Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense. It was created by a large number of armed citizens who decided among themselves (peacefully you might have noticed) through a process of debate and discussion that it was time sever their ties with the mother country. When they were done deciding that, they created an instrument of coercive force to enforce that decision in the form of the Continental Army. They created a government, even if provisional at the outset, and they granted that government the power to use violence to enforce their will.
One musket was about as useful to the Founders as one musk ox or one millstone.
So, it was the Continental Army that stood up to the British military marching to seize citizen's ball & powder (i.e. confiscation of arms) at Lexington Concord?
I know, what nonsense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
We don't wear jackboots anymore.
Oh, right...you and your ilk switched over to wearing tactical hiking boots now...
The only reason we have invented things like "morals" or "laws" is to hopefully prevent or at least reduce the necessity of taking up arms. But in full understanding of the darker angels of our nature, we have given our governments among their other coercive powers that of deadly force to protect what we have agreed upon is the system we choose. The percieved right of any group to take up arms is countered by the right of the rest of us to defend ourselves as well.
And we will defend ourselves.
What about the right of another to defend their property?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Absolutely. This is why I actually am sympathetic to those Framers and Founders who argued that a "Bill of Rights" was a bad idea, as it implied that the only rights that existed were those explicitly enumerated.
But none of that detracts from the mechanisms they gave us to arbitrate the conflicts of rights that are inherent in the very concept of them. And these mechanisms are messy, and imperfect, and unsatisfying and ultimately among the greatest achievements of the human mind.
Okay, I guess I misconstrued what you stated. It seemed like you were saying that our rights come from the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
There are no such things as "god given rights." To the extent that anyone or any group has rights, they were taken, not given. We chose as a nation to take our rights and secure them under the authority of a Constitution. That Constitution created a government tasked to secure and protect those rights and most importantly to manage their conflict. This was done under the certainly correct understanding that without the coercive power of a government such rights soon destroy each other. We are therefore a nation of laws, not of men.
Though uneven and imperfect (as all human endeavors are) our system has worked for almost a quarter of a millennium.
I chose not to create a personal argument related to this topic, The Bill of Rights PROTECTS Rights, it does not GRANT them as government NEVER HAD THEM TO GRANT, because I think/believe the waters are FAR too muddied and polluted by ideological fantasies to rely on my own resources, thus I rely on the historical record created by John Locke and the Founding Fathers and the legal system of Natural Law THAT created the USofA.
How fascinating that you seem to imagine that "Natural Law" is any less an ideological fantasy than any other product of philosophical navel gazing. It is characteristic however of those who imagine that the Declaration of Independence is really the only foundational document within the "historical record" to which you pretend to defer. You may have never noticed this... but the Declaration is not a "legal system." Our legal system is contained in our Constitution... a document that interestingly is sterile of any mention of "natural law."
Instead, it is a profound and comprehensive expression of positive (not "natural") law. In the decade between the Declaration and the Constitution our Founders and Framers had evolved from the high minded idealists of the Declaration to a more pragmatic, realistic and utilitarian understanding of the tasks ahead of them. When time came to declare their purpose, they departed from Jefferson's soaring discourse regarding "unalienable rights" and "nature's God" and instead said this:
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitution speaks of international law. It speaks of common law. It is silent on any issue of natural law. It is a document created by men to guide, support, protect and constrain men. Our founders knew the difference between idealistic sentiment and pragmatic necessity.
How sad that so few people today share that capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901
I know, what a quaint position, right?
Quaint? Probably not. Naive? Certainly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901
When faced with seditious and anti-American ideology, I feel it is best to return to the foundation that provided "We the People" with the ability to form a nation state that secured "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness et al", especially given the reality of presently being subjected to a statist, tyrannical oligarchy:
See? Even there you demonstrate nearly complete confusion... creating a chimera of the Constitution ("We the people") and the Declaration ("Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"). Based on a foundation of such shallow understanding, it can come as no surprise that your opinions fall as they do.
The Founders would have been horrified.
PS. I also have to note... it appears that you have never read a word of Locke. Or if you have, you have rejected him wholesale.
So, it was the Continental Army that stood up to the British military marching to seize citizen's ball & powder (i.e. confiscation of arms) at Lexington Concord?
Actually, it was the French Army/Navy at Yorktown that effectuated the end, but I digress...
Good luck with your imperial interpretation of the American Revolution, you seem to be in good company with the Democrat and Republican Oligarchy...
P.S. I'm not naive, as I realize the U.S. hasn't operated under a state of Natural Law for a long time (although the Declaration of Independence and the USCON were/are Natural Law documents).
Quote:
93d Congress SENATE
Report No. 93-549
1st Session
EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES: PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW NOW IN EFFECT DELEGATING TO THE EXECUTIVE EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY IN TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY UNITED STATES SENATE NOVEMBER 19, 1973
Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.
Actually, it was the French Army/Navy at Yorktown that effectuated the end, but I digress...
That's funny. You know that observation pretty much completes the evisceration of your original argument. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901
Good luck with your imperial interpretation of the American Revolution, you seem to be in good company with the Democrat and Republican Oligarchy...
If I am in such "good company" then it appears I won't have to rely on much luck now, will I?
As to the 38 year old Senate Report you point to (were you even born when it was written?) the problems it cited were solved in 1976 with The National Emergencies Act; 50 U.S.C. § 1601-1651.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-26-2013 at 01:23 PM..
Doesn't the constitution say that Congress has the power to provide for the entire welfare of every single body?
LOL.
The "general welfare" clause is clearly defined in Article 1 Section 8....18 enumerated powers.
Taking from one to share among the many isn't included.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
