Technically everyone had a right but in reality they didn't. The constitution was hardly worth the paper it was written on untill the civil rights movement too place.
Printable View
Technically everyone had a right but in reality they didn't. The constitution was hardly worth the paper it was written on untill the civil rights movement too place.
I would re-think that statement. By that logic, the Magna Carta was hardly worth the paper it was written because many of the original provisions have been repealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Alexamateo, you comment is the opposite of what I was trying to point out. The declaration did not become relevent to the US population as a whole untill a much later date. I would say that all men are now or should be equal today. The US population made change to make sure it applied to all. The Magna Carta on the other hand has been changed or repealed in itself. It's curret state is nothing like the original copy that was signed. So yes, the original is worthless but only because we change it.
You may want to rethink your words ole two bit - having opinions different that yours would hardly qualify anyone as ignorant!! Maybe you are confusing the word with "Genius"Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong on its face. You are saying the constitution was worthless for most of it's existence, because we have now changed certain how we interpret certain parts of it. By logical extension, we can say if we re-interpret certain parts of it in the future (i.e. give homosexuals full protected rights), it will render today valuless.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Parliament had cut off the head of the King of England and usually that's a bit of a restriction on what a person, sans tête, can do, at least for most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The Englishmen who began their Revolt against Royal absolutist prerogatives and after over a year of open rebellion finally wrote our Declaration of Independence knew they were the direct descendants of their English grandfathers who have revolted a century before, and abolished Royalty, and only years later negotiated with CharlesII to return but only with several limitations one of which was critical: Parliament was to control the Exchequer, and thus the Kings power to do ANYTHING depended on getting MONEY TO PAY FOR IT out of Parliament.
Our Bill of Rights, not supported by all of Congress by any means was written by men intimately familiar with the English Bill of Rights.
For those not familiar from Wiki:
Main article: English Bill of Rights
The English Bill of Rights (1689), one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law, differed substantially in form and intent from the American Bill of Rights, because it was intended to address the rights of citizens as represented by Parliament against the Crown. However, some of its basic tenets are adopted and extended to the general public by the U.S. Bill of Rights, including
* the right of petition
* an independent judiciary (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself),
* freedom from taxation by royal (executive) prerogative, without agreement by Parliament (legislators),
* freedom from a peace-time standing army,
* freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for their defence, as allowed by law,
* freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign,
* freedom of speech in Parliament,
* freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail, and
* freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial.
So it seems I'm anti-American because I place our Framers of our Constitution in the midst of the Post Enlightenment Culture and general anti-establishment, anti-Absolutist culture that was generally afoot in most of Western Europe in not Europe in general.Quote:
But that was no where near the limits places on the US government. And every history I've ever read says exactly what Mark points out. That the US Revolution directly sparked the French Revolution, even more restrictions being placed on the UK crown, and maybe a little less directly simmilar things throughout the world. So what do you disagree with?
As for the US Revolution directly sparking the French Revolution, well that seems an awfully Americo-centric view and presumes that millions of peasants, maybe 70% illiterate, were aware of and conversant in the details of the American war of 10-15 years before and that somehow was more motivating than the centuries of political exclusion, financial serfdom in which they lived, the lack of any kind of justice, and that they rose up nationwide in their MILLIONS because they were all hot under the collar About the American Revolution.
Seems hard to swallow when we reflect that even today very few people here in USA can answer with any detail or place events into a context the details of our Revolution.
I know what I have been told and read from French sources about the connection between our US Revolution and theirs, but it seems that all the Americans and Canadian wannbe's have it settled so why the hell bother.
PS or am I "anti-American" because I am anti-Absolutist, Anti-Authoritarian and anti-imperialist?
I don't even know where to begin. Thanks for the history lesson though, like I didn't know all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
The French revolution came about because in 1789 the French Monarchy went bankrupt under the rule of Louis XVI and was in no shape or form linked to the US revolution.
What was one of the causes of the French Monarchy going bankrupt? What gave the "peasents" hope that they could actually overthrow a monarchy?Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
King Louis XV1 was enept.....though he was very kind bloke he wasnt very good when it came to moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Mind you the US and French revolutions did have one thing in common...it was about money nothing to do with that word freedom, just like the US revolution..all about money..
Example the Boston Tea Party