Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Artemis Webb

The question as it was originally posed was whether the “Declaration of Independence” truthfully states that “rights” of “all men” are “self evident”.

The discussion centered around who is the “we” in “we believe” and who are “all men” and were these rights, indeed, “self evident” and if so, then by whom.

So then you say
“...if you believe that American Indians and women are not embraced by The Constitution then we can’t agree on a debate premise...”

Well, first of all, the debate had to do with the Declaration, not the Constitution.

Secondly, if you believe the rights recognized by the Constitution and the laws of the time equally “embraced” (the word you chose to use) all “men” equally including indentured servants, American Indians, women, and slaves, then we can’t agree on a debate premise.


85 posted on 07/04/2010 1:39:14 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]


To: Repeal The 17th
"Well, first of all, the debate had to do with the Declaration, not the Constitution."

The debate has everything to do with The Constitution. As I said before a country has to declare independence in order to have an independent constitution. There would not be a constitution to embrace all citizens if the Founding Fathers had not first declared us independent from Britain.

88 posted on 07/04/2010 1:44:43 PM PDT by Artemis Webb (DeMint 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson