Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens'

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the this-is-cooler-than-unredacting-pdfs dept.

Government 360

Jamie points out this excellent piece, well timed for America's Independence Day, that says spectrographic evidence has established that the one word Thomas Jefferson fully blotted out from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence was not "resident," or "patriot," but rather "subject." This, he replaced with "citizen."

cancel ×

360 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh... I see (nt) (-1, Offtopic)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788074)

nt

Spectral imaging also reveals (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788076)

Al Gore did invent the internet... while looking for a better way to obtain porn.

Re:Spectral imaging also reveals (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788258)

Wrong democrat, you're thinking of Clinton here. Bill, not Hilary; and definitely not Hilary Clinton porn.

Re:Spectral imaging also reveals (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788278)

Haven't you heard the news? Al Gore is a big horndog. His tell-all book is going to be named "An Inconvenient Truth About My Penis: Global Warming in my Pants"

Linux users are cock smoking faggots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788094)

They're subject to sucking the shit out of other men's asses. Shit eating fucking faggots.

When will the government ever learn... (5, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788106)

That redacting documents by simply putting a opaque block over them dosn't removing the unlaying data?

Re:When will the government ever learn... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788798)

Grammar correction ETA: 30 seconds.

Don't worry (5, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788112)

they have correct that correction some time ago now, you are not citizens, you are consumers - inmates - terrorists - child molesters - unique serial numbers - organ donors.

Re:Don't worry (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788198)

You misplaced organ donors in the wrong list.

Re:Don't worry (2, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788308)

No I didn't, or did you misread it as "voluntary organ donors"?

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788384)

When is organ donation ever not voluntary?

Re:Don't worry (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788418)

When you're a Chinese criminal, for suitably bizarre values of "criminal".

Re:Don't worry (3, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788450)

Every time, really, unless you make your intentions known beforehand and the authorities actually respect them once known. That is why the new NY law (I think it's NY) is so insidious: it changes the default option to "yes" which puts the onus on you to specifically go on record as opting-out, and means that any problems with the record keeping will mean you could donate anyway.

Re:Don't worry (3, Interesting)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788474)

What's wrong with automatic organ donation?

Re:Don't worry (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788520)

some people have religious objections or objections to the organ donation system itself.

Re:Don't worry (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788540)

Then they can opt-out. The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself", so why the hell should the law assume they do, particularly if it means more lives saved due to an increase in available organs?

Re:Don't worry (0, Troll)

slashdotisgay2 (1832210) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788626)

Because we don't want to save scum bag pieces of shit like you.

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788808)

Well the argument that it's your body is fairly strong one I think.

Re:Don't worry (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788480)

...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.

Yes, there is always the question of letting you die to harvest your organs when your in the hospital, but wouldn't they neglect other patents who weren't organ donors too because if they don't need to keep the organs in good shape, whats the use of keeping you alive for longer?

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788706)

all for the greater good! Yay! The GREATER GOOD! WE COMPLY! Looks like they took your brain AND thinking ability already.

Re:Don't worry (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788772)

Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, you don't think, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.

I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.

Re:Don't worry (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788852)

Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, YOU DON'T THINK, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.

I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.

I bolded & capitalized one particular phrase that I dont think you should have included on your list, as it isnt really much difference from the operational states of most living humans in today's society - cant really use it to differentiate between a dead person and a living one. ;-)

Re:Don't worry (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788830)

...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.

I think I want to return as a vampire zombie (no "or" slash between the two), hence, I opted out...

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788718)

What do you mean, every time? You provided a very recent and famous example of one state: New York. For what it's worth, I'm not trying to refute anything. I've just never heard of nonvoluntary donation on my side of the country, in my entire life.

free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citizens. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788274)

As well,

a state Citizen is not a subject but the original paramount title of the several nation-states, not the States of the United States because they exist in parallel dis-united to The 48 *u*nited States of America. Thomas Jefferson created that secondary citizen-subject for the rebellion States of the Union that separated from Brittain. Citizen under the Republic-states are more privileged than the nobility in the original estates of nobility because they have supplements exceeding their capacity in limited liability that only work in theory but more expensive obviously.

