On alert with this! Also the ERA needs to be officially included in the US Constitution. From lwv.org: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the equality of rights under the law regardless of sex. While the ERA is fully ratified and was recognized by a US President as the law of the land, it has yet to be officially published in the Constitution. Advocates were instrumental in achieving constitutional sex equality and will be instrumental in ensuring its enforcement. Today, we need the ERA printed in the Constitution where it rightfully belongs.
Explicit statement of equality is missing for women/people who id as women/people who id as other. A key aspect of being acknowledged is to be explicitly acknowledged; laws hinge upon this. We have the 19th explicitly giving women the right to vote, which took almost 150 years! Prior to this, women who read that their right to vote was implied in the US Constitution and dared to vote were mocked, arrested, declared enemies of civilization. So, you may read implicit rights in the Constitution, and I say bravo for your broadmindedness. However, history has shown that without explicit acknowledgement, too many can declare, "No, it doesn't say that."
Thais, the meaning of the ERA already is included in the Constitution. People just need to learn how to see our Constitution for its true worth.
The essence of the ERA is Section 1 : "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
The Fourteenth Amendment already says the same especially clearly regarding state governments: “No State” has any power to “make or enforce any law” that “abridge[s any] privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." “No State” has any power to "deprive any person” (citizen or not) “of life” or any “liberty” or any “property,” except after affording them all “process of law" that is "due." “No State” has any power to “deny to any person” (citizen or not) “the equal protection of the laws.” The reason the Fourteenth Amendment says the foregoing is that our Constitution already says or means the same regarding the limitations of powers of the federal government.
To better see how our Constitution already says or means the same regarding federal powers, go back to 1748 when Montesquieu published his phenomenally influential thoughts about government in The Spirit of the Laws. The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and our Bill of Rights were profoundly influenced by Montesquieu’s writing. We should be, too.
“In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others [the people are] the subject [i.e., of the laws they create].” Montesquieu emphasized that the “exercise of sovereignty” in a democracy is by citizens “by their suffrages.” Suffrage is the quintessential speech of sovereigns. To see who is sovereign in America, look at the plain text of our Constitution regarding who is a “citizen” (Amendment XIV, Section 1) and who has the right to vote (Amendment XIV (Section 2); Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI).
To see the sovereign People of today, simply see our Constitution for its true worth. See who our Constitution expressly introduces as sovereigns. See the definition of “citizens” in Section 1 of Amendment XIV (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States”). Then, see who our Constitution says has the power of sovereigns. Who has the power to directly choose our public servants? Who has the power to vote?
First, the Preamble introduced the first generation, “We the People” who voted for delegates to state conventions that ratified our Constitution. The second generation included (at least) citizens protected by Section 2 of Amendment XIV (all “male inhabitants of [each] State, being twenty-one years of age) and Amendment XV (prohibiting discrimination “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”). The second generation also arguably included women, as shown above. The third generation especially clearly included citizens protected by Amendment XIX (prohibiting discrimination “on account of sex”). The fourth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXIV (prohibiting discrimination on account of wealth (ability “to pay any poll tax or other tax”). The fifth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXVI (prohibiting discrimination against people “eighteen years of age or older . . . on account of age”).
The greater significance of the foregoing amendments (Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI) outlawing discrimination on account of certain characteristics regarding the right to vote is that they each establish a right: the right not to be subjected to discrimination on account of particular characteristics.
Our Constitution already establishes very strongly that female citizens are equally part of the sovereign people of America. Women already cannot be subjected to discrimination on account of sex. The number of states and people that ratified the ERA are merely additional evidence that they all see the Constitution as already prohibiting discrimination on account of sex.
Terrible idea. Do you have any sense of why the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution used it (as the Preamble says) to secure "a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"? Do you think that people were less divided in the 1780's over less serious issues than today?
Consider Federalist No. 14: "the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness."
The founders of our nation and the framers of our Constitution studied the republics of the ancient Greeks. The new republicans learned from the failures of the old republicans. The Federalist Nos. 6 and 7 were devoted to explaining "Dangers from Dissensions Between the States."
