Well, there's yer problem, right there.
Posted on 08/04/2012 3:48:54 PM PDT by Jacquerie
You must be one of those strict-constructionists...pleased to meet you.
History portion adapted from The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 by Gordon S. Wood, 1969.
Bump.
Subjects, not citizens.
Although the founding fathers might well have believed it, the idea that George III was a tyrant is mostly crap. George III was a conscientious constitutional monarch, who actually took a major step in promoting Parliamentary governance by surrendering the revenue of the Crown Estates in return for an annual stipend that was decided by Parliament. An act which effectively was the last major step in making Parliament master over the Crown.
With the colonies, it was corrupt and arrogant Tories within Parliament, led by Lord North et al who provoked the colonies into rebellion. All the King did was his constitutional duty of supporting his government’s actions to both tax and then issue punitive measures against the restive and then rebellious colonies, he was never the driving force behind them. George III was simply a convenient hate-figure for the rebellious colonists to rally against, rather than the far more abstract machinery of Parliamentary bureaucracy and ministerial arrogance that was truly to blame...
--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.
Thanks for writing/posting. BTTT!
live - free - republic
I refer you to this contemporary Gilray cartoon:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/French-Liberty-British-Slavery-Gillray.jpeg
In Britain, ‘subjects’ had rights, many so-called ‘citizens’ of other lands had not. The same hypocrisy which is inherent in so-called ‘people’s democratic republics’. British freedoms had substance, the French merely had style...
A huge difference between then and now is that unlike our situation as colonists, we the people are fundamentally responsible for our condition today. Despite my closing sentence, to revolt now would be something akin to rebellion against ourselves.
Still, if Hussein is reelected . . .
Much as I enjoyed the thoughtfulness and historicity of the essay, and the accuracy with which it states the grave corruption that has been done to our Constitution...
I must point out that the merger of the legislature and executive is a mutual effort!
Recent history had President Bush at the mercy of the legislature for an unpopular war.
There was much media ballyhoo about the Iraq “surge”. LOL! in reality congress was demanding concessions for it’s support. Our Constitution is rightly designed to make congress’ approval paramount for military adventures, foreign or domestic. Bush had the choice between acceding to Nancy and Harry or being forced to leave Iraq precipitously. Putting us and the whole world in grave danger.
President Obama was a weak fool and Harry and Nancy were the undisputed- and unreported- leaders of the country. Obama is not corrupting us through power but through weakness (and foolishness).
Now I believe our huge debt further binds the two departments whose separation is the heart of our freedoms.
Though I am not knowledgeable enough to do more than state that as an opinion.
BTTT
In fact, however, the original Constitution is fully empowered. It's just being ignored.
To replace it, a second Constitution has been made, based on the 14th Amendment, which presumes Americans are corporations created by, and owned by, the government.
How is this done? By keeping people ignorant about it.
How are people kept ignorant? Easy - they WANT to be ignorant.
So if, for example, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court tries with all of his power, over the most important ruling of modern times, to TELL them about it... they will simply refuse to read it.
It's easy to pray for help. It's hard to accept it when it arrives.
I was almost done writing about that very same thing...but you beat me to it!
Good job!
Agree. That is quotable.
It was remade again based on that steaming sack of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as the "New Deal Commerce Clause".
I love the ending of this piece.
Buying chicken sandwiches doesn’t solve anything. We will have to fight for our survival.
I read it. ‘The Crown’ is not the same as ‘The King’. The Crown is the executive branch of the government. I can agree that the Crown was having a corrupting influence on how Britain and its colonies was being run, but even then, power was being excercised in the monarch’s name by the government, it wasn’t the King himself who was the driving force behind the policies of the Crown...
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.