Uechi-Ryu.com

Yosselle,

Although I have heard of Gatto, I have not read any of his material, but remember this. He is one teacher out of thousands across the United States. I refuse to take his words as gospel because he has had a personal epiphany about public education.

Has public education turned into a bureaucratic nightmare?? You bet it has. How did we allow it to get that way? Who knows. But mandatory education was implemented for a particular reason whether it be public or private, or God forbid, one of the "alternatives" that he suggests. It was designed to get the children out of the workforce (i.e. factories) and to make America that much more literate. You really can't argue with the results there.

As for "...Mass schooling was instigated to alienate children from their parents and themselves, turning them into working robots, dependent upon superiors for the purpose of maintaining a centralized economy." Oh, please! How does he prove that? Maybe New York has a different philosophy, but the public education in Massachusetts, which has a ton of problems of its own, still allows me the freedom to teach the curriculum in my own way. This allows me to help foster thinking students, and kids who are not afraid to ask why.

If you ask me, and this is very superficial, I would say that Gatto is a coward and hypocrite. If he was so distraught at the fact that he was hurting the children, why did it take 30 years to do something about it? Could it be that he wanted his pension???? How easy it is to complain about something after the fact. Where was he before? And let me ask you this, how much has he made from his books and appearances?

Obviously, you can tell that I'm not impressed by anyone who is trying to make a buck by profiting on the fears of the the public. Like I said before, he would have to do a lot of research, across the country (not just New York), in order to come up with the apparent thesis he is espousing at that seminar. Have him spend an hour in my classroom and then have him tell me I'm creating robots based on maintaining the economic status quo. Well, maybe not. I don't think I could come up with the speaker's fee.

mike

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: Although I have heard of Gatto, I have not read any of his material, but remember this. He is one teacher out of thousands across the United States.

No offense, but so are you.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: I refuse to take his words as gospel...

Good advice for all.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: Has public education turned into a bureaucratic nightmare?? You bet it has. How did we allow it to get that way? Who knows. But mandatory education was implemented for a particular reason whether it be public or private, or God forbid, one of the "alternatives" that he suggests. It was designed to get the children out of the workforce (i.e. factories) and to make America that much more literate. You really can't argue with the results there.

Multiple issues here. First, you focused on the bureaucratic nightmare, instead of the educational nightmare. Interesting. Second, the ostensible purpose and the actual purpose of public education (according to Gatto) are different things. Just like the ostensible purpose of victim disarmament laws (aka. gun control) is crime control when the actual purpose is civlian disarmament followed by establishment of a brutal police state. The dual purpose nature of all government "solutions" to social ills is practically a law of nature. The "purpose" of public education is the crux of the matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: As for "...Mass schooling was instigated to alienate children from their parents and themselves, turning them into working robots, dependent upon superiors for the purpose of maintaining a centralized economy." Oh, please! How does he prove that?

I don't know. I haven't read his book, either. I have, however, read and experienced many other things that have convinced me that he may be right.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: Maybe New York has a different philosophy, but the public education in Massachusetts, which has a ton of problems of its own, still allows me the freedom to teach the curriculum in my own way. This allows me to help foster thinking students, and kids who are not afraid to ask why.

I believe that you are sincere and dedicated.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: If you ask me, and this is very superficial, I would say that Gatto is a coward and hypocrite. If he was so distraught at the fact that he was hurting the children, why did it take 30 years to do something about it? Could it be that he wanted his pension???? How easy it is to complain about something after the fact. Where was he before? And let me ask you this, how much has he made from his books and appearances?

By definition, to be a profiteering fear monger (also see: politician), your message must be false. I don't believe his message is false.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: Obviously, you can tell that I'm not impressed by anyone who is trying to make a buck by profiting on the fears of the the public.

Like the fear of rampant school shootings or slave child labor or cellphone-impaired drivers or global warming or power shortages or crime or the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse or food shortages or homelessness or child abuse or internet porn or patriotism or vitamin deficiencies or bigotry or inflation or deflation or SOCIAL INJUSTICE? This is the essence of liberal politics. Fabricate or enflame an issue to crisis proportions, then propose and implement a government (ie. freedom diminishing) solution which by then is eagerly accepted by an exhausted, grateful public. The suffocating grip of the velvet-gloved hand of government is actually welcomed. And we fall for it over and over again, when we should realize that 99% of the time, government itself is the real problem.

By the way, where in the Constitution is education cited as a delated power (ie. delated by the People to government)?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by mikemurphy: Like I said before, he would have to do a lot of research, across the country (not just New York), in order to come up with the apparent thesis he is espousing at that seminar. Have him spend an hour in my classroom and then have him tell me I'm creating robots based on maintaining the economic status quo. Well, maybe not. I don't think I could come up with the speaker's fee.

Don't take it personally. Perhaps you are one of the rare teachers that teach that government is to be extremely limited and very tightly controlled, and that individual liberty and responsibility are to be prized above all else.

In any case, our children are the worst educated in our nation's history. I would bet my life savings that 3/4 of this year's Harvard graduating class could not meet the graduation requirements of the average Iowa high school of 1918.

Yosselle

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited June 16, 2001).]

Yosselle,

I wish someone would tell me how to take your quotes and paste them the way you do. It's so hard to rewrite them all :-(

Anyway....first things first. The bureaucratic nightmare and the educational nightmare are not separate issues. They are the same thing. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on how you look at it) you can't have one without the other. Gatto should know that having been in a system for 30 years.

Second, my message of Gatto being a hypocrite is not false (as opinions go). I don't see where my definition is off. A man with obvious strong opinions about a subject waits for his retirement to be a voice of discension. I find that questionable and hypocritical definition or not. And the point of how much money he's making doing this now, I think is a strong indication of exactly what his motives are.

Third, allowing government to solve those problems that become inflamed is one of the purposes of government. If they are the problem, there are plenty of watchdog groups out there to pinpoint it. Perfect environment? No. But one that has worked thus far.