Consider Federalist No. 7 emphasizing that if the states are "divided, [they] would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us."
Consider The Federalist No. 6 and the lessons "of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth." Consider that the Framers knew and believed "from long observation of the progress of society" that "vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies." "NEIGHBORING NATIONS" are "naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors."
When men uphold women's right to make medical decisions about their own bodies, when you treat us equally in the workplace, and when y'all elect a woman president, we'll have those neighborly peace talks.
Of course, I understand you're not really advocating criminal conduct. I know your comment was an allusion to one of the most popular arguments used to prove to people that their government was unconstitutional: https://www.americanrevolution.org/no-taxation-without-representation/
So why not simply use the same slogan that proved its power previously: No taxation without representation.
Pardon women for thinking that if My body, my choice didn't work, no taxation without representation is pretty far down the list. The first to demand its enforcement will be the billionaires who don't pay tax.
In more than one way you're missing the point. If all you want to do is fight anyone who isn't a woman or who doesn't say what you already think, then you won't make any progress. Refusing to pay taxes or somehow seceding from the Union aren't even realistic or reasonable options.
I'm encouraging you to try to find common ground instead of merely accentuating great divides. "My body, my choice" doesn't have a long or distinguished history in the eyes of many Americans. It also isn't a slogan that men made popular. "No taxation without representation" does have a very long, very distinguished, very popular history. More importantly, it still resonates with everyone even today. It also isn't merely a slogan. It's built into our Constitution. If you don't learn to understand how the Constitution supports your position, it won't matter how long or how loud you chant "My body, my choice."
I'm afraid I cannot understand the logic or relevance of your last sentence.
No shit, Jack. We are all simply speaking within the lexicon of powerlessness. You're the one who doesn't get it, so just take your pedantry elsewhere. It's called chatting, not lecturing. Looking for solidarity and someone who gets the dark humor of it.
Linda, evading taxes is a crime. See 26 U.S.C. 7201: Tax Evasion Laws and Criminal Penalties. I did see what Wilson said. That's why I've written what I've written in this thread (not merely in response to Anne).
Anne, multiple commenters replying to my reply to you didn't think tax evasion was a crime. They deleted their comments, so to show why I said tax evasion is a crime, I'll cite here 26 U.S.C. § 7201 "Attempt to evade or defeat tax." Trying to avoid paying taxes isn't criminal. It's one of our favorite national sports. But evading paying taxes is a different matter.
Our rights in this nation are collective. It is everyone's right that women have the right to vote. It is everyone's right that men have the right to vote. It is everyone's right that we all enjoy equally applied civil rights. An attack on one is an attack on all, John Roberts.
Pete Hegseth is a pig. It’s no surprise that he would be associated with a religious extremist. The exact term he used by saying women are the head of the household with eternal souls responsibility just shows what a jackass he is. A household head can kick out the sperm donor. I’m being crude and sarcastic like the CN pastor he follows.
I see a pattern in that the people with the worst morals invariably invoke God in order to rationalize their bigotry. Just encountered another comedian doing that--Katt Williams. It's fine to denigrate "the least of his brethren," transgender folks, if he then says good things about God (because that's so instrumental to good comedy). Little does he know that I place a belief in any god at the bottom of my respect list in the first place.
The fascist party and its billionaire owners want to take us back to the 19th century, when only white men had all the rights and everyone else was owned by them.
Hear all of you younger women - this is the reality under which you will live. I am 82 - I was 10 (TEN!) when women in Texas finally got the right under law to own property in their OWN NAMES!! I already had 2 children when the Pill was first available!!
It is funny you should suggest that, Anne. Even apart from women's voting rights exclusively, as a response to all the horrors now being perpetrated by this administration, I was thinking that there should be a national movement to refuse to pay our federal income tax. After all, it is our money they are spending, and look how they are spending it -- on tax breaks for billionaires and large, wealthy corporations, while removing any and all programs that serve the People! I came upon one glitch to this, though -- federal income tax is deducted from paychecks. Still, it is a thought!!
You need to do the opposite. Claim several dependents on your form. Within reasonable limits, they don't care. The increase in claimed dependents causes the system to estimate less taxes for you (increased dependent deductions), ergo less is deducted from your pay.
I do feel compelled to say, however, that *any* mention of Doug Wilson should include the information that he is pro rape (because Man is the Hunter), he has protected child molesters, and blamed the victims, and he thinks slavery is just fine. In other words, he's a great ideal for Hegseth, and most of the Republicans now in office, either elected or appointed.
I have reached the sad conclusion that Red and Blue America are like a couple stuck in a bad, rapidly becoming abusive, marriage that’s ruptured beyond repair. We’ve reached the point where the best solution is a (amicable, I hope—but doubt) divorce.
Think of it—Blue America can set up a modern country, with a modern economy based on technology and information. There will be equal rights and representation in a democratic (small d) government. Everyone will have the final say in controlling their own bodies. There will be a strong social safety net so nobody goes hungry, un-housed or without health insurance. Nobody will impose their religious beliefs on anyone else, and everyone will be free to follow whatever religion they want, or no religion if they so desire.
And the bumpkins, morons, Yahoos, misogynists, bigots, racists, rubes and boobs of Red America can have their hearts’ delight setting up their very own Third World country, right here on the North American continent! The government will be authoritarian, with no free elections and with few rights. Women will be considered the property of their fathers (or oldest male blood relative if dad is dead) until they marry, and then they will be property of their husband. It will have a Third World economy, based on extraction (agriculture, mining, timber, heavy manufacturing) with a very few ultra-rich people who live apart from society and feel no responsibility toward it. They won’t be in the government because they don’t have to be—the government will be at their beck and call. There will be a small middle class, running ever faster on the economic treadmill just to stay even. There will be a good sized working class, working several jobs, none of which have benefits, just to make ends meet. And there will be a large underclass, living in shantytowns, just trying to survive.
I don’t pretend that the divorce will be easy. First, all of us have been living high on the hog from other people’s borrowed money so we’ll need to split up the national debt. We’ll also need to divvy up Federal property. Even harder will be the fact that even in deep Blue states, rural areas are solidly red—like the Eastern Shore and Appalachia in Maryland. Similar, in ruby-Red Texas, the big cities (Houston, Austin, San Antonio) are solidly Blue and even Dallas is competitive. The disruption will be akin to setting up India and Pakistan when British South Asia was partitioned in 1947. Another problem is that Blue America would be discontinuous. That could be solved by having it petition to join Canada, which will make the Blue states continuous if you cut through Canada (except perhaps for IL). However, I doubt the Canadians would want us. But we’ll work it out.
Or you might want to consider our Constitution, itself. The only way to rip apart the U.S. (as you propose), is by an amendment to our Constitution that is accomplished in accordance with Article V. The only other alternative is a war that the secessionists win.
Ivan, when you urge people to consider secession, why not mention that division would require complying with Article V of our Constitution. Otherwise, it sounds like you're suggesting violating our Constitution and even suggesting another civil war.
Do you have any sense of why the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution used it (as the Preamble says) to secure "a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"? Do you think that people were less divided in the 1780's over less serious issues than today?
Consider Federalist No. 14 in November 1787: "the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness."
The founders of our nation and the framers of our Constitution studied the republics of the ancient Greeks. The new republicans learned from the failures of the old republicans. The Federalist Nos. 6 and 7 were devoted to explaining "Dangers from Dissensions Between the States."
Consider Federalist No. 7 emphasizing that if the states are "divided, [they] would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us."
Consider The Federalist No. 6 and the lessons "of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth." Consider that the Framers knew and believed "from long observation of the progress of society" that "vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies." "NEIGHBORING NATIONS" are "naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors."
I was just going to comment that your post is a little bit "tongue-in-cheek," but I see you got there first... Of course, it's fun (in a sense) to dream about a "divorced" red and blue America, but, alas, I think we must find a way to heal our land...
