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.
Jefferson was referring to British monarchy, definitely despotic and definetely oppressive. Do you think he was talking about a democratically elected government? Lol
Of course. He was referrng to ANY government that does what he described.
Or do you have some reason to think that he meant that, while the British government is not allowed to continuously abuse and usurp the people and reduce them to absolute despotism, if a democratically elected government starts to continuously abuse and usurp its people and reduces them to abolute despotism, that's OK with him?
P.S. "lol" is not a reason. And it seems to be all you can come up with, in lieu of actual thought.
"Republic " has nothing to do with direct, indirect democracy argument.
Correct.
Republic simply means that power is vested in more than one person. Republic is the opposite of Monarchy, or any other form of one-person dictatorial/totalitarian rule.
Repu'blican: adjective [from Republick] placing the government in the people.
Repu'blican: noun [from Republick] one who thinks commonwealth without monarchy is the best government.
Repu'blick: noun [republica Latin] commonwealth; state in which the power is lodged in more than one. (see the works of Ben Johnson).
Source:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
A republic chooses representatives to form their government.
No, it does not.
The US is a republic because power is vested in the People, the several States, and the federal government, and it functions as a triumvirate.
Voting is not a requirement.
If the House of Representatives were hereditary positions and not elected, you are still a republic, because power is vested in more than one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
We are a democratic republic because we hold democratic elections to choose our representatives.
No, in a democratic republic, there are no representatives.
Also, republics do not require elections.
If you had a computer program that randomly selected people for the House (or Senate) you would still be a republic.
If you cast lots to decide who gets to be a congressional Representative, you're still a republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
Sigh.
The Declaration has no standing whatsoever with the Constitution, which was conceived and written a generation later.
Well, wrongmann, the Declaration was written in 1776, and the drafting of the Constitution began in 1786....that's 10 years later, and many of the men who had a hand in the Declaration, were involved in drafting the Constitution.
10 years is hardly a "generation later."
Also, to drop the hammer on your massive fail, your claim is easily debunked....
In Curtiss, the Court agreed that under extra-Constitutional Authority, presidents have all of the powers that are expressed in the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation which are not expressly prohibited in the US Constitution.
In Specter, the Court ruled that that under extra-Constitutional Authority cabinet members such as the Treasurer, Defense, State etc, have all the powers conferred upon them by the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation which are not expressly prohibited in the US Constitution.
Right? Because the argument in Specter is that the Secretary of Defense has no authority to close US military bases, or realign them, or change their missions --- only Congress can do that. Not so, said the Supreme Court. Cabinet members have extra-Constitutional powers and authorities granted to them by the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation (Note: specifically in Specter at issue was the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard).
Under that very same doctrine, State governors and even mayors of cities have available to them any express rights that stem from any one of the extra-Constitutional documents, provided that right or power is not expressly barred or prohibited in the Constitution.
Accordingly, the States and the People, under the doctrines of extra-Constitutionality, have all of the rights and powers conferred upon them by the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation that are not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. And since the Constitution does not expressly bar secession, then both the States and the People have that right.
Federal courts use Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (see Johnson v MBNA 357 F.3d 426; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2244 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as an example where the appeals court judges looked up the word "investigate" for its definition).
For those of you interested in a rational discussion, this is a good starting point:
"[T]he power of the President should be used in the interest of the people, and in order to do that the President must use whatever power the Constitution does not expressly deny him." -- President Truman
You can study in addition to Dalton v Specter (1994),United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936). The concept of Extra-Constitutionality is that the powers of a US President are not limited to the Constitution, but instead the President has the sum total of all of the powers that any of the previous governing bodies had, provided the Constitution does not expressly bar those powers.
So a US President can reach back to the very first governing body...the Stamp Act Congress, then to the Declaration, the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation...and argue that since they had certain powers,.....
....the People and the States have those very same powers, which includes the right of secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
Sigh.
2nd Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
And no, you right wing ideologues, the Founders NEVER intended that the right to bear arms had anything to do with resisting or rebelling against the government.
Can anyone provide more or better information?
Yeah....me....I just totally annihilated your nonsense. If you'd stop constantly heaving and sighing, you might actually learn something.
Which part of "free state" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport
How many times this has to be repeated? We are a democracy as we chose our governments in democratic election and our laws, including constitution, can always be changed through the same democratic process. "We're not a democracy, were a republic". Give me a break!
You're not a democracy. You are representative democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
As for felons--most of those stripped of their rights are non-violent drug offenders. That, I think is a reasonable target for restoring rights under the 2nd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
If the right were an individual right essential to liberty, then I would tend to think that a blanket denial to felons would be wrong.
That contradicts your earlier arguments.
The simple fact is that those people are "offenders" ....period.
They have demonstrated that they cannot or willingly refuse to comply with laws, which is prima facie evidence they should not have a firearm.
Weapons have rules and regulations: they must be properly cared for, properly stored, properly maintained and cleaned, and used.
Since one proves beyond any reasonable doubt they cannot follow instructions, then they have proven they are incompetent to have a firearm.