That's why there is such a fuss about the 14th Amendment because the United States arrived in 1754 as a moorish nation that was not allowed into America, so the Illuminati Freemasons captured that moorish nation in 1775 and layed it doormant while erecting a non-class non-body politic Style (an idea) known as The United States of America. The United States in that regard has been trying to amend it's own documents to overlay onto the states of America to integrate itself as an acceptable style to diversif citizenry in the administrative districts created by Washington and Indian/Endemic/endian territories (yes, free-born are indian too). That new style didn't encumber the Several nation-states, but those that declared independence as The 48 United States of America which can be named as California (state of America, not CA of the United States) all the way down the list of admitted nationalities in the Government Printing Office that expressly doesn't recognize 14th Amendment citizens of the United States because that is a debt charter of a corporation in the District of Columbia (read Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 "Location of Debtor: United States is located in DC", and USC 28 3002 15(a) where "United States is a federal Corporation").

I'm free-born as well as a few others. It's hell on earth, because on this continent I can't get a driver license with my family Bible and crest yet I can prove in Statutory law that I can un-drive without a license because "All roads are open as a Matter of Right to Public Vehicular Travel" (but the incompetants attorney COPS and Patrols take me to court once a month for me to school them on the law and THEIR CODE.

Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize (2, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788360)

Slashdot needs a "-1:Tinfoil Hat" mod option.

Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize (1)

jjinco33 (1107007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788640)

That should be "+1: Tinfoil Hat"

Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize (3, Funny)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788826)

And maybe a "+1 Stylish Tinfoil Hat"

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788390)

Hope you never need a transplant, then.

Re:Don't worry (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788482)

The problem is that the charities that represent people needing transplants lie to get changes enacted to make it easier to take them without getting proper authorization. Typically they'll include not just the people that are on the list and able to take the transplant, but individuals who are on the list even if they're known to be ineligible. There's also been some disturbing changes made in that now rather than requiring the patient to be brain dead, cardiac death suffices. But probably the worst part of it is that there isn't any guarantee that the doctor responsible for saving the individuals life isn't also the doctor for the patient that needs the transplant.

It's beyond disturbing and it's not particularly secretive either.

Re:Don't worry (2, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788728)

But probably the worst part of it is that there isn't any guarantee that the doctor responsible for saving the individuals life isn't also the doctor for the patient that needs the transplant.

That would be extraordinarily unlikely. I suppose if you crashed your motorcycle into a barrier in front of the transplant hospital and they dragged your soon-to-be-lifeless body into the ER AND the transplant doc was moonlighting as the ER attending it could happen.

But I would worry a lot more about going to some random bar and waking up next day missing a kidney. Or Elvis appearing in front of me. Or a balanced budget.

You left out the most important label (3, Insightful)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788712)

In our current society the most important label is "victim." Once you or your somewhat defined demographic group can achieve the official label of victim, the largess of the non-victims (also known as taxpayers) is yours for the grovelling. Keep in mind that both the lawmakers who bestow victimhood and the bureaucracy take their cut from what is extorted from the taxpayers as their part of the squeeze.

BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:You left out the most important label (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788828)

BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.

If you're referring to welfare states, they are a lot closer to financial solvency than the US, which prides itself on its can-do, American dream, pull-youself-up-with-your-own-bootstraps anti-welfare spirit, but is saddled with debt unimaginable in a place like Finland or Sweden.

Considering the mindset of the era (5, Insightful)

linumax (910946) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788122)

Considering the mindset of the era, this actually is a good indicator of how Jefferson and other founding fathers understood that there was something wrong with the status quo and managed to change it.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (5, Interesting)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788138)

Absolutely. You would think more people on /. would be replying seriously to this article. It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today. Think of how much of a core element the word "citizen" has become; it's like a symbol of our freedom and unity.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (1, Flamebait)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788264)

Yes, but this is slashdot... home of the knee-jerk reactionary.

Besides - most people here aren't citizens, they're subjects of whatever country they are from. We're constantly being reminded that slashdot is no longer an 'American' site, as if we are somehow to blame for them coming here.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788388)

Besides - most people here aren't citizens, they're subjects of whatever country they are from.

Most people who live in most countries are citizens rather than subjects. The use of the word "citizen" is hardly unique to the USA.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (1, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788596)

We're constantly being reminded that slashdot is no longer an 'American' site, as if we are somehow to blame for them coming here.

No, you're just expected to be civilised, worldly hosts. Acting like the US is the only country that exists on the internet is like inviting people to your house for dinner, ignoring them, and watching TV.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788290)

Well, I was going to say that with the Declaration, Jefferson DID change subjects into citizens, and I'm not talking about word replacement.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (2, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788442)

Jefferson DID change white male subjects into citizens, and I'm not talking about word replacement.

FTFY.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (3, Interesting)

olivebridge (1122781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788490)

Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (3, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788530)

in all fairness, there weren't many Japanese-Americans in 1776.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788676)

in all fairness, there weren't many Japanese-Americans in 1776.

There were plenty of Chinese getting screwed over in for most of the 1800s though.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Interesting)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788650)

Well, of course. It was a major change in philosophical mindset... it's PRACTICAL effect was much more limited, not the least of which because of the failings of the very same people who wrote it to implement it as they claimed they would.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (2, Informative)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788698)

Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

In all fairness to Jefferson, he did have that in mind (Constitution) - along with other things that did not make it in due to the mindset of the times and those others who had input into the matter.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Informative)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788394)

It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today.

I'm... not so sure about that. Jefferson's mindset had a profound impact on the formation of the US and its laws and liberties today, and this inkblot itself gives us insight into his thoughts, but the article itself notes that the entire line was removed from the final draft. The actual Declaration of Independence does not include this text, altered or otherwise, at all.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788494)

Never mind this changed word; what about all the changes made in the drafts that existed only in the founding fathers' minds? Sure, this finding shows some of the thought processes going on at the time, but there were plenty more that never left such direct evidence on paper, and just as important.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788604)

...our freedom and unity.

Our what? We gave that up years ago as we timidly allow the government lead us into quagmire after quagmire and kowtow to corporate demands at the drop of a hat.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788148)

...nothing changed

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788310)

Not sure how this post is a troll, actually read the declaration and you will find striking similarities between the abuses of King George III and the abuses of congress today and the presidents of today. Look at the tax rates and you will see that we're taxed more today than we were under King George III! We still have taxation without representation in many ways, from taxes on minors who have no representation, to the lack of congressional representatives from territories and DC.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788850)

Recent histories of the US have tried very hard to overturn the myth that the American Revolution was about a nation groaning under high taxes and yearning for freedom. As much as "taxation without representation" was a hook they could use to get the plebes on their side (and not all of the took it -- the country was quite divided), the founding fathers were essentially fighting for their own desire for money and power.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788282)

...And we still have the status quo today.

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)


All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Interesting)

am 2k (217885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788472)

All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.

That's because the government structure is very similar. Back then, you had a king appointed by nobody that did whatever he wanted. Nowadays, you have two puppets up for a pseudo-election, while the real legislative power is directed by people most citizens don't even know about (see Bilderberg Group for example). Since they're operating in the dark and are not elected, they also can do whatever they want.

Maybe that sounds a little bit tinfoil-hattish, but that's the most straight-forward way I could think of to explain the US government's behavior in the last decade.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788496)

You don't even need to get sounding that paranoid to see it, one needs only to look at how our federal reserve was founded (yeah, "duck hunting"...) and the large amount of agencies with nearly unlimited powers with appointed positions (FCC, FTA, DEA, DHS, etc.)

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (-1, Offtopic)

Dracos (107777) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788500)

Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

Not to mention that the 16th Amendment's ratification by the States is a fraud [thelawthatneverwas.com] . And no, it has nothing to do with irregularities in Ohio's statehood process.

Of the 36 states required (of 48) to ratify an Amendment in 1913, 11 didn't vote and 33 changed the language. Examples:

  • California's legislature never recorded a vote.
  • The Kentucky House ratified it and sent it to the State Senate, where it was defeated 9-22.
  • The Oklahoma House ratified it, but the State Senate passed a version with an amended, opposite meaning.
  • The Minnesota legislature never sent any documentation of its vote to Washington.

None of these stopped Secretary of State Philander Knox from declaring the Amendment ratified on Febuary 3, 1913.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (3, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788564)

And yet this does nothing to change Article 1, Section 8...

If it wasn't income tax, it'd be something else, because the Constitution proper gives Congress the right to make and collect taxes.

Honestly, it'd be one thing if Art. 1 Sec 8 didn't say anything, but people who keep picking nits about the 16th amendment make it sound like we wouldn't be taxed at all if it wasn't there, which is so off the mark it'd be laughable. Ok, fine, so we outlaw the income tax. Then what? I guess excise taxes and duties will have to go through the roof...they'll get passed on to us, the consumer, and we won't notice a single thing in the end except our paychecks will be larger...but so will our spending.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788600)

One huge difference between the abuses of King George III and President George 43 is the critical matter of representation.
If you don't like current immigration policies, vote accordingly.
Or better yet, run for office.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not guarantee its citizens a perfect government. They worked to guarantee a representative government. Humans aren't perfect, and bureaucracies of humans will always have their shortcomings. But its always better to suffer for your own insufficiencies than to suffer for the whims of others.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788608)

Much of what you said above takes things out of context or makes massive confusions about differences in scale. Let's look at two of them:

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."

And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788660)

You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).

So rather than having to quarter soldiers we instead have to pay expensive monetary fees to support our imperialistic presence in almost every single country. Another main difference is that the soldiers granted by the king not only were supposed to keep the colonists in line but also to protect them against the very real threat of native American attack rather than the very vague "threat" of "terrorism" and "drugs".

So yes, we no longer have to house soldiers in our home, we have to essentially "house" soldiers in our paycheck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of abolishing any defense, but do we really need to waste taxpayer money having a massive army spread out in all corners of the globe when we are really not at war?

But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."

Fair enough of a distinction.

And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

What made you think that the person I voted for made office? Other than local elections, almost none of the people who I voted for actually made it to office. In fact, no one in congress is a member of the Libertarian party which is the party that I choose to vote for. So, no, in fact none of the laws were really made by my consent, just by the majority which I was not a part of.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788702)

That's why it is "government by the PEOPLE" not government by the various individuals. Everyone has their say, and majority rules. The rules were made by consent of ALL the people by virtue of having had an election.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788748)

That is a very dangerous mindset to have and a mindset that the founding fathers avoided like the plague. That is why we have the constitution (which is basically ignored which is why we have a government comparable to King George III which ignored the rights that colonists had as English citizens) to limit the government so it doesn't -matter- who is elected, in short the founding fathers had a version of the Debian Free Software Guidelines called the "tentacles of evil test"

"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms.

Only the founding fathers changed it a bit with limited government with the constitution basically saying:

"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the people have voted in a dictator and, now that he/she is elected, attempts to do the worst to the citizens of the USA: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using their freedoms, to expose them to domestic or foreign harm, to make the citizens non-free, to expose all citizen's secrets, etc. The same can happen to a government bought out by a corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The constitution cannot allow even the government to take away the required freedoms.

If you look at dictators, a -lot- of them were voted in, the constitution is designed to prevent a voted-in dictator from taking freedoms. Our rights are natural rights, they should never be voted away like you are suggesting.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (1)

iceborer (684929) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788716)

Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

I think you have a slight misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is the original text plus all adopted amendments. Our progressive income tax would have been invalid under the Constitution as it existed at its signing, but that's not our Constitution nor has our income tax ever been unconstitutional (i.e. the Constitution allowed it at the time of the tax's inception).

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (0, Offtopic)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788848)

nor has our income tax ever been unconstitutional (i.e. the Constitution allowed it at the time of the tax's inception).

Wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_%26_Trust_Co [wikipedia.org] . where the Supreme Court basically said direct taxes were unconstitutional.

There is even some debate on if the 16th amendment really passed correctly.

While legally it is part of the constitution, it was one of the few additions to the constitution that the Constitution completely opposed. One might make an argument about the 13th amendment, but the constitution never fully supported or rejected slavery, it simply accepted its existence without supporting it.

Re:Considering the mindset of the era (2, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788864)

I'm not going to argue all of the points, either because I do agree with some, I'm simply uninformed, or I am apathetic. That said, I take issue with your characterization of the following ones.

...the Present King of Great-Britain...has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?

Nope. There's a big difference between a foreign power limiting immigration to a region, and the people of that region limiting immigration to it. We enjoy the latter today. I wouldn't say it's anything like the former.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?

When was the last time you had to feed or house a federal agent against your will? For that matter, when was the last time you had one "sent hither" to any place you lived to "harass" you?

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

Again, there's a big difference between a foreign power placing their armies in your region (i.e. an occupation force) and your own armies stationed locally or deployed abroad. It's surprising that this isn't obvious to you.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?

Happened? Yes. Let me ask you though: do you think there were more or less mock trials 100 years ago? 50 years ago? I'd say there's less today, a lot less, especially when you consider the South and just how things went down for a very long time. Sure, we're not perfect, but I'd say we've come a long way, and we're certainly better than we were at the time that document was written.

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-

Cuba is not being blockaded by us, as was the case back then with the colonies, nor are they prevented from trading with plenty of other countries. There's a big difference between cutting off trade with "all Parts of the World" and cutting off trade with those countries that refuse to trade with you.

Very interesting. (3, Insightful)

doomcup (1756450) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788124)

If I recall correctly, they still considered themselves subjects of Britain that were being mistreated, but I can see why Jefferson changed it. It would be admitting that they were seceeding from a legitimate rule despite their grievances. And it's pretty cool how they found this too.

