I am not confusing anything. I know the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers, etc. All were indeed influenced by John Locke's treatises on government. You failed to get the point point of the message. Surely I can write a definitive history and analysis, and I have taught constitutional history. But it was not my intention to give a history lesson. Only to make a subtle point; the foundations of American political philosophy were favorable to leveling the so-called playing field. However, you are correct that most Americans really know little about their government unless they have completed some education beyond secondary education. But you are caught up in a chronology which makes no sense since I did not preface any chronology but referred to a general philosophical concept. I certainly would not delineate from the Roman Republic or even from 1632. Concepts and chronologies are not necessarily correlated. I think we can all agree, if we are educated to the fact, that your reference to equal protection is indeed an essential ingredient to "leveling the playing field." My point also. Furthermore, due process, equal protection and presumption of innocence are three interrelated foundational principles of American jurisprudence, and the legal edifice of only a small number of nations in the world are predicated on those three principles. They are also elements that favor the "equal field" concept. The Declaration of Independence is as much a part of the political philosophical construct of American government as the Constitution. To consider it alien is a gross error in analysis. Everyone who has attended the American public school system (and even private schools) knows something about slavery and Jim Crowism, the Civil War, etc. Is it realistic to think that I would the suggest that the "magic dust" of the American Constitution would cancel out social Darwinism and prejudice? I would not be so foolish. Are the things of prejudice and corruption antithetical to a favorable playing field? You bet they are. Sometimes when an American has positive things to say about the American form of government a reaction results to counter the positive. I am inclined to believe that you are well educated. I welcome the colloquy. Such is the nourishment for the mind. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Hutchinson" To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: RE: [OT] Education reform: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu On Behalf Of Rich >> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:37 AM >> >> The purpose of government depends on the political philosophy of that > >> >> The political philosophy upon which most Western nations rest is >> in John Locke's (1632-1704) treatises on government. The U.S. >> Constitution, for example, rests largely on the works of Locke >> which the Founding Fathers interpreted for America such that the >> Constitution was finally accepted. John Locke was adamant about >> the sanctity of private property and so it is written into the >> constitution. However it was deleted from the section that >> states "...life, liberty and property..." and changed to read >> "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." because > > You are confusing the U.S. Constitution with the Declaration of > Independence > which sadly seems to be a common mistake among US citizens. The > Declaration > is not a document containing U.S. law rather it is a document by British > subjects declaring their intention to break away from Great Britain. > >> slaves were considered property and the framers did not want a >> constitution that would sanction slavery or elevate one man >> above another. >> >> The level playing field here is in this part of the constitution >> which makes everyone equal in the eyes of the law (an idea from >> the Roman Republic). Everyone could own property and everyone on >> merit could achieve their best. The legal impediments to >> achievement were not established in law but the opposite was. It >> is sometimes referred to as "The American Dream," rags to >> riches. > > It was not until nearly 100 years later (1868) that the Constitution was > amended to include equal protection: > > Amendment 14, 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." > > However, even with this and the 15th amendment (voting rights) there were > still no Constitutional rights guaranteed to women. In 1920 the 19th > amendment granted U.S. women the right to vote but even to this day there > is > no constitutional guarantee of other rights to women. There are laws > granting property and other rights to women but the Constitution does not > provide the rights. Many people interpret the 14th and 15th amendments as > applying to women however the fact that they did not receive the right to > vote from the 15th clearly shows that interpretation to be unenforceable. > Some states denied woman full property rights as late as the 1970's. This > is > why we tried to clarify the situation with a simple three sentence > Constitutional amendment: > > "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or > abridged > by the United States or by any State on account of sex. > > Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate > legislation, the provisions of this article. > > Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of > ratification." > > Which sadly was never ratified leaving the door open for more easily > repealing previously legislated rights to women in the future. > > Paul Hutch > >> But no legal system can level the proverbial playing field simply by > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist