How the U.S. Education System Failed Me

When I was a sophomore in high School, I remember writing a paper for my English class in which I argued why capital punishment is wrong. I based my argument on ethical grounds and on constitutional grounds; I said that it's ethically wrong and unconstitutional. My position has since changed, and I've come to realize that not only was I blind-sighted, but I was indoctrinated. I transferred to a Catholic school for my Junior and Senior year and, looking back, that was the greatest decision I've ever made. The U.S. public education system failed me; let me explain:

First of all, it's important to understand what the Constitution is and is not. The Constitution is not a living or evolving document; above all else, the Constitution of the United States is a legal document. Article I and III prescribe that Congress, not the courts, should enact policy. In direct contravention, that role has been assigned to the courts under the rubric of "substantive due process," dubious interpretations of the ninth amendment, and a bevy of other provisions that are, essentially, inventions of the judicial branch. The notion of a living Constitution mostly stems from the idea that law is a malleable concept, and that the Constitution—law—can change in accordance with time or changes in society. This is simply not true; in fact, this understanding of law is very dangerous as it politicizes the judiciary and allows "judicial activists" to declare constitutional whatever legal proceeding most closely aligns with their political views. This applies to the death penalty, abortion, assisted suicide, and just about any other issue you can think of. I had to learn this on my own, I wasn't taught this, nobody is taught this. All my peers, friends, and colleagues—if they do not take the initiative to learn—instinctively associate themselves with this questionable understanding of the Constitution; purposivism, it's called.

I wasn't actually taught that the U.S. Constitution is an "evolving" or "living" document, I was told so. I was told that the eight amendment, which prohibits verdicts considered "cruel and unusual," encompasses the death penalty, in addition to many other issues. Kids like myself are generally unable to mount a sophisticated argument against that view, so they just accept it. This is indoctrination, and it is evil. Law means what it meant at the time it was written. When the Bill of Rights was affixed to the Constitution, the death penalty was not considered "cruel or unusual." Therefore, it isn't cruel or unusual. Law is law—dura lex sed lex.

The Constitution is the sole and foremost criterion through which laws must be interpreted. What we've seen over the past several decades is an erosion of the rule of law, a principle that will eventually be replaced with a vote of 5-4. Guess who authored the statement, "refugees vote with their feet"? It was Vladimir Lenin. We must occupy and displace the ideology that predominates the U.S. education system; otherwise, we will give them the power to change the Constitution and, effectively, change our very way of life.

Didn't make it past the first paragraph before dying of boredom.

For a Catholic schoolboy your argument could use less Scalia and more Aquinas

लिखा द्वारा Witch-Doctor, 02.09.2019 at 13:35

Didn't make it past the first paragraph before dying of boredom.

the sad thread has been removed, but you know what's even sadder

When you self title "best competetive player" then you lose to a rank 9 who hasn't played in a year then you claim you won

In your defense, you did get a taste of The Best, and it stung so hard you avoided all further confrontation unless Pacific USA came to EU

You did eventually discover truth through self-education, and to question those who would indoctrinate you.

Seems the education system was more generous to you than most... how many of your classmates continue to believe what they were told?

You can belie them but I know the truth pal
You are bored

Move to Africa

...Am I misunderstanding here or are you saying that law should never change? Because by that logic slavery would still be legal.

लिखा द्वारा Zephyrusu, 16.09.2019 at 22:36

...Am I misunderstanding here or are you saying that law should never change? Because by that logic slavery would still be legal.

Slavery is still legal... it's just been re-formatted so it appears voluntary.

Terms like 'custody' and 'access' have legal definitions, and relate to property. These terms are so commonly used however, people don't realize they are being treated like property.

लिखा द्वारा brianwl, 17.09.2019 at 16:27

Slavery is still legal... it's just been re-formatted so it appears voluntary.

Terms like 'custody' and 'access' have legal definitions, and relate to property. These terms are so commonly used however, people don't realize they are being treated like property.

I agree with most part you were saying years back, but you must understand that we humans are social beings - and there are billions of us! How else to organize such huge population and keep track of identities without taxes, id cards, birth certificates, wedding lists? In Medieval Europe, priests took care of that, they wed people, baptized, kept track of born, dead and wed citizens in their respective regions, and that was enough for that time. But now we have more people, more problems, larger economy, complex modern life.

Now i disagree with digital voting, digital currency, human branding (rfid), but we need papers to prove our existance, place and property in this world.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 02.10.2019 at 11:57

लिखा द्वारा brianwl, 17.09.2019 at 16:27

Slavery is still legal... it's just been re-formatted so it appears voluntary.

Terms like 'custody' and 'access' have legal definitions, and relate to property. These terms are so commonly used however, people don't realize they are being treated like property.

...there are billions of us! How else to organize such huge population and keep track of identities ... Medieval Europe, priests took care of that, they wed people, baptized, kept track of born, dead and wed citizens in their respective regions, ...

Now i disagree with digital voting, digital currency, human branding (rfid), but we need papers to prove our existance, place and property in this world.

We can be organized and tracked... not a problem.

