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.
Notice how the above posts conflate the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration." The Cato Institute, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, Preface, p. 2 (2002).
The Supreme Court is a "reactionary political faction?"
Here an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
And here's Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Every single grievance that Jefferson lists against the King as evidence in the Declaration of Independence is the foundation for the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, since each of those issues is addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
This is a common misconception that is not supported by the express language of the Constitution nor the historical record. The Declaration of Independence was not incorporated into the Constitution.
Yes, the historical record supports it, the language of the Constitution supports it and the Supreme Court supports it, as well as Natural Law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
To the contrary, the Constitution was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, and a repudiation of Jefferson’s ideas about natural (viz. "unalienable") rights. In fact, Jefferson did not like the Constitution.
Um, no, you're making things up now.
Jefferson only used the word "democracy" a handful of times.
Jefferson repeatedly used the word "republic." To Jefferson, any form of government that was not a monarchy, was a republic.
In Jefferson's mind, all republican governments were by definition democracies. You've never read or studied Jefferson, but I have and you can clearly see Jefferson repeatedly using the term "pure republic."
A "pure republic" to Jefferson is what people call "pure democracy" today.
Jefferson said people should strive for a "pure republic" (pure democracy) even though it is unattainable and impractical: It's not the goal, it's the journey to get to the goal that matters.
Jefferson said a "pure republic" (pure democracy) would never work beyond township level.
As I have pointed out often, the Northwest Ordinance creates townships that all have something in common -- other than size in acres --- and that is land set aside for education.
That is where you are all supposed to be exercising pure unadulterated democracy.
Are you? No.....because people are freaking pathetic....they want, the want, they want, and when they finally get what they want, they no longer want it. The reason you're not seeing pure democracy in action at the township level, is because people stood around crying, "Who will get this monkey off my back?" And the first slick talker got call.
Your claim that Jefferson "did not like" the Constitution is absurd.
In a letter to George Mason (dtd 1790) Though I approve of the mass [of the Constitution], I would wish to see some amendments, further than those which have been proposed, fixing it more securely on a republican basis.
Again, to Jefferson, "republic" and "democracy" were one in the same.
In spite of the fact that Jefferson approved of the bulk of the Constitution, he did consider some parts to be "evil" -- and that is the exact word he uses.
In several letters to various others, he speaks of working to remove the "evils" from the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
Still, he has become the patron saint of most Americans who think that they have "God-given", "natural", "inherent" or "unalienable" rights, even though there is no provision for any such imprescriptible rights under the Constitution. In truth, that’s not the way things are ordered; but people nevertheless persist in believing the contrary is true - that they have extralegal rights - at least until their misguided notions run afoul of the law and they find themselves in court and in need of a lawyer. Then they complain their "Constitutional rights" are being infringed. Indeed, such persons are the first to complain that "there ought’a be a law!" Well, the truth is that there is.
We do have inherent rights. If you want to surrender yours and submit, fine, but we're not obligated to be that stupid.
I exist, therefore I have may criticize or praise any government at any time; I may peaceably assemble with others whenever I so choose; I may publish openly or anonymously any essays or critiques of any government any time I so choose to do so; I may defend myself, my property and others against loss, injury or death if I so choose to do so; I may own a personal weapon to engage in warfare against any tyrannical government; and so on.
Let's examine...
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Anything not expressly prohibited in the Constitution is the right of the People, the States or both.
Those unalienable rights include the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, a government that has subverted the Constitution or violated it, or which rejects it in whole or in part.
Jefferson said a "pure republic" (pure democracy) would never work beyond township level.
As I have pointed out often, the Northwest Ordinance creates townships that all have something in common -- other than size in acres --- and that is land set aside for education.
That is where you are all supposed to be exercising pure unadulterated democracy.
Are you? No.....because people are freaking pathetic....they want, the want, they want, and when they finally get what they want, they no longer want it. The reason you're not seeing pure democracy in action at the township level, is because people stood around crying, "Who will get this monkey off my back?" And the first slick talker got call.
Indeed. Thomas Jefferson created a concept of wards (often called "hundreds" in earlier writings), which actually would have been smaller than townships, probably a few hundred to no more than a couple thousand people; the closest equivalent we have today would be voting districts. These ward republics would be small enough to enable everyone to be a full deliberating participant in the democratic and civic process, the only way to attain true self-government, and thus would hold the bulk of government power. Counties and states, being needed only on the rare occasion when centralization and coordination of all wards was necessary, would be relieved of almost all of their responsibilities. The federal government in this scheme was responsible for foreign policy and not much else. This is certainly one of the most radical decentralization schemes of the Founders, and had it been implemented* I think we'd be much better off today, but I digress.
The basic idea bears a remarkable similarity to the Landsgemeinde assemblies of Switzerland, some of which still survive to this day in cantons; wards would have been smaller, but likely would have functioned much like American versions of the Landsgemeinde. Arguably America would have been more Swiss, and you certainly could do worse. This isn't the end of the Swiss-American connection, though; the Swiss Federal Council, their collective head of state, was a feature inherited from the French Directory, which in turn was a feature that resembled the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council from their 1776 Constitution, when this form of government first appeared . One might say the Federal Council functions as a Swiss version of the Supreme Executive Council. The fact that two core features of government conjured up by the Founding Fathers (although not concurrently) are found in Switzerland and not in America is quite intriguing.
