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.
Jackass, is that you?
Sorry, but no Founder considered it their "right" to secede "at pleasure", meaning for light and transient causes.
Instead, they said: "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
Then, "...it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
DiogenesLamp: "The foundational premise of all these works is the assertion that the King is unnecessary because men have a right to rule themselves."
Sure, but it was never our Founders' original intention in, say 1770 or 1773, to "secede" from Britain "at pleasure".
Instead they tried first to secure their rights as Englishmen to charters of self government and representation in Parliament.
Only long after these failed and after Brits launched & declared war on them did they finally assert independence.
DiogenesLamp: "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". "
Rubbish & nonsense. It's DiogenesLamp who consistently misrepresents their ideas & actions.
DiogenesLamp: "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. "
"At pleasure" refers to light & transient causes which our Founders said were not justification for secession.
Rather, they said, "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" when "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
Our Founders never claimed an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
DiogenesLamp: "You just keep trying to subjectivize the matter by saying it must be intolerable in *YOUR* eyes before it is legitimate."
Not at all, our Founders gave us a perfect example of what was intolerable in **THEIR** eyes, in their Declaration list of grievances against the king.
No such listing existed in 1860.
DiogenesLamp: "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 recognized no "right" to secede "at pleasure", but only for "a long train of abuses and usurpations", which they obliged: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
DiogenesLamp: "...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."
They clearly state their "right" is a matter of necessity driven by a long train of abuses & usurpations.
Any other interpretation is not Founders' Original Intent.