AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Oh and my definition of 'numbnut':

1) Thinks personal insults, ad hominem, or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes them look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny.

2) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, and irrelevant information.

3) Spams the thread with multiple copy and pastes from highly biased sources that are as often as not unsourced and unlinked.

4) Refuses to articulate their rationale for their point of view but take every opportunity to discredit or dispute whatever anybody says that they don't agree with.

And yes, we have numbnuts from both the left and right.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh and my definition of 'numbnut':

1) Thinks personal insults, ad hominem, or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes them look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny.

You post this as a criteria for someone being a 'numbnut', but preface an article you post by cleverly putting down people who disagree with you politically? Preemptively, I should add, before anyone even responded to your post:

Foxfyre wrote:

5 If the MALs read the piece at all, most will not understand it or will intentionally misrepresent or misstate what it says.

Does blatant hypocrisy make someone a 'numbnut', too?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I agree whole heartedly. I have been called every uncomplimentary name in the book here on A2K so many times I long lost count. I have never in my life either in real life or on any other message board been subjected to that kind of treatment to such an extent and I have to believe that it is because the numbnuts reinforce each other to a much greater extent here and operate in packs that gives them courage. It is usually the oh so compassionate, tolerant, open minded left who regularly spew out that kind of abuse.

It is entirely likely that you do not act the same in real life as you do on A2K, Fox. I have a hard time seeing you be as rude and condescending towards those who disagree with you to their faces.

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black. Any time you think I've been rude or condescending please call it to my attention as I do not intend to do that to anybody, no matter how numbnut they choose to be. If the accusation is valid, I will apologize.

Quote:

Quote:
I am sorry that you were subjected to it on this thread

In part by yourself, who declared that George did not understand what was essentially an easy to understand, yet flawed, thesis.

So if I disagree with George I am subjecting him to personal insult, abuse, condescension, etc.? Was he exhibiting such behavior when he disagreed with me? I didn't think so.

Could you please outline the rules that you think appropriate for Foxfyre to follow that don't apply to anybody else?

Quote:

Quote:

And I would like to see your rationale for this statement. "There is no logically consistent and defensible principal, derivable from the founding principals of this country, that makes absolutely immoral the forcible compulsion of one person to aid or fund through taxation the benefit of another."

Need I point out that our founding documents did not bar Slavery itself, even though they had the opportunity to do so? That is the logical extreme of what you are talking about. Certainly there is no lesser boundary on taxation and spending.

The Founding Fathers had to subject black people to subhuman status to justify not including them in the unalienable natural rights afforded to citizens of the country. Not all were willing to do that, but in order to form widely diverse people to agree to the Constitution, it was necessary to condone slavery. That did not affect the principles set forth in those founding documents however, and I am 100% certain that any of those guys, if they lived today, would condemn slavery as emphatically as you or I or Walter Williams would condemn slavery today.

Had you or I lived in their day, however, depending on what segment of that society that we were born into, we could possibly have condoned slavery as just the way things were. We can't know that however can we?

A good idea is a good idea regardless of who thought it up or what indefensible history might be involved.

So tell me. Under what circumstances now do you see it as a moral principle for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily serve Citizen B?

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh and my definition of 'numbnut':

1) Thinks personal insults, ad hominem, or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes them look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny.

You post this as a criteria for someone being a 'numbnut', but preface an article you post by cleverly putting down people who disagree with you politically? Preemptively, I should add, before anyone even responded to your post:

Foxfyre wrote:
5 If the MALs read the piece at all, most will not understand it or will intentionally misrepresent or misstate what it says.

Does blatant hypocrisy make someone a 'numbnut', too?

I never claimed that I'm never a numbnut. Do you claim that you are never a numbnut? And is it hypocrisy to state something that has been proved to be accurate in spades since I posted that? I'm still waiting for the MACs to come through so that I will be batting 100% on that list. So far none has so I may have to retract that one statement. A pity.

(Confession: When I wrote that I knew somebody like you would condemn me for it. But my motive was honestly to goad at least one or two MALs into proving me wrong. Alas, none did. Again, a pity.)

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So if I disagree with George I am subjecting him to personal insult, abuse, condescension, etc.? Was he exhibiting such behavior when he disagreed with me? I didn't think so.

Could you please outline the rules that you think appropriate for Foxfyre to follow that don't apply to anybody else?