It's when those identities are turned into legal fictions and then monetized, it creates issues. Generally, it's not until you've had a blatant free will violation that you even notice, but once this happens, you start to see the need for a 'free will identity'. {apparently there are such things, like birth records and baptismal records or similar (from your religious authority), but few people carry these around with them, and those who do have an uphill battle in getting them recognized as 'identification' with a government, even when they are validated.}

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 01.09.2019 at 21:18

MUH CONSTITUTION

It's a meaningless piece of paper. The greatness of America was born out if its people, not some document. Liberia also has the identical constitution and system of government as the USA. It's a shithole with ebola. Liberia is its people, not a piece of paper. The Russian people were strong under Monarchy, stronger under Communism and while weakened, still relatively strong under its current Liberal plutocracy. America was a protectionist, white ethno state where sodomy and pornography was banned and whose foundations were laid in a revolt against being a vassal state to a small but powerful country abroad called England. Today it has gay pride parades, illegal non-white immigrants who can soon become police officers and it promotes a global free trade policy that had led to middle america becoming an opioid wasteland, all the while being the golem for another tinpot foreign power, called Israel. Yet that flimsy, living, breathing document that has barely been amended still holds power.

How does that make any sense? The document is largely the same and yet so many changes have occurred. Changes that the founders would have never ever supported. How did this happen? Because of the rule of Law, or should I say, the rule of Lawyers. Interpretation of this paper is all that matters and like any state throughout history, whoever interprets gets to dictate. Sooner or later, Spicer, they'll take your guns and it will be 'constitutional'. They'll take your free speech too, and that will also be 'constitutional'. If things get really bad, they'll seize your property under some anti-white reparations law and that will be 'constitutional' too.

People who believe a piece of paper wields power are fools. Power wields power. The constitution is bullshit. When the ethnic stock of America changes, so too will its cultural and economic outlook.

South Africa was a first world country too once. Was.

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 22.10.2019 at 02:26

The Russian people were strong under Monarchy, stronger under Communism and while weakened, still relatively strong under its current Liberal plutocracy.

Tik-Tok redpilled.

Just want to correct: stronger under Monarchy, strong under Communism, weak under current Liberalism but the foundation for the future has been set (less non-Russians inside, free market, democracy, religion and language protected, open borders as pressure valve). But all this is for nothing if people don't contribute, time will tell.

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 22.10.2019 at 02:26

South Africa was a first world country too once. Was.

It wasn't actually.. just because White minority decided to ignore Black majority doesn't mean South Africa was developed (first world is incorrect term). White minority was more developed than Black majority, this is correct, which makes the country 'developing' overall.

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 22.10.2019 at 02:26

It's a meaningless piece of paper. The greatness of America was born out if its people.

Interpretation of this paper is all that matters and like any state throughout history, whoever interprets gets to dictate. Sooner or later, Spicer, they'll take your guns and it will be 'constitutional'. They'll take your free speech too, and that will also be 'constitutional'. If things get really bad, they'll seize your property under some anti-white reparations law and that will be 'constitutional' too.

You're wrong, everything you said is wrong. You're glossing over the fact that law means what it meant at the time it was written. The Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence provide the American people with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of government officials past, present and future. Those judicial activists who create their own extra-constitutional inventions to justify the constitutionality of policy issues are wrong. The rule of law does not allow for this. In accordance with our Founding, and in accordance with the principles that long predate our Founding, the Constitution was created in accordance with those principles, and its language cannot rightly be interpreted in any other way.

The people of this country do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution to their liking. The Constitution is law, and law does not change. Anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of the United States, and we reserve the right to take up arms; even if the majority of Americans agree with the judicial activists, majoritarian rule is not necessarily right rule. In other words, my point is that people do not determine the justice of this country, the law does, the Constitution does, and those people, whether they are in the majority or minority, who deny the contents of that Constitution, they are enemies of it. Chief Justice Warren was an enemy of the United States. Ruth Bader Gisburg is an enemy of the United States. All those who agree with these activists are enemies of the United States. They have committed treason.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 22.10.2019 at 02:26

America was a protectionist, white ethno state

anti-white reparations law and that will be 'constitutional' too.

When the ethnic stock of America changes, so too will its cultural and economic outlook.

Boo hoo, some people in America are a different color from you. Cry more . Feel free to move to Europe if it bothers you so much

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 22.10.2019 at 02:26

The Constitution forms a tangible framework of the American identity; Individualism, Equity, and Freedom. It is through this that the American standard of living has been concocted throughout time; We have partially decayed as a nation in my opinion due to the lack of a legal definition determining the wants and needs of the State and its people; how the state should operate; and how to develop for increasing populations, or outright refuse them. FDR's new Bill of Rights was a step in the right direction to empower and embolden the American, but it was crippled after his death.

I believe lowering the population; creating a hybrid economy; lessening the effects of federal politics and bringing more autonomy to states in a confederative fashion; enforcing a federal UI wage for working-class Americans; Nationalizing basic-level medical care; and re-investing into our Aeronautics programs are the routes to sure success in the future. Our population is disenfranchised and in despair; There are no easy routes to a healthy living anymore, and the cracks in radicalized individuals are beginning to show as we've seen in recent years.

लिखा द्वारा Garde, 22.10.2019 at 22:02

The Constitution forms a tangible framework of the American identity; Individualism, Equity, and Freedom. It is through this that the American standard of living has been concocted throughout time; We have partially decayed as a nation in my opinion due to the lack of a legal definition determining the wants and needs of the State and its people; how the state should operate; and how to develop for increasing populations, or outright refuse them. FDR's new Bill of Rights was a step in the right direction to empower and embolden the American, but it was crippled after his death.

I believe lowering the population; creating a hybrid economy; lessening the effects of federal politics and bringing more autonomy to states in a confederative fashion; enforcing a federal UI wage for working-class Americans; Nationalizing basic-level medical care; and re-investing into our Aeronautics programs are the routes to sure success in the future. Our population is disenfranchised and in despair; There are no easy routes to a healthy living anymore, and the cracks in radicalized individuals are beginning to show as we've seen in recent years.

