EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT: NOT JUST FOR CONSERVATIVES

[EWACampaign]

ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL WORTHS/VALUES IN THEMSELVES, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF BEING MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Wouldn't you consider this to be a rather CONSERVATIVE viewpoint?

Everyone in this American nation of "We the People" is invited to participate actively in reaching the goal of including the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA)in our Constitition of the United States of America! Please go to www.equalworthamendment.org for more information.

------------

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA)

All persons are fundamentally equal worths in themselves with none superior and none inferior unconditionally and unexceptionally, regardless of age, race, gender, ethnic heritage, formal education, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, religion, profession, or any other title, status, or situation. As such, all persons have the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to respectfully as worths in themselves by all other persons. Correspondingly, all persons have the inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate respectfully to all other persons as worths in themselves. It is upon this foundation of the individual dignity in self of all persons that all other human rights and responsibilities are based and from which they are derived.

------------

The Equal Worth Amendment addresses the following Civil and Human Rights/Responsibilities:

Section 1: The Basic Statement that all persons are basically equal worths in themselves unconditionally and unexceptionally, simply as persons and members of the human race.

Section 2: The Bill of Basic Civil and Human Rights about each person having the basic right to be related to maturely and justly as a worth in self by other persons along with the manifestation of this in external peaceful behavior.

Section 3: The Bill of Basic Civil and Human Responsibilities about each person having the basic responsibility to relate to other persons maturely and justly as worths in themselves and to manifest this in external peaceful behavior.

Thereby, our Constitution would be supporting our mature and just as well as unifying and peaceful relating to one another along with its consequences of constituting us as a mature and just society of united persons in peaceful external behavior.

Please go to www.equalworthamendment.org

Thank you for your replies/suggestions!

EWACampaign

[Patriot]

EWA:


Halt where you are.

Ordinarily I'd give the thumbs up on this proposal. But it's not as simple as you make it out to be, and I therefore caution anyone who would arbitrarily jump on your liberal bandwagon.

The crux of difficulty ensues when repercussions are taken into account. Bills like this lay the framework for enhanced versions of affirmative action, thereby displacing those who by virtue of merit and capitolism have climbed the echelons of the American dream.

It's already a given that "all men are created equal", that is stated directly in the Declaration of Independence. There's no further need for an amendment to reinforce the writ of Jefferson. What we are unwilling to do, however, is allow illegal drifters to cross our borders and be entitled to the same rights enjoyed by American citizenry, which is exactly what will happen should this amendment be passed.

In fact, a bill like this doesn't even require citizenship to take effect, and should therefore be outside the parameters of any sound American legislature.

[EWACampaign]

Patriot:

"all men are created equal" is ambivalent at best. And, as you know, when it was written, "all men are created equal" applied to white male land-owners. I think we're a bit past that now, but the Constitution of the United States of America does not reflect it.

Liberal?

You believe it's liberal for the Constitution to state that all persons are equal worths in themselves, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race?

You believe it's liberal to have a Basic Bill of Civil/Human Right indicating that all persons have the right to be related to by other persons with respect/dignity, solely on the basis of being members of the human race?

You believe it's liberal to have a Basic Bill of Civil/Human Responsibiliy indicating that all persons are responsible for relating to other persons with respect/dignity, solely on the basis of being members of the human race?

C'mon, surely you jest! If the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT is liberal, than what is conservative?

EWACampaign
Please go to www.equalworthamendment.org

[Patriot]

EWA,

I prefer to be politically direct, instead of politically correct. You wrote:


^{You believe it's liberal to have a Basic Bill of Civil/Human Right indicating that all persons have the right to be related to by other persons with respect/dignity, solely on the basis of being members of the human race?}


Insofar as the bill dodges the primal antecedent for constituational amendments, namely, that it be passed within the framework of American citizenship. The US Constitution is just that-- the US Constitution. Bills such as the one you are attempting to introduce, are open-ended, transcending the limits of citizenship. On that basis they are global, not national. They allow for any and all illegals to enter without visa and be immediately entitled to all the rights enjoyed by US citizens. I can tell you on that very basis alone, your proposal will fail in the House of Representatives.


Case in point, the bill states:


^{All persons are fundamentally equal worths in themselves with none superior and none inferior unconditionally and unexceptionally, regardless of age, race, gender, ethnic heritage, formal education, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, religion, profession, or any other title, status, or situation. As such, all persons have the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to respectfully as worths in themselves by all other persons. Correspondingly, all persons have the inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate respectfully to all other persons as worths in themselves. It is upon this foundation of the individual dignity in self of all persons that all other human rights and responsibilities are based and from which they are derived.}


If the bill were amended to read "all American citizens" in place of "all persons", it might stand a shot of passing. As it is, however, the bill will be rejected.

