Does the constitution need a disclaimer?

[Chee-to]

<broken link removed>

Here is the book’s page on Amazon.com. If you read the reviews-other folks are surprised/shocked/angered too. Why does Amazon still use A&D Publishing/Wilder Publications if their product is defective and biased? You might want to ask them.

Or, maybe you’d like to write a letter directly to:

A & D Publishing
PO Box 3005
Radford,Va 24143-3005

or contact: Wilder Publications

Read More

 

[Martini_Up]

OMG!! That just pisses me right the hubbabubba off!!

 

[2zuks]

Yes, I in fact do want to ask them!

 

[Trlsmn]

Does the constitution need a disclaimer? I thought it already came with a disclaimer.......Politicians!

 

[Minisocks]

Chee-to, have you actually read the constitution? I don't mean the amendments, I mean, everything that comes before the amendments.

The disclaimer probably refers to things such as Article 1, Section 2:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This article was amended by the 14th amendment (that is, rendering it void) but the text still exists (in order to be amended, of course, that's how legal documents work). The constitution was a product of it's time and, as such, contains concepts, wording and arguments that are either defunct (such as considering non-whiteys 3/5 of a person) or inappropriate.

The disclaimer is reasonable and the constitution is not some holy book written by Jesus himself. It was written by men of their time and is, thus, filled with ideas from that time that may be offensive or inappropriate for our time.

 

[Trlsmn]

Chee-to, have you actually read the constitution? I don't mean the amendments, I mean, everything that comes before the amendments.

The disclaimer probably refers to things such as Article 1, Section 2:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This article was amended by the 14th amendment (that is, rendering it void) but the text still exists (in order to be amended, of course, that's how legal documents work). The constitution was a product of it's time and, as such, contains concepts, wording and arguments that are either defunct (such as considering non-whiteys 3/5 of a person) or inappropriate.

The disclaimer is reasonable and the constitution is not some holy book written by Jesus himself. It was written by men of their time and is, thus, filled with ideas from that time that may be offensive or inappropriate for our time.

I wasn't aware Jesus wrote any books, what do they call this book? The constitution, just as the bible, was a product of it's time, the constitution has evolved where it needed to, the bible well....... The constitution is the best of any such contract for the rights of citizens of any country ever written.

 

[Minisocks]

The constitution is the best of any such contract for the rights of citizens of any country ever written.

Be that as it may, it still includes legacy terminology and concepts that are no longer considered valid and may be viewed as offensive, thus the need for a disclaimer.

I wasn't aware Jesus wrote any books, what do they call this book?

Fair point, he was probably illiterate, amirite?

 

[CEF1959]

Yeah, yeah, women and blacks were discriminated against in the original Constitution. But y'all are missing the point. This book was not just the Constitution, but also the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation.

The warning label was likely directed at the prospect, preserved in the Articles of Confederation, that Canada might join the US:

"Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the united States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."

You want your kids having nightmares about Manitobans? They need to know this was just crazy talk from long ago.

 

[Minisocks]

I would argue Albertans are worse. And before anyone suggests Quebecers, I would like to remind you that Quebec spawned poutine, and if you have not had this rare delicacy, you are definitely missing out.

 

[Cougfan2]

Been to Montreal several times, but never managed to have any poutine. I did however have some of the best BBQ I've ever had in Montreal of all places and I am a Kansas City boy who knows good BBQ.

 

[CEF1959]

Poontang? Canadians invented poontang? Dang, I'd better be more respectful of them.

 

[Trlsmn]

Poontang? Canadians invented poontang? Dang, I'd better be more respectful of them.

Yes and I've even sampled some from Saskatoon!

 

[Minisocks]

Yes and I've even sampled some from Saskatoon!

I'm sorry.

 

[Chee-to]

Chee-to, have you actually read the constitution? I don't mean the amendments, I mean, everything that comes before the amendments.

The disclaimer probably refers to things such as Article 1, Section 2:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This article was amended by the 14th amendment (that is, rendering it void) but the text still exists (in order to be amended, of course, that's how legal documents work). The constitution was a product of it's time and, as such, contains concepts, wording and arguments that are either defunct (such as considering non-whiteys 3/5 of a person) or inappropriate.

The disclaimer is reasonable and the constitution is not some holy book written by Jesus himself. It was written by men of their time and is, thus, filled with ideas from that time that may be offensive or inappropriate for our time.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Hmmmmm, no disclaimer here, maybe you should complain...

 

[Nibbs]

If the disclaimer warned
that the needed historical background
And The Declaration and Petitions of The Stamp Act Congress WERE Not present,
and are necessary for a proper understanding of it...
well I might buy into it.

Minisocks, at the time, Blacks were considered to be animal nature only.

Chinese and Indians were considered to be Human Beings.

If one killed a Chinese or Indian 'person', they could be charged with homicide.
If someone killed another man's slave, it would have been treated the same as killing his cow, and a monetary compensation might be in order.

Considering all that led up to the forming of a new nation separate from merry old England, certain touchy subjects such as the Status of Blacks and Abortion were left out of the picture....
Better to get it together than to squabble over difficult things involving emotional convictions.

The proper course of action would have been for Congress to address the issue,
and then officially Recognize them as Real Natural Human Beings.

Instead they were Granted the same rights and Privileges as The rest of us....

Oh, yeah, included in that package were Corporations,

both as Artificial Persons.

Then again, maybe a disclaimer is needed to warn the kids that Gov has no Lawful authority getting involved in and controlling the education of We the People.

 

[Minisocks]

maybe you should complain...

I wouldn't want to deprive you of your gimmick.

Don't conflate my involvement in this thread with my having any stake in its outcome.

 

[Chee-to]

Originally Posted by Minisocks
The disclaimer is reasonable and the constitution is not some holy book written by Jesus himself. It was written by men of their time and is, thus, filled with ideas from that time that may be offensive or inappropriate for our time.

OK, then maybe anything written before 1956 should also demand a disclaimer.

 

[sbryson21]

OK, then maybe anything written before 1956 should also demand a disclaimer.

Hey if we're working off of this thought process then why would we stop at 1956?? Disclaimer for anything written before 1989....

"Mommy, why is there a disclaimer on this book?"

"Because, honey, it was written in 1985 and you need to be aware that hammer pants are not appropriate or acceptable for our time. Most people will find them offensive as well."