लिखा द्वारा Player 999, 22.10.2019 at 21:21

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 22.10.2019 at 02:26

I recognize that you have good intentions.

I agree that the Constitution does, as I said, "provide the American people with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of government officials past, present, and future," but those standards have not "changed" and you are no different from Tik-Tok or the judicial activists that I condemn. Let me explain:

When the United States declared independence on July 4, 1776, they needed a reason to declare independence. In fact, the Declaration of Independence says that "[g]overnments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes[.]" Why, then, was their revolution legitimate and how was it justified?
Well, the acts of King Geroge III were committed in direct contravention to natural law, to John Locke's mind, and to America's revolutionary mind; you see, America's revolutionary mind was virtually synonymous with John Locke's mind. John Locke inspired the American Revolution; his philosophy applied natural law to morality and politics, which the Americans used to justify their independence.
The Americans' previous government did not secure their natural rights, it did not apply natural law from which the facts of nature are derived. The Framers of the United States required a new government, one that would secure—and not create—those rights. Our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are in many ways a compendium on the four branches of philosophy. In metaphysics, nature; in epistemology, reason; in ethics, rights; and in politics, constitutionalism.
The "facts of nature" I speak of manifest in the Declaration, which say:

• "[A]ll Men are created equal."
  
• "[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
  
• "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
  
• "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

The above facts of nature are derived from natural law, which secures equality, rights, consent, and revolution. America's founding was steeped in the immutable facts of nature, which is why the moral and political standards I previously spoke of are by definition immutable and unalterable. The Constitution is above all else a legal document that is grounded in natural law.

Furthermore, I flagrantly disagree with your notion that "[w]e have partially decayed as a nation in my opinion due to the lack of a legal definition determining the wants and needs of the State and its people; how the state should operate; and how to develop for increasing populations, or outright refuse them." Your statement contradicts the reason why America exists.

Increasingly people live more by virtue of what the government does for them or to them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along the channels laid down by the government. In your world, freedom of opportunity does not exist. In your world, opportunities are prescribed by government, opportunities are available insofar as the Code of Federal Regulations will allow, and whatever opportunities are available must be approved by a group of "experts" in the Capital. You said that "[t]here are no easy routes to a healthy living anymore"; I want you to elaborate on what "easy routes" are and why they no longer exist. An upward trend in government involvement in commerce and a downward trend in one's ability to pursue a "healthy living" do not have a positive correlation, which leads me to believe that government is responsible. Hypothetically, if expanding government makes life easier, is that an inherently "good" thing, anyway? Life is not supposed to be easy. It destroys our purpose. Modern man is disconnected from his natural state of being. "Living healthy" requires man to assume the power process. He must have real and attainable goals. The power process is disrupted in society because of people like you who want the government to determine what is or is not a goal of man.

You're an evil son of a bitch. You want to take away my freedom, you want to take away my guns, and you want to burn my flag. 1776 will commence again if you try to take away my guns. I will gladly take up arms and defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, in the name of freedom, in the name of our Framers, and in the name of God. Freedom isn't free. Preserving, protecting, and defending freedom comes at a cost, and I will gladly pay that cost with my life if you or anyone else thinks that the American people will sit idly by while our God-given rights are stripped from us one by one until we are finally stripped naked and subject to the mercy of a fucking politician. Man's natural state is a state of freedom. Man's natural rights are inalienable. Government cannot give or create these rights, it can only secure them. You are at war with God's law, with the laws of nature, and with me. You will lose this war. We will prevail because you cannot defeat the Almighty.

Sources:
Sade, R. M. (2012, May 23). Health Care Reform: Ethical Foundations, Policy, and Law. Retrieved from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486288.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence.
Thompson, C. B. (2019). America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It. New York: Encounter Books.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

You're wrong, everything you said is wrong. You're glossing over the fact that law means what it meant at the time it was written

Does it? Which law says that the law means what it meant at the time it was written? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say "You have to interpret this to mean the original public meaning at the time it was ratified"?

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 23.10.2019 at 14:18

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

You're wrong, everything you said is wrong. You're glossing over the fact that law means what it meant at the time it was written

Does it? Which law says that the law means what it meant at the time it was written? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say "You have to interpret this to mean the original public meaning at the time it was ratified"?

Which law says that law means whatever you want it to mean? Where exactly in the Constitution does it say "You have to interpret this to mean whatever you want it to mean, especially if it aligns with your policy preferences."

Acquiesce, this is why different modes of interpretation exist. The burden of proof falls on you, until then, it's a fact that law means what the founders wrote it to mean and what the public thought it meant when it was enacted.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 14:30

Acquiesce, this is why different modes of interpretation exist. The burden of proof falls on you, until then, it's a fact that law means what the founders wrote it to mean and what the public thought it meant when it was enacted.

Well no... it is on you (the person who is claiming there is only one valid method of interpretation) to justify why your method is superior to any other. My point is simply that you will find no defense of originalism in the Constitution, the Declaration, or any other founding document as far as I'm aware.

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 23.10.2019 at 14:34

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 14:30

Acquiesce, this is why different modes of interpretation exist. The burden of proof falls on you, until then, it's a fact that law means what the founders wrote it to mean and what the public thought it meant when it was enacted.

