Protestantism

» pink101 - Federalist v. Anti-Federalist--A Spin

In response to Federalist v. Anti-Federalist posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Some of what you say agrees with what my source has to say; but, the spin you have applied seems spurious to me.
.
I'm going to carefully reread the chapter in Levy's book that deals with those points. I think you are trying to say that States Rights advocates saved the Constitution. And, I don't think that is true.
.
Spurious; adjective: plausible but false

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - States' Rights

In response to Federalist v. Anti-Federalist--A Spin posted by pink101:

I think you have a "spurious" bias against the states. I say that as respectfully as I can, but it seems very evident to me.

The historical fact is that you had a tug-of-war in the founding era between the following interests:

Small states v. Large states
States v. the Central Government
Agrarian society v. Industrial/Commercial economy

Slavery was wrapped up in that latter debate, with the South (led by Thomas Jefferson) advocating an agragrian America.

The states' rights movement had his pro's and its con's. On the con side, at least with the South, you had slavery. BIG, BIG con. But on the pro side, the states' rights advocates WERE instrumental in getting the Bill of Rights through. That's a historical fact, Pink. Not a spin.

I think you are trying to one-dimensionalize history too much. In your view, the nationalists/federalists were good and the states' rights/southerners were all bad. It's just not that simple.

» Migisi - Just a personal note

.
Interesting stuff you're posting, Pink and Bri. Keep going. I'm learning.
.
When I incorporated my nonprofit org, I had to provide Articles of Incorporation to the state Charitable Trust Bureau. I was required to write a constitution and separate bylaws, and provide names etc. of those on the org's governing board. You know, I kinda felt like the founding fathers while working on all this - creating something workable and equitable for everyone wasn't easy.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Just a personal note

In response to Just a personal note posted by Migisi:
.
Whatever one might think they're learning regarding the issues involved in the ratification of the U.S.Constitution with the First Ten Amendments, it is always a good idea to verify it with a look see at reliable source material. You know that; but, it never hurts to repeat it.
.
I might be wrong about issues and so might Brian.
.
So, it's good to hold our feet to the fire.
.
I'm rereading my sources and will respond to Brian soon. Now, I'm off to take care of some business.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - States' Rights

In response to States' Rights posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I was careful to add that it "seems" as though you have put a spurious spin on the argument over adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.
.
I like to get as close to original source material as possible. Even so, doing so doesn't guarantee an unbiased look at history.
.
Here--in George Mason's own words--we can read some of what he thought.
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/l...
.
I am sure I can safely state that the Anti-Federalists pushed for a bill of rights in the U.S.Constitution because they felt such amendments would defeat the Constitution. And, I am just as sure that I can unequivocally state that their concern was definitely in favor of individual States Rights. They were opposed to a centralized government.
.
So, I will gather some evidence and post it.
.
Here are some important names for anyone wanting to do a seach:
Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Roger Sherman, Edmond Randolph, Alexander Hamilton, Charles Pinckney, and Eldridge Gerry. And, there are others; but, putting any of these names in with states rights or bill of rights will bring up some interesting links, I am sure.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - States' Rights

In response to States' Rights posted by pink101:
.
When I wrote "they felt such amendments would defeat the Constitution" I meant to convey the fact that a bill of rights in the Constitution was an unpopular idea and that such amendments would be defeated and, thereby, weakening the Federal government.
.
Maybe that makes my point more clearly and I'm sorry for any misunderstandings of what I meant to convey. These are not common ideas and so they can be a little difficult to articulate as well as for the receiver to easily grasp.
.
Eventually, I hope to show that conservatives are trying to revisit these questions to ensure individual states gain control over civil rights which is a serious issue about which we must be vigilant.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Civil Rights

In response to States' Rights posted by pink101:

Speaking for myself, I do not believe that states should have the right to ignore the Constitution. And the Constitution was expanded with the 14th amendment - that required the states to abide by the terms of the national Bill of Rights.

Remember....Prior to the 14th amendment, the national Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. It's important that you see and understand that historical fact.

Now, I am GLAD - VERY GLAD - that the 14th amendment is now in effect and that it DOES oblige the states to apply Bill of Rights protections to its citizens. Therefore, I reject the 1960s and 70s states rights advocates who wanted to protect segregation and race discrimination from federal intervention.

Please re-read that paragraph again and again and again - so you don't misrepresent my position in the future (as I think you have in the past). Okay?

» Brian Tubbs - It is possible....

This may be a generational thing here, Pink. But it IS possible for someone in the 21st century to be in favor of limited states' rights and, at the SAME time, strongly opposed to segregation and other such state abuses.

I think you need to take the generational lens off. Most modern conservatives are NOT trying to take us back to the 1960s days of separate bathrooms and separate drinking fountains. That's NOT what conservatism is about anymore - except for some in the fringe corners of the movement.

» pink101 - Civil Rights

In response to Civil Rights posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I'm going to give your post great consideration.
.
And, I do believe that I understand conservativism--I've lived with it all my life.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - It is possible....

In response to It is possible.... posted by BrianTubbs:
.
:~)
.
Due process versus the law?
.
We might still be working out definitions for those inalienable rights that were endowed on us by our creator.
.
The questions of States Rights deal with the issue of Civil Rights. Which holds precedence over the other? That was a major issue in the argument regarding including rights in the Constitution. And, that continues to be a question--shall a state have the authority to deprive a person of their inalienable rights? Can I, a civilian, be tried in a military court? Can I be arrested and incarcerated with out charges?
.
Some questions have been so obviously settled; yet, we see big efforts being made to redefine the variables in order to come up with new answers that give political force the power to take our civil rights away. This is what happens when attorneys begin to take our Constitution apart to prove that it doesn't guarantee what we thought it did.
.
Here is a good site where the 14th Amendment is annotated:
.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/const...
.

-- posted by pink101