|
|
| Author |
Message |
Renork
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 6282
|
 Posted: 09/10/03 - 01:34 Post subject: Is Manifest Destiny / Imperialism Constitutional??
|
|
|
question was asked by me hist teacher today and i couldnt find anything when i looked around, maybe im just looking in the wrong places? whats your views and or proof?
edit: was told that it is not in the constitution and has not been rules on by and scj so it technicly is constitutional.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 06:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Manifest Destiny isn't so much constitutional, as it is a universal human principle. The Germans called it Lebensraum.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
principessa
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3149
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Shanda
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 181
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 09:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
Manifest Destiny is what American settlers used as justification for pushing the Indians off their land during the settling of the west. It was a term coined by John O'Sullivan in 1845. It was, he claimed in the article, "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." This concept was embraced by those that wanted territory our government had given in contract to the Indians. Over time, it became a quasi-Darwanist reasoning to argue that Anglo-Saxon heritage made America supremely fit and that is was our nation's manifest destiny to extend our influence beyond our boundries. This was the justification for our occupation of the South Pacific.
Manifest Destiny would not be constitutional, if our constitution was applied equally to all peoples. Our constitution gives each individual the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It also protects freedom of trade and restricts the governments abilities to take away a person's fundamental freedoms. Therefore, we could not, as individuals or as a government, constitutionally take away land and livelihood of others. However, in the past, we did not apply our constitution to anyone other than white, land-owning men. Women, children, people of any color, and most especially Indians, were not granted equal protection or rights. That made manifest destiny possible then - it is debatable whether it would be constitutionally possible today.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Occulis
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 13293
Location: Moral Relativity Central
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 09:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
This is like asking "can submarines swim?"
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 10:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
constitutional yes, moral no
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 12:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
[quote="Shanda"]Manifest Destiny is what American settlers used as justification for pushing the Indians off their land during the settling of the west. It was a term coined by John O'Sullivan in 1845. It was, he claimed in the article, "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." This concept was embraced by those that wanted territory our government had given in contract to the Indians. Over time, it became a quasi-Darwanist reasoning to argue that Anglo-Saxon heritage made America supremely fit and that is was our nation's manifest destiny to extend our influence beyond our boundries. This was the justification for our occupation of the South Pacific.
Manifest Destiny would not be constitutional, if our constitution was applied equally to all peoples. Our constitution gives each individual the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It also protects freedom of trade and restricts the governments abilities to take away a person's fundamental freedoms. Therefore, we could not, as individuals or as a government, constitutionally take away land and livelihood of others. However, in the past, we did not apply our constitution to anyone other than white, land-owning men. Women, children, people of any color, and most especially Indians, were not granted equal protection or rights. That made manifest destiny possible then - it is debatable whether it would be constitutionally possible today.[/quote]
Our constitution only applies to Americans. It is a national, not international, document.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 12:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
As a couple others have already said, this question does not make a whole lot of sense. The Constitution did not extend U.S. citizens' rights to anyone that happened to be sharing the continent with us.
Though it was a bit before the term Manifest Destiny, asking whether Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was Constitutional is a much better question. Jefferson was a strict anti-federalist and believed any powers not expressly granted to the fed government in the Constitution were reserved for the states. There is no clause specifically granting the pres. powers to purchase land, so he had to go slightly against his own beliefs to justify the Purchase with the president's power to make treaties.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Renork
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 6282
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 14:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
was just asking because my teacher asked it in class the other day figured it would be a good topic for the boards :-p
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Banzai
Guest
|
|
Posted: 09/10/03 - 14:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
The constitution doesn't apply to countries that are not annexed by the united states under its manifest destiny.
It’s like saying “dose my phone bill cover postage?”.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