Furthermore, on a philosophical level, the bill isn't even accurate. It is rife with political correctness, but nothing else of solid value. It would theoretically serve as the basis for further enhancements of affirmative action, as I stated previously. Under the conditions of this bill, a University could be sued for picking a more qualified white applicant whose SAT scores peaked those of a Latino student from Santa Cruz. What would become of Georgetown? Of West Point? We rely on institutions like this to mold the best and brightest. While it's nice to pretend that everyone is equally smart and talented, the bottom line is, they're not. In an era which demands the cream of the crop to ensure a rise in economic trends, the last thing we need is Carlos Charlie skating into Harvard with a 905 SAT score.

Thanks, EWA. Now, get off our turf.

[TNRighty]

EWA,

This may sound harsh, but neither you nor I have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. We don't have the right to be related to maturely and justly by others. If you act like an immature idiot people will treat you like an immature idiot regardless of what your little Equal Worth law says.

We have the right to use our own judgment and therefore choose not to associate with people we feel don't deserve our respect and dignity. Being a member of the Human race does not in itself grant you the right to be treated with respect by other people, even if you are a respectful dignified person. You will be treated equally by and under the law, but no law can guarantee you the respect of others.

To go even further, we have no God-given right not to be murdered, raped, or robbed. What we do have is the right to defend ourselves, our property, and our loved ones.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in America the law will respect you and will serve you unconditionally, but you can't force other people to.

The paradigm through which you view "rights" is very distorted.

[TNRighty]

I'll expand on my previous post.

Not even the President of the United States can demand by the threat of law to be treated with respect and dignity. If such were the case, Michael Moore would be in jail, along with Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Al Gore, and many others.

As much as I disagree with the aforementioned scum of this country, you cannot by law force them to treat with dignity someone with whom they fundamentally disagree.

[Patriot]

Thanks, TNRighty, for the backup. The best post I've ever seen on this site actually came from you. It was in the "What Would the Ideal America Look Like?" thread.

You had written in that thread:


^{The smallest minority in the world is the individual. The ideal America is one that is ruled by the spirit of the individual and protects the rights of the individual. The second you sacrifice your individuality for the good of the "group" (be that group defined by race, religion, sex, etc.), you give up your own identity. America is a place where you alone are responsible for what you make of yourself. That reliance on self is the greatest, yet riskiest responsibility in the world. If you can look yourself in the mirror and say with conviction, "I alone am responsible for myself", then you are an American and you are capable of living the American dream. If you view the American Dream with cynicsm, then you'll probably never live it, and you'll relegate yourself to a life of envy towards those who do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that those people who spend their lives crying about how unfair America is should take a look at themselves. If you can't succeed in this country with all the opportunity it provides, the problem is you. If you think America is holding you back, go live in Ukraine for a year or two. Maybe you'll gain a new perspective.}


To that I had replied, "Bravo TN, excellent clarity!" For some reason, that concise post is the only one that really remains in my memory.

[TNRighty]

Thanks Patriot!!!

I'm glad you respect my opinions. I think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.

[Ian]

Bravo Righty! That was one of the few posts of yours I must have overlooked, thanks to Patriot for bringing it to its rightful place in the limelight...and in such a fitting circumstance.

This topic is as good as locked.

[EWACampaign]

From EWACampaign:

Thank you for your input/replies/insight. They have been thought provoking. There is no question but that it's time to consult a Constitutional Scholar. The Equal Worth Amendment does need to be written as an Amendment and not a statement. There will be many revisions before it is done, and your input/replies/insight are much appreciated. The Amendment is not intended to be "feel good" gobbledygook. It is, one could say, "Idealism." It is yet to be seen whether it is "Realistic Idealism" or "Idealistic Realism". A Google Search on "Equal Worth Amendment" is all that is necessary to see the overwhelming opposition to the idea that all persons be recognized, Constitutionally, as being of equal worth/value, solely on the basis of being members of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally. If passed as an Amendment, I believe it could result in more just and mature relating between people, perhaps leading to the current controversy. I do not see the Equal Worth Amendment being, as some have characterized it on other Message Boards, Communism. Relating to others with dignity and respect, solely on the basis of being members of the human race (with all persons being of equal worth/value in self) seems rather civil to me rather than communist.

The following information, from the Equal Worth Amendment website, provides more background re: the rationale for the Equal Worth Amendment:

In his yet to be published manuscript—The Maturing of America (1995)—James P. Fitzgerald has initiated the dialogue that will ultimately result in “You and I along with our fellow citizens” answering questions re: the purpose/intent/outcome of the Equal Worth Amendment. The following is part of the “OVERVIEW” from The Maturing of America (Fitzgerald, 1995, pp. 2-5):

OVERVIEW

Many Americas are aware of and disturbed about social divisiveness. According to Rev. Richard Neuhaus, our nation is a “deeply confused and divided and conflicted community.” In the words of Charles Reich, “America is one vast, terrifying anti-community.” Some Americans are hostile mini-monarchs warring on the same battlefield rather than one people and a real community of persons living on the same homeland.

Many Americans are angry and are also fearful concerning the criminal and the non-criminal violence in our nation. They are saddened and confused about the lack of standards or principles. “Everything is relative.” It’s all about “freedom from” and “I can say and do anything I want” in accord with “me and my rights.” There is a crisis in views and valuing....

Many Americans feel negative, pessimistic, and even hopeless. They are looking for something positive—an optimistic vision with a plan. They want a challenge. They’re willing to contribute and play their role.

Who are these Americans? And what is America? And what are the future prospects of these Americans and of this America? And who or what is in control?

...persons can relate to other persons in either one of two radically different kinds of fundamental relating with radically different consequences:

1. They can relate maturely and justly to other persons as persons and worths in themselves or ends, which they are. This kind of relating is unifying and peaceful relating with the inevitable consequences of constituting the persons themselves as a mature and just society of united persons in peaceful external behavior.

2. They can relate immaturely and unjustly to other persons as if things and mere worth to me or means, which they are not, and not as persons and worths in themselves or ends, which they are. This kind of relating is divisive and hostile relating with the inevitable consequences of constituting the persons themselves as an immature and unjust society of divided persons with hostile external behavior.

In a nation, the problems of social divisiveness and hostile behavior are secondary and symptomatic problems as consequences and evidence of the primary and underlying problem of immature and unjust relating....

A change in the consequences necessarily means and demands a change in the fundamental relating. The consequences of social divisiveness and hostile criminal and non-criminal external behavior can be replaced with social unity and peaceful external behavior only by replacing immature and unjust fundamental relating with mature and just fundamental relating. Not by social engineering as if persons were things or by a continuing multiplication of penal laws or in any other way.

If we, as a national society of persons, want to replace social divisiveness and hostile behavior with social unity and peaceful behavior, then we must make mature and just relating our national goal. We would then need a fundamental law that is the legal means of reaching this national goal.

As a society of law, a nation can have a fundamental law or constitution that supports the mature and just relating of persons along with its inevitable mature and just consequences or else one that supports the immature and unjust relating of persons along with its inevitable immature and unjust consequences.

Thus, a nation can have a mature and just constitution that contains a contract and covenant of the people concerning themselves and their mature and just relating to one another. Contrariwise, by commission or by omission a nation can have an immature and unjust constitution that does not have such a contract and covenant of the people.

Our current Constitution is unfinished. By omission it is an incomplete as well as immature and unjust Constitution that lacks a contract and covenant of the people concerning themselves and their mature and just relating to one another. Thence, by omission it supports immature and unjust relating along with its consequences of constituting persons as an immature and unjust society of divided persons with hostile external behavior.

Unfortunately, our current Constitution fails to state that you and I along with our fellow citizens are worths in ourselves, that you and I along with our fellow citizens have the basic right to be related to as worths in self along with the manifestation of this in external behavior, and that you and I along with our fellow citizens have the basic responsibility to relate to other persons as worths in themselves and to manifest this in external behavior. Thus, it fails to support our mature and just relating to one another along with its consequences of constituting us as a mature and just society of united persons in peaceful external behavior.

Yet, we the people are the government, the government of the people by the people for the people. You and I along with our fellow citizens. The Constitution is our Constitution. Yours and mine along with our fellow citizens’.

You and I along with our fellow citizens are responsible for who we are and for what kind of a fundamental law we have. We are in control, not the elected representative “government” and for many years not the inherited monarchical “government.” We can change our Constitution into a fundamental law that is a law of the people by the people for the people concerning themselves and their mature and just relating to one another.

If we really want to replace social divisiveness and hostile behavior with social unity and peaceful behavior, then we must make mature and just relating our national goal. If we really want to reach this goal along with its inevitable consequences of social unity and peaceful behavior, then we must make our Constitution a mature and just Constitution that is the legal means of reaching this existential goal. This would be the maturing of America --- the maturing of America legislatively and thence the maturing of America existentially.

We are in control. We are responsible. You and I along with our fellow citizens who are the government of this nation. We can choose this goal along with its consequences and we can choose to have the legal means of reaching this goal and thence its consequences. The choice is ours. Not only yours or only mine or only that of one or the other of our fellow citizens but yours and mine and also our fellow citizens’ individually and together....

Your choice can be a choice for this goal of mature and just relating along with social unity and peaceful behavior or a choice against this and for immature relating along with social divisiveness and hostile behavior.

Your choice can be a choice for this goal along with its consequences and for the legal means of reaching this goal along with its consequences. Or your choice can be a choice against this goal along with its consequences and against the legal means of reaching this goal along with its consequences.

Your choice can be a choice for the maturing of America or a choice against this and for the non-maturing of America….

So, who are these Americans? What kind of a nation is this America --- legislatively and existentially? And who will answer? We will. You and I along with our fellow citizens. We are the government, the government of the people by the people for the people. And the law and the “government?” They are our law and our “government.”<br>
--------
Thank you for your continued replies/input/insight!

EWACampaign

[Patriot]

EWA:

I'm not going to take the time to parse your loquacious drivel. Your type are what have contributed to a softening of America. And with softness comes deterioration.


You wrote,

^{There is no question but that it's time to consult a Constitutional Scholar.}


That's called an Appeal to Authority and it's a logical fallacy: a means to wriggle your way out of a point. Truth be told, the Constitution wasn't written by scholars. It was written by delegates. Farmers, businessmen, rich folks perhaps, but not entirely. The Constitution rings clear verbatim; it doesn't require a liberal Jew like yourself to re-interpret the Founders' intent.


You wrote,

^{If we, as a national society of persons, want to replace social divisiveness and hostile behavior with social unity and peaceful behavior, then we must make mature and just relating our national goal.}


We as a "national society" want no such thing. This country rests on the pillars of conflict and capitolism. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with bloodshed; it is the natural manure of democracy". That's what democracy is-- freedom to engage in self-advancement, unhindered by the trappings socialism, communism, fascism, etc. Your amendment would have us move toward the socialist left and that will not be occuring under my watch. If you and your liberal cronies want to take me on personally, say so. We'll set up a little meeting in Philadelphia Alley of Charleston, South Carolina. Ever hear of Philadelphia Alley? Probably not. It's the last place in the United States where the practice of Dueling has not been outlawed. I'll be on the next flight to tear your goddamned head off.

So the choice is simple. Step up, or shut up.

[midcan5]

This was an interesting thread. Legislating common sense and maturity may not be possible but they are at least worthy goals. Many conservatives live in myth-ville, they believe in the Robinson Crusoe Marboro man image. John Wayne goes deep in our cultural sensibilities. I often wonder how these Lone rangers got into this world or even learned about it but that is another debate. EWA post your ideas on politics.com, there is a more eclectic group there for debate. Personally not sure what I make of this? It would be nice if people believed it or lived it rather, but then good parents instill respect for others and life's experience teach the rest. hmmm...

[Ian]

midcan5 said:

This was an interesting thread. Legislating common sense and maturity may not be possible but they are at least worthy goals. Many conservatives live in myth-ville

If anything, conservatives on this issue are being absolute realists.

they believe in the Robinson Crusoe Marboro man image.

I hardly think of the Brooklyn theater's mascot as masculine. Or were you talking about the Marlboro Man?

EWA post your ideas on politics.com, there is a more eclectic group there for debate.

It's not a matter of how diverse the audience is, this is an intellectually dishonest, backdoor socialist idea. Any fair-minded, democracy-loving individual would admonish its goal on its face.

[midcan5]

Ian,

That is funny on a number of levels. The theater where we watched cowboys and Indians, and war movies and John Wayne, the place where all those core American values were reinforced and made real on the screen. I was actually referring more to the sword fighter above, that post is too funny.

[Patriot]

Midcan,

If by "sword fighter" you were referring to me, you're misinformed. I was referring to fists, bricks, or pistols.

John Wayne wasn't the inspiration behind core Americana. Rather he represented core Americana, which existed long before he was even born.

Sensitive, "down to earth" liberals like you wouldn't stand a chance if left to your own devices in a catastrophe. America is a pure example of evolution, namely, only the strong survive. You laugh at strength because you have none. Where would you be without your social programs, public healthcare, or therapy sessions? In the grave, that's where. You demand help because you need help. You're kept alive by staying on the easy road. Words like honor are truly beyond your understanding.

But then, I wouldn't have assumed you attended The Citadel so perhaps I shouldn't lose my temper with those who are unintentionally the byproducts of a weakened era.