I’d say that was a major change. As mentioned earlier, the common law definition used by the English courts and followed until recently in Canada was:
The definition of marriage under Anglo-Canadian common law explicitly excluded polygamy from the definition of marriage.
It’s plenty clear. The problem historically has been that it’s gone against so many people’s prejudices that it has been only belatedly enforced.
No, the point is that the source of the federalist ideology is not stone tablets handed down by God, but a political compromise cobbled together by a committee to keep the slave states in the Union. In later years, it’s been kept alive to support Jim Crow and segregation and various other forms of civil rights abuses that the more-backward states have wanted to retain. That is the historical reality, and an honest discussion of it has to acknowledge it as such.
If a historical fact is inconvenient to your ideology, it is not the fact that needs to be reconsidered, now is it? You’re not doing well by simply disparaging it and hoping it goes away.
Opposing slavery is a “progressive” position? Really? That’s clearly intended as an insult. Wow. Just … wow.
Should the Democrats adopt this as a party platform plank for 2018 or 2020?
Northern Piper:
Yes, I must admit that that definition constitutes a change from any definition that allowed for polygamy.
You typo’d “1864”.
It worked, btw.
The Democrats are moribund anyway. But sure, why not?
Just to be clear, “federalism” is deeply embedded in the Constitution. Are you saying we should ignore that, or that we need to change it? Because I’m not seeing a clear path to that change if we go the official route. Do you?
Societies evolve. Ours was evolving into a nation. Why should a cult of the “Founding Fathers” derail that? My position is that Jefferson was largely wrong, and the Southern Democratic model led to a poorer and less humane society; whereas Clay was at least onto something, and the Northern Whig model led to one of the richest regions in human history. Why would anyone want to follow a Virginia planter with that track record?
When I said “Just to be clear”, I didn’t mean “Please give me a cryptic answer”. 
I still don’t get what you are saying. Are you suggesting, for instance, that the larger states just start sending more Senators to Washington after the next election? That whoever wins the popular vote for president should take over the WH by force if he or she doesn’t win the electoral college vote?
Please give some concrete examples of what you are suggesting we do. If you are suggesting that there be a spontaneous uprising to amend the constitution and rid it of all traces of federalism, then that’s cool. One can always dream, right?
You’re talking about constitutional structures. I was alluding to economic policy.
Washington has proven capable in the past of passing useful social programs. The refusal to do that is what I am tying to “Jeffersonians” and so-called “conservatives.” Pretending that the present mix of state legislators are “the people” and that social liberals are somehow anti-democratic is a way to defend the present plutocratic mess in practice without defending it on its merits.
Want a concrete proposal? OK. We need a political party to run on a mixed public works and welfare program in a way that we haven’t really since LBJ. No massive constitutional reform necessary. But failing that, this country is getting more likely to crack up in bloody fashion.
A more interesting question might be what the Donald might have proposed had he lost the election given his threats. Given the times I would not be too hard on TJ. There was not exactly a whole lot of examples of progressivism or even liberalism in the history he studied. Book learning maybe but not many actual examples. Man by his very nature is a mean bastard.
You lost me. This thread is about the constitution, and those posts of yours seem to be about the conception, not about economics. If you want to talk about economics, then that’s probably a hijack here and is best discussed in another thread.
<sigh>
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment
THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SET IN STONE FOREVER
What part of “change the official rules if enough people agree they ought to be changed” is so incomprehensible?
Tell us more about parrot squawks. :rolleyes:
Actually, I think I lost my own train of thought in between posts. Sorry. I’ll think about this some more.
But I still think the “states” are ridiculous. Maybe we can work around them and get useful federal programs passed. like Medicare and Social Security were. It seems to me that Tenthers are against that, and that’s what I was thinking about.
Oh, yeah, the Tenth Amendment! Yes, that’s what I meant. We don’t have to abolish the states if we just allow the American people to use the federal government for purposes it can serve better than the states can. You know, all that New Deal alphabet soup.
Talk about California sending more Senators to Washington was not what I meant, and confused me.