Re:Very interesting. (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788298)

Yeah, in that era "citizen" had strong republican (i.e. anti-monarchist) connotations, which would be made even clearer in the revolution a few years later in France, where "Citizen so-and-so" became the common mode of greeting (to emphasize that all titles were abolished, replaced by a single title, "Citizen", that everyone possessed), and was featured prominently in such texts as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [wikipedia.org] .

I don't believe it had quite as radical a connotation in 1776, but it was still a clear shift from "grievances of subjects who feel their king is unjust" (which was the sentiment of some of the colonists) to a more explicit declaration of anti-monarchism.

A reminder from the founders (2, Insightful)

Will Steinhelm (1822174) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788152)

The editing of the word "subject" emphasizes the founders care to make sure that the US government be of the people, that we should not be subject to any tyranny but rather citizens with representation. Good time of year for the reminder.

Morphing (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788162)

Tthe task was made more difficult by the way Jefferson sought to match the lines and curves of the underlying smudged letters with the new letters he wrote on top of them.

"It's quite amazing how he morphed 'subjects' into 'citizens,' " she said. "We did the reverse morphing back to 'subjects.' "

Figures. The government has been trying to do that for years ...

Re:Morphing (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788344)

And it's working, too !!

What he really should've done (1)

PlasmaEye (1128377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788170)

Oh SH--! CTRL-Z! CTRL-Z!

Well... (4, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788248)

Since the actual ability within the populace to write went missing years ago (image the Constitution as a tweet), and since today's culture may not know this, let me be reiterate that the document was 'drafted', meaning the author wrote and thought at the same time. It used to be a common practice to write a statement, and then to consider it in context with the expectation that changes were likely to occur. This doesn't mean he f'd up or someone was holding a gun to his head forcing him to change his mind.

Thinking about what you write and why and how it should be cached for your audience used to be a worthwhile goal.

Re:Well... (2)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788306)

the constitution tweet would be a shortened url pointing to a pdf of the actual document.

Re:Well... (0, Redundant)

Spykk (823586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788324)

image the Constitution as a tweet

Better yet, imagine the sort of things that you see on twitter in the style of the constitution:

We the people of Kappa Delta Phi, in order to procure more libations, absconded with a vehicle of an officer of justice, and did pilot said vehicle drunkenly into a telephone pole. Bummer.

The Irony is.... (3, Insightful)

Tangential (266113) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788256)

Now we have made the transition from Citizens back to Subjects of our Federal Empire. In many cases we can't even travel within our own state's boundaries without having to present our identification and travel papers to a Federal Officer and get their permission to make the trip. We could probably solve the energy crisis if we could tap into the founding fathers continuous spinning in their graves....

Re:The Irony is.... (5, Insightful)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788392)

LOL, really? When has a "Federal Officer" ever stopped you as you were travelling within the state and asserted his authority to make you turn around and go home?

Re:The Irony is.... (0, Offtopic)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788412)

Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.

Re:The Irony is.... (4, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788528)

What the hell does that have to do with a "Federal empire"? Christ, that's *specifically* a state-level law, enacted by a state, on behalf of the state's people. It's literally the antithesis of federalism (as the term is typically used in the US).

Re:The Irony is.... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788582)

Because if you ask supporters of the Arizona law they specifically point out that it is to get Arizona's laws up to the level of the federal laws. Whether or not you really believe them or not is one story but if you ask the supporters of it, that is what they say.

Re:The Irony is.... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788740)

Because if you ask supporters of the Arizona law they specifically point out that it is to get Arizona's laws up to the level of the federal laws. Whether or not you really believe them or not is one story but if you ask the supporters of it, that is what they say.

Got a link or anything to back that up?

My understanding is that Arizona supports could give a rip about any federal law. They are interested in Arizona law, not federal. And really, why should they be interested in what another state is doing/want to do WRT illegal immigration?

Most likely what you're thinking is the national-level ultra-conservative (US sense) tea party movement, as they're reacting favorably to the new AZ law. The rest of the federal government, from what I've read, aren't really interested in promoting that nationally. They believe, as many other people do, that it should remain a state law.

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I seem to remember some fairly comprehensive coverage in the Washington post back in May, regarding the federal government's thoughts on the matter.

