Black People : Difference Between Democracy and Freedom

[Shikamaru]

America's state's rights issues(that bubbled into a civil war)....and Americans of today, with their kneejerk suspicion of 'big government' (and 'central banks').

The states' rights issue is not quite what it is portrayed to be.

1) States do not have rights. They have powers.
2) Let us consider the writings of historian Henry Brooks Adams (Source)

Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision — all triumphs of the slave power — did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.

The framers feared a strong and oppressive central govt.
- That's why they were all for 'limited govt'.
- That's why there are 'checks n balance' among the branches of govt. Why? Because 'ambition must be made to counter ambition' (james monroe). They understand human nature and knew all too well that politicians are moreso motivated by political self-interest than anything else.

Some of the Framers were for limited government and feared a strong central government (Anti-Federalists).
The remainder and majority were for a strong, centralized government (Federalists).

Do note that the terms should be reversed for the components above. The Federalists should be called nationalists due to their desire of centralization of power and the reduction of States to mere administrative divisions (for the purposes of commerce, control, and dominion). The Anti-Federalists are truly federalists for they weren't opposed to a union of the States only the centralization of power. In a federation, the power remains with the States with each being free and independent.

Federal is actually an international term.
States are countries or nations.
A federation is an international body.
The U.S. Constitution is a (private) international document, hence why it has been referred to as a compact (treaty).

The actual body of the Constitution are the seven articles. The Bill of Rights is an addendum, an attachment, a rider.

- That's why 'We, the people' are sovereign.

The general populous is not "We, the People". Only those individuals who were Framers, their posterity, and who were voting members alive during that time would be of "the People". If you like, I can find you Supreme Court cases to the effect aforementioned.

Most peoples' interface to the U.S. Constitution will be through the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment citizenship does not incorporate the entirety of the Bill of Rights. The rights are selectively incorporated and scoped into the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court and Congress (incorporation doctrine).

- That's why the constitution is the 'law of the land'. This govt does NOT decide the rules and it MUST exercise powers expressly granted by the Constitution, too. It's on 'the people' to maintain this democracy.

"Law of the land" is a legal term of art. This legal term of art has various significations within the document itself and in comparative law between English Common Law and Roman Civil Law.
Government exercises power and does create law. The constitutions supposedly places limits on a government's exercise of power. To exercise power beyond its bounds makes said government ultra vires in its capacity.

Its on the people to know the law, know their government, keep an eye on both, and ultimately keep government in check. Of which, most people woefully fail to do nor will they.

We have rights. They just aren't 'absolute'.

There are natural rights and legal rights.
There are unalienable rights and inalienable rights (they are not the same).
There are rights and there are benefits or privileges.

 

[SlickBeast]

Surely democracy as evolved since then. On a side note, Sparta and Athens were sworn enemies of each other and both had very different ways of doing things. I dont know if Sparta was a democracy, but spartan women certainly enjoyed more rights than their athenian counterparts.

Sparta was a militarist state. The Spartans themselves were very few but they controlled large horde of slaves. This allows them to constantly train for warfare while the slaves do the menial jobs.