Ever been on the battlefield?
If you cannot comply with simple laws, then how can I possibly trust you to comply with the Laws of Land Warfare?
I have no qualms about slaying civilians. In fact, the more civilians you slay, the faster and sooner the conflict ends. However, the Laws of Land Warfare say that you cannot indiscriminately take the lives of civilians. Although I disagree with the Law, since it violates all logic, reason and common sense, as well as practical military necessity, I follow the law to the best of my ability.
Anyway, how much sense does it make to give a weapon to someone who has proven they'll violate laws, or has otherwise proven to be irresponsible?
Logically...
I am all for the citizens bearing arms like described in the constitution, which in XVIII century meant muskets, swords. I would not even object to concealed carry privileges to those owning said muskets.
I tell you what, I'll go along with that proposal.
In return though, you must comply with my proposal, that the 1st Amendment only protects quill pens and parchment paper in the context of free speech. That means no more cell phones, no more landline phones, no more text messaging, no more facebook, no more blogs, no more City-Data Forum, no more internet, period. No more TV or radio either. Any attempts to exercise speech through these mediums must be thoroughly vetted by the government first.
Also, any religious group that was formed after the ratification of the Constitution will no longer be protected. If you want to practice a religion that was formed after 1786, you must obtain a poermission slip from the government.{ on second thought, too many fundies would love this idea }
Freedom of the press is limited to the type of printing presses used in the colonial days, not copiers or printers or any other form of printing that was invented after 1786. No more CNN, no more Fox News, no more MSNBC.
Sound like a plan? I'll give up all my guns that aren't muskets if you give up your cell phone and computer etc.....
{ to be honest, I am very surprised that I'm the first person to adress this bit of nonsense you posted Maybe all the others on this thread didn't even think it worth their time }
The constitution was meant for a Godly nation. Once we reject God on this large of a scale, the rules in order to maintain freedom no longer work. So we see freedoms gradually being taken away as a result.
I suggest you go and take a history lesson. The founders weren't "christian" nor did they intend for this country to be a "Christian Nation".... That is one of the biggest lies about the founding of this country ever to be told.
Many of them were Deists. { See: Thomas Paine }
Others rightly rejected the "miracles" in the Bible for the superstition that they are { See: Jefferson Bible }
I tell you what, I'll go along with that proposal.
In return though, you must comply with my proposal, that the 1st Amendment only protects quill pens and parchment paper in the context of free speech. That means no more cell phones, no more landline phones, no more text messaging, no more facebook, no more blogs, no more City-Data Forum, no more internet, period. No more TV or radio either. Any attempts to exercise speech through these mediums must be thoroughly vetted by the government first.
Also, any religious group that was formed after the ratification of the Constitution will no longer be protected. If you want to practice a religion that was formed after 1786, you must obtain a poermission slip from the government.{ on second thought, too many fundies would love this idea }
Freedom of the press is limited to the type of printing presses used in the colonial days, not copiers or printers or any other form of printing that was invented after 1786. No more CNN, no more Fox News, no more MSNBC.
Sound like a plan? I'll give up all my guns that aren't muskets if you give up your cell phone and computer etc.....
{ to be honest, I am very surprised that I'm the first person to adress this bit of nonsense you posted Maybe all the others on this thread didn't even think it worth their time }
Also Cars, RV`s, Boats powered by anything else other then wind, Private Planes, are not protected by the 4th Amendment,
Also women and blacks as well as non property owning males should not be allowed to vote....
I suggest you go and take a history lesson. The founders weren't "christian" nor did they intend for this country to be a "Christian Nation".... That is one of the biggest lies about the founding of this country ever to be told.
Many of them were Deists. { See: Thomas Paine }
Others rightly rejected the "miracles" in the Bible for the superstition that they are { See: Jefferson Bible }
Our own capital is shaped like a cross with Bible references written in stone on many monuments, including the 10 commandments in our supreme courts. What revision history lessons have you been receiving? The past is fact, written history has obviously been grossly revised.
The BOR restricts the Federal government, not property owners. My property rights trump any BOR protections that you may have.
And what about the federal government as a property owner? And for that matter, state and local governments as property owners? Can the feds restrict firearm possession on federal lands because of their property rights? Does that apply to highways? Toll roads? Public parks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Of course. He was referrng to ANY government that does what he described.
Or do you have some reason to think that he meant that, while the British government is not allowed to continuously abuse and usurp the people and reduce them to absolute despotism, if a democratically elected government starts to continuously abuse and usurp its people and reduces them to abolute despotism, that's OK with him?
P.S. "lol" is not a reason. And it seems to be all you can come up with, in lieu of actual thought.
The people have ballot box recourse--that is the power to destroy despotism. If it is the will of the people itself that threatens individual liberty, then recourse is to the courts--lifetime appointment insulates judges from politics and lets them decide cases on the merits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
In Curtiss, the Court agreed that under extra-Constitutional Authority, presidents have all of the powers that are expressed in the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation which are not expressly prohibited in the US Constitution.
In Specter, the Court ruled that that under extra-Constitutional Authority cabinet members such as the Treasurer, Defense, State etc, have all the powers conferred upon them by the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation which are not expressly prohibited in the US Constitution.
Right? Because the argument in Specter is that the Secretary of Defense has no authority to close US military bases, or realign them, or change their missions --- only Congress can do that. Not so, said the Supreme Court. Cabinet members have extra-Constitutional powers and authorities granted to them by the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation (Note: specifically in Specter at issue was the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard).
Under that very same doctrine, State governors and even mayors of cities have available to them any express rights that stem from any one of the extra-Constitutional documents, provided that right or power is not expressly barred or prohibited in the Constitution.
Accordingly, the States and the People, under the doctrines of extra-Constitutionality, have all of the rights and powers conferred upon them by the Stamp Act Congress, the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation that are not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. And since the Constitution does not expressly bar secession, then both the States and the People have that right.
Federal courts use Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (see Johnson v MBNA 357 F.3d 426; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2244 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as an example where the appeals court judges looked up the word "investigate" for its definition).
For those of you interested in a rational discussion, this is a good starting point:
"[T]he power of the President should be used in the interest of the people, and in order to do that the President must use whatever power the Constitution does not expressly deny him." -- President Truman
You can study in addition to Dalton v Specter (1994),United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936). The concept of Extra-Constitutionality is that the powers of a US President are not limited to the Constitution, but instead the President has the sum total of all of the powers that any of the previous governing bodies had, provided the Constitution does not expressly bar those powers.
So a US President can reach back to the very first governing body...the Stamp Act Congress, then to the Declaration, the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation...and argue that since they had certain powers,.....
....the People and the States have those very same powers, which includes the right of secession.
You mischaracterize the holding of Curtiss-Wright and the jurisprudence on Executive Power. The Constitution vests "the Executive Power" in the President.
Curtiss-Wright held that the President has broad foreign affairs powers--that the President is the sole organ of the nation's foreign affairs--especially when Congress has delegated power to the President.
If you really want to learn about the meaning of the Executive power of the President, read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, especially Justice Jackson's concurrence--which has really carried the day on the powers of the President (though Justice Scalia has left a significant imprint afterwards). But your position on Stamp Act Congress/Declaration/etc. is just not supported in the caselaw.
And the question of secession was quite clearly answered when the South surrendered unconditionally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That contradicts your earlier arguments.
The simple fact is that those people are "offenders" ....period.
They have demonstrated that they cannot or willingly refuse to comply with laws, which is prima facie evidence they should not have a firearm.
Weapons have rules and regulations: they must be properly cared for, properly stored, properly maintained and cleaned, and used.
Since one proves beyond any reasonable doubt they cannot follow instructions, then they have proven they are incompetent to have a firearm.
Ever been on the battlefield?
If you cannot comply with simple laws, then how can I possibly trust you to comply with the Laws of Land Warfare?
I have no qualms about slaying civilians. In fact, the more civilians you slay, the faster and sooner the conflict ends. However, the Laws of Land Warfare say that you cannot indiscriminately take the lives of civilians. Although I disagree with the Law, since it violates all logic, reason and common sense, as well as practical military necessity, I follow the law to the best of my ability.
Anyway, how much sense does it make to give a weapon to someone who has proven they'll violate laws, or has otherwise proven to be irresponsible?
Logically...
Mircea
People often demonstrate that they won't comply with laws when they disobey posted speed limits. Our felons are restricted even after they have served their sentences.
We do not take away rights because people cannot "follow instructions" or because they "should not have" those rights. And note that ownership and possession of firearm do not mean that the "Laws of War" apply to the streets of America.
If you are in the military, then you are obligated to abide by the Laws of War (including International Humanitarian Law), as they govern our legal obligations in conflict (as they are laid out in treaties, customary international law, statutes, Executive orders, etc.). If you talking about civilian life, then the Laws of War are inapplicable.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the 2nd only applies to those in militia service. Many would disagree (I think I probably would, too).
And what about the federal government as a property owner? And for that matter, state and local governments as property owners? Can the feds restrict firearm possession on federal lands because of their property rights? Does that apply to highways? Toll roads? Public parks?
Good questions. But in my post, I was simply addressing the issue of private citizen's property rights.
And what about the federal government as a property owner? And for that matter, state and local governments as property owners? Can the feds restrict firearm possession on federal lands because of their property rights? Does that apply to highways? Toll roads? Public parks?
Absolutely not. The Federal Government doesn't have property rights, nor do state and local governments. That property belongs to We The People. The Federal Government is not a private entity, they are an agent of and for the people, therefore they can only enact laws restricting firearm possession on public lands through We The People or through our duly elected representatives.
Our own capital is shaped like a cross with Bible references written in stone on many monuments, including the 10 commandments in our supreme courts. What revision history lessons have you been receiving? The past is fact, written history has obviously been grossly revised.
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.
Maybe all the others on this thread didn't even think it worth their time }
Does that apply to highways? Toll roads? Public parks?
