
Originally Posted by
Energizer
That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.
All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.
The excerpt (not quote) stated how much of a change in the world the United States brought about. Do you think the U.S. would have been able to wrought such change in the world had it still been under sovereign rule?
The constitution limited and defined the powers of the American Government, and gave the U.S. a balanced form of government. Rather than having a ruler's law, where there is tyranny...or a no law, where there is total anarchy, the founders placed the U.S. government directly in the middle. We have people's law, where most of the power is to reside with the individual, family, municipality/community and then moves on up to the state then finally with the federal.
We were formed as a Republic by our founders. A democracy becomes increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows. A republic, on the other hand, governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely. James Madison in the Federalist Papers, (No. 14, p. 100.) explained it thus;
In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.
Equal rights, not equal things! The founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves. For example; every person is entitled to protection of his life and property. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to delegate to the government the task of setting up a police force to protect the lives and property of all the people. But suppose a kind-hearted man saw that one of his neighbors had two cars while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in the spirit of benevolence, the kind man went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously, he would be arrested for car theft. No matter how kind his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly violating the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property. Of course, the two-car neighbor could donate a car to his poor neighbor, if he liked, but that is his decision and not the prerogative of the kind-hearted neighbor who wants to play Robin Hood.
Now, suppose that kind-hearted man decided to ask the mayor and city council to force the man with two cars to give one to his pedestrian neighbor. Does that make it any more legitimate? Obviously, this makes it even worse because if the mayor and city council do it in the name of the law, the man who has lost his car has not only lost the rights to his property, but (since it is the "law") he has lost all right to appeal for help in protecting his property.
The reason I bring this up is because the equal rights doctrine protects the freedom to prosper...and this is what the constitution did for America.
There is more I could type, but suffice it to say that I recommend reading The 5000 Year Leap. It touches on almost every argument that has been leveled against the U.S. and it's founders in this thread. The book addresses welfare, it addresses religion and men's/women's rights in the bible. It touches on "re-distribution" of wealth, and explains the pitfalls of such...in logical terms anyone could easily understand.
The founders lived under tyranny. They lived under sovereign rule. They are the ones who designed this nation to (hopefully) avoid reverting back to such a tyrannical state. Read the book and you will understand the minute ways that the U.S. has been changing in the past 80 years (and much more swiftly recently) towards a nation the founders were trying to avoid.