The US Constitution left out education in wording, but the 10th Amendment takes it up as a way of saying that anything not specifically stated in the Constitution would fall under the individual state's authority. That is why you have fifty different directions concerning education today in the US.

Lastly, I'm not rare teacher at all. I do what thousands do every day, whether Gatto wants to say it or not. I don't teach that government should be limited; however, do teach that government has its faults and there are avenues to make change if we don't like them. I teach that government is imperfect by definition and that they will make mistakes, and they will at times be criminal. But once again, we have the ability to make it better.

People out there like Gatto can look at the world as a glass half empty if they want, and can simply blame the guy in charge at everything they disapprove of; however, are the problems of public education really the government's fault? How about society as a whole, can't they share some of the blame? Or the indifferent jerks who don't care enough to vote in their individual town elections when major school issues are being debated? Or the major and minor malcontents who would whine about anything because they refuse to be part of the solution? Answer these questions and this whole topic is moot.

As for the Harvard questions, you would have to show me the graduation requirements from both for me to make a call on that; however, having seen some of the "Harvard" quality kids (having worked at Harvard & seeing the Harvard-bound kids at my high school), I'm not at all disappointed at what is being produced at that school.

mike

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

I wish someone would tell me how to take your quotes and paste them the way you do. It's so hard to rewrite them all :-( <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Murphy-san,

At the top of the posts are various buttoons to select for replying. The one that is all the way on the right is "Reply w/ Quote". You will still need to do a little editing using the UBB coding, but you'll pick up that syntax quickly enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Third, allowing government to solve those problems that become inflamed is one of the purposes of government. If they are the problem, there are plenty of watchdog groups out there to pinpoint it. Perfect environment? No. But one that has worked thus far.

Many would argue that solving these types of problems is not the purview of government. And that the various "watchdog groups" and "lobbies" don't do an accurate (or even half-decent) job of pinpointing these problems of governmental abuse.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The US Constitution left out education in wording, but the 10th Amendment takes it up as a way of saying that anything not specifically stated in the Constitution would fall under the individual state's authority. That is why you have fifty different directions concerning education today in the US.

Close, but...

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

But if you look closer, ALL power comes "from the People" and it is only through the consent and delegation of the People that any powers contained in ANY governmental body (Federal OR State) are exercised. In fact, the Bill of Rights (and indeed, the Constitution itself) were limits on governmental power over "We, the People"...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Lastly, I'm not rare teacher at all. I do what thousands do every day, ... I don't teach that government should be limited; ...

Ah... I see the crux of the problem... The Founders felt that government should be limited.

You see, there are two modern views of government that begin from entirely different places and premises.

First, there is the 18th Century American view which was held by our nation's Founders. They believed (and formed a government based upon that belief) that each of us is "endowed by our Creator" with certain Rights. Rights that cannot be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect. Their view is proclaimed for all the world to see and know in the Declaration of Independence and their view is also reflected in the Bill of Rights (A required component before many of the States would ratify the Constitution).

The second view is 19th Century German in origin and is expressed in the philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. This view is a restatement of philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for millennia. In this view, rights come not from God, but from the State. What rights you have are there because government has given them to you, all for the greater good - defined, of course, by government.

This second view has gained more and more acceptance and power in the last century, especially as taught in the schools. It disdains the view of the American Founders and rejects the notion of inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the "laws of nature and of nature's God." In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights are vested.

To fail to teach that government should be limited fits with that latter view. But let's compare that to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So, what Rights does a slave have? Personally, I argue that a slave has all the same Rights as any other human being. Those rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by one's Creator". However, a slave has had those Rights subjugated and has lost the ablitiy to exercise those Rights... lost the Right to the fruit of his/her labor... lost the Right to self-defense... lost the Right to raise his/her children... lost the Right
to contract with others for his/her betterment... lost the right to worship freely - except as the master allows. All
of the slave's Rights are at the sufferance of the master - and it makes no difference whether that master is a private owner or a State.

Many people today claim that it's a balance of your Rights and my Rights because we all have Constitutional Rights. And the question for government, in those people's minds, is how do we balance those Rights? A frequent analogy (especially, it seems, on these forums) is: your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

An excellent analogy, the right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins! (and vice-versa... ) However, shall we then amputate your fist so that you can never strike my nose? Or would you deny me the use of my own fist to protect my nose?

It is very important that we understand precisely what the 19th century German paradigm (and that of the modern liberal left) is saying. That paradigm believes that government does have the legitimate authority to deny me the use of my fist. In that paradigm it is simply a question of balancing differing Rights.

The American view is quite different. In the view of the Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow each of us with Rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a balancing act. Our Rights are absolute and cannot be alienated. (only subjugated)

Unfortunately, as in all aspects of nature, there are predators who would deny us those Rights. In the Founder's view (OUR view), the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or by a government over its people, is "to secure these Rights."

It is impossible to read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted a government that was severely limited! The words "no" and "not" used in phrases for the restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and are used 22 more times in the Bill of Rights!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I teach that government is imperfect by definition and that they will make mistakes, and they will at times be criminal. But once again, we have the ability to make it better.

This is simply a matter of what you feel is a legitimate method (ability) for "making it better". The Founders believed that those abilities and methods went upto and included the ability to "throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security".

<blockquote>when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.</blockquote>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

... however, are the problems of public education really the government's fault?

On some levels and at least in part, the answer is "yes".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

How about society as a whole, can't they share some of the blame?

The whole "sharing of blame" concept grates on me. As does the idea of "society as a whole" having "blame". NO. "Society as a whole" should not share in the blame which can be demonstrably placed at the feet of those who hold certain idealogical views.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Or the indifferent jerks who don't care enough to vote in their individual town elections when major school issues are being debated?

On a local/town level, I would suggest that you are probably better off with an "indifferent" person not showing up. I know you didn't say it, but the fact is that most of these local school issues being debated will end up costing the citizenry more money. A person who is "indifferent" about school issues is far less likely to be as "indifferent" concerning the additional loss of the fruits of his/her labor. Besides, how does someone's "indifference" make them a "jerk"?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Or the major and minor malcontents who would whine about anything because they refuse to be part of the solution?