Well no... it is on you (the person who is claiming there is only one valid method of interpretation) to justify why your method is superior to any other. My point is simply that you will find no defense of originalism in the Constitution, the Declaration, or any other founding document as far as I'm aware.

Well, do you accept that originalism is a valid mode of interpretation? There is NO evidence to suggest that lawmakers, especially the framers of the Constitution, intended for it to be interpreted in accordance with public opinion. Rule by public opinion is called majoritarian rule, and majoritarian rule cannot protect minority rights, which is what the Constitution was designed to protect. The Constitution was designed to secure rights, not create them. This is evidenced in the Declaration of Independence, public opinion, the framers' intent, and in the structure of the document itself. The application of substantive due process for instance is a JUDICIAL INVENTION. Substantive due process basically says that, with respect to the 5th and 14th Amendments' Due Process Clause, any unreasonable restriction on one's life, liberty, or property is unconstitutional. Who determines what is or is not constitutional? A judge. Who is that man or woman to decide what the law should mean? Law decides what law means. If the framers explicitly said that law is supposed to stay attuned to public opinion, then they should have done that. They didn't.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 14:45

Well, do you accept that originalism is a valid mode of interpretation?

Yes, one among others.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 14:45

There is NO evidence to suggest that lawmakers, especially the framers of the Constitution, intended for it to be interpreted in accordance with public opinion.

Ok but literally no judge says this lol

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 14:45

The application of substantive due process for instance is a JUDICIAL INVENTION.

I agree that substantive due process is bullshit. I just don't think the justifications for originalism in particular or for the Constitution more generally are quite as strong as you seem to think they are.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

You're wrong, everything you said is wrong. You're glossing over the fact that law means what it meant at the time it was written. The Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence provide the American people with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of government officials past, present and future. Those judicial activists who create their own extra-constitutional inventions to justify the constitutionality of policy issues are wrong.

What a stupid thing to say. How are they wrong if by law it is constitutional? By allowing for this ridiculous living document and allowing lawyers to be the arbiters of what is constitutional, you handed power to anyone able to interpret it however they please. It is lawful, it is legal and it is constitutional. You can claim your hill, but you will die on it (metaphorically). That's all conservatives ever do, they autistically claim some principle moral high ground and then get rolled over. In 20 years, you'll be spouting the same drivel radlibs demand today and call it 'conservatism'.

The constitution is interpreted and there are multiple different schools on these interpretations. You said it yourself, you masturbated to the idea of this 'Living Document'. These laws were amended and reinterpreted over and over, and more schools emerged reinterpreting the interpretations. This is Law. This is constitutional, and you finger waving about your interpretation is nothing more than screaming into the ether. Do you think the Founders would accept your degenerate interpretation? They were White Nationalist, anti-sodomites who owned slaves, and all of them believed in the principle of an Anglo-Saxon dominated White worldview. They'd think you a radical lunatic for your interpretation. In their eyes, you'd be a nutcase in the same way you view it's current legal interpretation. Frankly, if they saw how we ended up, they'd burn the damn thing and start over.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

The rule of law does not allow for this. In accordance with our Founding, and in accordance with the principles that long predate our Founding, the Constitution was created in accordance with those principles, and its language cannot rightly be interpreted in any other way.

Then why are we here? Theory and practical application are two different things. The practical application of communism is almost always the same, as is the practical application of Fascism and Liberalism. The changes between different nations who adopt such policies are due to their own racial and cultural interpretations and applications of these theories. Your theory is debunked by two centuries of constitutional amending and reinterpretation. If they original intent was to consistently apply original intent, then it failed spectacularly and proves my point over and over again. It's a piece of paper that can be molded by the powers that be, but requiring manufactured consent from the populace. That's how most societies have always functioned. Your paper changed nothing, your ideology when applied was subverted with incredible ease. It's garbage. Your adamant cucky principle is a product of this manufactured consent, likely based on your own genetic and cultural profile. You likely have a higher threat perception and disliked the open 'Other'-loving progs and found an isolated principled-based conservative school which your brain preferred, except that school is also a form of manufactured consent which you know damn well the Founders would despise. You can spout your rhetoric all you want but it doesn't change the reality. It failed and no amount of principled grandstanding will change that. You WILL capitulate to the new narratives as the old ones are discarded and socially condemned. You WILL adapt to new paradigms because veering too far off leads to social and economic isolation.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

The people of this country do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution to their liking.

The people have little say. Time and time again, they capitulate.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

The Constitution is law, and law does not change.

Then explain the changes? It DOES change. Your world view is purely fictional and refuses to adapt to reality. Law is whatever power deems it to be. Overthrowing the British colony was illegal and yet it happened. Law is the application of power. The constitution is interpreted by whoever wields power and manufactures consent.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

Anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of the United States, and we reserve the right to take up arms; even if the majority of Americans agree with the judicial activists, majoritarian rule is not necessarily right rule.

You wont do SHIT you pussy. None of you AR-15-loving pricks will do anything. I don't like saying it and I'm a strong supporter of the right to bear arms, but if you get 'red-flagged' as a dissident with possible 'mental issues' by your bitchy drunk wine aunt for spouting your opinions at thanksgiving, Trump's own FBI would SWAT your house and you'd beg not to be shot. They'd confiscate your arms and no one would say anything, no one would defend you, no one will even know because the press will not print it and if they did, they'd claim you're a possible terrorist with 'White Supremacist' views. Why? Because your created a hyper-individualist society of NIMF's (Not In My Family) who are fine to go along and get along to avoid Sauron's Eye. Your values eroded collectivism over time and now everyone is out for themselves. Your values eroded any sense of justice and mob outrage, you culled unions and elevated corporations to the highest offices in the land.

