Thomas Jefferson - still relevant

[W.HI.P]

There are dozens of Jefferson's quotes, that state the exact same thing.
Just as George Washington did, Thomas warns future American's of the situation American's are now living in

""The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens.""

Snopes claim that is is false, seems to be false

[W.HI.P]

The following of course, is that of a constitution, who's purpose, has not been upheld.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms"

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by W.HI.P

There are dozens of Jefferson's quotes, that state the exact same thing.
Just as George Washington did, Thomas warns future American's of the situation American's are now living in

""The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens.""

Snopes claim that is is false, seems to be false

Strange, Snopes doesn't seem to have this quote at all

But I did find it in another source... Hooray !

[W.HI.P]

One more, just to digest his points

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Obviously, the USA failed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't forget Jefferson did not speak for the nation, or even the government, his opinions were his own.
Prior to 1800, Washington was the one that held the government together, while these competing factions, primarily Federalist and Democratic-Republicans, vied for the direction the nation would evolve. When Washington retired, it was open warfare for a chance to push one of the factions into a position where they could lead the nation in their direction.
Jefferson tied with Burr, but was given the presidency by electors still not chosen by the people. So it was his faction, which also included equally powerful men, that hammered out policy. The result is not everything Jefferson expounded in his speeches/writings became law, or even official policy.

Oh, and it was another hundred years, 1913, before the Federal Reserve was established to screw us completely.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't forget Jefferson did not speak for the nation, or even the government, his opinions were his own.

Yep it was good guys (Jefferson) vs bad guys (Hamilton) and in the long run the bad guys won because the good guys compromised their integrity on stuff like human bondage and developing a landed aristocracy.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

Yep it was good guys (Jefferson) vs bad guys (Hamilton) and in the long run the bad guys won because the good guys compromised their integrity on stuff like human bondage and developing a landed aristocracy.

Yep, I had a political discussion with someone recently who opined that voting should be limited to property owners. I couldn't figure out where this atavistic notion came from, until a month or so later I saw some talking head spout the same lunacy.

Add to this the chatter about actually redefining or repealing Section 1 of the 14th amendment and there seems to be an ugly trend towards advocating disenfranchisement.

In other words, the idea that being a Republic is not enough, and that we must somehow measure the fitness of citizens to vote.

It's ironic that this idea is being spouted amongst some conservatives, when some of them are already incensed over the election of a President with whom they disagree. The idea that in the midst of these people are others who hold the view that some of them should not be allowed to vote is ironic.

There is a basic contract implied in Jefferson's writings - that in exchange for a representative government, the people shall not take up arms. That even if you disagree with an administration, you can redress your grievances at the ballot box. If that right of these people is abridged, then that contract is broken.

From the time I was able to vote at 18, I believe that I voted for less than half of the presidents who took office. While I disagreed with them, and while I believe that one of them was the worst president in the past 80 years (I stopped at Harding), I tempered my disagreement with the knowledge that I was able to make my choice.

I can't even imagine what it was like to be living under Jim Crow and technically be allowed to vote but be cheated out of the opportunity. And now some idiots are proposing two discredited ideas that will take us 50 or a 100 years backward.

I was watching Condoleeza Rice explain why she became a Republican. It was mostly because Southern Democrats denied her father the right to vote. How ironic is it that there are voices coming from within her own party that would take us back to that time and those practices.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Griff]

You've said a lot there Rich. Deciding fitness to vote would be an amazing can of worms. It is obvious to partisans left and right that certain segments of the opposition are unfit to vote. Young people are too inexperienced, old people are too addled, god focused, godless... it could go on and on.

Accepting the results as valid is crucial. Bush v Gore came damn near to sinking that acceptance. The birther silliness only exacerbates the problem. If you believe that stuff try not being surprised when the other side finds that your duly elected official lacks credentials. I've attended my right wing Christmas events and the righties seemed leavened in their contempt for the President by the Congressional change. Now that they have a stake in the game they'll have to actually take positions other than "No". Hopefully some sense of balance will develop.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Yep, I had a political discussion with someone recently who opined that voting should be limited to property owners. I couldn't figure out where this atavistic notion came from, until a month or so later I saw some talking head spout the same lunacy.

That lunacy comes from the intent of our founding fathers. Only chosen white men who owned property should be allowed to vote. That we have learned from their mistakes falls on extremist deaf ears - when convenient.

Back then, the issue was religious extremism. An idea that religion should be divorced from government was a controversial issue. Founding fathers escaped from nations that promoted religious hate. Therefore advocated a first of so many enlightened principles - separation of church and state (that even Christine McDonnell could not understand). Today, so many (including McDonnell and so many like her) are backtracking. Even the Catholic Church orders Catholics to impose Catholic doctrine on all Americans. What America needs - more pedophiles and religious intolerance.

Buy back then, women were inferior creatures who could not be trusted to vote.

Back then, slavery was an irrelevant issue because the negro was not considered intelligent or American.

Back then, only those who owned property were citizens and could be trusted to vote.

Strange how the advancement of mankind is so often lost on extremists who would impose Christian doctrine (including hate of Muslims) on all others. Advocating repeal of the 14th Amendment is how some enemies of innovation and tolerance would impose their hate and dogma.

Extremism would even use government to impose religion on all others - ie stem cell research. Conveniently ignore a founding father's intent to separate religion from government. Selectively citing history identifies a political agenda.

It took almost 100 years (July 1868) for America to learn a citizen is not just a white man with birthright, property, and a gun. Since we must reestablish our founding father's mistakes, then we should only empower White Power? At what point does hate, routinely promoted by extremism, become so obvious?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I can't even imagine what it was like to be living under Jim Crow and technically be allowed to vote but be cheated out of the opportunity. And now some idiots are proposing two discredited ideas that will take us 50 or a 100 years backward.

Man I have to tell you, I haven't heard of any white racist extremists trying to take away the vote of blacks in this country. Are you saying that all persons who disagree with the idea that we should give illegal aliens the right to vote and or citizenship are white racist extremists? That would be a pretty broad stroke of the brush...