Being a "malcontent" does not equate to "whining"... or vice-versa. Perhaps what you consider "whining" and "refusing to be part of the solution" is in reality just an acknowledgement that they have no real control over the solution and the fact that their solutions are dismissed out of hand.

(As an aside, and a little bit of a friendly warning which just happens to be in this reply and not directed at any individual, let's all try to keep the ad hominem attacks out of the debate. They do nothing to further the ideas of either side. If someone has a decidedly left/right/statist/socialist/facist/capitolist/communist/etc view, I don't really see a problem in pointing out that certain views fit certain political philosophies. However, I'd prefer it if we could all keep any name-calling out of the debate. BTW, this is also a reminder to myself. )

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Answer these questions and this whole topic is moot.

Somehow, I don't think that would be the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

As for the Harvard questions, you would have to show me the graduation requirements from both for me to make a call on that; however, having seen some of the "Harvard" quality kids (having worked at Harvard & seeing the Harvard-bound kids at my high school), I'm not at all disappointed at what is being produced at that school.

And if my recent conversations with some Harvard lawyers is any indication, I have some serious disappointments with what is being produced. (Lack of knowledge of the Founding Documents and principles, lack of understanding of certain tenets of law, lack of knowledge of other tenets of law, lack of historical knowledge about different political philosophies from around the world... most notably those that this nation was founded on... ) Regardless, I'd like to see the requirement comparison as well...

Panther,

Thanks for the suggestion, but when I clicked on the icon for "reply w/quote" and it only quoted from your very last paragraph in your response. Suggestions? And what is the UBB code? Where do I learn such a thing?
(BTW, I had to copy and paste to do this one)

---------------------------------------------
quote:
"Many would argue that solving these types of problems is not the purview of government. And that the various "watchdog groups" and "lobbies" don't do an accurate (or even half-decent) job of pinpointing these problems of governmental abuse."

response:

But they are in place. Listen, nothing is perfect. We certainly don't have a utopian style government, but what we do have is one that allows for change. So, if they are not working to specs, fix them. We have the power.

quote:

"Close, but...

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

response:

And??? Where is my statement not right on?

quote:
"But if you look closer, ALL power comes "from the People" and it is only through the consent and delegation of the People that any powers contained in ANY governmental body (Federal OR State) are exercised. In fact, the Bill of Rights (and indeed, the Constitution itself) were limits on governmental power over "We, the People"..."

response:
We are a representative democracy, therefore, the power does derive from "the people" in some form or fashion. But the key is "representative democracy." We elect people to voice our concerns and to make laws, etc., etc. Therefore, the people is the states government, is the federal government. The onus of education is on the states through the omission from the federal constitution.

Regarding the Bill of Rights. You are correct in that they were argued for limiting the arm or government over the populace, but some people argued that it was not necessary considering the overall make-up of the existing constitution. And why do states have State Bill of Rights as well. I understand that some were created before the Bill of Rights was passed, but seems kind of silly at this point, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"Ah... I see the crux of the problem... The Founders felt that government should be limited. "

response:
Depends on which founding father you are talking about. Jefferson yes, Hamilton, maybe not so much. Etc.....

quote:

"This second view has gained more and more acceptance and power in the last century, especially as taught in the schools. It disdains the view of the American Founders and rejects the notion of inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the "laws of nature and of nature's God." In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights are vested."

response:

I can't argue with your views of governments. Basically they seem to cover the two opposing viewpoints; however, I can't understand where you get the notion that the second theory is the once being espoused in public schools. This is where you need to be specific, because you are accusing the system of something that is very serious in my book. Let's have some example that we can debate; otherwise, the accusations are moot.

quote:

To fail to teach that government should be limited fits with that latter view. But let's compare that to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So, what Rights does a slave have? Personally, I argue that a slave has all the same Rights as any other human being. Those rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by one's Creator". However, a slave has had those Rights subjugated and has lost the ablitiy to exercise those Rights... lost the Right to the fruit of his/her labor... lost the Right to self-defense... lost the Right to raise his/her children... lost the Right
to contract with others for his/her betterment... lost the right to worship freely - except as the master allows. All
of the slave's Rights are at the sufferance of the master - and it makes no difference whether that master is a private owner or a State."

response:

As wrong as slavery was and is, it again helps prove my point that our government has ways to change, albiet some our more violent than others. Slavery was a dying practice as more and more people in the United States and Europe were against it. Civil War was the catalyst to get rid of it, but I think it would have done itself in as well. But that doesn't mean it was right. According to the document, they deserved all the rights of a white man, but didn't get it. But it got changed. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments proves as well that change can occur for the better.

quote:
"The American view is quite different. In the view of the Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow each of us with Rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a balancing act. Our Rights are absolute and cannot be alienated. (only subjugated)"

response
But they must be protected by the government. For example, the best case of what our rights are is the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech is great UNLESS it causes injury to others. This is where the government should and does steps in.

quote:
Unfortunately, as in all aspects of nature, there are predators who would deny us those Rights. In the Founder's view (OUR view), the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or by a government over its people, is "to secure these Rights."

response:
Have no problem with that.

quote:

"It is impossible to read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted a government that was severely limited! The words "no" and "not" used in phrases for the restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and are used 22 more times in the Bill of Rights!"

response:
They were trying to create a document and form of government that would not recreate the monarchy in which they had fought to escape. They tried to limit power in as much as to balance power between the branches. This balance of power is the one of the greatest attributes of our constitution.

quote:
"This is simply a matter of what you feel is a legitimate method (ability) for "making it better". The Founders believed that those abilities and methods went upto and included the ability to "throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security"."

response:
One of those safeguards I was referring to, albiet extreme.

quote:
The whole "sharing of blame" concept grates on me. As does the idea of "society as a whole" having "blame". NO. "Society as a whole" should not share in the blame which can be demonstrably placed at the feet of those who hold certain idealogical views.

response:
This is where you NEED to be in a public school setting to understand what I mean by "society." You would be suprised as I was. Until then, I don't think you can fully understand.

quote:
"On a local/town level, I would suggest that you are probably better off with an "indifferent" person not showing up. I know you didn't say it, but the fact is that most of these local school issues being debated will end up costing the citizenry more money. A person who is "indifferent" about school issues is far less likely to be as "indifferent" concerning the additional loss of the fruits of his/her labor. Besides, how does someone's "indifference" make them a "jerk"?

response:
Because as you say, many of those indifferent jerks DO show up, and do argue against those items which would help education in their particular system. These are the same people who probably argued for more money when their kids were in school, but since their kids are out of school, they constantly vote against more money. GO to any town meeting and you will see these people.

quote:
"Being a "malcontent" does not equate to "whining"... or vice-versa."