Re:The Irony is.... (4, Informative)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788680)

Look at the US Code, says the same thing (except it's just not enforced.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001304----000-.html [cornell.edu]
  1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

Re:The Irony is.... (2, Insightful)

Tangential (266113) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788688)

They demand my 'papers' any time I arrived at the Atlanta airport to fly to Savannah or anywhere else in Georgia. If I fail to produce ID that satisfies the Federal Official, I don't travel.

Re:The Irony is.... (2, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788398)

The founding fathers (particularly Jefferson) knew that this would happen, from including the second amendment which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force. In fact Jefferson was reported to say that every generation needed its own revolution along with quotes such as

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

and

I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.

The founding fathers knew that this apathy would happen because it did, it was the entire reason why they believed they had to gain independence from Britain.

Re:The Irony is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788426)

Sure you can. Drive.

Re:The Irony is.... (3, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788746)

I really despise this type of hyperbole.

When you compare something like a security checkpoint prior to plane boarding (which is what you're trying to refer to here, I assume?) to something like being a subject of your government, you really dilute the value of making such a comparison in the future.

I shit on Linux users (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788270)

Eat my cock. Fucking homo fags.

Re:I shit on Linux users (2, Funny)

NovaHorizon (1300173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788896)

wow, if you're going to troll in this way you could at least have put this in a thread about linux.

He should have kept the paragraph banning slavery (3, Insightful)

jayveekay (735967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788292)

How would history be different if the paragraph condemning the evil of slavery had been kept in the declaration, instead of being removed?

From Wikipedia: "although Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Britain's role in the slave trade, this was deleted from the final version"

Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788336)

If he kept in the paragraph banning slavery, we probably would have 13 independent countries rather than any sort of union, especially for the southern states which required the extra labor for agriculture. The founding fathers all had to make compromises in order to get the thing passed, otherwise we would still be a confederacy of independent states. (No, I'm not talking about the CSA, I'm talking about having 13 independent nations with a loose affiliation)

Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave (1, Flamebait)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788570)

ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".

Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788618)

Right, because we all know how the north loved their Africans right? Everyone thought that the African race was inferior to the European races whether in the north, south, in Europe, etc. for quite some time.

Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788872)

ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".

The abolition of slavery moved very slowly even in the North.

The percentage of colonists - all races and both sexes - who arrived as slaves, prisoners, or more or less voluntarily indentured servants, was around 1/3.

1777 Vermont Republic (constitution)
1780 Pennsylvania "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" Frees adult children of slaves born after 1780.
1783 Massachusetts (judicial decision - state constitutional law)
1783 -1784 New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island (children of slaves) (statute)
1799 -1804 New York, New Jersey (children of slaves) (statute)
1817 New York - emancipation for all slaves on July 4, 1827
1827 New York Children born of slaves between 1799 and 1827 are indentured until age 25 (females) or age 28 (males)
1847 Slavery ends in Pennsylvania. Those born before 1780 are freed - perhaps 100 surviving.

Abolition of slavery timeline [wikipedia.org]

From the beginning, the plantation South was raising labor-intensive, non-edible, non-perishable, crops for the export trade. It was one of the few sources of hard currency - gold and silver - the colonies possessed. Which matters if you are seriously bent on waging a war against Great Britain.

Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave (3, Informative)

seyyah (986027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788630)

Just this morning I was listening to an interview with a Jefferson historian who explained that Jefferson was unable to find a solution to the slavery issue. He realised that his lack of opposition to slavery would be a negative part of his legacy. For the interested: New Books in History [newbooksinhistory.com] .

Surprising for Jefferson (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788380)

We'd more expect this kind of thing from Adams, Washington, or others on the Federalist side of the first party system.

I like it (1)

alonkori (1834738) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788382)

very cool!

And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer (3, Insightful)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788452)

And in recent times, citizens are referred to as "consumers"; those who don't consume, effectively don't exist.

To digress a bit, but related to this topic, many organizations, instead of saying they offer programs / activities / education, now often just use the word "programming" - seems very Orwellian to me.

Ron

Mountains out of molehills. (2, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788534)

No doubt it was changed because someone pointed out to Jefferson that it was grammatically incorrect. Or rather, simply the incorrect word to use, by definition.

People at the time were used to referring to themselves as "subjects" of the English king. But if you no longer have a king, then you are no longer a subject. There is no need to assume it is any more complicated than that.

Re:Mountains out of molehills. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32788546)

Doggone it, I keep hitting the button too soon. Anyway, it is known that Franklin advised Jefferson on the wording. Likely it was his doing.

Certain the word is "Subjects" or is it... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32788576)

"that rare first draft of the constitution with the word "suckers" in it."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>