The US Constitution

[Grace]

We the People –

As long as the people were white, male, landowners. No women, non-property owners, native Americans, or African Americans (slave or free) allowed.

As Justice Marshall once said –

For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution, we need look no further than the first three words of the document’s preamble: ‘We the people.’ When the founding fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America’s citizens.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not . . . have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendant of an African slave.

The Constitution was ratified in June 1788, but it took the Bill of Rights before the last state would sign on.
North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to approve the Constitution and take part in the new government until Congress agreed to add a bill of rights.

As I said earlier, changes to language and intent were made from the very beginning.

It took another 173 years to correct all the voting inequities.

I don’t believe in a strict constructionist view. But you already figured that out

Remember - No right or wrong answers here . . . . .

[Puckstop31]

We the People –

As long as the people were white, male, landowners. No women, non-property owners, native Americans, or African Americans (slave or free) allowed.

As Justice Marshall once said –

I disagree with Justice Marshall... I belive that most of the founders could indeed see a day where all adult citizens could vote. Further, a lot of them understood the almost certain and dire consequences of the compromises necessary on slavery issues, to get the Constitution ratified. The Constitution is not perfect, nothing man can do ever CAN be. But is pretty darn close, IMO.

As I said earlier, changes to language and intent were made from the very beginning.

It took another 173 years to correct all the voting inequities.

I don’t believe in a strict constructionist view. But you already figured that out

I know change was intended. I have no problem with change. But change should come in the form of Amendments. The Federal government was granted a very finite list of powers. It, has VASTLY expanded that scope of power, at libertys peril. As for words and wording... My earlier quote from Madison is important I think. Just because a word changes meaning does not mean the intent of the law should.

Remember - No right or wrong answers here . . . . .

I know... LOL I am enjoying this discussion. But you bring to light another reason why a overbearing Federal government is a bad thing. If the 10th Amendment were respected, individual states could "experiment" with radical social and economic policy, without effecting the nation as a whole. Oh how I would love to let that happen. California and New York versus South Dakota and Texas. LOL Lets see whos policy works better for its people.

A man can dream, can't he?

Again, thanks Grace.

[blue]

We the People –

As long as the people were white, male, landowners. No women, non-property owners, native Americans, or African Americans (slave or free) allowed.

As Justice Marshall once said –

For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution, we need look no further than the first three words of the document’s preamble: ‘We the people.’ When the founding fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America’s citizens.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not . . . have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendant of an African slave.

The Constitution was ratified in June 1788, but it took the Bill of Rights before the last state would sign on.
North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to approve the Constitution and take part in the new government until Congress agreed to add a bill of rights.

As I said earlier, changes to language and intent were made from the very beginning.

It took another 173 years to correct all the voting inequities.

I don’t believe in a strict constructionist view. But you already figured that out

Remember - No right or wrong answers here . . . . .

Exactly the reason I think the amendment proccess was genius, it can be changed.

Besides the living under the Constitution is better then living under Sharia law.

[smokey the elder]

Oh, you have that right! At least you can change the Constitution. Sharia is an invention of the devil, IMO.