Response:

Really??

quote:
"Perhaps what you consider "whining" and "refusing to be part of the solution" is in reality just an acknowledgement that they have no real control over the solution and the fact that their solutions are dismissed out of hand."

response"
Or, and more likely, they just like to whine.
Let's face it. Again, go to a town meeting and you will see these people. It's no attack on anyone here, it's simply the awful truth about government and people.

Sometimes, we just have to get to the ugly side of people to see where the real problem is, especially when education is concerned.

mike

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

Thanks for the suggestion, but when I clicked on the icon for "reply w/quote" and it only quoted from your very last paragraph in your response. Suggestions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I don't know what happened. But it happened for this reply as well... Cutting and pasting works as you already know.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

And what is the UBB code? Where do I learn such a thing?

UBB is "Ultimate Bulletin Board" and is a coding script along the lines of HTML.

Try: http://www.infocostarica.com/ubb/ubbcode.html

Some things don't work on these forums and aren't portable across various forum sites just as certain HTML commands aren't supported across all sites.

<hr>

Why did I take a little issue with your statement about the 10th Amendment? Because you left out the most important group in any of the Bill of Rights... the People.

Otherwise, no problem...

And here is another "nit to pick", which I hope as a teacher you can appreciate. We are a Constitutional Republic, which is different even than a "representative democracy". If the latter is being taught in the public schools, that in part, explains some of the misconceptions of recent generations.

States having their own Bill of Rights is far from silly. All it takes to understand it is a knowledge of the founding of this country and the basis for the Federal government. We aren't just "one nation", we are fifty individual but united States. (Thus the original name of "the united States of America".) Until Appomatox, there were fifty individual and sovereign States. Starting with Lincoln's invasion of a separate sovereign nation and continuing through today, the powers of the States going down to the people have been diminished by the Federal government. The reason that the Bill of Rights was required by many States before ratifying the Constitution, was simply that they did not trust the Federalists. And history has proven them correct.

I admit that I don't understand why you can't see that the 19th century German philosophy of an unlimited government is the one being taught in schools when you were the one that said that you don't teach that government is limited! Seems that your statements provide the example you seek.

Slavery was merely an excuse during the War for Southern Independence and wasn't the primary reason for that war. As you point out, slavery was already a dying practice within the united States at that point. Interestingly enough, the slave trade continued for quite some time afterwards. With the biggest company involved being the Massachusetts Bay Company (actually sailing out of Rhode Island) continuing the trade almost until the end of the century!

It is up for debate whether the 1st Amendment is the best case of what our Rights are. Regardless, I thought I was clear that the Founder's views of government basically was as a vehicle to protect the Rights of the citizenry. I also thought I was clear in expressing the fact that, as the Founders had envisioned, personal responsibility was the basis for any infringements on any Rights. I.E.: If you misuse a Right or violate someone else's Rights, you are held personally responsible for those actions... meaning that it is not government's place to enact prior restraint laws. Additionally, it is perfectly legal and reasonable to yell "fire" in a crowded theater in the event of such an occurance.

I never addressed the balance of power. When I referred to balance, I was discussing the balance of individual Rights that have ceased to be inalienable in the indoctrinated eyes of too many.

The word "society" has a number of very specific meanings. Perhaps I would be surprised at your usage, but it is hard to say until I see how that differs from, say, the Merriam-Webster dictonary definition. I wrote that I have a problem with "society as a whole sharing the blame" or even "having blame" when certain things can be placed squarely upon certain groups. Would you like to explain your meaning of "society" that shows that I don't or can't understand the concepts or implications of my statements?

If my local schools get 140% of the average per pupil amount to do their job (which they do) and that doesn't include the costs of the new school buildings (which they're getting through a separate referendum) and they are within the top 10 in the State on their test scores as well as college bound seniors AND I don't even have kids at all, then what is wrong with my going to the local town meeting and telling them that I don't think they really need an increase to 160% of the average per pupil amount! (and "yes", that's what they have and what they asked for in my town... didn't get it and copped a familiar attitude that those who voted against them wanted all the chiiiiildren to be illiterate. )Does that automagically make me a jerk? Why? Because I refuse to throw money at them "for the chiiiiiiiildren"? Sorry... if someone goes to the town meeting to argue a point one way or another, you or anyone else who lives there can obviously argue the opposite side. If you have the better facts, materials, and argument, you'll probably win. If not...

FYI, I go to town meetings. I've served on the committees. I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly... but the fact is that being a "malcontent" does NOT equate to being a "whiner"... REALLY!




[This message has been edited by Panther (edited June 19, 2001).]

Panther,

quote:

"And here is another "nit to pick", which I hope as a teacher you can appreciate. We are a Constitutional Republic, which is different even than a "representative democracy"."

