Posted on 07/10/2012 7:57:51 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or 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.
How about having a moderator change the title to the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?
Why does the title say “Preamble to the Constitution”? These are quotes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
yes, You are correct. My Mistake.
Thanks.
Well whatever the imperfections of your statement, it seems clear that we are not impelled with the duty to alter or abolish the Federal government of theses united States.
That our freedom and self-determination are under open assault by the same government is beyond question, that we cannot co-exist with those who would make mankind the slaves of the State in their futile effort to build the “prefect societal” is also beyond question.
The Question that remain before us is how and when do we reassert and defend our rights? Is it with this last election that we make a final attempt to hold on to some shreds of limited government, or have we accepted with the recent acts of the traitor John Roberts that there can be no hope for freedom under his despotic scheme of government?
I had it corrected. Was going back and forth between the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thank you for correcting my error.
To answer the first part of your sentence, I did not make a statement. I simply quoted the Preamble.
As to the second part of your sentence we have a right to abolish and or alter our government.
This is done by vote. Not by fiat.
We could rename the ‘Affordable Health Care Act’ as the ‘Declaration of Dependence’.
Sort of a fitting introduction to the USSA.
We cannot simply vote yourself respect for our right. The Federal Government is suppose to have the consent for the governed. It has now totally abandoned any pretends of having consent, and you would have us just sit here and let it do to us whatever it want?
No there are rights that go beyond the vote of a distant, ignorant, & all to often hostility majority. Theses are the reserved rights of our civilization, the rights of man, the Declaration speaks of. We have a sacrate duty to do what we can to uphold and defend them rights for our posterity.
Will we vote? yes, but will we lay down before a despotic democracy and simply accept the extremes of is despotism imposed upon us, no.
We don’t need to institute a new government. We need only to change the leaders. I’m confident the upcoming election will turn us back in the right direction.
It can also be done by force of arms.
What if.... “the People” become generally corrupt.?...
Then the ever present PollyAnna’s will live on a lie..
That the people generally are good.. when they are Not..
Then the “party” that can see reality will survive..
The communists/socialists/progressives have boasted they will degrade america to become self serving.. balkanized..
And it appears they may have done it..
Preamble to the most Bad-A?$&d document humans ever created or ever will. Politicians should quiver in fear when they start to think of themselves as the Aristocracy who know what is best for the mere People. We see Monarchy over and over in other forms around the world but however the Democrats dream - we will never tolerate a King (or Queen) again and never again trust the good intentions of our “betters”.
Why and how could the people impose horrible government upon themselves?
“Our Founders thought tyranny under representative government to be an impossible contradiction.
Why and how could the people impose horrible government upon themselves?”
Clearly you never heard of their opinion regarding the subject of democracy. They did not think tyranny was impossible under even Constitutional(republican as they defined it) Government, much less mealy representative government.
John Adams said: “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”
Quite the contrary what we have now is little if any different than a democracy and of course you know how that ends.
“Our Founders thought tyranny under representative government to be an impossible contradiction.
Why and how could the people impose horrible government upon themselves?”
Clearly you never heard of their opinion regarding the subject of democracy. They did not think tyranny was impossible under even Constitutional(republican as they defined it) Government, much less mealy representative government.
John Adams said: “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”
Quite the contrary what we have now is little if any different than a democracy and of course you know how that ends.
An excess of power in the people was leading to a new kind of tyranny, not the magisterial kind of Great Britain, not by traditional rulers, but by the people themselves - "what John Adams in 1776 had called a theoretical contradiction, a democratic despotism."
The Creation of the American Republic, Gordon Wood 1969.
“Clearly you are not familiar with the political evolution of the 1776-1787 period.
An excess of power in the people was leading to a new kind of tyranny, not the magisterial kind of Great Britain, not by traditional rulers, but by the people themselves - “what John Adams in 1776 had called a theoretical contradiction, a democratic despotism.”
The Creation of the American Republic, Gordon Wood 1969.”
I’m afraid I am at a loss to explain to suppose democracy that was said to exist in theses united States before 1787 and after 1783.
I do know that the contental was having trouble funding the army “obligations”(Thanks to Hamilton & elk who sabotaged the solutions that were made.). Confederate bureaucratic were having trouble getting respect from foreign leaders, and State officials were not fully complying with the treaty made by congress and congress was having trouble figuring out how to compel compliance.
But there was no democracy in any State anywhere. All the States had their own Republican Constitutions of civil government, and were following them in combination with their own people’s interest. Certant “federalist” like Hamlition were simply unhappy with the situation and the measures they had to take to carry out their jobs.
So they maneuvered and schemed for more power as politicians frequently do, what they got was the Constitutional convention & Federal Constitution of 1787.
Little is written and less is known of the 1776 -1787 era at FR because it was complicated and chaotic.
Your last three paragraphs reflect what passes for urban knowledge of the times at FR. I assure you that as it applies to this period, it is wrong.
I suggest you read a respectable text before spouting off about that which you do not know. Gordon Wood wrote one. Forrest McDonald wrote a couple.
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.