PDA

View Full Version : Since some of you are confused ...



LWW
07-01-2012, 02:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.</div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-01-2012, 12:13 PM
It seems the right takes the wrong lesson from this.

They use this concept as a reason to justify secession, state nullification, sedition, and open revolt.

Oddly, and they never notice this when they preach their Second Amendment solutions-- that the reason to arm the population (the militia being, conceptually, the able-bodied men and women who can bear arms) is to violently oppose the government-- that the COTUS says one of the tasks of the militia is to help put down rebellions. So, it is to BE the rebellion, they say, when it is supposed to put down rebellions, the COTUS says (and they claim to be strict adherents to the COTUS)????

But wait, it gets worse.

Among the political bands this people has chosen to dissolve or substantially end was the Articles of Confederation. The talk there of independence of the states and sovereignty didn't make it so fulsomely into the new COTUS upon which a strong central government was founded. More vestigially than fulsomely. Clearly, there was a new sheriff in town, ratified by the very consent of the governed discussed in the quote.

About 80 years after the COTUS, this people engaged in fearsome internecine battle, the greatest loss of life in war this country has yet to achieve, all by Americans on our own soil.

A new kind of federalism and governance was created, through the 14th amendment, born out of the blood of this titanic struggle. Here the 'consent of the governed' was yes, achieved in part by the military defeat of part of the governed. Still, as arms were laid down, consent prevailed.

Then, in the aftermath of the Great Depression, still a new understanding of our governance was laid down, through the changes in court rulings attendant to the New Deal. Ratified again by the consent of the governed, as is our pure right as a people to do.

Now, some 80 years plus after these changes, which carried the consent of the governed, we have the flim-flam artists using clever rhetoric and older interpretations of what was going on here, harkening back before the New Deal changes and even back to the pre-Civil War days, to deny the legitimacy of these new arrangements, using old definitions and understandings prior to these changes ratified by the consent of the governed, to define them as illegitimate, and tyrannical.

Here's an analogy for what they're doing. For a long time, there were red lights at intersections, but no flashing red lights. Prior to flashing red lights, the rule was clear: stop, do not proceed, when there is a red light. Now that we have flashing red lights, most know the rule is different: stop, then you are allowed to go, as safety allows, yielding to traffic that has no red light of any kind, etc.

The right in this case would scour obscure old laws throughout the nation that describes what to do at red lights before there were flashing red lights, and citing them, shout to the rooftops, 'red means stop, and not go-- are you people idiots or what?' Entirely omitting the newer flashing red light arrangements that have superseded the old red light rules.

Yes, the laws that they'd cite were valid, back in the day. But they do not properly serve as guides to this new situation, which again, passed the muster of the consent of the governed (through their representatives in our form of government).

Soflasnapper
07-01-2012, 01:23 PM
John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776:“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”

James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President; Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788:

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”