Most Misquoted part of the Constitution

[Cyberian]

Cool -

We've managed to get race, religion and gun control all into one short thread.
This should save a lot of room on the forum.

 

[BoberFett]

<< quoting from a recent NPR interview >>

I think I see your problem...

 

[guyver01]

<< i think the biggest misquoted amendment is the right to bare arms.....oh god

danny~! >>



yeah... i always think it says &quot;the right to arm bears&quot; ... so i go into the woods and give the bears semiautomati weapons... evens up the odds a bit

 

[Amused]

<<

<< good post, Amused One.

btw, the most misquoted part of the Constitution is the very first amendment: &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&quot;

if your kids want to get together after school for bible study, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO! >>



Wrong and the 5/4 right wing supremes agree. Religion can't be practiced in a manner which forces other kids at school to deal with it during school or school programs. >>



Reread what they said: &quot;if your kids want to get together after school for bible study, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO!&quot;

Now, how is it forcing other kids if their kids CHOOSE to gather AFTER SCHOOL for a little time of their own?

I am all for total separation of church and state, but denying kids this RIGHT to assemble peaceably is tyranny, plain and simple.

 

[reitz]

<< ...slaves made us and US possible. >>

That comment will get no argument from me. However, your original post:

<< One thing is for sure. It was the wealth and the consequent leasure time provided by slaves that gave the founding fathers the opportunity to develope their tremendous political sophistication and savey. >>

is highly inaccurate at best. Many of the great thinkers behind our country's birth developed their political sophistication and savey in northern cities, without ever owning slaves. Those that did do not necessarily owe their wealth and success to owning slaves; rather many owned slaves because they were wealthy.

The day I freak out or get defensive from something posted during a debate on a message board will be the day I unplug the computer for good and move to a one room cabin in the middle of Montana.

 

[Amused]

<< The point of the thread was to debuse us of certain assumptions about slaves. I added to that the fact that slaves made us and US possible. For something pointless you're invested way too much time. Were the individuals you mentioned wealthy and if so at whose expense and on whose backs. We were a slave economy. Our wealth was slave generated. I don't remember where I heard the article so I can't look up the info in question. I found it rather interesting and felt no need to freak out or get defensive when I heard it. >>



Our wealth was hardly &quot;slave generated.&quot; A good portion of it was, but MOST of America's wealth was generated by small farmers and businessmen.

 

[Amused]

<< The day I freak out or get defensive from something posted during a debate on a message board will be the day I unplug the computer for good and move to a one room cabin in the middle of Montana. >>



Take me with ya, OK?

 

[1967mustangman]

I really agre with those who state that the First Ammendment is the most misquoted. We must all rember that the Constitution never once mentions the seperation between church and state (that is mentioned in the Communist manifesto, but not the COnstitution).

 

[Moonbeam]

reitz, the book is Jefferson's Pillow by Roger Wilkins
Clarence J. Robinson Professor of History and American Culture
George Mason University

Past chairman of the Pulitzer Prize Board, Roger Wilkins came to George Mason with broad experience in public affairs. During the Johnson administration, Wilkins served as Assistant Attorney General. In a distinguished journalism career, he has written for both the New York Times and The Washington Post. While on the editorial page staff of the latter, he shared a Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for Watergate coverage with Woodward, Bernstein and Herblock. His highly acclaimed autobiography, A Man's Life (1982), was reprinted in 1991, and he was co-editor with Fred Harris of Quiet Riots in 1988. Among an array of public service activities, he served as past chair of the Board of Trustees of the Africa America Institute and is a member of the Board of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He is publisher of NAACP's journal Crisis and is an appointed member of the District of Columbia Board of Education. Wilkins holds a law degree from the University of Michigan.

Perhaps you would care to check out his book and convince him he's wrong.

 

[Triumph]

<< Wrong and the 5/4 right wing supremes agree. Religion can't be practiced in a manner which forces other kids at school to deal with it during school or school programs. >>



you didn't read what I said, nor did you read what the constitution says either. what part of NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF is confusing? If the kids want to do it, let them, I don't give a f*ck what the Supreme Court says. They also say it's alright to kill unborn babies, so what do they know?

