Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan? Part 2

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

Many, many moons ago I wrote asking the question: "Did Jefferson believe that liberty had a nineteen year lifespan?"

Knowing more now than I knew then about Jefferson's own writings, the answer is clearly no. But I can point to it here instead of searching in vain for it. Jefferson did write to Madison that "No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." I had struggled with this, because I knew progressives were liars and were at times using this phrase in order to advance their narrative.

The problem is this: I separate the Constitution from our Rights as two distinct concepts or topics, and I have long believed that the Founders did the same. The Constitution's plain language makes it clear: This document is not the source of our rights, it merely acknowledges their existence while at the same time telling government that it shall not infringe upon them.

Now, Jefferson was fond of this statement of the earth belonging to the living. He also wrote it to another person, John Cartwright, and in this instance Jefferson was also more explicit. You see, the Founders, or at least Jefferson, did also separate our rights and our Constitution as two separate things just as I do. He wrote to Cartwright the same concept, that the earth belongs to the living, but he was also more explicit and he told Mr. Cartwright what does not belong to the living. He wrote:

Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession for ever? I think not. the Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. the dead are not even things. the particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals of a thousand forms. to what then are attached the rights and power they held while in the form of men? a generation may bind itself, as long as it’s majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

This was to John Cartwright, June 5th, 1824.

This is where the intense deception of progressives comes in. To progressives, they think that abolishing the Constitution means abolishing the first amendment(because they're tired of hearing the crazy things you have to say), abolishing the second amendment(because you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself against progressivism), and etc etc etc. - AND! See, Thomas Jefferson agrees with us progressives! We should be abolishing your blasted constitution and all of its eternal principles in 19 years from now!

- except

That's not what Jefferson believed. He *only* meant to abolish the legal structures. The rock solid concrete foundation of God's gift of Liberty? - That is immutable and timeless. That has no 19 year or 39 year or 1426 year lifespan on it, according to Jefferson. Liberty is immortal. Liberty is forever. Liberty has more value than life itself.

You see, because our rights are a gift of God, they are not ours to abolish. We can only abolish what belongs to us, and Jefferson only wrote that the earth belongs to the living.

Ultimately, this exposes yet another lie that progressives tell. Progressives make it quite clear that these rights that we hold so dear are so inconvenient to their plans. But ironically enough, it is the progressives - not the Founding Fathers - who seek to bind future generations in their authoritarian schemes. When Government is put in control of every aspect of your life: your healthcare, trillions of dollars in debt, your education, your food, your housing, your entertainment(see Second Bill of Rights), etc - THAT is what binds future generations. Not God's gift of Liberty!

Everything about progressivism is bass ackward, and we see once again that what it is that they accuse others of doing is in reality what it is that they themselves are currently engaging in.

[ProgressingAmerica]

This actually presents a big problem for progressives, who erroneously believe that if they can just get rid of the constitution, they'll be rid of all their problems; while at the same time believing that Jefferson supports their machinations in 19 year increments.

If we were to build a new Constitution today, using the same principles and the same unchangeable God-given rights as were used when the Constitution was written in 1789, just how much different would it really be if you had that very same starting point?

The progressives think they can propagandize their way toward something radically new and different. Well, as long as they control pretty much every college campus in the country, they may have a point. But that's a topic for another day.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Ping............

[sparklite2]

Proving once again that when a headline asks a question, the answer is no.

[Texas Eagle]

I separate the Constitution from our Rights as two distinct concepts or topics, and I have long believed that the Founders did the same. The Constitution's plain language makes it clear: This document is not the source of our rights, it merely acknowledges their existence while at the same time telling government that it shall not infringe upon them.

This is what needs to be pounded into people's brains.

We don't have a right to self-defense because The Constitution says we do. We have it because we are alive.

[sparklite2]

+1

[HLPhat]

>>We don't have a right to self-defense because
>>The Constitution says we do. We have it because we are alive.

Yep.  The Republic is a system of governance constituted by the Rule of Law.

The purpose of the system of laws that constitute our American Republic is -- to SECURE those rights. But don't bother trying to tell that to rulers like  King Dubya:

"How we correct this mistake is the sacred mission of those of us who understand the process of ruling a country."

--George W Bush

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3597443/posts

 

Pssst.  Hey Dubya:  CONSENT denied.

https://youtu.be/8Vr-EKwC8YU?t=1m29s

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

”Some writers” in the modern day call themselves “liberals.” Notice the use, decried by Paine in the first paragraph of Common Sense, of euphemism: “liberals” use the word “society” (and synonyms like “public”) as if they were synonyms for “government,” when in fact “society” and “government” are more nearly antonyms.

Just as the modern “liberal” (I insist on scare quotes) appropriates the term “liberal” when in fact he advocates not for freedom/liberty but actually for the opposite, tyranny.

[Sacajaweau]

The problem with Jefferson is that he puts out two conflicting opinions on almost everything.

[Wuli]

The Progressives always seek to deny the most basic right for which the generation of the founders sought to uphold, preserve and protect in the United States and that is Liberty.

It is from the essential right to Liberty that comes the right to life, and the pursuit of happiness. Life without Liberty is not a life of a human endowed with a free conscience and the ability to live and express it in their own life.

Progressive are always and forever attempting to truncate Liberty in the pursuit of their Utopian aims of rule by experts (the regulatory state as a permanent government presided over by a near unfettered executive power). The Progressives government is ever more like that King George’s government sought to impose on colonies - an imperial executive power. Who has done this? Congress by abdication.

[LS]

Jefferson had great ideas.

Jefferson had goofy ideas, like all contracts should expire within the lifetime of the living.

[2001convSVT]

"Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession for ever?"

Very good question, with over 20 trillion in debt we will see.

[Dilbert San Diego]

How many nations and/or governments, exist in perpetuity?

For example, the borders of the world have changed greatly over time. China has a long history, but the borders and government of China have changed. The current communist government there dates back only to 1949.

World War II and the Cold War brought about many changes in the borders of countries of Europe. The anti-communist revolutions of 1989 in eastern Europe caused fundamentsl changes in their governments.

Ditto when the Soviet Union fell apart into approximately 15 different countries starting in late 1991.

Czecholslovakia(sp?) split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Governments come and go in various countries around the world.

Some people envision a time when California splits off from America, or America splits and evolves into a liberal America and a conservative America, as separate countries.

I was talking to someone, and told him I hope and pray we never see a revolution in our lifetimes in this country. He agreed. We agreed that whatever might replace our current government after a revolution, is virtually certain to make our lives worse off.

[onedoug]

So-called progressives will NEVER be rid of their problems.

[Gigantor]

Bookmarked.