Here's an easy one: don't presume that those who disagree with you do not understand the thesis. That applies to everyone equally. I'm sure you'll agree that you shouldn't have accused George or anyone of this.

Quote:

So tell me. Under what circumstances now do you see it as a moral principle for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily serve Citizen B?

I'll repeat myself - the social contract calls for an inter-connectedness that means we all spend some money on others, and we won't always agree as to the apportionment of those funds. If you want to change the way the apportionment is being handled, then I would suggest electing more politicians who agree with your point of view.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

We still haven't agreed on social contract. That's the point where you stomped off and said this wasn't worth discussing, yes? Do you agree with the definition of social contract that I posted? If so then we can go from there. If not, then come up with one and let's see if we can agree on what social contract means.

But apart from that, I want a specific example of where it would be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

I would also like a specific example of where it would not be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

Perhaps you will be the one who proves me wrong on that comment that OE took exception to.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

We still haven't agreed on social contract. That's the point where you stomped off and said this wasn't worth discussing, yes? Do you agree with the definition of social contract that I posted? If so then we can go from there. If not, then come up with one and let's see if we can agree on what social contract means.

But apart from that, I want a specific example of where it would be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

I would also like a specific example of where it would not be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

Perhaps you will be the one who proves me wrong on that comment that OE took exception to.

I don't agree with the construction 'forces to involuntary provide service.' The social contract is voluntary and none are held as slaves to it. In America, we have a system of taxation which apportions monies out according to the needs and desires of our citizens, expressed through our elected leaders. The fact that you pay taxes doesn't mean you are involuntarily providing services, even if you don't agree where the monies are going.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

We still haven't agreed on social contract. That's the point where you stomped off and said this wasn't worth discussing, yes? Do you agree with the definition of social contract that I posted? If so then we can go from there. If not, then come up with one and let's see if we can agree on what social contract means.

But apart from that, I want a specific example of where it would be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

I would also like a specific example of where it would not be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

Perhaps you will be the one who proves me wrong on that comment that OE took exception to.

I don't agree with the construction 'forces to involuntary provide service.' The social contract is voluntary and none are held as slaves to it. In America, we have a system of taxation which apportions monies out according to the needs and desires of our citizens, expressed through our elected leaders. The fact that you pay taxes doesn't mean you are involuntarily providing services, even if you don't agree where the monies are going.

Cycloptichorn

But you see, that was Williams point. He laid out the thesis and went on to express his opinion that those on the left who do think Citizen A should be involuntarily forced to service Citizen B would not be willing to answer the queston. They don't like the question because their choices come down to condoning slavery or not condoning slavery. The definition of slavery that Williams used was involuntary servitude of one person to the other.

His point was that if you say you don't condone slavery as he defines it, then you'll have a problem with your concept of social contract too.

Again here is the definition of social contract that I use. Do you or do you not agree with it?

Quote:

Social Contract:
A contract between persons in a pre-political or pre-social condition specifying the terms upon which they are prepared to enter society or submit to political authority. For many authors, the social contract ‘explained’ or illuminated a transition from a state of nature to a social and/or political existence. The ‘terms’ of such a contract depend for their plausibility upon the depiction of the gains and losses of such a transition, and thus upon the plausibility of the depiction of the state of nature. Adherents of social contract theory need not suppose the historical reality of the agreement, for they are often interested in exploring the limits of political obligation by reference to what a rational actor would be prepared to agree to, given such gains and losses. A great variety of social contract theories have been propounded, and despite the scepticism of authors like Hume, the contract tradition is still important in political theory.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

That isn't really a definition, and I don't agree with it. I wonder why, as WH pointed out, you didn't use a traditional definition, instead of something someone wrote for Ask.com.

I don't agree with Williams' proposition that: to support redistributive taxation is equivalent to Slavery. I think it's rather insulting to those who were actual slaves, now that you mention it. It is a logical fallacy; he is Appealing to Extremes.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

So if you won't answer the question but rewrite it, you won't provide an example, you dismiss the definition as not a definition but you disagree with the definition, and you won't provide your own defnition as requested, how do we discuss the topic?

Do you see that you are reinforcing everything Williams accused the left of doing to avoid an honest discussion of his thesis?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That isn't really a definition, and I don't agree with it. I wonder why, as WH pointed out, you didn't use a traditional definition, instead of something someone wrote for Ask.com.