*Interestingly, the Constitution would not have to be rewritten to implement it; the federal government does not have to exercise the bulk of its powers, so it could renounce them by convention, and the states already have the right of self-organization, so they could devolve power however they like with new state constitutions. In practice, of course, one would want to enshrine it in federal law to be more durable, but the ward republics concept is compatible with the Constitution even without amending it.
The problem with the idea of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything needs must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.
This isn't the end of the Swiss-American connection, though; the Swiss Federal Council, their collective head of state, was a feature inherited from the French Directory, which in turn was a feature that resembled the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council from their 1776 Constitution, when this form of government first appeared . One might say the Federal Council functions as a Swiss version of the Supreme Executive Council. The fact that two core features of government conjured up by the Founding Fathers (although not concurrently) are found in Switzerland and not in America is quite intriguing.
An additional oddity is the fact that Switzerland consisted of 13 cantons from 1513 to 1798, paralleling the 13 colonies in America .
Notice how the above posts conflate the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The notion that the Declaration of Independence is a "foundational" document is propaganda propagated by reactionary political factions, e.g., the Cato Institute, which has published such nonsense that . . . "the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration."
Looks like the Cato Institute had some pretty good company:
Quote:
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the
Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory
note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was the promise that
all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the
unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Martin Luther King Jr.
When I was young the liberals were the greatest champions of the Bill of Rights. What the hell happened?
This from a former constitutional law professor:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That’s what makes us unique. Barack Obama
When ya got the Cato Institute and Barack Obama agreeing you have come across a basic truth that crosses ideological divides.
According to this scholar we have. As someone with an English degree and is a writer (and historian)... this is astounding!
The declaration served its purpose 238 years ago, which was to let England know that we were doing our own thing w/o their interference. It's a notice of intent, delivered successfully more than two centuries ago.
It isn't a governing document, like the constitution is.
The problem with the idea of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything needs must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.
So . . . no one can be free and have natural rights if they obey the law?
To which "law" do you refer?
I don't mean to disparage you, but, how long have you been so twisted?
Should men create laws to keep the government in check?
Should the government be guaranteed the same rights as individuals?
Governments don't have rights, they have power.
Individuals have rights.
Obama is not an individual, he is a cardboard power.
Lot's of people bow to cardboard, have you noticed?
. . "don't you think the Constitution of the United States is about 150 years out of date?" and "perhaps this would be a more efficient government without a Congress"—statements he characterized as "very un-American". He also told the committee:
"Several years ago, when communism was more of a social chit-chatter in parties for offices, and so on when communism didn't have the implications that it has now, discussion of communism was more open and I remember hearing statements from some folks to the effect that the communistic system had a great many features that were desirable. It offered the actors and artists—in other words, the creative people—a special place in government where we would be somewhat immune from the ordinary leveling of income. And as I remember, some actor's name was mentioned to me who had a house in Moscow which was very large—he had three cars, and stuff, with his house being quite a bit larger than my house in Beverly Hills at the time—and it looked to me like a pretty phony come-on to us in the picture business. From that time on, I could never take any of this pinko mouthing very seriously, because I didn't feel it was on the level."
"York originally believed in the morality of America's intervention in World War I. By the mid-1930s, he looked back more critically: "I can't see that we did any good. There’s as much trouble now as there was when we were over there. I think the slogan 'A war to end war.' is all wrong." He fully endorsed American preparedness, but showed sympathy for isolationism in saying he would fight only if war came to America."
"A consistent Democrat – "I'm a Democrat first, last, and all the time,"he said—in January 1941 he praised FDR's support for Great Britain and in an address at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day of that year attacked isolationists and said veterans understood that "liberty and freedom are so very precious that you do not fight and win them once and stop." They are "prizes awarded only to those peoples who fight to win them and then keep fighting eternally to hold them!" At times he was blunt: "I think any man who talks against the interests of his own country ought to be arrested and put in jail, not excepting senators and colonels." Everyone knew the colonel in question was Charles Lindbergh. During World War II York urged the internment of aliens, particularly the Japanese who "whether native or foreign born, all look alike and we can't take any chances."
"In the late 1940s he called for toughness in dealing with the Soviet Union and did not hesitate to recommend using the atomic bomb in a first strike: "If they can't find anyone else to push the button, I will." He questioned the failure of United Nations forces to use the atomic bomb in Korea. In the 1960s he criticized Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's plans to reduce the ranks of the National Guard and reserves: “Nothing would please Khrushchev better.”
All rights exist only by law. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way. Get used to it.
Yes, we have been "reading" it without comprehension.
After 81 years of socialist indoctrination, it is understandable that Americans have a mixed understanding of the original laws that founded the United States of America.
BUT the Declaration IS the #1 statute, and no government can legislate laws repugnant to it.
...
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
...
Republicanism refers to the republican form of government, promised in Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON.
But the Constitution is not the source of the republican form.
...
Job #1 : secure (endowed) rights;
Job #2 : govern only those who consent;
But once consent is given, rights can be surrendered.
Do you know HOW and WHEN you gave consent to be governed?
Ask your public servants to explain.
...
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law
Professor John Eidsmoe writes:
"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.'”
...
...
“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, AND RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922)
...
Addendum:
Asserting citizenship is a voluntary act that surrenders rights, and imposes mandatory civic duties.
American nationals / non-citizens are not obligated, ergo, they retain all endowed rights, liberties, and powers.
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.
. One might say the Federal Council functions as a Swiss version of the Supreme Executive Council. The fact that two core features of government conjured up by the Founding Fathers (although not concurrently) are found in Switzerland and not in America is quite intriguing.
Doesn't matter...