Response:

I hate to disagree with you Panther, but a republic is a government without a monarch (which we have), but has come to mean a government rooted in the consent of the people who are governed, in which power is exercised by representative who are responsible to the governed. That makes us a representative democracy. I guess you can debate as to whether or not our representatives actually do their job, but WE elect them, and WE can remove them.


quote:

"If the latter is being taught in the public schools, that in part, explains some of the misconceptions of recent generations."

response:

Of course its being taught in both high schools and in colleges, because that is what we are.

quote:

"States having their own Bill of Rights is far from silly. All it takes to understand it is a knowledge of the founding of this country and the basis for the Federal government. We aren't just "one nation", we are fifty individual but united States. (Thus the original name of "the united States of America".) Until Appomatox, there were fifty individual and sovereign States. Starting with Lincoln's invasion of a separate sovereign nation and continuing through today, the powers of the States going down to the people have been diminished by the Federal government. The reason that the Bill of Rights was required by many States before ratifying the Constitution, was simply that they did not trust the Federalists. And history has proven them correct."

response:

Well I guess we have two views of history here. The Bill of Rights were agreed upon as a compromise to get many of the states to ratify the Constitution. The Federalist argued that the national government was limited to those powers that the Constitution had granted it, and that no power was granted to abridge the people's liberties, then a list of guarenteed rights was not needed. Hamilton even stated in the Federalist Papers that "...the addition of a bill of rights would be dangerous. To deny the exercise of nonexistent power might lead to the exercise of power that is not specifically denied" Was he right?

To have the states list them too is redundant at best. The only reason why they did it was because they had just got over the war with England and they wanted to fix the factors that brought them to a fight. And you are correct, up until the late 1700s, we were just 13 sovereign states held together with a common cause and purpose, but where is your proof that they remained so. If you want to say that we separated into sectionalized parts of the country, than that would be a little more convincing.

The Constitution from the get go was designed to give government more power. That is what we wanted, this is what we got

The Articles of Confederation (1777) jealously guarded state sovereignty. Their provisions clearly reflected the delegates' of the constitutional convention fears that a strong central government would be substituted for British rule. Why did they fail? No power to tax, Executive Branch, Regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, and could not be amended without unanimous vote.
Thus, when the convention got going to fixhe Articles, they came in like-mind. Even the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, wanted a strong, central government. Farmers were determined to avoid aristocracy, monarchy, and direct democracy (which seems to be what you would wish we had in a sense). The agreement that got the Constitution together was the Connecticuit Compromise, which says (1) they needed a central gov't with the Power to tax the people;(2) the necessary proper clause was essential; and (3 the Supremacy Clause.

Thus, since day one, the "people" have been trying to give government more power, even the founding fathers.

quote:

"I admit that I don't understand why you can't see that the 19th century German philosophy of an unlimited government is the one being taught in schools when you were the one that said that you don't teach that government is limited! Seems that your
statements provide the example you seek."


response:

A matter of semantics. Government being restricted in the sense that we can change it and alter it to suit our needs and the checks and balances are the limitations.

quote:

"Slavery was merely an excuse during the War for Southern Independence and wasn't the primary reason for that war."

response:

You're right. States Rights was really the issue, but without the issue of slavery it probably would have been worked out without a civil war.

quote:

"I also thought I was clear in expressing the fact that, as the Founders had envisioned, personal responsibility was the basis for any infringements on any Rights. I.E.: If you misuse a Right or violate someone else's Rights, you are held personally responsible for those actions... meaning that it is not government's place to enact prior restraint laws."

response:

It's governments place to enforce laws, especially those that do not comply to personal rights


quote:

"Additionally, it is perfectly legal and reasonable to yell "fire" in a crowded theater in the event of such an occurance."

response:

But if there is no fire, then government steps in.


quote:

"The word "society" has a number of very specific meanings. Perhaps I would be surprised at your usage, but it is hard to say until I see how that differs from, say, the Merriam-Webster dictonary definition. I wrote that I have a problem with "society as a whole sharing the blame" or even "having blame" when certain things can be placed squarely upon certain groups. Would you like to explain your meaning of "society" that shows that I don't or can't understand the concepts or implications of my statements?"

response:

I wasn't trying to be cute with a obscure meaning of society, all I'm talking about is the general public that has kids in school. Because what has school turned into for the average family? A day care center where the teacher must be teacher, mentor, custodian, disciplinarian, babysitter, etc. etc. all in one. It's an easy place to lay blame when things don't go right with the child. Of course, it can't be the single parent home, or that fact the kid is a latch key kid, or that the kid works 40 hours a week and goes to school, or mom is a drunk, or the kids watch MTV everyday and get sucked into the Beavis and Butthead mentality, or the gang banger types, etc. etc., etc.
That's what school committees and town members don't want to hear because they can't blame the parents. It's the teachers. Thats why it is difficult for those like yourself to understand the situation, because you are not there to hear or see it.

quote:

"If my local schools get 140% of the average per pupil amount to do their job (which they do) and that doesn't include the costs of the new school buildings (which they're getting through a separate referendum) and they are within the top 10 in the State on their test scores as well as college bound seniors AND I don't even have kids at all, then what is wrong with my going to the local town meeting and telling them that I don't think they really need an increase to 160% of the average per pupil amount! (and "yes", that's what they have and what they asked for in my town... didn't get it and copped a familiar attitude that those who voted against them wanted all the chiiiiildren to be illiterate. )Does that automagically make me a jerk? Why? Because I refuse to throw money at them "for the chiiiiiiiildren"? Sorry... if someone goes to the town meeting to argue a point one way or another, you or anyone else who lives there can obviously argue the opposite side. If you have the better facts, materials, and argument, you'll probably win. If not... "

response:

Be happy that your town, or should I say city with figures like that, spends that much on kids. They probably underpaid for many years to be at 140%. Anyway, the new schools are close to being 3/4 paid for through state and federal grants, so you are getting a deal (we are going through it now as well). But if you town is asking for more then there may be a very good reason for it. How much do you value a good education and educational system. It relates to the tax base as people don't move into towns with crappy school systems. It also doesn't necessarily mean that because of high MCAS your doing all that you can to supplying everyone with quality. AND, if you are scoring that high with scores, you want to make sure you retain the people the ensure your scores remain there. It's a buyer's market out there and teachers are shopping around. Don't be fooled for one second to think teachers get paid half as much as they are worth. Because they DON'T. So regardless of whether or not you have children in the system, a good educational system benefits all in the community.

