Declaration of Independence vs Constitutiongreenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread
The following is part of paragraph 2 from the DoI,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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. 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."
The following is part of Section 8 from the big C.
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."
What I am puzzled about is knowing what they went through to establish a new nation,and how it was written in the DoI about it being a Right of the people to alter or abolish,etc.,how could they put that part in the Constitution about suppressing Insurrections?
IMHO they were, way back then, all ready taking away the peoples rights.
-- TomK(mich) (email@example.com), March 09, 2002
Tom,,do you have a coppy of, "The Federalist Papers"?
-- Stan (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 09, 2002.
I don't think that these men felt that upon seperating themselves from England that there were perpetrating insurrection. IMO insurrection is when a small number of people attempt to wrest control of the government away from the people. What the Declaration of Independence did, was to call for the establishment of new government. The founders did not go to England and attempt to oust out the King by forceful measures. BIG difference.
An example of insurrection would be an attempt by someone (in this case let's say the president) to nullify the constitution, and take the powers granted by that Constitution away from those who were elected to have them. In a way it is safe to say that Bill Clinton came close to committing insurrection through his abuse of executive order. I say came close, because ultimately he is gone. However were there a president that came to power who was able to complete what Clinton started and achieve a coup, then there would be insurrection. Under this definition the Civil war would rightly NOT be considered insurrection. This is because the several states were doing exactly what the founders did upon seperating from England. They however, were not attempting to overthrow the Union. Because of this, it is my opinion that the south was not only right in their assertions that the had the right to set up new government, but I also believe Lincoln had no business going to war with them. Nevertheless, the south was extremely important to the north financially. Without the south, the north would have had to buy their raw materials from the south. There was no way Lincoln would let this happen. Slavery was not only a failed system, but also a system antithetical to the founders original assertions of freedom for all. Slavery, war or no war would have ended. The civil war was about money and control, NOT about slavery, and it was not insurrection.
Little Bit Farm
-- Little bit Farm (email@example.com), March 09, 2002.
Thanks for saving me the time it would have taken to put that into words, LilBit. Very well spoken!
-- Doreen (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 09, 2002.
Many, not all, but many of the Founding Fathers were out and out criminals. Jefferson and Franklin were amoung those heavy into criminal activity. If they were unsuccessful at revolt than they would have been hanged. So revolution was the only salvation possible for them. I often say "die or die trying" and that had to be there fate also. So many are led to believe that these were brilliant men of unquestionable honor. Wrong, --how about poorly self educated, toothless, ragged farmers, slave owners, LAZY men who never did a honest days work in their entire life ! Greedy men who revolted to stop paying taxes and wound up paying twice as much in the end. Jefferson wrote the Declaration ? Sorry, it is stolen almost word for word from an author in the 1600's. They were venomous with one another, thieves and they were brutal.
The militia's of there time would be called the civil defense today. You did not apply to be a member. If you lived in the county you were a member. It was expected --almost demanded of you to serve. You were either a rebel or a Tory-- no one was allowed to walk in the middle. The loyalists were the insurrections they feared and they had good cause to do so.
However---How like them we are ! Homesteaders waiting to make a living our own way. Left alone, TAX FREE and we all search daily for that. We are Zealots. "By what ever means necessary" to achieve our goals. Moonshine still plans litter our magazines and forums. Wine making. Organic gardening ? I wonder where that thought originated ? Maybe those 30 or 40 plants of questionable legality that just happen to pop up on your back forty ? Just quessing. The ultimate theme--how to make a million and never break a sweat or leave the farm. We are so much like them. You might say we have have issued our own Declaration of Independence and in these forums we are writing our own Constitution !
We forget so easily the major document that has seperated our country and lifestyle from all the others. Without it we would not be writing or reading here at this moment. There would be no America. So you can burn the Constitution ! Throw away the Flag ! Leave the Declaration back in history where it belongs ! But--when any friend, foe, or entity attempts to "change,edit or delete" one word of your BILL of Rights than you MUST fight. No options--Die or die trying ! Than you will be your own Founding Father ! In memory of Patrick Henry the man who gave you all you have.
-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@webtv.net), March 09, 2002.
Thanks for the perspective focus. You hit many nails right on the head.
-- Jay Blair in N. AL (email@example.com), March 10, 2002.
Insurrection - an uprising against an established or duly constituted authority. War - open armed conflict between countries or factions within the same country.
Because The King and Britian were the duly constituted authority in the Colonies,the signers of the DoI did indeed know that it amounted to insurrection and that if caught they would be hung. Because they were attempting to oust the King and Britian out of their affairs here where they lived. They did not care about what the King did in England,just what he did here,and they wanted him out of their lives.
