Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If we go back to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
maynard Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:03 PM
Original message
If we go back to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution
.....What will we loose?

1. Medicare
2. Medicaid
3. Social Security
4. Women's right to vote
5. Women's right to own property
6. Any rights of women that we have earned since the framing of the constitution

Let's add to this list.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
parasim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. good point.
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 09:07 PM by parasim
but it's "lose" not "loose". just sayin'

on edit: not trying to be a spelling nazi, but that one particularly irks me... my apologies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maynard Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. thanks for the correction....
I am tired and not thinking straight......But, I still want Health Care Reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muntrv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, but we'd gain slavery. That' pretty much what our privately owned
prisons are doing now anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. The owners of our country don't want slavery.
they had to feed and house their slaves and pay for their "health care."

They'd much prefer a return to sharecroppery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Good point. That and an off-shorerery. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. 7. lose free black people
8. we'd lose the Army (Founders were against standing army)
9. lose fire protection (Founders silent, fire protection was private in those days)
10. lose police (no police in those days; catch your own criminals)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Emancipation
environmetal protections,

food and drug safety,

the space program,

the National Institutes of health and all of the advances in health care they have facilitated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. OK
Return of slavery and indentured servitude
Food & Drug Administration - everything they do
Department of Agriculture - Assistance to farmers
NASA - no satellites for communications, weather monitoring, scientific missions, spy satellites
NOAA - no weather forecasts or predictions
FCC - no regulations over communications or assignment of frequency bands for standardization of TV, radio and communications equipment
CDC - no monitoring of illnesses or ability to prepare for outbreaks, no advanced warning so there is production of vaccines


That's all I can come up with right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. income tax
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 09:18 PM by frogcycle
ok, off point, just having fun
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cresent City Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. That's not that far off point
I was going to say that and not take it back. Of course it has to be done right with the rich paying their fair share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbiegeek Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. African Americans will count as only 5/6 of a man & Slavery will be back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. 3/5.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steelmania75 Donating Member (836 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. slavery
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think you misunderstand original intent.
Original intend doesn't mean the Constitution can't be changed.

Slavery for example was abolished by an amendment and the Constitution was designed to be amended.
No scholar considers original intent to "bring back slavery" or "preventing women from voting".

No the founders INTENDED the Constitution to be amended and once amended the amended version is what is binding.

So the founders intent for example on the 3/5th compromise is no longer relevant because of the 14th amendment.

Where original intent applies is to parts of the Constitution not amended like the interstate commerce clause, or full faith and credit clause.

Take the 2nd for example. IF we passed an amendment changing the second (limiting it or repealing it completely) then the amended version is what matters and in 1000 years legal scholars may be looking at the original intent circa 2009 when the 28th amendment to the United State Constitution radically redefined the 2nd. The "original" original intent is no longer valid because the 2nd has been redefined in the 28th. What is relevent is the intent in 2009 behind the wording of the 28th.

Until that happens the original intent circa 1776 is what matter because it hasn't been modified.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. and that is also correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maynard Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I was referring to what protesters have been saying
They want the constitution to be back to what the founders originally wrote into it. There were many amendments added that were added to clarify their original intent. These were done long after the framers had died.... Laws were later passed to clarify..... I have a lot of crazy friends who need help with their "original intent of the constitution...as the framers wrote it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Actually the original intent includes common welfare
see Medicare, Social Security and the rest of the social net we have, or used to have.

Now women's rights... the idiots who push this don't realize many of them good ol' white males would not be able to vote either... not property owners...

Ah the irony. Pointed this to one just the other day... he ahem. got a lot whiter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. I say we go back to Plutarch and Pliny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
19. What the losertarians don't understand is that there was no such thing as "health care" in the 1770s
You really think Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin would call providing quality health care to all "tyranny"? I really doubt it....after all, Franklin founded the first public hospital. That socialist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC