Posted on 08/18/2004 2:33:14 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Lumster...God removed the King of Israel many long centuries ago.We wait for Jesus to return and rightfully take his throne.Until then all leaders are stewards.We just happen to elect ours....
The word revolution, in its old sense, was "a round of periodic or recurrent changes or events – that is, the process of coming full cycle, or the act of rolling back or moving back, a return to a point previously occupied." (2)Jefferson suggested in 1776, "Is it not better now that we return at once unto that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man?"
He understood what a revolution was. He was referring to returning to the government of the ancient Anglo-Saxons of the fourth century A.D. and beyond, to the ancient Israelites and their system of judges.
So who are these people kidding? What order and what law did the Americans rebel against and overthrow? Private property, equality, local self-government, limitations of powers, divisions of powers, taxation (by consent), natural rights, the pre-eminence of God's law, common law, trial by jury, and laws against theft, murder, deception, profanity and so forth, were their heritage, not their invention.
As Edmund Burke noted about this "true revolution," the Founders built a more glorious structure upon the ancient traditions of English law. - Commies, They were Not!
God still selects the leaders of nations
Dan 4:27
....that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest (lowest) of men.
Tha fact remains that all powers are ordained by God. When our founders took up arms aginst the established power they were rebelling against God himself. God allowed this but it doesn't mean He places His stamp of approval upon the methods used.
Many nations such as Canada and Australia were once part of the British empire and gained their freedom without a violent rebellion.
Nevertheless, God has used this nation for His glory but only because there has always been a remnant of the righteous in it. Not because we were founded on Christianity.
Isaiah 40:17
All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity
That is why God selected new leaders to govern this nation according to His laws.
>>Yes, but then they went and added that pesky Bill of Rights in which the First Amendment seems to contradict the First Commandment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
As long as there was "free exercise", Christianity was not threatened. There was nothing to prevent its continued dominance in our society. That is why communist infiltrators, such as the A.C.L.U., had to eliminate the "free exercise" clause to incorporate their agenda. They accomplished it by judicial tyranny.
Bump for later.
Indeed God did NOT even want Israel to have a king other than for them to trust in Him, and follow his appointed men.Lots of scripture states that He will remove his anointing from Kings who fail Him, and He did so repeatedly. While I agree that we are blessed only because it suits God's purpose,I do believe that it can be historically proved that the nation has been founded upon deep Christian roots....
Ahh, Tailgunner Joe, Anderson left out the most important part,
the People:
the records left by my forefathers (in Massachusetts 1620-1775) and by others' forefathers in New England Town Hall Meetings and other colonies as well-----always prefaced by prayers to the Almighty God--
Therein will be found the essence in writing about the mindset of their principles.
If one checks those records, one can discern the highest values already present here brought to these shores from the descendants of the people of the Magana Carta and English
Common Law.
A lot of my ancestors in Ipswich and Plymouth couldn't read or write too well as attested to their private letters and legal documents.
Thus one must rely upon their spoken words inscribed by the
recorders at the Town hall meetings and other
gatherings of the people and authorities. (Freedom to Assemble, Religion etc.)
Exempla Gratia:
The basis of the second amendment:
my family has had weapons since 1620,
an unbroken line handed down of WEAPONS from muskets
to Blunderbusses to Civil War .50 calibers
to carbines and other weapons, from father to
son and daughter, from cousins to nephews etc. down to the present day.
The U.S. Constitution merely transferred, and REAFFIRMED, CONFIRMED and REASSURED those rights which had been practised under Massachusetts and other colonies' laws.
Yet, e.g., even before 1607 and
1620, we mention French settlers, my other ancestors, who had been practising these rights to bear arms, to assemble, etc., since 1590's under French New World Territories laws and before in the northern parts of the New hampshire, Maine and New York (VT later), to be absorbed later into the U.S. populace as citizens thru marriage and pensioners in Washington's Army.
Not only that, but Native Americans had rights guaranteed by the English Crown Treaties of 1763 and others Colonies' Treaties with NA's which were reaffirmed and GUARANTEED by the US Treaties of 1784 and 1794 Chatauqua, which allowed them TO BEAR ARMS FOREVER, assemble freely, etc, on their native lands for the exercise of their
LIBERTY and Happiness. (Iroquois Confederacy etc.,) ...