I'm sick of this argument. Sick of it. You're armed to the teeth and proclaim some revolutionary conservative scenario, while children TODAY are being forced and manipulated into taking estrogen pills. Meanwhile, the unarmed working class French have been rioting for almost a year in yellow vests. Face facts, you wont do shit.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

In other words, my point is that people do not determine the justice of this country, the law does, the Constitution does

And people who interpret such laws determine how it functions. You're wrong. This scenario shouldn't be happening and yet it is. You're no different from the communists denying communism never existed.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

and those people, whether they are in the majority or minority, who deny the contents of that Constitution, they are enemies of it.

And they rule it.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

Chief Justice Warren was an enemy of the United States. Ruth Bader Gisburg is an enemy of the United States. All those who agree with these activists are enemies of the United States. They have committed treason.

And yet they rule.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 22.10.2019 at 20:20

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

And they haven't. Theory debunked. Reality always wins. Get a new theory.

लिखा द्वारा Garde, 22.10.2019 at 22:02

The Constitution forms a tangible framework of the American identity; Individualism, Equity, and Freedom.

Individualism back then was a vague interpretation. It worked at the time because it was based around the idea of Anglo frontiersman conquering the land, setting up their private enclaves and defending them from enemies both foreign and domestic. It took less than half a century for this concept to be eroded by the growth of collectivism as urban areas expanded. Individualism past the frontier age became extremely poisonous. Today it's deadly. 'Freedom' was also heavily interpreted and mostly revolved around fair trials, justified judgements, political speech and property rights. It was not intended for gay orgies and wars for Israel. They fucked up. Their separated institutions actually made it more difficult to overcome its own clear problems.

लिखा द्वारा Garde, 22.10.2019 at 22:02

It is through this that the American standard of living has been concocted throughout time

That's not true. The western standard of living - while differing from country to country - has consistently been higher than the rest of the world for centuries despite many different political theories being applied. Britain under communism would still be far better off than the global south. The people are what matter. Political theory can create better scenarios but it is the peoples 'Will' and capability that dictate a quality of life. As I said before, Liberia has the same constitution as the USA and has had this for over 150 years since 1847. Shouldn't Liberia be the superpower of West Africa? I'm sorry to say, but it remains a substandard shithole. Even anarcho-communist Britain (God forbid) would have a better society and quality of life. This is coming from me, but even a Fascist Nigeria would still be a relative shithole compared to some backwater anarchist European society.

लिखा द्वारा Garde, 22.10.2019 at 22:02

We have partially decayed as a nation in my opinion due to the lack of a legal definition determining the wants and needs of the State and its people; how the state should operate; and how to develop for increasing populations, or outright refuse them.

>partially decayed
>partially

Hmm... ignoring that, but while the legal definition is a major problem, any definition will still be up to interpretation by whoever rules. I wont name names, but you know where I'd go with this, and the allowance of a certain population has had a pretty big hand in the molding of this interpretation. Cultural Capitalism was still an inevitable path, this was likely accelerated by the presence and molding by this particular population.

लिखा द्वारा Garde, 22.10.2019 at 22:02

I believe lowering the population; creating a hybrid economy; lessening the effects of federal politics and bringing more autonomy to states in a confederative fashion; enforcing a federal UI wage for working-class Americans; Nationalizing basic-level medical care; and re-investing into our Aeronautics programs are the routes to sure success in the future. Our population is disenfranchised and in despair; There are no easy routes to a healthy living anymore, and the cracks in radicalized individuals are beginning to show as we've seen in recent years.

All seemingly good policies, but outright opposed by the powers that be. I have no problem with discussing said policies but it is farting in the wind unless something is galvanised into some political force. As it stands, we're essentially political dissidents whose only weapon is using subversive means. It's a start but ultimately we are at the whim of a large boot wielded by a monolithic international clique of modern aristocracies and tribally supremacist J*cough*s.

I'm gonna keep this short Tik-Tok, I just want to address one of your points that I totally reject.

You said:

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 23.10.2019 at 20:10

The constitution is interpreted and there are multiple different schools on these interpretations. You said it yourself, you masturbated to the idea of this 'Living Document'. These laws were amended and reinterpreted over and over, and more schools emerged reinterpreting the interpretations. This is Law. This is constitutional, and you finger waving about your interpretation is nothing more than screaming into the ether. Do you think the Founders would accept your degenerate interpretation? They were White Nationalist, anti-sodomites who owned slaves, and all of them believed in the principle of an Anglo-Saxon dominated White worldview. They'd think you a radical lunatic for your interpretation. In their eyes, you'd be a nutcase in the same way you view it's current legal interpretation. Frankly, if they saw how we ended up, they'd burn the damn thing and start over.

You have it all wrong, but I want to discuss this with you in a civil way. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence provided all Americans, including slaves, with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of government officials past, present, and future. Let me explain. Within a generation after the Civil War, American intellectuals came to reject not only the Declaration's self-evident truths but the very idea of "truth" itself. The moral and political principles of old liberalism disappeared almost overnight from American universities. Within a generation, the ideas of Kant, Hegel, and Marx replaced those of Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, and Adam Smith on America's college campuses. The new liberalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries rejected all of the metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and political principles of the Declaration of Independence and the classical liberal tradition.