LOL, now I'm getting Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate into the thread! Hooray!

 

[yata]

It was slave generated. The South was and led to the Civil War. The elites fought the elites.

 

[reitz]

<< Among an array of public service activities, he served as past chair of the Board of Trustees of the Africa America Institute and is a member of the Board of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He is publisher of NAACP's journal Crisis and is an appointed member of the District of Columbia Board of Education. >>

Or maybe I ought to convince him that he might have a slight personal bias? Or perhaps I should write him and ask him to explain how the many slaves owned by Samuel Adams or Ben Franklin helped to create the wealth they needed in order to develop their political sophistication and savey?

Any fool can make up a quote or create a theory and apply it to an individual situation. If he chooses his situation carefully, he can even &quot;support&quot; his &quot;position&quot; with plenty of &quot;evidence&quot;. That does nothing, however, to describe or explain the whole picture.

You can apply your original post to any of a number of individuals involved in the beginnings of our country, but it becomes senseless when applied to our founding fathers or the birth of our nation as a whole.

 

[classy]

<< We are told, over and over again, that the Constitution says &quot;blacks are 3/5s a person.&quot;

Here's the reality folks: It says no such thing.

Here's the actual line from Article one, Section two, Paragraph three of the US Constitution:

&quot;Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.&quot;

Now, it is a well known fact that there has always been free blacks in America. Not all were slaves. Therefore, this line cannot and doesn't not mean that blacks are to be considered 3/5s a person. Only non-free people, i.e., slaves and convicts. Free blacks were to be considered as whole people.

Now, I know our Founding Fathers dropped the ball on slavery, and caved to pro-slavery forces. That is not the issue here. The issue here is the myth that is so wide spread about this passage of the Constitution. >>



Yea well somebody should told somebody about that, because we couldn't eat with white people, live near white people, vote with white people, work with white people, go to school with white people and they hung about 3,000 or so before Civil Rights. And even got a few more afterwards. I am sure the average black in that time would gladly have accepted being treated like 3/5 of person. Because they didn't get treated like 1/10th of human being. I like you Amuse you are alright. But dude you try to make some of the most off the wall arguements I have ever read. Maybe I just don't understand, I be trying, but for the life of me I just don't get you guys sometimes. Maybe its just me.

 

[js1973]

Yea well somebody should told somebody about that, because we couldn't eat with white people, live near white people, vote with white people, work with white people, go to school with white people and they hung about 3,000 or so before Civil Rights.

Damn Classy, you must be old.

 

[classy]

<< Yea well somebody should told somebody about that, because we couldn't eat with white people, live near white people, vote with white people, work with white people, go to school with white people and they hung about 3,000 or so before Civil Rights.

Damn Classy, you must be old. >>



Good one. I ain't that old. hehehehehehe LOL

 

[Amused]

<<

<< We are told, over and over again, that the Constitution says &quot;blacks are 3/5s a person.&quot;

Here's the reality folks: It says no such thing.

Here's the actual line from Article one, Section two, Paragraph three of the US Constitution:

&quot;Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.&quot;

Now, it is a well known fact that there has always been free blacks in America. Not all were slaves. Therefore, this line cannot and doesn't not mean that blacks are to be considered 3/5s a person. Only non-free people, i.e., slaves and convicts. Free blacks were to be considered as whole people.

Now, I know our Founding Fathers dropped the ball on slavery, and caved to pro-slavery forces. That is not the issue here. The issue here is the myth that is so wide spread about this passage of the Constitution. >>



Yea well somebody should told somebody about that, because we couldn't eat with white people, live near white people, vote with white people, work with white people, go to school with white people and they hung about 3,000 or so before Civil Rights. And even got a few more afterwards. I am sure the average black in that time would gladly have accepted being treated like 3/5 of person. Because they didn't get treated like 1/10th of human being. I like you Amuse you are alright. But dude you try to make some of the most off the wall arguements I have ever read. Maybe I just don't understand, I be trying, but for the life of me I just don't get you guys sometimes. Maybe its just me. >>



You wouldn't understand, Classy. It's a white thing. :Q (j/k)

I'm trying to come up with interesting and NEW discussions on a board that sees the same darn topics every day. Hell, sometimes five times a day. I hadn't seen this discussed before, so... Well, you understand.

You have to admit, discussing the Constitution is a GOOD thing. And the way to get people to discuss it is to peak their curiosity.

Anywho, my argument at the top of this thread isn't off the wall. It's an honest assessment of a portion of our Constitution, and a call to the end of the 3/5s propaganda that completely distorts the spirit of this document.

I agree that in our past the treatment of blacks was disgusting and reprehensible. It really boggles the mind to realize how close the Founding Fathers had come to ending slavery with the birth of our nation. If you read some of the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that Jefferson spoke out against slavery in it, but those passages were voted out by the Southern reps. I hate that they caved to the minority southern states over the issue.

 

[Linflas]

<< I agree that in our past the treatment of blacks was disgusting and reprehensible. It really boggles the mind to realize how close the Founding Fathers had come to ending slavery with the birth of our nation. If you read some of the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that Jefferson spoke out against slavery in it, but those passages were voted out by the Southern reps. I hate that they caved to the minority southern states over the issue. >>


They did not cave to a minority. At the time of the constitution the most populous state was Virginia and the largest city was Philladelphia. The entire population of the country was around 2.5 million. Many of the founders that were not slave owners at the time of the constitution had been at some point. The simple fact is that there would not have been a Union had the slavery issue been addressed. The founders knew this and there are numerous quotes both from the slave owners and non slave owners to this effect. Judging what took place in the 18th Century by 21st Century morals makes no sense. At the time slavery was an issue that there was disagreement over much like the disagreement about abortion today. It is easy to look back from our 21st century perch and judge these all too human people that accomplished some very impressive things

 

[Amused]

<<

<< I agree that in our past the treatment of blacks was disgusting and reprehensible. It really boggles the mind to realize how close the Founding Fathers had come to ending slavery with the birth of our nation. If you read some of the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that Jefferson spoke out against slavery in it, but those passages were voted out by the Southern reps. I hate that they caved to the minority southern states over the issue. >>


They did not cave to a minority. At the time of the constitution the most populous state was Virginia and the largest city was Philladelphia. The entire population of the country was around 2.5 million. Many of the founders that were not slave owners at the time of the constitution had been at some point. The simple fact is that there would not have been a Union had the slavery issue been addressed. The founders knew this and there are numerous quotes both from the slave owners and non slave owners to this effect. Judging what took place in the 18th Century by 21st Century morals makes no sense. At the time slavery was an issue that there was disagreement over much like the disagreement about abortion today. It is easy to look back from our 21st century perch and judge these all too human people that accomplished some very impressive things >>



Oh, don't get me wrong, Lin, I'm not trying to judge them by today's standards. I'm only trying to point out that slavery WAS opposed by many of our Founders, and was not just blindly accepted by everyone at the time.

 

[WordSmith2000]

<<
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

&quot;The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.&quot;
>>



Glad you could find something recent to back up your point. Picking and choosing what to believe in the constitution is like picking and choosing what to believe in the bible. While it is nice to try to interpret the thoughts of the founding fathers, one must apply what they actually wrote in the constitution to the world of today. You simply cannot apply 17th century morals to the 21st century, it does not work.

Taken literally, your quotes and the Supreme Court decision mean that the males of the US are legally empowered to own any weapon up to and including nuclear bombs. Oh you can come back with some smartass remark about how I am taking liberties with what you said, but I am playing on your playing field now?you have done the same thing with your quotes by the founding fathers. By extension, there would be no case to be made constitutionally for abortion, euthanasia, or dozens of other points of law that were never considered by the founding fathers.

Now, if you think that women should not own weapons, that men should own nuclear bombs, that abortion and euthanasia and a bunch of other ethical issues should not be addressed in this country because they were not addressed by the founding fathers, then I guess you are staying true to your argument. But if you deviate from that, you are creating situational ethics based on what the founding fathers intended. At that point, you will be playing on my field. We could then discuss which ?rights? you want to convey and which you want to take away.