The NA's and the Colonists were doing what they had been doing sincethe French, Dutch and English had established their colonies here:
The French, Dutch, English settlers and farmers and NA's had arms for mutual defense against each other and these rights were previously inscribed in Town Hall meeting records, private letters, and Treaties, respectively.
(New England Indian Wars, King Philp's War, Queen Ann's War, French and Indian War, etc.)
The a priori requirements for any proof of the background of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence
rest in the daily, weekly and monthly records and letters of the Colonists and their co-existing sometimes enemies, the Native Americans (via oral tradition)
against whom the colonists had to be well -armed even up to the time of the War of 1812, due to the New York State Militia, for example, telling the farmers of the Adirondacks
to fend for themselves against Indian raiders and that the NY State Militia could not send help when they sent messages to the NY State Militia asking for help.
This assumes that, of course, the farmers, (my ancestors) were well armed to fight close battles with an equally
well-armed foe. Later on, some of these NA's married non-NA's and brought their NA rights by tradition and treaty into the American fold.
Just ask any descendant of a Mayflower family or of any 17th
Century colonists and you will hear the
same true stories.
Rely upon the testimony of the people and you will find
the reaffirmation of their RIGHTS in the U.S.
Constitution, reaffirming their ancestors' traditions
from generation to generation for over 400 years, even unto now, 2004.
The proof is in the people; the proof is in the Constitution;
The people live 10 generations, an unbroken line of Patriots
in the Constitution still reaffirming their ancestors'
values and rights of life unchanged in essence and practice then as now:
My forefathers' blood spilled at
the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Battle of Saratoga is their testament, their legacy, for
The U.S. Constitution is written in their blood, their sacrifice for us today.
God bless America!
Case closed.
I am always struck by how people like Dershowitz can make the claims that they make. Their ignorance of what our founders read and discussed is mind-boggling. The most glaring example is that they seem to acknowledge Locke's influence but cannot possibly have read "The Second Treatise" and take the positions that they take with any level of intellectual honesty. Every page in it is saturated with references to scripture, the Divine Creator and the Divine Creation.
Thanks for your posts. I know someone whose young daughter wants to be an attorney. I asked what kind of law and they didn't know. I suggested constitutional law and will give a copy of this thread to her.
Thank you! I remember that ranking being on a yellow background, though. Oh, well.
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
So all the Commandments are enforceable by God, but the only ones enforceable by man are those that directly affect another person. (murder, theft, fraud, perjury, etc.)
The Commandments define 'crime'
>>>The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God - the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
Then should attempts at posting the 10 Commandments be limited to posting just those in which we owe a duty to our fellow man (murder, theft, fraud, perjury)? I think that would remove a considerable amount of the controversy.
While you're probably correct, the 10 Commandments need to be displayed in their entirety.
Not just because of their content, but to remind people the structure of America goes like this;
God
Man
government.
You are endowed by your Creator- (whatever your right of conscience tells you that Creator is) -with unalienable rights.
Just because the Commandments are from the Christian religion, doesn't mean you have to BE Christian, you only have to obey the 'horizontal laws' of the 10 Commandments.
Since the fabrication of 'separation of church and state', government has tried to supplant natural (God given)law with positive (man made) law.
As I've said before, the Commandments define 'crime', but government has tried to redefine it.
From nolo.com legal dictionary;
crime
A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment which usually includes imprisonment. Crimes and their punishments are defined by Congress and state legislatures.
So, according to our legal system, when government doesn't approve of our 'behavior', it makes it illegal and criminal to disobey.
If "you only have to obey the 'horizontal laws' of the 10 Commandments" should they be displayed with the caveat that only some of them need to be obeyed?
I have been discussing on another thread where a superintendent poted them in a school.
When the highest ranking government employee in the government operated and financed schools posts a a list of rules on the wall, isn't their an implication to the students that they should follow all of those rules?
If they are not required to follow them all, then there will be confusion as to which rules they must adhere to.
Calvin's Institutes, I believe in the famed Chapter XX, spoke of the need for "lesser magistrates" to resist idolatrous or tyrannical ambitions of the King. The American counter-revolution was a scrupulously law-abiding re-assertion of the traditional Christian order imperilled by insane royal ambitions. ("The Madness of King George!")
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.