Bible, that's a different story, because the (who knows how many) writers never intended for it to be lumped into one big book, and it's a mythology, while the writers of the Constitution DID mean for their work to be one very real document for a people to forge a country with. I just don't think they meant that it should never change, ever. Although, "changing" doesn't mean "metaphorically ripping to shreds", which is what the Bush Administration was trying to do.
I blame Sonia Sotomayor for all my political pondering. I also think she rocks pretty darn hard. :D
And oh, yeah, Nibbles! There was that whole controversy about how he shouldn't have had his Del's years ago, and now they just hand him an Awful Awful. Which means big things have been happening in Bug Rights, obviously. :D :D :D