So here, yet again, we see DiogenesLamp arguing the superiority of his own scholarship over Founders' Original Intent.
DL claims, in effect, that since some Enlightenment philosophers said "X", our Founders must mean "X" even when they said "Y".
The answer to DL, of course, is that we must go by what the Founders said and meant, not by what certain philosophers of the time may have preached.
In this particular case -- the Declaration of Independence -- it was never an issue of "secession at pleasure", or for "light & transient causes", but rather of total necessity brought on by the King's abuses, usurpations and despotism culminating in his declaration of war on the American colonies.
In response our Founders declared independence, fully understanding, as Franklin quipped at the time:
Yes, of course Founders recognized Natural Law, but we do not recognize DiogenesLamp's interpretations of Natural Law as superior to our Founders' Original Intent as they themselves expressed & acted on it.
No you jackass, I'm arguing that this *WAS* the founders Original Intent. The "Rule by the Divine Right of Kings" was rejected in favor of the notion that Men had a right to rule themselves.
Otis explains this clearly in his "The Rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved." As does Samuel Rutherford in his "Lex, Rex." As does Vattel in his "Le droit des gens; ou Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains". "Law of nations and the principles of natural law applied in the conduct and affairs of nations and kings."
The foundational premise of all these works is the assertion that the King is unnecessary because men have a right to rule themselves.
DL claims, in effect, that since some Enlightenment philosophers said "X", our Founders must mean "X" even when they said "Y".
They did not say "Y". They said "X", "X", "X","X", "X". You keep trying to force them to say "Y", but they didn't say "Y." They said "X".
In this particular case -- the Declaration of Independence -- it was never an issue of "secession at pleasure",
It was an issue of secession because we had a *RIGHT* to secede. Because we had a *RIGHT* to rule ourselves. You keep using the word "pleasure" as if we are referring to a lark, but intolerable offenses are in the eyes of the beholder, and what may be tolerable for some, can be intolerable for another.
You just keep trying to subjectivize the matter by saying it must be intolerable in *YOUR* eyes before it is legitimate. You have no conception of the idea that people might disagree with you about how intolerable something is.
Yes, of course Founders recognized Natural Law, but we do not recognize DiogenesLamp's interpretations of Natural Law as superior to our Founders' Original Intent as they themselves expressed & acted on it.
It isn't superior, it is exactly the same. They recognized they had a right to self determination, and they seceded from their Union because they wanted to rule themselves.
They then declared that mankind has a natural law right to leave a government they abhor, and they gave the advice that it shouldn't be done for light or transient causes, but you and yours keep wanting to interpret the advice as an absolutely essential requirement and ignore the fact they clearly say it is the right of the people to abolish an existing government and form one to their liking.