OK, since you three are the duty WOsD cheerleaders, let’s have a history lesson.
The Declaration of Independence is the legal authority which founded this nation. It has a great deal of import on all which has followed. If you read it through, you see that the Founders had had much the same sort of thing as we suffer under the war on some drugs. Their oppressor was also their government, the government of George III and his Parliament. So I KNOW they would find this modern tyranny as offensive as they did his.
They put in an item about government with and by the “consent of the governed.” What did they mean? It seems pretty simple: You gave your INFORMED CONSENT to the acts of government, for they were done in your name and on your behalf. HOWEVER, you cannot give consent to government to do ANYTHING that YOU may not justly do. In the current instance, YOU cannot justly beat down your neighbor’s door and kill him for resisting, just because you think he might be using a substance of which you disapprove. Therefore, you cannot PROPERLY have anyone else doing so FOR YOU. It’s just that simple.
Can you possibly justify these raids (or anything even close to them) in light of the DoI? If so, please explain WHY. If not, then HOW do you justify this travesty?
“OK, since you three are the duty WOsD cheerleaders, let’s have a history lesson.”
Yes a history lesson is certainly needed.
“The Declaration of Independence is the legal authority which founded this nation.”
Wrong. The DOI has no legal authority. It is a statement severing the colonies from Britain and the rationale for that decision.
“They put in an item about government with and by the “consent of the governed.” What did they mean? It seems pretty simple: You gave your INFORMED CONSENT to the acts of government, for they were done in your name and on your behalf.”
Wrong. The consent of the governed does not mean that YOU get to approve of all govt actions. It means that the people as a whole have a say in how they are governed and have a right to change it. We do that through our elected
representatives. The difference between British tyranny and our current govt is that we have representation (such as it is), that we can peaceably change it, and that we have inalienable rights.
“HOWEVER, you cannot give consent to government to do ANYTHING that YOU may not justly do.”
I know of nothing in the DOI or the constitution that supports what you have said. Furthermore the govt can do all sorts of things that YOU cannot justly do, like collect taxes, make laws and many many others.
“In the current instance, YOU cannot justly beat down your neighbor’s door and kill him for resisting, just because you think he might be using a substance of which you disapprove. Therefore, you cannot PROPERLY have anyone else doing so FOR YOU.”
FYI, the govt CAN justly beat down someone’s door and kill them for resisting IF they have a legal warrant to do so. Not just at the federal level but at the state and local level as well. Its been that way for a long long time, way before the WOD. You can argue whether the laws are valid, but they are on the books, put there by YOUR representatives.
In THIS instance the govt DID NOT JUSTLY beat down this guy’s door. Therefore they did NOT legally kill him for resisting. Its not a conspiracy, its a screw up and the people responsible should pay big time. They should also pay if there was a cover-up. Govt representatives should not be able to kill an innocent citizen, throw up their hands and say OPPs, and suffer no consequences.
That, my friend, is a breath of fresh air. I can see that you understand authority, and realize that the one who is sent cannot be greater than who sent him.