Plus, you are the exception to the rule if you go to town meetings and know the facts and can give a reasonable argument for an issue. I like you have been to plenty of them and it is the most God-awful mess of misconception and mis-information I have ever witnessed. I don't have a problem saying the most are either indifferent or inept to the issues. You want to see ineffective government, there you have it. And that's the closest think you'll get to true democracy.

quote:

"malcontent" does NOT equate to being a "whiner"..."

response:

This is where we will agree to disagree. Ask the audience :-)

mike


[This message has been edited by Panther (edited June 19, 2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

I hate to disagree with you Panther, but a republic is a government without a monarch (which we have),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when?!?! Where was I and how did I miss the coronation?!?!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

... but has come to mean a government rooted in the consent of the people who are governed, in which power is exercised by representative who are responsible to the governed. That makes us a representative democracy. I guess you can debate as to whether or not our representatives actually do their job, but WE elect them, and WE can remove them.

Let's see...

"I pledge allegience to the flag, of the united States of America and to the Republic for which it stands..."

Hmmmm...

I posted this in another thread (Democracy and tyranny), but it fits well here since it addresses this point well:

<hr>

From the 1928 American Military Training Manual: (this was the last year these definitions were published by our military)

DEMOCRACY, at TM200025, 118120: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expresssion. Results in a mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC, at TM200025, 120121: Authority is derived through the election of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress.

<hr>

de·moc·ra·cy: di-'mä-kr&-sE: noun:
government by the people; especially : rule of the majority: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

re·pub·lic: ri-'p&-blik: noun:
a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president: a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to a Constitution or laws

You see the difference is the mob-rule of the former and the governing according to a Constitution or laws of the latter.

And from the Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

This nation was, in fact, founded as a Constitutional Republic!

I wrote: "If the latter is being taught in the public schools, that in part, explains some of the misconceptions of recent generations."

mike murphy replied: "Of course its being taught in both high schools and in colleges, because that is what we are."

I can go on, but the founding form of our government is well established, regardless of what it has been twisted into.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Well I guess we have two views of history here. The Bill of Rights were agreed upon as a compromise to get many of the states to ratify the Constitution.

IMNSHO, history is history... it happened.

As for the Bill of Rights, I already stated that it was a requirement for many of the States to ratify the Constitution. On this we agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The Federalist argued that the national government was limited to those powers that the Constitution had granted it, and that no power was granted to abridge the people's liberties, then a list of guarenteed rights was not needed.

And if you read the Federalist, Anti-Federalist and debates of the various States, it is obvious that 1) most people didn't trust the Federalists and wanted reassurances and 2) the Federalist argument that a specific list of Rights wasn't needed and wouldn't be complete was actually the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments becoming part of the Bill of Rights. Most importantly the 9th!

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

While I agree that Hamilton's prophecy was correct, it is important to remember that Hamilton was a Federalist who believed in a large, controlling, centralized government... much to the debating dismay of Jefferson, Wilson, Franklin and numerous others who, even then, used pseudonyms because of fear of reprisal from the powerful Federalist contingent!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

To have the states list them too is redundant at best. The only reason why they did it was because they had just got over the war with England and they wanted to fix the factors that brought them to a fight. And you are correct, up until the late 1700s, we were just 13 sovereign states held together with a common cause and purpose, but where is your proof that they remained so. If you want to say that we separated into sectionalized parts of the country, than that would be a little more convincing.

I've heard the arguments against the Jeffersonian ideal of a limited central government (that States were never sovereign) before. You asked for proof that the States remained sovereign and I will endeavor to give a few examples. However, it is important to understand what we are referring to when using the term "soveriegnty" in regards the States. The term "sovereign State" refers to the citizens of the State collectively where the State, as the agent of the People, exercises sovereign authority by the consent of those who created it (ie: the People residing in that State). A State, as that agent, may delegate a portion of its power to another government (the Federal government), but it can not delegate a portion of sovereignty. I posit that sovereignty, like chastity, is not transferable or divisible.

It is well established that the various States, from the time that they individually removed their colonial governors through the signing of the Declaration of Independence during the Revolutionary war and even after the disbanning of the Articles of Confederation, acted in a sovereign nature, with no reference to a higher governmental authority. (Individual examples of each State sovereignty during each of those times can be supplied if needed.) So he question that you ask is simply this: Did these sovereign States surrender or renounce State sovereignty by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution? A clearer phrasing of the question is probably: Did the States, by some specific declaration in the newly ratified Constitution, surrender their sovereignty to a newly formed central Federal government?

We should notice that nowhere in the Constitution is sovereignty specifically surrendered or transferred to the Federal government. International law requires more than an inference or even a series of inferences to determine that a nation has voluntarily surrenderred its sovereignty in favor of another government. That same rule holds true for the (already demonstrated) 13 sovereign States that joined under the compact of the Constitution to create their common agent, the Federal government, with limited and specific powers. Even though the new compact limited the Federal government to very specific areas, there were numerous demands for an amendment similar to Article II of the Articles of Confederation to ensure that the sovereignty of the States would remain safe from the centralizing (monarchial) tendency of all governments. That's why the 9th and 10th Amendments were added to the Constitution. Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution acknowledges the State's sovereignty to nullify the actions of the Federal Government and other States to protect it's own territory. Article I, section 8 transfers the war-making power of the sovereign States to the Federal government, BUT notice that in section 10, the States may engage in war if actually invaded! (A sovereign State retains its right to self-defense!) It was the fact that each State is a soveriegn entitiy which allowed (and allows) for the variations in laws and statutes from State to State AND which allowed for some States to ignore the Federal "runaway slave" law! Thus, State soveriegnty reaches the mid-1800s and the War for Southern Independence. As Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase stated: "State Sovereignty died at Appomattox." However, while the Chief Justice was overjoyed, those who loved the Constitutional Republic lamented its death.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The Constitution from the get go was designed to give government more power. That is what we wanted, this is what we got

NO. It was not... Most of the People, through their representatives, were adamant about the limited nature of the Federal government. It was (and is) only through the monarchists, Federalists, consolidationists, and others (arguably a contingent of Socialists, Communists, Facists and modern liberals) favoring a strong central Federal government, superior to the States, who have pushed the concept that we are a democracy with majority rule under a national and supreme centralized government.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The Articles of Confederation (1777) jealously guarded state sovereignty. Their provisions clearly reflected the delegates' of the constitutional convention fears that a strong central government would be substituted for British rule. Why did they fail? No power to tax, Executive Branch, Regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, and could not be amended without unanimous vote.

Let's look at that for a second... The method for changing the Articles of Confederation was unanimous consent. But when the States changed from a union under the Articles of Confederation to a union under the Constitution, it was done not by unanimous consent of the States but by the approval of nine of the thirteen States! Not exactly "unaniomous consent"! Fundamentally, this means that this new type of association would then exist between only those States so ratifying the Constitution and agreeing to the new union. Two States not ratifying the Constitution (and that did not consent under the Articles of Confederation) were North Carolina and Rhode Island. they were treated as independent, soveriegn entities! In fact, the Articles of Confederation were disbanded by the secession of nine States from the articles. Those States, in doing so, were also acting as independent, soveriegn entities. They were not acting as States do under the present Constitution, where a 3/4 majority can pass an amendment which becomes binding on all the participants. Also, note that the ratification of the Constitution required the approval of each State, acting on its own, not in concert with anyone else. In fact, both Rhode Island and North Carolina went for a year or more without joining this new union. (side note: no one ever suggested that the other States of the new union had the right to wage war on NC & RI in order to "save the Union". )

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Thus, when the convention got going to fixhe Articles, they came in like-mind. Even the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, wanted a strong, central government.

Not quite as just pointed out. Madison was a Federalist along with Hamilton, Jay and others. Madison was opposed by a number of others in his original penning of the Constitution and the general distrust of the Federalists was the leading cause for the Bill of Rights as well as many of the wording changes which we know as our Constitution.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Farmers were determined to avoid aristocracy, monarchy, and direct democracy (which seems to be what you would wish we had in a sense).

The farmers had reason to be and they were right. However, I caution you on stating what my wishes are. You are completely incorrect and I won't tolerate you putting words to my name. I have never once on these forums (or anywhere for that matter) suggested in any way that I wish we had a direct democracy. I have always maintained that we are now closer to a mobocracy through democracy, and heading to socialism which leads to communism, than at any other time in our history. What I have always maintained is a desire for a return to a Constitutional Republic...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Thus, since day one, the "people" have been trying to give government more power, even the founding fathers.

There are some limited things which the Federal government should do... those powers were delegated to that government through the Constitution. More than those powers have been usurped for over 150 years. There are other things which are best left to State governments, county, town or local governments OR left to the People. Those principles are documented in the writings of the Founders and other patriots throughout this nation's history.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

You're right. States Rights was really the issue, but without the issue of slavery it probably would have been worked out without a civil war.

It was worked out without a "civil war". It took the United States of America (a sovereign nation) invading and attacking the Confederate States of America (another sovereign nation) without provocation to "resolve" the issue of State sovereignty.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

It's governments place to enforce laws, especially those that do not comply to personal rights.

The only legitimate purpose of government is the defense of individual Rights. Enforcing the laws against the infringements on an individual's Rights can only be done after such infringement occurs... not through prior restraint.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

But if there is no fire, then government steps in.

We, the People, have unanimously agreed that someone causing harm through their actions should be held accountable.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Because what has school turned into for the average family? A day care center where the teacher must be teacher, mentor, custodian, disciplinarian, babysitter, etc. etc. all in one. It's an easy place to lay blame when things don't go right with the child. Of course, it can't be the single parent home, or that fact the kid is a latch key kid, or that the kid works 40 hours a week and goes to school, or mom is a drunk, or the kids watch MTV everyday and get sucked into the Beavis and Butthead mentality, or the gang banger types, etc. etc., etc.
That's what school committees and town members don't want to hear because they can't blame the parents. It's the teachers. Thats why it is difficult for those like yourself to understand the situation, because you are not there to hear or see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't bet on that being an accurate statement about me either. You may very well be describing 99.9999% of the people in the world, but you missed me.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Be happy that your town, or should I say city with figures like that, spends that much on kids. They probably underpaid for many years to be at 140%.

It's a town... and no, they didn't underpay for many years.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

How much do you value a good education and educational system. It relates to the tax base as people don't move into towns with crappy school systems. It also doesn't necessarily mean that because of high MCAS your doing all that you can to supplying everyone with quality. AND, if you are scoring that high with scores, you want to make sure you retain the people the ensure your scores remain there. It's a buyer's market out there and teachers are shopping around.

I understand this, find it a little inflammatory, and won't respond.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Don't be fooled for one second to think teachers get paid half as much as they are worth. Because they DON'T.

I would love it if, as a society, we would take the millions of dollars that go to professional athletes and give that money to teachers. Personally, I think it would be better spent in that manner. IMNSHO, teachers are professionals who are intrusted with the education and foundation of future generations and who should be paid as professionals with all that entails.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

So regardless of whether or not you have children in the system, a good educational system benefits all in the community.

Idunno... If the kids aren't getting the proper education on our history and form of government, makes me wonder... Perhaps contracting with a private organization to teach our children correctly would be better than spending the money on a public school that gives out incorrect information and only has time to prep for the MCAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Plus, you are the exception to the rule if you go to town meetings and know the facts and can give a reasonable argument for an issue.

Ummmm... Thank you... I think...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I like you have been to plenty of them and it is the most God-awful mess of misconception and mis-information I have ever witnessed. I don't have a problem saying the most are either indifferent or inept to the issues.

In general, I can understand that viewpoint... and somewhat agree with it as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

You want to see ineffective government, there you have it. And that's the closest think you'll get to true democracy.

Inept citizens don't necessarily equate to ineffective government. (sometimes, but not necessarily) AND inept government "officials" aren't necessarily caused by an indifferent or inept citizenry. (again, sometimes, but not necessarily)...