Furthermore, there's a profound similarity between a belief in slavery and in a progressive view of the Constitution. Socialism—which manifests in the application of strict scrutiny, dubious interpretations of the 9th Amendment, substantive due process, inter alia—is not only compatible with plantation slavery but it is the ultimate fulfillment thereof. We have a 13th Amendment, by the way, so it is physically impossible to interpret the Constitution pursuant to an originalist interpretation without utterly rejecting slavery as constitutional. Only a judicial activist could interpret the Constitution in a racist way. Your statement is fallacy from beginning to end, you're wrong, and you're a son of a bitch for suggesting that the Framers of my country were "white nationalists" and that those views were somehow reflected in the Constitution. None of the philosophy on which the Constitution was founded supports the evils of slavery. Slavery necessitates a progressive view of the Constitution, contrary to its original meaning. Consider this, and realize how evil, unholy, and mentally disabled you must be to fucking believe in this anti-American trope. I don't know who you are or where you came from, but you're the most unpatriotic scum that has ever walked the Earth. Go to hell.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

You have it all wrong, but I want to discuss this with you in a civil way. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence provided all Americans, including slaves, with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of government officials past, present, and future. Let me explain. Within a generation after the Civil War, American intellectuals came to reject not only the Declaration's self-evident truths but the very idea of "truth" itself. The moral and political principles of old liberalism disappeared almost overnight from American universities. Within a generation, the ideas of Kant, Hegel, and Marx replaced those of Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, and Adam Smith on America's college campuses. The new liberalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries rejected all of the metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and political principles of the Declaration of Independence and the classical liberal tradition.

So? Shouldn't your perfect document guard against such intrusion? Shouldn't proles have riled the masses and rustled their guns? But they didn't. This document and its philosophers could not conceive of such a thing to occur and were unable to guard against it.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Furthermore, there's a profound similarity between a belief in slavery and in a progressive view of the Constitution. Socialism—which manifests in the application of strict scrutiny, dubious interpretations of the 9th Amendment, substantive due process, inter alia—is not only compatible with plantation slavery but it is the ultimate fulfillment thereof. We have a 13th Amendment, by the way, so it is physically impossible to interpret the Constitution pursuant to an originalist interpretation without utterly rejecting slavery as constitutional.

And yet it was. The founders who wrote it owned slaves. So clearly it was written to ensure slavery continued.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Only a judicial activist could interpret the Constitution in a racist way.

This is bizzaro world conservatism. We're scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel of fictional worldviews.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Your statement is fallacy from beginning to end, you're wrong, and you're a son of a bitch for suggesting that the Framers of my country were "white nationalists" and that those views were somehow reflected in the Constitution.

You are a high-functioning NPC, m8, spouting a manufactured concept alien to literal history.

The Founders own words:


Dare I say it, and I'm going to come off as some SJW when I say this, but White Supremacy was baked into the cake of America. The leftists are somewhat right on this. Your modern day take is not originalist and is a direct progressive reinterpretation. Isn't it strange that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed "all men are created equal", and yet slavery was accepted and enforced by law? Because they didn't deem 'Africans' as 'Man'. This was a widely accepted concept and remains so in many Asian countries. The Founders were to left of Hitler on 'Race'. You are WRONG on this. Undeniable WRONG. They'd likely call me a degenerate and say I was cucking on race. These men were born in the 18th fucking century and you're going to argue that they envisioned the 1960's William F. Buckley interpretation of the constitution and society? What the fuck are you on?

Here's a tidbit of what I've learned. Why don't people revolt over immigration and changing demographics? They don't like it, and their quality of life deteriorates as a result, yet they remain largely apathetic. This is mostly to do with social and economic punishment for being in opposition to it as well as hyper-individualism as a byproduct of cultural capitalism, but in a very small way, it's also because they do not believe they can be conquered. The attitude of liberals with blacks in particular is strange and imitates a paternal attitude. Studies have shown they actively change their speech patterns based on what race of the person they are speaking to. The average white person believes they will always exist, always be around never truly be threatened. They're right in some ways; no one is capable of truly challenging us militarily, and as such we are in essence conquering ourselves through subversion. But we aren't invincible. This attitude of supremacy has little bearing on society anymore but it remains and is a part of our collective subliminal consciousness. The founders were explicit in their clearly White Nationalist desires in the Naturalization Act of 1790.



As shown above, their literature brims with racial language, racial destiny and desire for racial homogeneity and racial posterity. The constitution also doesn't say "gay gangbangs are cool too, folks" because there was a clear and implicit understanding that people believed it was wrong. At no point did they conceive such a thing would be legal, let alone normalised. It was simply inconceivable at the time. Sodomy was outright banned. It didn't need a constitutional proclamation and neither did racial law. It was baked into the cake and states themselves enforced them without a hint of denial or obstruction by the supreme court. Why? Because that was the interpretation at the time.

They never believed this scenario we are in could ever occur. Even the most fatalist of philospher's would be hard pressed to predict today's culture and behavior.

Everything you spout is a basic-bitch conservative talking point, a cucky 'National Review' spasm leftover from the shitty politics of William F Buckley. You're a dinosaur. Not just dead, but fossilised. You hold no power, you wield nothing and in a decade or more, you wont even say there are only two genders. You'll capitulate because your politics are severely outdated and frankly, your politic doesn't have any balls. You are allowed to flounder and bluster but you're considered harmless, while actual subversives like myself are hounded down because we can actually have an impact on our national destiny.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

None of the philosophy on which the Constitution was founded supports the evils of slavery.