But you cannot, logically, have it both ways. Or are you not prepared to debate the point based on logic?

 

[Linflas]

<< Oh, don't get me wrong, Lin, I'm not trying to judge them by today's standards. I'm only trying to point out that slavery WAS opposed by many of our Founders, and was not just blindly accepted by everyone at the time. >>


Sorry I did not mean to imply that you were rather simply pointing it out as part of the general discussion. The founders were well aware that there would be a price for their side stepping of the slavery issue. There was a very surprising article in the Washington Post over the weekend about the Declaration of Independence. I say surprising because it was not the typical smarmy negative tripe the Post normally would print about them. If interested you can view it here.

 

[Dually]

<<

<<

<< good post, Amused One.

btw, the most misquoted part of the Constitution is the very first amendment: &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&quot;

if your kids want to get together after school for bible study, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO! >>



Wrong and the 5/4 right wing supremes agree. Religion can't be practiced in a manner which forces other kids at school to deal with it during school or school programs. >>



Reread what they said: &quot;if your kids want to get together after school for bible study, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO!&quot;

Now, how is it forcing other kids if their kids CHOOSE to gather AFTER SCHOOL for a little time of their own?

I am all for total separation of church and state, but denying kids this RIGHT to assemble peaceably is tyranny, plain and simple. >>



That is a seperate case dealing with after school programs. Yes your right and I agree with that decision. I think kids should have the right to practice religion at and in school within the constituion. That means no forced classes on it or religous things at events which kids are forced to go to. Basically the Supremes feel that kids have the right to pratice religion and kids have the right to be free from it. So if a group of [y] kind of religion kids are part of a [y] relgion group or individual at school they have the right to meet and practice somewhere. So schools must allow them a room to do so.

Its simple, its freedom of choice with respect for kids.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Oh, don't get me wrong, Lin, I'm not trying to judge them by today's standards. I'm only trying to point out that slavery WAS opposed by many of our Founders, and was not just blindly accepted by everyone at the time. >>


Sorry I did not mean to imply that you were rather simply pointing it out as part of the general discussion. The founders were well aware that there would be a price for their side stepping of the slavery issue. There was a very surprising article in the Washington Post over the weekend about the Declaration of Independence. I say surprising because it was not the typical smarmy negative tripe the Post normally would print about them. If interested you can view it here. >>



I'm shocked. It's actually a fairly honest and fair depiction of our Founding Fathers. So rare today... :::sigh:::

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

<<

<< good post, Amused One.

btw, the most misquoted part of the Constitution is the very first amendment: &quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&quot;

if your kids want to get together after school for bible study, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO! >>



Wrong and the 5/4 right wing supremes agree. Religion can't be practiced in a manner which forces other kids at school to deal with it during school or school programs. >>



Reread what they said: &quot;if your kids want to get together after school for bible study, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO!&quot;

Now, how is it forcing other kids if their kids CHOOSE to gather AFTER SCHOOL for a little time of their own?

I am all for total separation of church and state, but denying kids this RIGHT to assemble peaceably is tyranny, plain and simple. >>



That is a seperate case dealing with after school programs. Yes your right and I agree with that decision. I think kids should have the right to practice religion at and in school within the constituion. That means no forced classes on it or religous things at events which kids are forced to go to. Basically the Supremes feel that kids have the right to pratice religion and kids have the right to be free from it. So if a group of [y] kind of religion kids are part of a [y] relgion group or individual at school they have the right to meet and practice somewhere. So schools must allow them a room to do so.

Its simple, its freedom of choice with respect for kids. >>



BINGO!!

Freedom from religion ONLY means you cannot be forced to practice it. It does not mean others must be forced to not practice it, because that would infringe on their freedom OF religion.

 

[Linflas]

<< Glad you could find something recent to back up your point. Picking and choosing what to believe in the constitution is like picking and choosing what to believe in the bible. While it is nice to try to interpret the thoughts of the founding fathers, one must apply what they actually wrote in the constitution to the world of today. You simply cannot apply 17th century morals to the 21st century, it does not work. >>


The Constitution has nothing to do with morals be they 18th century or 21st century. It is a document that descibes the basic processes of government at the Federal level and enumerates what powers are delegated to the Federal Government and what powers are retained by the state governments. It further recognized that it may not be all inclusive and provides a mechanism for ammending it.