I wrote: ""malcontent" does NOT equate to being a "whiner"..."

Mike Murphy replies: "This is where we will agree to disagree. Ask the audience" :-)

Why should my (or anyone's) expression of disagreement or displeasure with certain things be considered "whining". Many people do spend time trying to effect change. In order to advocate that change requires one to inform/educate others of the issue needing attention/change. Is it because the change being discussed and advocated doesn't meet your approval that you call it "whining" when someone points out certain problems/issues? While I will readily accept the "malcontent" label reagrding a number of issues, I don't appreciate being called a "whiner" (which is someone who just complains and doesn't do anything)...

Panther,

quote:

When did I miss the coronation?

response:
Just read any 1st or 2nd year colldge government book and it will be there.

And using the Pledge as an example only solidifys the fact that the definition of republic is the government without a monarch, regardless of whether or not we are a representative demoncracy.

The military manual definitions are extremely amusing. Too bad they don't give the definitions. No wonder it didn't get reprinted. The second set of definitions are much better. As for your interpretation of them, I would have question. Ultimate Democracy is, as I hope we can agree, anarchy, which we do not have. The ultimate republic is an oligarchy, which we do not have; therefore, we could have a combination of the two. Regardless, we have a form of government that is representative in nature (meaning we elect individuals to do our bidding).

Quote:
The nation was in fact founded as a constitutional republic.

response:
And thus, a representative democracy.


mike

Panther,

You are correct. To give away some sovereignty would by like being almost pregnant. Can't do it. But you can give all the examples in the world concerning the constitution and what it says in the articles about trying to hold on to states' sovereignty, but it says it all in the Preamble. "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." not "We the people of the individual and sovereign states of America."

And yes it was designed to make a stronger central government. The Articles were too weak, that's why they decided to change them in Philadelphia, to make them stronger. Which they did.

Yes, the ratification process of the constitution was done with each state acting as a sovereign state, but once ratified they lost that sovereinty as a system of government was instituted. The fact that the Articles of Confederation needed unanimous vote was testimony as to why it didn't work. It was realized that they would never get all 13 to agree on anything.

Your words, as mine, are up for interpretation from what you write to the tenor in which you write them. Nothing is meant by me saying I think this is what you are saying. Don't "tolerate" them if you don't wish to, but take the conversation as it was intended: a debate on political/historical interpretation of our founding father's intentions. As for our government heading to a communist state, that is a topic for another post, which I'll be happy to debate you on :-)

It took one sovereign nation to invade another? By your own argument that cannot be so. Maybe one sovereign nation invading 11 sovereign countries. The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation. Just because they declared it and were able to gather up forces to defend it, doesn't mean squat. They neither had the right nor the means to support what they did.

mike

Panther,

Quote:
99.9999% but not me.

response;
I don't say this to be disrespectful; however, it's difficult to understand if you are not a teacher or someone in a school.

If your town didn't underspend per pupil then you are indeed a lucky system.

There is nothing inflammatory abou that statement, nor was it intended to be. That's the truth of the matter from someone who is THERE.

Thank you for you statement about my financial status as a teacher. I wish it were that simple for a Manny Ramirez to give a few bucks out of his 26 million/yr, but since we are public servents, we must rely on the people of the town/cities to deem our worth, which they must think is crap.

I didn't call you a whiner unless you consider yourself a malcontent who does nothing. I don't think you are either from what I've read.

mike

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

Quote:
The nation was in fact founded as a constitutional republic.

response:
And thus, a representative democracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The disagreement it seems arises not from whether one calls it a Republic or a Democracy. IIRC, "republic" and "democracy" mean the same thing, one in Latin, the other in Greek. The thing to remember is that they're both just another form of collectivism, of socialism, under which your neighbors may vote you into the poorhouse -- or the grave -- if they want what you have. Those who profess to care about their nation and its place in history must expend every effort to limit this possibility or to eliminate it altogether. In fact, we do have those limits! (At least we did at one point) Which is where my disagreement comes from. The most important part of the defining term for our form of government is that it is a (limited by the) Constitutional Republic. While the representation is an extremely important part of our government, without the limiting factors of the Constitution, all it would take is 50% +1 to vote to eliminate, say, martial arts practice and poof, it's done. Democracy is basically a mobocracy...
<blockquote>
Democracy is indispensable to Socialism."
-- V. I. LENIN
"Socialism leads to Communism."
-- KARL MARX</blockquote>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

It took one sovereign nation to invade another? By your own argument that cannot be so. Maybe one sovereign nation invading 11 sovereign countries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. After seceeding from the Union and the covenant of the U.S. Constitution, there was nothing to prevent those 11 sovereign states from creating another confederation under another constitution and delegating certain limited functions to that newly formed "federal" entity... just as had been done under the U.S. Constitution. (But this time, those 11 sovereign states were much more specific in limiting the "national" entity to prevent the abuses that had crept into their former agreement. )

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation.

The question then becomes: "Was secession a legal option to the various States?" Because if it was, then the CSA was a new, separate, sovereign nation. If it was not, then other questions of historical note must be asked.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Just because they declared it and were able to gather up forces to defend it, doesn't mean squat. They neither had the right nor the means to support what they did.

How very, ummmmmm, "King George-ish"! We can debate the right (or lack thereof) of those States to seceed and form a different union, but the historical facts show that the pre-war South was far from being "poor and backward" and unable to support what they did. In 1860, just prior to the war, if the South had been an independent nation, her economy would have ranked as the third largest on the European and American continents! And in the 1860 census, the South had a per capita income 10% higher than all states west of New York and Pennsylvannia. Mississippi had more millionaires per capita than New York. The fact that the New England states were "rich" can be traced to their "illicit trade in human flesh"... the slave trade. Even still, in 1861, the wealthiest states were Louisiana and South Carolina. So, forgetting the arguement/debate/discussion over whether they had the right or not, the fact is that they did have the means to support what they did.