I won't deny that I disagree with probably 99% of what Red America wants, but the answer to your question is "of course not" because even if I were serious there's no way it's gonna happen.
Hegseth should be officially censured for his comments. They violate his oath (in 5 U.S.C. 3331) to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to our "Constitution."
Using religion to justify oppression or domination or any kind of discrimination is blatantly anti-constitutional. That's exactly why the original Constitution (Article VI) outlawed any kind of "religious Test" as "a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This was a topic of considerable and passionate discussion when people were considering whether to ratify our Constitution. See Elliot's Debates https://www.loc.gov/collections/century-of-lawmaking/articles-and-essays/continental-congress/elliots-debates/
In Vol. 2, in Massachusetts, the famous and extremely influential Reverend Backus said "let the history of all nations be searched" and "it will appear that the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
In Vol. 3, in Virginia, the famous and extremely influential Patrick Henry asked, "What has been more productive of mischief among mankind than religious disputes?"
In Vol. 4, in North Carolina, James Iredell (who became one of the first SCOTUS justices) was particularly emphatic: "I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind ; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably — that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed, even in the most intolerant countries."
James Madison also addressed this issue in 1785 in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. Madison's principles and logic apply equally to the attacks on our rights then and now. He was speaking generally about purported public servants attacking and undermining the rights and freedoms of the people. The attacks at issue then were subsequently secured by the First Amendment's express prohibition on "establishment" of religion.
Madison reminded all Americans of the great danger in forgetting eternal truths about both discrimination and establishment (support) for discrimination. In part, Madison was speaking about the danger of precedent (or legislation) that incrementally erodes our rights and liberties. Clearly, "the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions" can "establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects" and "the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever."
As a result, "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties." In fact, "this prudent jealousy" is "the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the [American] Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We [should] revere this lesson too much soon to forget it."
The most memorable and well-known words in the Declaration of Independence include that "all Men are created equal" in that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," including to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." It should (and it did) go without saying that women were created equal with men. Women do and should have the same rights as men for the same reasons as men presented.
Months before the Declaration of Independence, Abigail Adams (the wife, wise advisor and close confidant of John Adams (one of the Declaration's most active and outspoken drafters)) reminded the men to "remember the ladies" regarding the rights and independence of all Americans (see https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/abigail-adams-john-adams-remember-ladies):
I long to hear that you have declared an independancy—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being make use of that power only for our happiness.
The language quoted above in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence came mostly from the Declaration of Rights of Virginia in June 1776 (written mostly by George Mason).
The first draft of the Declaration of Rights of Virginia (in May 1776) emphasized that equality is a function of being “born.” "That all Men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety."
The final version of the relevant language still is in Article I: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Early state constitutions also commonly focused on being “born” as the basis of equality.
See, e.g., the Declaration of the Rights of Pennsylvania in August 1776:
That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
See also the New Hampshire Constitution: “All men are born equally free and independent.”
See also the Massachusetts Constitution Declaration of Rights (mostly by John Adams) in 1780: "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
These were greatly influence by John Locke's Second Treatise on Government: "The state of nature is governed by natural law; everyone is born free and equal and, generally speaking, may not harm others."
Locke also had this to say that was relevant:
Everyone has a right to his/her own body and to labor freely. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. . . .
On alert with this! Also the ERA needs to be officially included in the US Constitution. From lwv.org: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the equality of rights under the law regardless of sex. While the ERA is fully ratified and was recognized by a US President as the law of the land, it has yet to be officially published in the Constitution. Advocates were instrumental in achieving constitutional sex equality and will be instrumental in ensuring its enforcement. Today, we need the ERA printed in the Constitution where it rightfully belongs.
Explicit statement of equality is missing for women/people who id as women/people who id as other. A key aspect of being acknowledged is to be explicitly acknowledged; laws hinge upon this. We have the 19th explicitly giving women the right to vote, which took almost 150 years! Prior to this, women who read that their right to vote was implied in the US Constitution and dared to vote were mocked, arrested, declared enemies of civilization. So, you may read implicit rights in the Constitution, and I say bravo for your broadmindedness. However, history has shown that without explicit acknowledgement, too many can declare, "No, it doesn't say that."
