It is not well known that African Americans had more rights at the founding of our country than they did <em>after</em> the Civil War, including the right to vote in 10 of 13 States. I would strongly suggest that you read the U.S. Supreme Court decision "Dred Scott v. Sandford" of 1857. The court ruled against Dred Scott, sparking sentiments that resulted in the Civil War. The dissenting opinion issued from the court is clear:
"<em>Nor, these justices argued, was there any Constitutional basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in ten of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States. (By the time of the Dred Scott ruling, however, five of the ten states that allowed black men to vote had either restricted this right in some way or completely withheld it.) Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that the argument that Scott was not a citizen was 'more a matter of taste than of law.'</em>"
I think you would find it interesting to read the Declaration of Independence, specifically the second sentence of the second section:
"<em>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.</em>"
To me, that statement demonstrates most effectively the parallel between open-source and open-government. The truth is, we are all invited to the table, however, few make it to the door. Just like open-source projects, many complain, but few commit to the work necessary for success. Tyranny also exists in open-source and when a "dictator" becomes to much to bear, a project can be forked, and new leaders established.
The invitation to govern is to <strong>all</strong>. The question is: "Who is willing to step up to the table and make a difference, and who just wants someone else to take care of it for them?"
Authored Comments
Melanie,
It is not well known that African Americans had more rights at the founding of our country than they did <em>after</em> the Civil War, including the right to vote in 10 of 13 States. I would strongly suggest that you read the U.S. Supreme Court decision "Dred Scott v. Sandford" of 1857. The court ruled against Dred Scott, sparking sentiments that resulted in the Civil War. The dissenting opinion issued from the court is clear:
"<em>Nor, these justices argued, was there any Constitutional basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in ten of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States. (By the time of the Dred Scott ruling, however, five of the ten states that allowed black men to vote had either restricted this right in some way or completely withheld it.) Therefore, Justice McLean concluded that the argument that Scott was not a citizen was 'more a matter of taste than of law.'</em>"
Cheers,
Jim
I think you would find it interesting to read the Declaration of Independence, specifically the second sentence of the second section:
"<em>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.</em>"
To me, that statement demonstrates most effectively the parallel between open-source and open-government. The truth is, we are all invited to the table, however, few make it to the door. Just like open-source projects, many complain, but few commit to the work necessary for success. Tyranny also exists in open-source and when a "dictator" becomes to much to bear, a project can be forked, and new leaders established.
The invitation to govern is to <strong>all</strong>. The question is: "Who is willing to step up to the table and make a difference, and who just wants someone else to take care of it for them?"