And any woman could post the same message.

[kpete]

[electric_blue68]

1. That's right. 😤

[niyad]

2. Really, loychik? When was the last time you spoke with the founders? They did not

envision the lower 48, or Alaska and Hawaii, either, but here we are. That is why they inckuded protocols for a/mending the Constitution (really, it is in there. Go have someone read it to you.)

[sarge43]

24. They never intended for Native Americans to be US citizens, let alone vote.

Native Citizenship Act 1924.

[Beartracks]

29. It's like they can't glom onto the fact that the 2nd Amendment... is an AMENDMENT.

============

[anciano]

3. Spot on!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

4. Touche'

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

7. We need something different on this message

though I completely agree on the face, but there are a great majority of men who have women in their lives that really do absolutely have an opinion, and are really offended with the idea some religious politician nut wants to - by the force of law and threats - walk into their doctor's office and tell them what to do. We need to get them engaged too. The hearings about the impact of these abortion bans on pregnancy complications are horrific! I'd also say (thank that higher deity) I moved from Ohio, and over there, there were PLENTY of religious people with a uterus saying things I wish they would just STFU!

Apologies for the rant, and I really appreciate all you do. You've got to be the most looked for poster for your insights I've read over the past 5 years

[niyad]

25. Welcome to our DU family.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

35. Thank you!

Been here for a long time, but thought to join especially with this next election.

[FailureToCommunicate]

5. Admit it Loychik, if DC were majority R's you'd

be shouting from the floor of the House for statehood.

Loser.

[geardaddy]

30. Bingo! n/t

[niyad]

33. Exactly.

[Hortensis]

6. Not at all sure they "never intended" for women and nonwhites to vote.

Pull up a copy of the Constitution and do searches for "man," "woman," "male," "female," "she." You won't find them.

The term applied to all people is "person." In all contexts, example below.

Enslaved individuals also are "persons" and "other persons" as below -- differentiated from "free persons." You'll notice the term "Indian" is used, because Indian nations already had sovereign legal status.

There are no references to or exclusions based on gender or sexual differences or acts.

Preexisting colonial/state societies and their constitutions and laws had established the roles and inequalities of much older, traditional western cultures, and those were continued -- but not because of federal constitutional requirements.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Those who wrote our constitution were before their time, but looking to the future.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

8. Absolutely agree

They wrote it hoping for a future that would never happen in their lifetimes.

For crying out loud, what if Ben Franklin, a founding father, would come up on the presidential race today?
He re-wrote his own version of the bible
He was pro-abortion
He was open to all kinds of lifestyles
He was open to all genders

I mean, this founding father that is so exulted with the right would be a proud progressive today - and he wasn't alone.

[Hortensis]

11. :) As you say. Progressive and liberal then,

very sensible and no extremist.

It might be unkind to wish he were here so he could discuss originalism with the far-right scoundrels on SCOTUS and democracy with everyone else, but he'd probably be thrilled to find we'd survived and done so well so long. And what a thrill for us.

He wouldn't be surprised at today's tumult of wannabe demagogues, reactionaries, authoritarians, and radicals and extremists of all flavors. He and other leaders attracted plenty who, when they became aware that a revolution was underway, were sure their wisdom was desperately needed to guide it.

[Marcuse]

17. Today's GOP would publish Ben's hard drive. Especially the Paris videos.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

21. LOL

[Stuart G]

26. Of course Ben Franklyn would be on the ........"HARD DRIVE." iF BEN were alive today..

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

32. Franklin didn't rewrite his own version of the big book of bad ideas

He proposed a more modern translation, I think in 1782. A new translation is not rewriting the book, merely offering the same text in newer clothes.

You may be confusing him with Thomas Jefferson, who didn't do a rewrite, either. Instead, he performed an abridgement that removed all of the tedious, repetitious and downright horrifying parts of the book. Which turns out to be nearly all of it.

You can obtain a copy of the abridgement here, to see just how ruthlessly he pared down the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/dp/1503032051

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

36. I stand corrected, thank you!

As you say, it was Jefferson who cut out sections and kind of created a new, revised New Testament. I also remember there was supposedly a version of Genesis rewritten by Franklin I don't think was verified, and in some of his debauchery, offered, let's say, creative expression when he read the bible to the audiences or in debate

Thank you for the link!

