American Exceptionalism-Granting of Rights

Let us pause for a moment to consider the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The days following the throwing off of the yoke of english oppression, there was chaos. And debt. The states were confederated, but only for the purpose of defeating the english. There was no mechanism for forcing the colonies, each independent and sovereign, to hand over cash to pay the pressing debt.

So a convention was called. The stated purpose was to re-work the articles of confederation to address the new situation. But there was a conspiracy. One designed to fool the true federalists into giving up their states’ autonomy in favor of an all powerful central government. One ruler for another.

And so it came to pass. Some, such as Madison and Jefferson, naive believers. Others, such as Mason, refused to sign and left.

A compromise was struck. Ratification of the construct of government would be supported, but with a guarantee - The Bill of Rights.

This concept was nothing new. The right to keep and bear arms for example dates back to 16th century england and runs deep into the restoration. A mere 100 years before our situation. Each one of the Bill of Rights addresses specific abuses by the english crown leading up to and during the revolution. They were not theories, they were experienced first hand by the very people demanding relief. Many of the true federalists warned of this new ruler, but were pishawed.

The 1st Amendment was written the way it was because that is how the central english government abused her citizens. And the 2nd and the 3rd and so on…

They were not rights granted, but rather redress earned and protected.

This country has a central tenet of no prior restraint. It goes back to the abuse of the crown through mass punishment. We don’t punish people for what they might do, as a tyrannical crown might. We punish individuals for what they have done.

If you study the foundations of morality, you will recognize this core tenet as an example of fairness/cheating. Americans have it in spades.

Any central government of any form can and will justify (rationalize) any type of additional control in the name of security for the common good. Central governments do not deal in cases, they deal in trends. Again, no matter the form of government.

The very root of the word “govern” comes from the Greek and Latin “to rule”. Control is key to ruling.

It is folly to pretend the Ruling Class are servants of the people. Their function is to rule and by making rules. They have built an army of enforcers - a half a million strong and growing, given them qualified immunity and a judiciary who cannot be challenged, in order to rule.

In every other country I can think of, their citizens have liberties - permissions granted by the government to do certain things.

We in this country are supposed to have, by contract, freedom - we do not require permission from any one or things. But we are slowly allowing the central government to turn guaranteed freedom into permission required liberties. I have a right to express myself in the public square. It has become a permit-required demonstration. I have a right to bear arms. It has become a permit I must pay and pray for. The list goes on and one.

And this insidiuous degradation from freedom into liberties has been ignored, excused, negotiated and rationalized away by us - the very people who demanded their existence. We have traded away messy but blessed freedom for a teat and a binky. For the illusion of being cared for by an entity that cannot even care for itself and is the most inept organization on the planet. We have subjugated ourselves because freedom is too hard. It requires work. Effort.

Joseph de Maistre, French fop, once said “Every country has the government it deserves.”

He was right, but small thinking. It appears we all end up in the same place, just on different timelines.

I counter the miserable monsieur with this collolary: Every people has the government it is willing to accept.

This eventually can only end one way that I can see. In my book, it is already overdue. The contract has been breached.


I will add this. The collective is not more important than the individual - another American exception. I care about you if I choose to. Not because I have a duty to do so.

I don’t give a ■■■■ about your opinions or polls on my rights or how you feel I should act. I also don’t care if you feeeel I am “reasonable” or not. You don’t decide my reasonable.

“Reasonable” - what a horrible, creativity killing word.


“Why should I trade one big tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 little tyrants one mile away?”


Thank goodness Jesus didn’t have your attitude.

1 Like

One can’t imagine how appallingly one would have to behave to deserve Trump and McConnell.

1 Like

Thank goodness Jesus clearly stated there was a difference between Caesar and The Lord. What do YOU do with YOUR PERSONAL RESOURCES? When you give, is the sacrifice so much, it hurts you financially? Giving the resources of others, that you never sacrificed for, was/is/will not what Jesus is all about.

1 Like

You really are not familiar with OT laws on economics or charity in the early Christian congregations.

If…you would be perfect, sell all that you have and follow Him. Have you done this?

1 Like

That’s so Chrisian like…when you lose an argument…spread hate. My gosh.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

No hate and no arguments lost. You self admittedly watch videos from white nationalists… while you say the lord a lot it is meaningless.

Thank goodness countries like Germany still take in refugees because it is giving people claiming the Christian faith places to go to escape religious persecution in countries like Russia.

The word translates better to complete. Perfect in the biblical sense would denote without sin.

First you need a society with morals and values for it to work, Simon Bolívar was called the “George Washington of South America.” he tried and failed to bring a Bill of Rights to South America.

Bolivar died an “exhausted and disillusioned idealist” at the age of forty-seven. Shortly before he died, he declared that Latin America was ungovernable. Revolutions were not enough. When the bloodshed was over, then what? “He who serves a revolution,” he said, “ploughs the sea.”2

Bolivar died of syphilis he caught from a Colombian whore.

I’ve been to his house.


Did any of the people involved in the writing of the USA Constitution own slaves?

That’s a good question for a Democrat since they voted against ending slavery.

In 1864, an amendment abolishing slavery passed the U.S. Senate but died in the House as Democrats rallied in the name of states’ rights."

Oh dear. I am sure that the USA Constitution was in place well before 1864. So what happened in 1864 is not relevant to my question. Since you chose to deflect I can only presume that the answer is yes some of them did own slaves.

The political party I support in Australia has a somewhat dubious past with respect to the support or the White Australia policy. However, what that party did was introduce the Racial Discrimination Act which made it unlawful to use race as a selection criterion. One cannot rewrite the pervading views and actions of any political party from earlier times. However, what a political party can do is provide the appropriate responses now.

Now you’re deflecting because I’m making the old Democrats look like Animals wanting to keep slavery.

Like I said, rights are taken, not given.

I never answered your question of where they came from because there were too many religious undertones going on in the conversation, though not necessarily from you. It just irked me. Rights are a human construct based on feelings. We “feel” that we are being wronged and revolt, either successfully or not ,or we take it and live lesser lives, the choice is ours to make.

Me deflecting? I am not, never have been nor ever will be a Democrat. My question was specifically did any of the people who were involved in the framing of the USA Constitution own slaves?