It's actually from the 'Political Dictionary' on/by answer.com. This entry was written by an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Boston University.

It certainly somehow sums up the various theories written in the past.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So if you won't answer the question but rewrite it, you won't provide an example, you dismiss the definition as not a definition, and you won't provide your own defnition, how do we discuss the topic?

We are discussing the topic. I'm just rejecting the false Frame that Williams and you by extension would like to use to control the issue. I understand this is frustrating for you, for what you are trying to do is catch me and others in my position in a logical trap. However, that is not going to actually happen.

Instead, why not be plain about the whole matter: you and Williams do not like paying taxes that go to help people whatsoever. You resent the money YOU worked for going to help those who you feel don't deserve it. All this hooey about slavery and morality is just a distraction from the real issue.

I and others like myself are more willing to pay taxes to help others. I could care less that this means I have a thousand or two less per year. The fact that it helps others get by is good enough for me; and a study of history will show the positive benefits of keeping one's Poor class from rising up due to extreme poverty. It is far more beneficial to society to help them scrape along, than it is to just let people sink or swim on their own.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So if you won't answer the question but rewrite it, you won't provide an example, you dismiss the definition as not a definition, and you won't provide your own defnition, how do we discuss the topic?

We are discussing the topic. I'm just rejecting the false Frame that Williams and you by extension would like to use to control the issue. I understand this is frustrating for you, for what you are trying to do is catch me and others in my position in a logical trap. However, that is not going to actually happen.

Yes I would like to keep the subject on the topic as Williams framed it. I am not willing to have the question rewritten or the subject changed because you or anybody else on the left or right finds the question uncomfortable and are unwilling to answer it and/or defend your answer. You won't provide an example I suppose knowing it could be a trap. But the trap would be of your own making. It is what it is. I am personally intrigued by how absolutely 100% right on target Williams has been in how those on the left will avoid the subject though.

Quote:

Instead, why not be plain about the whole matter: you and Williams do not like paying taxes that go to help people whatsoever. You resent the money YOU worked for going to help those who you feel don't deserve it. All this hooey about slavery and morality is just a distraction from the real issue.

Neither Williams nor I have objected to taxes. We both do object to giving the government power to force us into involuntary servitude to others. He is pretty clear about his motive there. I have never been ambiguous about that either.

And it is THAT which you so far have refused to discuss but rather divert by accusing us of being selfish or whatever adjective you would choose to describe that which is a different subject.

Quote:

I and others like myself are more willing to pay taxes to help others. I could care less that this means I have a thousand or two less per year. The fact that it helps others get by is good enough for me; and a study of history will show the positive benefits of keeping one's Poor class from rising up due to extreme poverty. It is far more beneficial to society to help them scrape along, than it is to just let people sink or swim on their own.

Good for you but that also has nothing to do with the question and how anybody will answer the question. If you believe the government should be able to force you to pay my house payment, for instance, fine. I don't think the government should be able to do that. I don't believe I signed onto any social contract giving government that kind of power.

You use social contract as your justification for your opinion. I have no idea what you mean by social contract, you have ignored requests for specific exampls and/or your own defnition of social contract, and you have rejected what I mean by social contract.

You mentioned a couple of thousand less in your pay check and you don't mind. Is there a limit to how much the government can take before you would mind? Why?

1 Reply

I#m really the wrong person (as a German) to comment on this topic:
a) we see (here) 'social contract' generally as a poltical theory from the past,
b) it's a century old tradition (here) that taxes are used to help others,
c) this is regulated in our (here) constitution,
d) it's not only a right but every German has a legal claim on ... getting such help. (Basic Law, Article 1 [Human Dignity], Article 2 [Personal Freedoms], Article 20a [Protection of the natural bases of life].
[And then we've got Article 14, where the second paragraph says: "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."]

Sorry to have interrupted.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fox, you seem to forget that I did answer the questions - I said yes to both questions and explained my reasons. It is inaccurate for you to state that I avoided doing so.

You are not being forced into 'involuntary servitude' by paying taxes, even if you disagree with how the gov't decides to spend those taxes. You are Appealing to Extremes. I have patiently explained this to you on several posts now.

I'm sure it is troubling when others don't accept the frame of your arguments, but that does not make others wrong or somehow intellectually dishonest for doing so. It makes them independent of your desire to control the conversation tightly. You ought to get used to that, because once again, that's how the real world works.