And yet it took a CIVIL FUCKING WAR to end it. You are so full of shit.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Slavery necessitates a progressive view of the Constitution, contrary to its original meaning. Consider this, and realize how evil, unholy, and mentally disabled you must be to fucking believe in this anti-American trope.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

I don't know who you are or where you came from, but you're the most unpatriotic scum that has ever walked the Earth. Go to hell.

We're already halfway there, bro. It's called neo-liberalism and biopower.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Furthermore, there's a profound similarity between a belief in slavery and in a progressive view of the Constitution. Socialism—which manifests in the application of strict scrutiny, dubious interpretations of the 9th Amendment, substantive due process, inter alia—is not only compatible with plantation slavery but it is the ultimate fulfillment thereof. We have a 13th Amendment, by the way, so it is physically impossible to interpret the Constitution pursuant to an originalist interpretation without utterly rejecting slavery as constitutional. Only a judicial activist could interpret the Constitution in a racist way. Your statement is fallacy from beginning to end, you're wrong, and you're a son of a bitch for suggesting that the Framers of my country were "white nationalists" and that those views were somehow reflected in the Constitution. None of the philosophy on which the Constitution was founded supports the evils of slavery.

I'm afraid you're getting BTFO by Tik-Tok bro. It's not your fault though, it's just the flimsiness of your position. No one could defend it.

We all know the founders were white nationalists. We all know the Constitution was at least neutral with regard to slavery if not openly supportive of the institution. This Dinesh D'souza posturing on historical reality doesn't fool anyone.

Even Lincoln, the great emancipator, knew full well he had no legal authority to abolish slavery in the South. That's why he waited until the southern states were in open rebellion to seize the property (slaves) of white Southerners. Literal war booty.

By the way, the fact of the 13th Amendment (and the other Civil War amendments) is itself strong evidence that the original Constitution sanctioned slavery. If it did not, those Amendments would not have been necessary.

When i want to read Afterwind Forum, i just go to Tik-Tok profile and click his posts, best news there.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

You have it all wrong, but I want to discuss this with you in a civil way.

You are nothing more than a vulgar, raging barbarian who masquerades his violence under the guise of intellectualism. Shame on you.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence provided all Americans, including slaves, with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of government officials past, present, and future.

How are you not a shamed of being so maliciously dishonest? How can anyone that reads this not be offended? Slaves had zero rights and the constitution enforced their desperate destitution.

Legally speaking, slaves are property and not people. Do you not acknowledge the existence of this peculiar institution or of the three-fifths compromise?

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Let me explain. Within a generation after the Civil War, American intellectuals came to reject not only the Declaration's self-evident truths but the very idea of "truth" itself. The moral and political principles of old liberalism disappeared almost overnight from American universities.

And who's fault is that? Are you insinuating that there is a direct relationship between the north winning the civil war and the dissaperance of liberalist thoughts?

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Within a generation, the ideas of Kant, Hegel, and Marx replaced those of Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, and Adam Smith on America's college campuses. The new liberalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries rejected all of the metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and political principles of the Declaration of Independence and the classical liberal tradition.

This is nothing but a rant. Be more specific about what you wish to convey. Essentially you are saying that Marxist thought took over universities and this lead to the decline of liberalism - but you aren't proving a reason as of why Marxism was systemically spread across the USA.

This just begs the question, is marxism the evolutionally end of liberalism? or some outside entity systemically subverted the USA?

Tik-Tok would argue that it must be the latter, and he would have a valid reason to do so. But I myself prefer to believe the former; Marxism is the evolutionary end of liberalism - you can't fight the currents of time.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Furthermore, there's a profound similarity between a belief in slavery and in a progressive view of the Constitution. Socialism—which manifests in the application of strict scrutiny, dubious interpretations of the 9th Amendment, substantive due process, inter alia—is not only compatible with plantation slavery but it is the ultimate fulfillment thereof.

Slavery is a "capitalistic" invention. The republican and democratic governments that the USA was based on - roman & greek - all had slavery. Marxism is an ideology that only appeared in the USA after the civil war, You even said this yourself. I don't like how you are blaming the Marxists for something that the old liberalism that you so adore baked.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

We have a 13th Amendment, by the way, so it is physically impossible to interpret the Constitution pursuant to an originalist interpretation without utterly rejecting slavery as constitutional. Only a judicial activist could interpret the Constitution in a racist way.

The constitution is not racist for it is just an object. But if you have any understanding of history, it would be self evident that the constitution was interpreted to benefit racists and slave owners.

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 21:18

Your statement is fallacy from beginning to end, you're wrong, and you're a son of a bitch for suggesting that the Framers of my country were "white nationalists" and that those views were somehow reflected in the Constitution. None of the philosophy on which the Constitution was founded supports the evils of slavery. Slavery necessitates a progressive view of the Constitution, contrary to its original meaning. Consider this, and realize how evil, unholy, and mentally disabled you must be to fucking believe in this anti-American trope. I don't know who you are or where you came from, but you're the most unpatriotic scum that has ever walked the Earth. Go to hell.

The constitution was literally framed to appease slave land owners, holy shit - have u not read the federalist papers? How dense can you be?. Just accept that you are intellectually challenged. When the framers wrote the constitution, they clearly didn't have the native americans in mind.

