This ain't, never was, and never will be, a democracy.
On Jul 5, 12:07 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .....as to them shall seem most likely
> to effect their safety and happiness.
>
> This means that if they want Sharia in their land... if they want stoning
> and beheading they have the right to institute it. They have the right to
> have a dictator until they find it no longer useful. They have the right to
> rebel. It does not give anyone from outside the right to impose a different
> system.
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:17 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think thats the whole point of the treatise.
>
> > That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
> > deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
>
> > Not jobs power or white marble offices; not birth right, philosohpy or
> > ideology.
>
> > THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
>
> > The great experiment. The jazz.
>
> > On Jul 4, 1:05 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Gee MJ,
>
> > > This little treatise completely ignores the explanation and conditions
> > > for all men to be equal ie:
>
> > > 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 to 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.
>
> > > On Jul 4, 10:15 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights.
> > All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not
> > government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called
> > into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one
> > purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights."The Real Meaning
> > of the Fourth of JulybyJacob G. Hornberger, July 4, 2008
> > > > Contrary to popular myth, the men who signed the Declaration of
> > Independence were not great Americans. Instead, they were great Englishmen.
> > In fact, they were as much English citizens as Americans today are American
> > citizens. It s easy to forget that the revolutionaries in 1776 were people
> > who took up arms against their own government.
> > > > So how is it that these men are considered patriots? Well, the truth is
> > that their government didn t consider them patriots at all. Their government
> > considered them to be bad guys -- traitors, all of whom deserved to be
> > hanged for treason.
> > > > Most of us consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence to
> > be patriots because of their courage in taking a stand against the
> > wrongdoing and tyranny of their own government, even risking their lives in
> > the process.
> > > > Yet not even the patriotism and courage of these English citizens
> > constitutes the foremost significance of the Fourth of July, any more than
> > the military victory over their government s forces at Yorktown does.
> > > > Instead, the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the
> > expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political
> > declaration in history: that man s rights are inherent, God-given, and
> > natural and, thus, do not come from government.
> > > > Throughout history, people have believed that their rights come from
> > government. Such being the case, people haven t objected whenever government
> > officials infringed upon their rights. Since rights were considered to be
> > government-bestowed privileges, the thinking went, why shouldn t government
> > officials have the power to regulate or suspend such privileges at will?
> > > > The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights.
> > All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not
> > government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called
> > into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one
> > purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.
> > > > What happens if a government that people have established becomes a
> > destroyer, rather than a protector, of their rights? The Declaration
> > provides the answer: It is the right of the people to alter or even abolish
> > their government and establish new government whose purpose is the
> > protection, not the destruction, of people s rights and freedoms.
> > > > The Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be construed in light of
> > that revolutionary statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence.
> > The American people used the Constitution to bring the federal government
> > into existence but also, simultaneously, they used that document to limit
> > the government s powers to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution.
> > With the Constitution, people limited the powers of their own government in
> > a formal, structured way, with the aim of protecting their rights and
> > freedoms from being infringed upon by that same government.
> > > > Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers
> > of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their
> > new government would become like their former government against which they
> > had had to take up arms. While they recognized the necessity for government
> > -- as a means to protect their rights -- they also recognized that the
> > federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely
> > limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the
> > Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a
> > straitjacket.
> > > > Even that was not sufficient for the American people, however. As a
> > condition for approving the Constitution, they demanded passage of the Bill
> > of Rights, which emphasized two deeply held beliefs: (1) that the federal
> > government, not some foreign entity, constitutes the greatest threat to the
> > rights and liberties of the American people; and (2) that the enumeration of
> > specific rights and liberties, both substantive and procedural, would better
> > ensure their protection from federal infringement.
> > > > On the Fourth of July we celebrate the patriotism and courage of those
> > English revolutionaries who were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes,
> > and sacred honor in defense of the most revolutionary declaration of rights
> > in history -- that man s rights come from God and nature, not from
> > government.http://www.fff.org/comment/com0807b.asp-Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *
> *- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment