America has more secrets; I have questions...

[JackMcThorn]

Do you ever wonder why the Constitution only says 'We the People' with absolutely no reference to the future of American children? We understand why there is no reference to women; however, they are included in 'People' even though they had little rights at the time. But the basic fundamental of the future is generally children.

For instance, the precursor to the Irish constitution of 1937, the Proclamation of the Irish Republic from April 24th, 1916 states: [emphasis mine]

The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

The Irish Constitution of 1937 mentions Irish children 5 times; more specifically with regards to education and care.

But what is really interesting given that America does not have bloodline aristocracy is it seems that all of the founder's offspring never saw a future America nor participated in a future American government... [With an exception of the distant relation [5th cousins] of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR but we are looking in the deeper past than this...]

Where are they?

We spend our years in K-12 studying history and American history and sometimes in university.

But none of the founders [and some leaders thereafter] have a living legacy? We are about to celebrate 25o years of America next year and no one noticed this? Many leading Americans were indeed fathers and mothers. Would these future families have dissolved into the American population with no notice, no security, and further, no political American future?

Imagine if you will an ancestor of Benjamin Franklin running offset printing presses in the 197o's for example.

There is a part of America's past significantly missing from America's future.

[Denise/Dizi]

I have pondered this same question many times... The Americans are referred to as such, Americans, those that penned and signed the constitution, call themselves "The People of"... And when someone goes to court, for example, someone being Sued... it is always (enter name here) versus " the people of".. Why a sole name versus we the people? We would like to believe this means those in the same community, but as a whole, if this were the case, would they not specify "(Enter name here- As a person)"??? No, they write, "An Individual"...

They are suggesting this person is not one of "The People" as they don't include a singular example of being one of the "people"

I have always thought that while the wording in the constitution suggests it is for everyone residing naturally, or legally within the borders of the United States, but I sadly feel it only covers those who signed it, and their offspring and families... They are "The People", we are the citizens of their nation...

Word salad that makes us all believe we are all in the same boat when we absolutely are NOT..

It is food for thought, and people really should spend more time thinking about such things given the state of this nation these days, thank you for bringing it up.

I once (on facebook) wrote out my own Declaration of Independence... I also noted that I was posting it on a worldwide platform and shouldn't have to register it, just Declare it... and you would be surprised at how many people asked me if I thought it would really mean anything? I made them think, just as your thread should...

I DO hope it is something to takes feet and grows and is discussed...


Independence,

[shaberon]

A couple of factors are at play here, which will expose the thing.

You notice the difficult or perhaps problematic wording, indicative that this was sort of an eleventh-hour rush job. Let's say that's a problem even though it appears to be supported by years of debates.

Consider it as pressure from Wall Street, which supplies the missing aristocracy.

So, as far as to who it applies. The main meaning is someone who has no loyalties to Britain. The actual meaning is that it is based around the Revolutionary Oath. The state went around asking you to take this oath to fight, and if you wouldn't do it, they threw you out. And so the first objection about the rights of citizenship was raised on the election of Mr. Smith to House of Representatives in 1789. Objection was based on the fact that Smith had been a minor when the Revolution broke out and had never taken the oath. The House ruled in vast majority that, because, Smith's father had taken the oath, and Smith himself had never violated or shown disloyalty, he was a citizen. It is taken as hereditary. On the other hand, an "inhabitant" might be a slave, or Native American, someone perceived as having less rights and lower stature. There were two kinds of people, but citizenship was presumed to include children of citizens.

Let's see. If you were among the thousands of "the people" who signed up to face death and endured times such as Valley Forge, with no aim of forming a "consolidated government", wouldn't you be leery of its formative process?


The political unit that has gone rolling forward does not resemble what several of the early "fathers" might have called Agricultural Economy.

On the other hand, President Grant after leaving office became one of the wealthiest tycoons for a good part of the back half of the nineteenth century. However he lost most of this fortune at the end.

You could probably say that inheritance and things like appointment replace feudal orders of nobility. And this is particularly true through some of the "founding" universities and hospitals.


No one in the Revolution was fighting for the Constitution.

But I suppose we are induced to forget.


