"Rather, the ultimate protector was to be the ruling elite, the gentlemen of leisure who, free of the daily care of laboring in the marketplace," There was no class of leisure in the US.
One man, one attitude. Two men, two attitudes. Etc. The motives may not always been honorable. So, what? The words explain themselves and compared to the words of any other country at the time was gold among lead. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not perfection, but a start toward the desired state for all rational humans, i:e: Liberty. Unfortunately, the actions of politicians and judges have so twisted and distorted the very meanings of the words of the Constitution, that the only rational thing to do is, rather than trying to correct it, go back to square one and Really, Actually, act according to the Constitution before trying to improve it.
they are indistinguishable from any citizen who couples rights with responsibilities. All citizens enjoy, so far, the right to be responsibile citizens, the pool of those who do so shrinks daily.
Then your list will start with Soros, Reich, Streisand....
"Rather, the ultimate protector was to be the ruling elite, the gentlemen of leisure who, free of the daily care of laboring in the marketplace, could referee clashing particular interests and thereby effect the general welfare."
Here are the occupations of "the gentlemen of leisure"
"Occupations
The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.
At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, or shippers: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson. Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson. Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves. Broom and Few were small farmers.
Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge. Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin. Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities. McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a university president. Baldwin had been a minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained.
A few of the delegates were wealthy. Washington and Robert Morris ranked among the nation's most prosperous men. Carroll, Houston, Jenifer, and Mifflin were also extremely well-to-do. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent. Among those with the most straitened circumstances were Baldwin, Brearly, Broom, Few, Madison, Paterson, and Sherman, though they all managed to live comfortably.
A considerable number of the men were born into leading families: Blair, Butler, Carroll, Houston, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Johnson, Livingston, Mifflin, Gouverneur Morris, both Pinckneys, Randolph, Rutledge, Washington, and Wythe. Others were self-made men w ho had risen from humble beginnings: Few, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton, and Sherman." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/char...
The article highlights the problem of taking or cherry picking certain sections or phrases out of context with both the times they were written and context of the Constitution as a whole. In that people would not ask where in the Constitution or where in the Bill of Rights is something found or not found. res The answer of course or the identification of the erroneous premise is they are not separate but all part of the Constitution Be it Preamble, Articles, Amendments, and Signatures,
The question of not looking in the other parts should never arise. Nor should any opinion be rendered at any level without a review of the entire document.
A key question is would this opinion if given the force of law to support a right violate any other right or rights.
My view is when an amendment is put into effect the basic document should be rewritten to include that change. with appropriate foot notes to not only the amendment as a whole document voted upon but the original wording without the amended change.
Thus any first reading would present the document as it is at present. the obvious example is the 3/5ths rule. It matters not it was the northern states that demanded the wording - once stricken it should be stricken - and no one left to find something like that thrown in their face.
But lawyers will be lawyers
Times are bad enough with the wholesale setting aside of the Constitution without fear of retribution by any law abiding branch of government if such remains but apparently no fear of retribution by the voting public.
I remind you that national 'mission statement' The Declaration of Independence has been under attack as a forged document and that has led for a call to re-interpret the Document which provides legal powers the Constitution. All because some illiterate who doesn't understand punctuation kicked up a specious and false charge.s Two different things. One a statement of intent, the other a legally binding contract.
I find nowhere the right for the legally binding contract to be overturned in any part by ignoring it, or finding a way around it, or claiming powers not granted.
Which makes me wonder why impeachment proceedings are not underway especially after the speech and release of the new version of the Patriot Act on the night of December 30th.
Is there no one who will rid us of illiterates nd usurpers?
Not when that bill passed by a 80% or 85% majority.
and shame on any of you voting for those who voted to suspend the Bill of Rights.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Two men, two attitudes.
Etc.
The motives may not always been honorable. So, what?
The words explain themselves and compared to the words of any other country at the time was gold among lead. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not perfection, but a start toward the desired state for all rational humans, i:e: Liberty. Unfortunately, the actions of politicians and judges have so twisted and distorted the very meanings of the words of the Constitution, that the only rational thing to do is, rather than trying to correct it, go back to square one and Really, Actually, act according to the Constitution before trying to improve it.
Then your list will start with Soros, Reich, Streisand....
Here are the occupations of "the gentlemen of leisure"
"Occupations
The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.
At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, or shippers: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson. Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson. Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves. Broom and Few were small farmers.
Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge. Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin. Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities. McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a university president. Baldwin had been a minister, and Williamson, Madison, Ellsworth, and possibly others had studied theology but had never been ordained.
A few of the delegates were wealthy. Washington and Robert Morris ranked among the nation's most prosperous men. Carroll, Houston, Jenifer, and Mifflin were also extremely well-to-do. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent. Among those with the most straitened circumstances were Baldwin, Brearly, Broom, Few, Madison, Paterson, and Sherman, though they all managed to live comfortably.
A considerable number of the men were born into leading families: Blair, Butler, Carroll, Houston, Ingersoll, Jenifer, Johnson, Livingston, Mifflin, Gouverneur Morris, both Pinckneys, Randolph, Rutledge, Washington, and Wythe. Others were self-made men w ho had risen from humble beginnings: Few, Franklin, Gorham, Hamilton, and Sherman."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/char...
They don't seem to have been men of leisure.
res
The answer of course or the identification of the erroneous premise is they are not separate but all part of the Constitution Be it Preamble, Articles, Amendments, and Signatures,
The question of not looking in the other parts should never arise. Nor should any opinion be rendered at any level without a review of the entire document.
A key question is would this opinion if given the force of law to support a right violate any other right or rights.
My view is when an amendment is put into effect the basic document should be rewritten to include that change. with appropriate foot notes to not only the amendment as a whole document voted upon but the original wording without the amended change.
Thus any first reading would present the document as it is at present. the obvious example is the 3/5ths rule. It matters not it was the northern states that demanded the wording - once stricken it should be stricken - and no one left to find something like that thrown in their face.
But lawyers will be lawyers
Times are bad enough with the wholesale setting aside of the Constitution without fear of retribution by any law abiding branch of government if such remains but apparently no fear of retribution by the voting public.
I remind you that national 'mission statement' The Declaration of Independence has been under attack as a forged document and that has led for a call to re-interpret the Document which provides legal powers the Constitution. All because some illiterate who doesn't understand punctuation kicked up a specious and false charge.s Two different things. One a statement of intent, the other a legally binding contract.
I find nowhere the right for the legally binding contract to be overturned in any part by ignoring it, or finding a way around it, or claiming powers not granted.
Which makes me wonder why impeachment proceedings are not underway especially after the speech and release of the new version of the Patriot Act on the night of December 30th.
Is there no one who will rid us of illiterates nd usurpers?
Not when that bill passed by a 80% or 85% majority.
and shame on any of you voting for those who voted to suspend the Bill of Rights.