Quote:

You mentioned a couple of thousand less in your pay check and you don't mind. Is there a limit to how much the government can take before you would mind? Why?

It depends on what services I would receive in return. If I get far more, I'm willing to give far more. Surely this is not hard to understand.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I#m really the wrong person (as a German) to comment on this topic:
a) we see (here) 'social contract' generally as a poltical theory from the past,
b) it's a century old tradition (here) that taxes are used to help others,
c) this is regulated in our (here) constitution,
d) it's not only a right but every German has a legal claim on ... getting such help. (Basic Law, Article 1 [Human Dignity], Article 2 [Personal Freedoms], Article 20a [Protection of the natural bases of life].
[And then we've got Article 14, where the second paragraph says: "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."]

Sorry to have interrupted.

My definition of social contract is slightly different, but is also historical as it is what is agreed to in advance before a political/social agreement is ratified by the parties entering into the contract. It is the foundation for the sociopolitical structure adopted:

Quote:

"A contract between persons in a pre-political or pre-social condition specifying the terms upon which they are prepared to enter society or submit to political authority."

In the consensus leading to the U.S. Constitution, the social contract in every aspect was structured to recognize and defend natural unalienable rights that were to be inviolable by government. Among those unalienable rights as described by Williams in the essay under discussion are rights to personal and owned property. The social contract included an agreement that each person would share in taxes necessary for the functions of government enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Beyond that, even a cursory reading of the thoughts of the Founders and signatories of the Constitution was the limitation of government including prohibiting government from violating the unalienable property rights of the people.

Every one, to a man, agreed that the Constitution was viable only if executed and defended by a moral and virtuous people and voluntary charity was seen as evidence of morality and virtue. But they also were of one accord that charity was not the prerogative of the federal government but should be left to the individual conscience and/or whatever social contract was adopted by the various states and the people themselves.

Obviously, your German system was set up under a different social contract, and if you are happy with your system, who am I or anybody to criticize whatever social contract the Germans adopted?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox, you seem to forget that I did answer the questions - I said yes to both questions and explained my reasons. It is inaccurate for you to state that I avoided doing so.

I put an either/or on that comment. I have acknowledged that you did answer the questions. But you so far have avoided or dodged every effort I've made to get you to defend your answers.

Quote:

You are not being forced into 'involuntary servitude' by paying taxes, even if you disagree with how the gov't decides to spend those taxes. You are Appealing to Extremes. I have patiently explained this to you on several posts now.

How? Why is it appealing to extremes? In what way? If the government forces you to pay my house payment, how is that not forcing you into involuntary servitude to me?

Does it make any difference if the government just collects the house payment from you and gives it to me without attaching any names to it? How is that different?

Should there be any limit on how govermment decides to spend the taxes I pay? If so what limits would that be?

Quote:

I'm sure it is troubling when others don't accept the frame of your arguments, but that does not make others wrong or somehow intellectually dishonest for doing so. It makes them independent of your desire to control the conversation tightly. You ought to get used to that, because once again, that's how the real world works.

You are perfectly capable and entitled not to enter into a discussion not of your liking. You are also perfectly capable and entitled to state what you would like to discuss.

The way the world works where I live, I am also as capable and entitled to that principle as you.

You didn't frame the argument. I did.

If you want to discuss something different from the argument I framed, then frame your own. At this time I am more interested in the topic I put out there and prefer to discuss that and choose not to be diverted from it. If nobody wishes to discuss it then I'll go find something else to do.

Quote:

Quote:

You mentioned a couple of thousand less in your pay check and you don't mind. Is there a limit to how much the government can take before you would mind? Why?

It depends on what services I would receive in return. If I get far more, I'm willing to give far more. Surely this is not hard to understand.

So there is a limit? You expect to get something for your taxes? There is a point that you might not be so agreeable to having your property confiscated for the purpose of helping out others if you felt you were not sharing in the benefit? So what is the limit? At what point do you begin to feel used or oppressed or violated by the amount the government forces you to help others?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre,

In the first place let me say that I have taken no offense from anything you " or anyone else here, for that matter " have written.

The best thing (in my view) about A2K is the opportunity to encounter different points of view about topical issues and to engage in a kind of debate about them. The worst part, for me, is the personalization, the name-calling and attempted insults that too often result. Once that starts the value evaporates.

In my observation, you are far less given to such name-calling and personal attacks than most posters here " but not entirely immune either. Like many others (myself included), you are fairly steadfast in your views and not easily receptive to opposing interpretations of events. You stand out in that you are very persistent, almost relentless, in advocating your point of view -- a quality that is magnified in its effects because your views are conservative " (we live in a world that, as a matter of observable fact, is generally more receptive to left-of-center interpretations of events). These qualities place a high premium on your patience and the care required in putting your ideas forward. Generally you do fairly well in those areas, but your persistence keeps the required standard high and, as is evident here, it drives some folks crazy (as much their problem as yours).

I don’t think the discussion you started about MAC principles is necessarily stupid or even superficial " it is the application of such labels to individuals that I was referring to. However, I do recognize that the right wing in American politics is in a bit of disarray right now " perhaps a necessary precursor to a revised formulation. In that sense I think it is premature to talk about the details of a ‘movement’ that may well be forming, but is otherwise undetectable. I can see that you were attempting to stimulate the discussion of a new definition for such a formulation. However, it should be no surprise that A2K is not a friendly environment for such a discussion " on either side of the political divide. Perhaps not fair, but certainly true.

With respect to professor Williams, let me acknowledge first that I have a generally skeptical view of academic types (left and right) who make a big deal out of their views on topical political issues. It is a probably unjustified generalization, but I have come to see them as very often Walter Mitty types who don’t cut it in the real world but insist on inflicting their obsessive ideas on everyone else. Whether this truly applies to Williams is something I don’t know. However, it is simply not deducible from the founding principles of our republic that there is an absolute moral prohibition of the compulsory use of one person (or his property) for the benefit of another. Even if one takes the obvious case of slavery as an unnoticed aberration, there are too many obvious and built-in violations of the principle to make the assertion, that it is absolute or fundamental, defensible " particularly by one who styles himself as a man of ideas.

That Williams might PREFER that such a principle be applied absolutely is understandable - just as is the supposition that he might indulge in a little academic pretense to create the illusion that its application is intellectually "necessary" compatible with my prejudices towards academics generally.

Still, I enjoyed the discussion.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

You didn't frame the argument. I did.

So what? You pretend this somehow makes you master, or in control of the discussion? This is a juvenile way of looking at discussion.

Instead of complaining when others do not accept your frame, you ought to accept that almost never will the Frame of an argument be agreed upon by those of opposing ideological stripes. Getting hung up on the fact that others view the world differently than yourself is counter-productive to the entire concept of having these discussions in the first place.

In this particular instance, I believe that you are Appealing to Extremes; b/c our system of taxation neither makes slaves out of any of us OR forces you or anyone else to pay anyone else's house payments. These are not real-world situations. Please recall that Slavery does not only mean forced work for no pay, it also means you cannot leave if you don't like it. That certainly isn't the situation here in America today.

Quote:

So there is a limit? You expect to get something for your taxes? There is a point that you might not be so agreeable to having your property confiscated for the purpose of helping out others? So what is the limit? At what point do you begin to feel used or oppressed or violated by the amount the government forces you to help others?

Well, as an avowed Socialist-leaning Dem, I'm willing to give far more than you or others will. This is primarily b/c I do not feel the need to own much physical goods myself, and have less desire to keep ever-expanding piles of cash than yourself and others.

Your question 'what is the limit?' is rather silly. Once again, it depends on the situation and what is being given. For example, if we have a public health care option, I'm willing to pay more than I otherwise would due to the enhanced services I would receive.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But apart from that, I want a specific example of where it would be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

I would also like a specific example of where it would not be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide service to Citizen B.

EXAMPLES
(1) It would be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide Citizen B the service of equal protection of the laws regardless of whether Citizen A loves or hates Citizen B.

(2) It would not be moral for the government to force Citizen A to involuntarily provide Citizen B the service of unequal protection of the laws regardless of whether Citizen A loves or hates Citizen B.

The following is a related subject: Correction of major imperfections in the original Constitution of the USA.

One of those major imperfections was of course the failure of the Constitution of the USA to require that all adult residents of the USA be granted equal protection of the laws. That particular imperfection was corrected by the following Amendments to the Constitution:

Quote:

Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVI (July 1, 1971)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV (1870)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know