[BlackSkimmer]

23. Good post.

[bronxiteforever]

9. Kick and recommend.

[Ray Bruns]

10. I'm getting a little tired of hearing about what the founders inteneded.

They also intended that people be armed for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia.

[Upthevibe]

12. Kick. N/T

[aggiesal]

13. I don't believe D.C. should be a state ...

Keep it Federal property but give them Congressional representation in both the House & Senate, give them electoral college representation and vote for President.

The reason it was set up as Federal land was that back in 1775, the citizens of Philadelphia were getting upset that the Continental Congress had not declared independence, that they almost started a riot. The Philadelphia police department agreed with the citizens so they did nothing to stop it.

Making D.C. Federal property gave Congress the ability to control their own police department and avoid what almost happen in Philadelphia.
Not that it helped on Jan. 6th, but the founding fathers never figured on a pResldent to send a insurrectionist mob to the Capitol.

[Bear Creek]

16. New Capital

May be time for the capital to be moved to the middle of the country so there is more access. And have it as the founders wanted. An area with the offices but no residential area. Residential area nearby but not part of the capital.

[aggiesal]

18. When I was I think 3rd grade back around 1970 ...

we discussed if our nations capital should be moved to the center of the country.
Somewhere in the Kansas City, Kansas area.

I believe it should remain in DC.
The emergency bunkers are located I think somewhere in Nebraska.

[SouthernLiberal]

27. My late husband used to say

That Congress should be moved to the south west desert every October, into a building with no heating or air conditioner. They would not be allowed to leave until the budget legislation had been passed and signed. No continuing resolutions allowed.

Yeah, totally silly, but I think that he was right in one thing - right now, there is no reason for congress to actually get a budget passed. They can wait and wait and with continuing resolutions manage to get the government without actually even addressing the idea of a budget.

Even the big bills. Like the military spending bill. No one is concerned about funding the military. For most of my life, the point of this bill was getting as much federal spending into each state and district as possible. Now, of course, it's about making sure that female members of the military are not allowed to have abortions.

No one, even Congress, even the military, really knows what is in the bill, except for the part that makes sure that there are no abortions in the military.

If they actually cared about the military, that one Senator would not be allowed to block the promotions.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

34. I like that idea

I also think that the salaries and benefits should be needs-based, with only variations based on COLA for their home states. So a CA Senator would qualify for full salary and benefits only if they had assets totaling under $2 million. Meanwhile, someone from podunkistan would qualify only if their assets were no more than 500,000. If you're worth more than $5 million in CA or 1.25 million in podunkistan, you have to work for minimum wage, no benefits.

It's not like the multi-millionaires need a paycheck or government-provided healthcare to be in office.

[LymphocyteLover]

14. Harriot is always awesome

[HardPort]

15. Didn't the founders love to rail about No Taxation Without Representation though?? hmmmm

[calimary]

19. Yep. Exactly.

If they really want to go back to the way our Founders ran things, then seems to me they should trade in their cars for horses, fire up their oil lamps in cold weather, and forget all the shopping malls and supermarkets and credit cards and ballpoint pens and garbage disposals and flush-toilets and other modern conveniences.

Yeah, maybe the woman of the house couldn’t vote, but she could take off in the horse ‘n’ buggy before the man could button up his pants.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

20. kick

[yardwork]

22. They never intended for people to campaign on Twitter, either.

[Pluvious]

28. Original link

Link to tweet

[Blue Owl]

31. K&R

[Bluethroughu]

37. Boom!

[erpowers]

38. Please Provide the Quote

This representative should provide the quote of the founding fathers stating they did not want Washington, D.C. to become a state. If they did not want Washington, D.C. to become a state they should have put that in the U.S. Constitution and left out the amendment process. I believe the founding fathers were not concerned whether or not at some point Washington, D.C. became a state. I think the founding fathers wanted to leave that decision up to future generations. I think that is why they put an amendment process in the Constitution. They knew things would need to change and that things were going to change.