Thais, the meaning of the ERA already is included in the Constitution. People just need to learn how to see our Constitution for its true worth.
The essence of the ERA is Section 1 : "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
The Fourteenth Amendment already says the same especially clearly regarding state governments: “No State” has any power to “make or enforce any law” that “abridge[s any] privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." “No State” has any power to "deprive any person” (citizen or not) “of life” or any “liberty” or any “property,” except after affording them all “process of law" that is "due." “No State” has any power to “deny to any person” (citizen or not) “the equal protection of the laws.” The reason the Fourteenth Amendment says the foregoing is that our Constitution already says or means the same regarding the limitations of powers of the federal government.
To better see how our Constitution already says or means the same regarding federal powers, go back to 1748 when Montesquieu published his phenomenally influential thoughts about government in The Spirit of the Laws. The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who wrote and ratified our original Constitution and our Bill of Rights were profoundly influenced by Montesquieu’s writing. We should be, too.
“In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others [the people are] the subject [i.e., of the laws they create].” Montesquieu emphasized that the “exercise of sovereignty” in a democracy is by citizens “by their suffrages.” Suffrage is the quintessential speech of sovereigns. To see who is sovereign in America, look at the plain text of our Constitution regarding who is a “citizen” (Amendment XIV, Section 1) and who has the right to vote (Amendment XIV (Section 2); Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI).
To see the sovereign People of today, simply see our Constitution for its true worth. See who our Constitution expressly introduces as sovereigns. See the definition of “citizens” in Section 1 of Amendment XIV (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States”). Then, see who our Constitution says has the power of sovereigns. Who has the power to directly choose our public servants? Who has the power to vote?
First, the Preamble introduced the first generation, “We the People” who voted for delegates to state conventions that ratified our Constitution. The second generation included (at least) citizens protected by Section 2 of Amendment XIV (all “male inhabitants of [each] State, being twenty-one years of age) and Amendment XV (prohibiting discrimination “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”). The second generation also arguably included women, as shown above. The third generation especially clearly included citizens protected by Amendment XIX (prohibiting discrimination “on account of sex”). The fourth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXIV (prohibiting discrimination on account of wealth (ability “to pay any poll tax or other tax”). The fifth generation included citizens protected by Amendment XXVI (prohibiting discrimination against people “eighteen years of age or older . . . on account of age”).
The greater significance of the foregoing amendments (Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI) outlawing discrimination on account of certain characteristics regarding the right to vote is that they each establish a right: the right not to be subjected to discrimination on account of particular characteristics.
Our Constitution already establishes very strongly that female citizens are equally part of the sovereign people of America. Women already cannot be subjected to discrimination on account of sex. The number of states and people that ratified the ERA are merely additional evidence that they all see the Constitution as already prohibiting discrimination on account of sex.
If you take away women’s rights to vote then women should immediately quit paying Federal taxes.
And form our own damn republic. Eff this.
Hear, hear!
Terrible idea. Do you have any sense of why the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution used it (as the Preamble says) to secure "a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"? Do you think that people were less divided in the 1780's over less serious issues than today?
Consider Federalist No. 14: "the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness."
The founders of our nation and the framers of our Constitution studied the republics of the ancient Greeks. The new republicans learned from the failures of the old republicans. The Federalist Nos. 6 and 7 were devoted to explaining "Dangers from Dissensions Between the States."
Consider Federalist No. 7 emphasizing that if the states are "divided, [they] would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us."
Consider The Federalist No. 6 and the lessons "of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth." Consider that the Framers knew and believed "from long observation of the progress of society" that "vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies." "NEIGHBORING NATIONS" are "naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors."
I can see you won't miss us.
I can't see what you mean. What do you mean?
When men uphold women's right to make medical decisions about their own bodies, when you treat us equally in the workplace, and when y'all elect a woman president, we'll have those neighborly peace talks.
I support all the above (much more actively than the vast majority of women), so what's your beef with me?
Instead of committing a crime that will only cause you more grief, why not simply fight for your rights (all our rights). See, e.g., "The Criminal Conspiracy between SCOTUS Justices and State Legislators to Defraud and Rob Americans of the Power of our Most Precious Rights (Part I)" https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/the-criminal-conspiracy-between-scotus?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Of course, I understand you're not really advocating criminal conduct. I know your comment was an allusion to one of the most popular arguments used to prove to people that their government was unconstitutional: https://www.americanrevolution.org/no-taxation-without-representation/
So why not simply use the same slogan that proved its power previously: No taxation without representation.
Pardon women for thinking that if My body, my choice didn't work, no taxation without representation is pretty far down the list. The first to demand its enforcement will be the billionaires who don't pay tax.
In more than one way you're missing the point. If all you want to do is fight anyone who isn't a woman or who doesn't say what you already think, then you won't make any progress. Refusing to pay taxes or somehow seceding from the Union aren't even realistic or reasonable options.
I'm encouraging you to try to find common ground instead of merely accentuating great divides. "My body, my choice" doesn't have a long or distinguished history in the eyes of many Americans. It also isn't a slogan that men made popular. "No taxation without representation" does have a very long, very distinguished, very popular history. More importantly, it still resonates with everyone even today. It also isn't merely a slogan. It's built into our Constitution. If you don't learn to understand how the Constitution supports your position, it won't matter how long or how loud you chant "My body, my choice."
I'm afraid I cannot understand the logic or relevance of your last sentence.
No shit, Jack. We are all simply speaking within the lexicon of powerlessness. You're the one who doesn't get it, so just take your pedantry elsewhere. It's called chatting, not lecturing. Looking for solidarity and someone who gets the dark humor of it.
Linda, evading taxes is a crime. See 26 U.S.C. 7201: Tax Evasion Laws and Criminal Penalties. I did see what Wilson said. That's why I've written what I've written in this thread (not merely in response to Anne).
Anne, multiple commenters replying to my reply to you didn't think tax evasion was a crime. They deleted their comments, so to show why I said tax evasion is a crime, I'll cite here 26 U.S.C. § 7201 "Attempt to evade or defeat tax." Trying to avoid paying taxes isn't criminal. It's one of our favorite national sports. But evading paying taxes is a different matter.
Our rights in this nation are collective. It is everyone's right that women have the right to vote. It is everyone's right that men have the right to vote. It is everyone's right that we all enjoy equally applied civil rights. An attack on one is an attack on all, John Roberts.
Pete Hegseth is a pig. It’s no surprise that he would be associated with a religious extremist. The exact term he used by saying women are the head of the household with eternal souls responsibility just shows what a jackass he is. A household head can kick out the sperm donor. I’m being crude and sarcastic like the CN pastor he follows.
I see a pattern in that the people with the worst morals invariably invoke God in order to rationalize their bigotry. Just encountered another comedian doing that--Katt Williams. It's fine to denigrate "the least of his brethren," transgender folks, if he then says good things about God (because that's so instrumental to good comedy). Little does he know that I place a belief in any god at the bottom of my respect list in the first place.
The fascist party and its billionaire owners want to take us back to the 19th century, when only white men had all the rights and everyone else was owned by them.
Hear all of you younger women - this is the reality under which you will live. I am 82 - I was 10 (TEN!) when women in Texas finally got the right under law to own property in their OWN NAMES!! I already had 2 children when the Pill was first available!!
It is funny you should suggest that, Anne. Even apart from women's voting rights exclusively, as a response to all the horrors now being perpetrated by this administration, I was thinking that there should be a national movement to refuse to pay our federal income tax. After all, it is our money they are spending, and look how they are spending it -- on tax breaks for billionaires and large, wealthy corporations, while removing any and all programs that serve the People! I came upon one glitch to this, though -- federal income tax is deducted from paychecks. Still, it is a thought!!
You can have less tax deducted from your pay by changing the # of claimed dependents on your W-4 form(s).
A GREAT IDEA!!
I filed Exempt once, and that's how I got a huge tax BILL.
You need to do the opposite. Claim several dependents on your form. Within reasonable limits, they don't care. The increase in claimed dependents causes the system to estimate less taxes for you (increased dependent deductions), ergo less is deducted from your pay.
Thank you, for this.
I do feel compelled to say, however, that *any* mention of Doug Wilson should include the information that he is pro rape (because Man is the Hunter), he has protected child molesters, and blamed the victims, and he thinks slavery is just fine. In other words, he's a great ideal for Hegseth, and most of the Republicans now in office, either elected or appointed.
I have reached the sad conclusion that Red and Blue America are like a couple stuck in a bad, rapidly becoming abusive, marriage that’s ruptured beyond repair. We’ve reached the point where the best solution is a (amicable, I hope—but doubt) divorce.
Think of it—Blue America can set up a modern country, with a modern economy based on technology and information. There will be equal rights and representation in a democratic (small d) government. Everyone will have the final say in controlling their own bodies. There will be a strong social safety net so nobody goes hungry, un-housed or without health insurance. Nobody will impose their religious beliefs on anyone else, and everyone will be free to follow whatever religion they want, or no religion if they so desire.
And the bumpkins, morons, Yahoos, misogynists, bigots, racists, rubes and boobs of Red America can have their hearts’ delight setting up their very own Third World country, right here on the North American continent! The government will be authoritarian, with no free elections and with few rights. Women will be considered the property of their fathers (or oldest male blood relative if dad is dead) until they marry, and then they will be property of their husband. It will have a Third World economy, based on extraction (agriculture, mining, timber, heavy manufacturing) with a very few ultra-rich people who live apart from society and feel no responsibility toward it. They won’t be in the government because they don’t have to be—the government will be at their beck and call. There will be a small middle class, running ever faster on the economic treadmill just to stay even. There will be a good sized working class, working several jobs, none of which have benefits, just to make ends meet. And there will be a large underclass, living in shantytowns, just trying to survive.
I don’t pretend that the divorce will be easy. First, all of us have been living high on the hog from other people’s borrowed money so we’ll need to split up the national debt. We’ll also need to divvy up Federal property. Even harder will be the fact that even in deep Blue states, rural areas are solidly red—like the Eastern Shore and Appalachia in Maryland. Similar, in ruby-Red Texas, the big cities (Houston, Austin, San Antonio) are solidly Blue and even Dallas is competitive. The disruption will be akin to setting up India and Pakistan when British South Asia was partitioned in 1947. Another problem is that Blue America would be discontinuous. That could be solved by having it petition to join Canada, which will make the Blue states continuous if you cut through Canada (except perhaps for IL). However, I doubt the Canadians would want us. But we’ll work it out.
Ivan, you might want to read some U.S. history starting with this from Congress about the reason the U.S. defended itself against aggression by secessionists in the Civil War: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/crittenden-resolution/
Or you might want to consider our Constitution, itself. The only way to rip apart the U.S. (as you propose), is by an amendment to our Constitution that is accomplished in accordance with Article V. The only other alternative is a war that the secessionists win.
I know that. But then again, both Red and Blue America may actually want to be rid of each other, so the Amendment would pass 3/4 of the states!
Ivan, when you urge people to consider secession, why not mention that division would require complying with Article V of our Constitution. Otherwise, it sounds like you're suggesting violating our Constitution and even suggesting another civil war.
Do you have any sense of why the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution used it (as the Preamble says) to secure "a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"? Do you think that people were less divided in the 1780's over less serious issues than today?
Consider Federalist No. 14 in November 1787: "the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness."
The founders of our nation and the framers of our Constitution studied the republics of the ancient Greeks. The new republicans learned from the failures of the old republicans. The Federalist Nos. 6 and 7 were devoted to explaining "Dangers from Dissensions Between the States."
Consider Federalist No. 7 emphasizing that if the states are "divided, [they] would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us."