The Civil War in all legal terms started as a insurrection. The U.S. Government with Lincoln as it duly elected president was the established or duly constituted authority in the 1800's for all of the states, including the south. By wanting to kick out that authority and attempt to overthrow said Government from their southern states, the southern fathers committed Insurrection against the U.S. Government as did the signers of the DoI against Britian and the King.
Joel: I thought I was the only one who had any idea that alot of the founding fathers were like that. And remember that only about 25% of the population in the colonies were for the revolution. So besides worrying about being caught by British soldiers there were many Colonists that wanted them also.
-- TomK(mich) (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 10, 2002.
Joel please reference a document other than the Declaration itself that shows these men were criminals.
Little Bit Farm
-- Little Bit Farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), March 12, 2002.
If you burn the Constitution you have lost the Bill of Rights. The Constitution provides for government to be held ccountable to and for a large number of people. The Bill of Rights, which is what just government ought to secure for it's people, taken alone in very small groups would be great, but if you just wan anarchy, get rid of all government. Should we be very moral, we wouldn't even need governmenment of any sort.
Somehow it doesn't seem to me that we are very moral.
-- Doreen (email@example.com), March 13, 2002.
Here you go Little Bit-All of my history I keep in my mind but it is in yours also. Franklin sold brass plates that you installed on your front door. If you bought one and had a fire his company would put your fire out. If not they laughed at you while it burned. That is called the protection game "Racketeering" Reference is the Biography of Ben Arts an Entertainment channel.
I'm no racist but up until 1960's in Virginia having sex with a person of color would buy you some time in the penitentary. Do you have any doubts about Thomas ? I'm only speaking of the law of the land but his friends would have lynched him. Most of his writings are a copywright infringement --he had no problem with being a thief. He died in massive debt. He had no problem taking money but never attempted to pay any back and today we would refer to him as a dead beat dad. Remember he borrowed from his friends there were no banks.
Most of what I know Little Bit I learn on tours of their homes and properties. Come on Down and we'll take you thru Monticello, Red Hill, Mt Vernon and Madison's.
-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@webtv.net), March 13, 2002.
The Bill of Rights is a seperate document from the Constitution. You would be correct in saying that Patrick Henry sent them back to the drawing board after reading just the Constitution. He would not allow Virginia to sign the original document. Jefferson threatened to have him killed over the dispute. In a letter to Madison he said " I think we will have to kill Patrick " yet two days before his death he wrote " What would we have done without Patrick. I don't think we could have done it without him " The Constitution is a lot of babble and rhetoric that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The Declaration is a letter to a long since dead King. A Flag is a way to find your side in retreat on a battle field. The BILL of RIGHTS is yours and contains all of your Freedoms. Caress it, coddle it, and sleep with it close to your breast a if it were an infant child ! Protect it as if it were all the Gold on the planet ! Spit in the face of anyone that speaks against it and kill anything that threatens it !
-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@webtv.net), March 13, 2002.
Joel, am I not correct that today you pay yearly for a piece of paper that is an agreement that if your house catches fire someone will build you a new one. If you don't pay they will stand by while you grovel in the streets. It is called insurance. And don't even get me started on the medical insurance! It seems to me a protection racket is where if you don't pay they will come and burn your house down themselves. Seems to me any number of businesses would fall under your definition of "protection racket". For instance, how about companies contracted for security guards.
Little Bit Farm
Little Bit Farm
-- Little bit Farm (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 14, 2002.
True LBF. But ole Ben was a wanted felon from England for arson. It seems old Ben was handy with a book of matches. He also took a lot of money from people on "investments" than claimed they were not solvent. Joseph Smith took many of his ideas on banking from ole Ben and it got him hung in Illinois. If I had to compare Ben with a modern day person it would be John Gotti. And Thomas ---Milli Vanilli
-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@webtv.net), March 15, 2002.
And how 'bout them bodies that turned up under the floor of ol' Ben's house in England?
Here is an interesting read:
-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 15, 2002.
I would be interested in knowing exactly which of Bill Clinton's executive orders constituted an attempt to "commit insurrection" and "achieve a coup". I honestly don't mind if people don't like Clinton or the Democratic Party or whatever. Reasonable people will have differing opinions. But just because you don't like an action Clinton took doesn't make him some kind of fascist or insurrectionist bent on destroying American democracy. Just because you disagree with one of Clinton's executive orders doesn't mean the motives behind that order were nefarious or sinister.
For my part, I don't like a lot of George W. Bush's recent executive orders restricting the civil rights of accused terrorists. That doesn't mean I believe Bush is bent on instituting a fascist police state or any nonsense like that. Let's cut the irrational hysteria and it will be much easier to have a civil discussion on this board.
-- Andy M (email@example.com), May 28, 2002.
-- Gooch Henkle (Goochbitch@nigger.com), February 10, 2004.