I might disagree with Tik-Tok, but it makes more sense to believe that some of the framers had a proto-european sentiment. This doesn't mean they were bad people - it just means that when the USA was created there was a racial competition in mind, "us vs them". Civillizations and Tribes competed with each other for thousands of years, that we artificially moved beyond tribalistic competition could be seen as the PAX Americana. But sadly it might not last for long.

लिखा द्वारा Player 999, 22.10.2019 at 21:21

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 25.10.2019 at 16:16

Why don't you read my earlier post where I thoroughly outlined my argument? You respond to a message I sent to Tik-Tok, but not my main argument below:

लिखा द्वारा Tribune Aquila, 23.10.2019 at 13:54

I agree that the Constitution does, as I said, "provide the American people with a moral and political standard by which to judge the actions of government officials past, present, and future," but those standards have not "changed" and you are no different from Tik-Tok or the judicial activists that I condemn. Let me explain:

When the United States declared independence on July 4, 1776, they needed a reason to declare independence. In fact, the Declaration of Independence says that "[g]overnments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes[.]" Why, then, was their revolution legitimate and how was it justified?
Well, the acts of King Geroge III were committed in direct contravention to natural law, to John Locke's mind, and to America's revolutionary mind; you see, America's revolutionary mind was virtually synonymous with John Locke's mind. John Locke inspired the American Revolution; his philosophy applied natural law to morality and politics, which the Americans used to justify their independence.
The Americans' previous government did not secure their natural rights, it did not apply natural law from which the facts of nature are derived. The Framers of the United States required a new government, one that would secure—and not create—those rights. Our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are in many ways a compendium on the four branches of philosophy. In metaphysics, nature; in epistemology, reason; in ethics, rights; and in politics, constitutionalism.
The "facts of nature" I speak of manifest in the Declaration, which say:

• "[A]ll Men are created equal."
  
• "[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
  
• "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
  
• "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

The above facts of nature are derived from natural law, which secures equality, rights, consent, and revolution. America's founding was steeped in the immutable facts of nature, which is why the moral and political standards I previously spoke of are by definition immutable and unalterable. The Constitution is above all else a legal document that is grounded in natural law.

Furthermore, I flagrantly disagree with your notion that "[w]e have partially decayed as a nation in my opinion due to the lack of a legal definition determining the wants and needs of the State and its people; how the state should operate; and how to develop for increasing populations, or outright refuse them." Your statement contradicts the reason why America exists.

Increasingly people live more by virtue of what the government does for them or to them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along the channels laid down by the government. In your world, freedom of opportunity does not exist. In your world, opportunities are prescribed by government, opportunities are available insofar as the Code of Federal Regulations will allow, and whatever opportunities are available must be approved by a group of "experts" in the Capital. You said that "[t]here are no easy routes to a healthy living anymore"; I want you to elaborate on what "easy routes" are and why they no longer exist. An upward trend in government involvement in commerce and a downward trend in one's ability to pursue a "healthy living" do not have a positive correlation, which leads me to believe that government is responsible. Hypothetically, if expanding government makes life easier, is that an inherently "good" thing, anyway? Life is not supposed to be easy. It destroys our purpose. Modern man is disconnected from his natural state of being. "Living healthy" requires man to assume the power process. He must have real and attainable goals. The power process is disrupted in society because of people like you who want the government to determine what is or is not a goal of man.

Sources:
Sade, R. M. (2012, May 23). Health Care Reform: Ethical Foundations, Policy, and Law. Retrieved from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486288.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence.
Thompson, C. B. (2019). America's Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It. New York: Encounter Books.

Let me just tell you this plainly, ok? Originalism means that the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the way the law would have been reasonably interpreted at the time of its enactment. The Constitution consists of 27 Amendments; therefore, an originalist interpretation necessitates that slavery is unconstitutional because 1. that is how people interpreted the 13th Amendment at the time of its ratification and 2. that's what the text says. Originalism doesn't mean interpreting the Constitution just as it was written in 1787, idiot. Obviously in 1787 the average person would interpret the term "men" to encompass only white men. However, because there's a 13th and 14th Amendment, that interpretation is invalid if you actually take a second to read the document.

Let me explain some more, just bear with me, I'll keep this civil, ok?

When America was founded, no one seriously questioned the moral status of slavery. It was a worldwide institution and although some regarded it as immoral, it was seen as a necessary evil. Your understanding of history is wrong, you are historically illiterate. Sorry, but it's true. So shut the fuck up and let me explain. Benjamin Franklin, speaking as president of the Pennsylvania Society of promoting and Abolition of Slavery, described slavery as "an atrocious debasement of human nature." George Washington, a slaveholder, told a friend, "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]." At the Constitution Convention in 1787, James Madison told his colleagues, "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." And John Adams told a correspondent in 1819 that he had held "the practice of slavery in abhorrence" through his entire life. My point is that America was founded in the Enlightened ideals of John Locke among other philosophers like Francis Bacon, not slavery, retard. Unpatriotic fuck.

You're little character attacks reflect more on you than me, pseudo intellectual retard. What are your qualifications? What research have you done? If you actually think I'm still wrong after reading this, then please tell me how the fuck I'm wrong. Otherwise, go to Hell, bitch. Such a fucking unpatriotic retard.

Sources:
Benjamin Franklin, "An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage" (1789), in The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. John Bigelow (New York: Putnam, 1904), 12:157-58
George Washington to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in The Writings of George Washington, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York: Putnam's, 1891), 11:25
James Madison, speech at Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787, in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1786, Reported by James Madison, ed. Adrienne Koch (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 77; Adams to Robert Evans, June 18, 1819, Works of Adams, 380.