<< Taken literally, your quotes and the Supreme Court decision mean that the males of the US are legally empowered to own any weapon up to and including nuclear bombs. Oh you can come back with some smartass remark about how I am taking liberties with what you said, but I am playing on your playing field now?you have done the same thing with your quotes by the founding fathers. By extension, there would be no case to be made constitutionally for abortion, euthanasia, or dozens of other points of law that were never considered by the founding fathers. >>


A nuclear weapon is not a firearm. As for abortion, euthanasia, or any other so called right the proper place under our system for these to be debated is at the state level. The Constitution itself is neutral regarding these issues. It provides the framework upon which a political decision can be made regarding such issues. As to why you think males are the only ones empowered to bear arms I do not really understand it unless you do not consider women people (the right of the people to keep and bear arms chall not be infringed).

 

[Amused]

<<
In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

&quot;The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.&quot;
>>





<< Glad you could find something recent to back up your point. Picking and choosing what to believe in the constitution is like picking and choosing what to believe in the bible. >>



Yep, which is why negating the original intent of the second amendment is not a good thing to do. If you can bend the meaning of that, you can bend the meaning of any amendment.



<< While it is nice to try to interpret the thoughts of the founding fathers, one must apply what they actually wrote in the constitution to the world of today. You simply cannot apply 17th century morals to the 21st century, it does not work. >>



This has nothing to do with morals. I believe Lin has covered that well enough.



<< Taken literally, your quotes and the Supreme Court decision mean that the males of the US are legally empowered to own any weapon up to and including nuclear bombs. >>



Completely ridiculous. The Founding Fathers intended PERSONAL defense weapons. The Miller court defined that as what would be standard issue to an infantry soldier, or militia member, i.e., long guns and side arms. The nuclear bomb argument is an appeal to ridiculoius extremes in an effort to obfuscate the central core of the debate.




<< Oh you can come back with some smartass remark about how I am taking liberties with what you said, but I am playing on your playing field now?you have done the same thing with your quotes by the founding fathers. By extension, there would be no case to be made constitutionally for abortion, euthanasia, or dozens of other points of law that were never considered by the founding fathers. >>



I believe the varied equal rights laws negate the &quot;every able bodied male&quot; and now make it &quot;every able bodied person.&quot;

A thing never considered is not the same thing as something considered, and delt with. The right of the people to keep and bear arms WAS considered, and delt with. BTW, abortions were legal and performed at the time of the Founding Fathers. They didn't deal with it because it was never considered that the government would threaten personal freedom in such a way. It wasn't until the late 1800s that religious factions in the US decided to use it as a tool to further their causes.



<< Now, if you think that women should not own weapons, >>



Addressed above.



<< that men should own nuclear bombs, that abortion and euthanasia and a bunch of other ethical issues should not be addressed in this country because they were not addressed by the founding fathers, then I guess you are staying true to your argument. But if you deviate from that, you are creating situational ethics based on what the founding fathers intended. At that point, you will be playing on my field. We could then discuss which ?rights? you want to convey and which you want to take away. >>



Sorry, but I wont play games of ridiculous extremes with you.



<< But you cannot, logically, have it both ways. Or are you not prepared to debate the point based on logic? >>



Logic is not about taking an argument to ridiculous extremes, WS. In fact, I'd say that's called a Slippery Slope Fallacy in debate, and is considered a fallacious argument.

What we have is the original intent of the men who wrote the Constitution, as applied with new laws and amendments passed, such as equal rights laws. Their original intent on the Second Amendment is clear, and one must deviate from that intent to get to ridiculous assertions that it gives a man the right to own non-personal weapons such a nuclear bombs. It is clear that the primary, but not only reason to allow the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is that a militia of the whole people will exist, and be sufficiently equipped to fight in times of war.

Show me an army in which individual infantry soldiers are issued nuclear bombs as standard equipment, and I shall capitulate. If you cannot, you must capitulate.