Consider The Federalist No. 6 and the lessons "of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth." Consider that the Framers knew and believed "from long observation of the progress of society" that "vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies." "NEIGHBORING NATIONS" are "naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors."
You’re taking these comments far too seriously;)
I was just going to comment that your post is a little bit "tongue-in-cheek," but I see you got there first... Of course, it's fun (in a sense) to dream about a "divorced" red and blue America, but, alas, I think we must find a way to heal our land...
The sad fact is that for better or worse, we both need each other.
Weren't you serious?
I won't deny that I disagree with probably 99% of what Red America wants, but the answer to your question is "of course not" because even if I were serious there's no way it's gonna happen.
Maybe we should try a Lysistrata II movement along with the other activism?
(Trump's train has presumably stopped running, but Hegseth is a potential effective target for such...)
Hegseth should be officially censured for his comments. They violate his oath (in 5 U.S.C. 3331) to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to our "Constitution."
Using religion to justify oppression or domination or any kind of discrimination is blatantly anti-constitutional. That's exactly why the original Constitution (Article VI) outlawed any kind of "religious Test" as "a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This was a topic of considerable and passionate discussion when people were considering whether to ratify our Constitution. See Elliot's Debates https://www.loc.gov/collections/century-of-lawmaking/articles-and-essays/continental-congress/elliots-debates/
In Vol. 2, in Massachusetts, the famous and extremely influential Reverend Backus said "let the history of all nations be searched" and "it will appear that the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world."
In Vol. 3, in Virginia, the famous and extremely influential Patrick Henry asked, "What has been more productive of mischief among mankind than religious disputes?"
In Vol. 4, in North Carolina, James Iredell (who became one of the first SCOTUS justices) was particularly emphatic: "I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind ; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably — that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed, even in the most intolerant countries."
James Madison also addressed this issue in 1785 in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. Madison's principles and logic apply equally to the attacks on our rights then and now. He was speaking generally about purported public servants attacking and undermining the rights and freedoms of the people. The attacks at issue then were subsequently secured by the First Amendment's express prohibition on "establishment" of religion.
Madison reminded all Americans of the great danger in forgetting eternal truths about both discrimination and establishment (support) for discrimination. In part, Madison was speaking about the danger of precedent (or legislation) that incrementally erodes our rights and liberties. Clearly, "the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions" can "establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects" and "the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever."
As a result, "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties." In fact, "this prudent jealousy" is "the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the [American] Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We [should] revere this lesson too much soon to forget it."
The most memorable and well-known words in the Declaration of Independence include that "all Men are created equal" in that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," including to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." It should (and it did) go without saying that women were created equal with men. Women do and should have the same rights as men for the same reasons as men presented.
Months before the Declaration of Independence, Abigail Adams (the wife, wise advisor and close confidant of John Adams (one of the Declaration's most active and outspoken drafters)) reminded the men to "remember the ladies" regarding the rights and independence of all Americans (see https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/abigail-adams-john-adams-remember-ladies):
I long to hear that you have declared an independancy—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being make use of that power only for our happiness.
The language quoted above in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence came mostly from the Declaration of Rights of Virginia in June 1776 (written mostly by George Mason).
The first draft of the Declaration of Rights of Virginia (in May 1776) emphasized that equality is a function of being “born.” "That all Men are born equally free and independant, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursueing and obtaining Happiness and Safety."
The final version of the relevant language still is in Article I: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Early state constitutions also commonly focused on being “born” as the basis of equality.
See, e.g., the Declaration of the Rights of Pennsylvania in August 1776:
That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
See also the New Hampshire Constitution: “All men are born equally free and independent.”
See also the Massachusetts Constitution Declaration of Rights (mostly by John Adams) in 1780: "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
These were greatly influence by John Locke's Second Treatise on Government: "The state of nature is governed by natural law; everyone is born free and equal and, generally speaking, may not harm others."
Locke also had this to say that was relevant:
Everyone has a right to his/her own body and to labor freely. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. . . .