One of the weaknesses of the debates was it spent most of the time on ratios of representation. This was reflective of an argument they had imported from Europe, separation of powers as penned by Montesquieu. And this was already popular and had already been picked up by for example Tsarist Russia. And so there was a type of alignment, or vague understanding about the dangers of Money Power, which characterizes most of the coming revolutions. In the case of America, you could say it was related to the Marquis de La Fayette and Thomas Paine.

I would say it is relevant the American colonies shared a gestating awareness with France, Austria, and Russia, about something they never would have wanted to see an "international system" sprawl out of the Bank of England.


You can see it chipped away in every generation. Something changes, and something is forgotten. There is a study on a series of paintings, of Yorktown, or Bunker Hill, one of those, that starts off as plausibly realistic around the time that it happened. And the scene is re-done four or five times, each with an "artistic tweak". And at the end it looks like an advertisement for Yankee Doodle and Uncle Sam. It's very apparent.

France got eaten by Napoleon, Austria was shattered by World War One, Russia had the Bolsheviks but now, I think they are willing to remind us about this in an official capacity.

Any legacy here is severed because the progress of the country no longer has anything to do with the intentions of independence.

[gord]

I've pondered the possibility that someone could construe the first clause of Article IV, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," to imply that the ILLUSION of a Republican Form of Government fits the Constitution's requirement to the letter.

[shaberon]

I've pondered the possibility that someone could construe the first clause of Article IV, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," to imply that the ILLUSION of a Republican Form of Government fits the Constitution's requirement to the letter.


Not sure I get what you are saying.

The phrase "republican form of government" is merely descriptive; it is not a legal entity or specific set of legislation. It pertains to the idea of electing representatives, which, it seems to me, is an idea that has been taken too far.

The bi-cameral legislature is certainly not a new American idea; it just means we are fixated on "quantity", like a set number of Senators and a spread number of Representatives, instead of "quality", that is, the questions and issues being dealt with by these people.

If something is a bad idea, does it matter to me if it is represented by 87/100, or 3/450?

No, it doesn't. I only care about whether public funds and labor are going to be poured through bad channels for any reason.


But yes, there is a cynical school of thought that tells us because we were represented, the outcome is the best.

The use of "voting" like a carrot-and-stick magic wand was published in Israel in 1951 as Totalitarian Democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy). Obviously, those we voted for make decisions beyond our control; something is inherently missing or defective, but we are told this is freedom, liberty, etc., that we should be proud of.

There is a dangerous nationalistic belief that the Constitution and the form of government are essentially a "new religion" or scripture themselves, which is simply not the case. The issues of freedom at the time of the Revolution were about repressive policies. No one would volunteer for a gunfight because of a philosophical idea about the Crown. If Parliament would have been responsive to the colonists' interests, there would have been no need to rebel. Because there were intolerable policies about money and labor, mixed with imperialism, it was decided to remove their authority.


The most blatant example is the 1766 Regulators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Carolina):



Historians such as John Spencer Bassett argue that the Regulators did not wish to change the form or principle of their government, but simply wanted to make the colony's political process more equal. They wanted better economic conditions for everyone, instead of a system that heavily benefited the colonial officials and their network of plantation owners mainly near the coast.


We definitely remember that, I've been in their houses, I went to their bookshop, and they just happen to be "the masses". Most of our national heritage is instead aimed at Massachusetts. That's because of a symbolic and relatively low-risk protest about an almost-trivial 3% tax on tea, a luxury item.

The Regulators were like Hamas, in that they represented the vast majority of the population, and they tried to seize a gunpowder wagon and were defeated by British forces in a matter of hours. And then you effectively had this sentiment roll around the country for five years until a Continental Army was formed.

There aren't really "founding fathers" rallying anyone to a cause, instead, this was more like "everyone" who was sick of everything. It can't possibly have anything to do with a vision of some American federal government. It's essentially a-political and just a set of demands based on particular issues.

[gord]

I've pondered the possibility that someone could construe the first clause of Article IV, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," to imply that the ILLUSION of a Republican Form of Government fits the Constitution's requirement to the letter.


Not sure I get what you are saying.


Since I'm not really sure either, I'm dropping it so I don't clutter up the thread.