ruffrecords
Well-known member
To all my friends and colleagues in the Colonies, washing you all happy independence day.
Cheers
Ian
Cheers
Ian
Sounds a lot like gerrymandering / redistricting / social security number checks at voting booths :-\He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
How long until demands pressure us to modify this language? (How bad this idea?)"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
Guantanamo Bay comes to mind...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
"It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful." -L.SpoonerFor imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
My hackneyed addendum: By 'fortunes' we mean the life that labors within possibility, not the value these labors may directly produce. A person's life is their greatest fortune, often squandered, impossible to repay. Because the fruits of labor draw from the priceless treasure of life, let these fruits sustain this Declaration, or any other aim not in competition with it.And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
In case I haven't mentioned this lately, we need to be cognizant of the social mores of the time hundreds of years ago. I doubt many (any?) historical figures would pass modern PC standards of behavior. Some of our founders owned slaves, clearly deplorable by modern standards but their reputations should not be tarnished by centuries later modern thinking. They were a product of their times who still accomplished remarkable things.boji said:Anyone mind some peanut-gallery op ed? Hope not, happy 4th nonetheless!
Sounds a lot like gerrymandering / redistricting / social security number checks at voting booths :-\
Edit: How long until demands pressure us to modify this language? (How bad this idea?)
? Not sure what about gitmo is bothering you in this context but it was a created to finesse our own constitution while holding non-state military combatants to prevent them from returning to the fight. It would have been far simpler and cheaper to just kill them all and let god sort them out, but we don't roll that way.Guantanamo Bay comes to mind...
don't know who spooner is, but the popular colonist's refrain was that "taxation without representation is tyranny"... a very popular slogan back in the 1750-1760s."It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful." -L.Spooner
The Declaration was a remarkable document, the constitution even more remarkable, but everything needs to be held in context of the times. The later constitution anticipated needing changes over time and thus incorporated its own feature to add amendments later.My hackneyed addendum: By 'fortunes' we mean the life that labors within possibility, not the value these labors may directly produce. A person's life is their greatest fortune, often squandered, impossible to repay. Because the fruits of labor draw from the priceless treasure of life, let these fruits sustain this Declaration, or any other aim not in competition with it.
everything needs to be held in context of the times.
In what world is not killing them "NOT" better? Certainly more humane, but a huge PIA because of our constitution.boji said:Yes, of course!
Regarding Gitmo, the argument for keeping people from due process using 'jurisdictions foreign to our constitution' shouldn't be, better to have killed them on the battlefield.
A luxury we are not afforded in the heat of battle. International law has not effectively come up with remedy for dealing with non-state actors, making war. It should not be difficult to find examples of more brutal treatment of battlefield combatants, by less humane governments.I prefer reason and evidence be submitted against these foreign combatants in a manner in keeping with our constitution, such that we, the people know what they did and what justice was carried out.
Straw man fallacy. A fraction of gitmo residents are not accepted back by their actual home countries, or others. If anybody it is these, their own home countries, that are leaving them there to rot.Having them live out their miserable lives rotting in a cell without ever meeting their accuser seems inhumane, imo.
A review of period history reveals that some Indian nations were used strategically against the American colonists.Regarding the line on Indian conscripts, I'm saying given the recent calls for the removal of monuments and artwork, i'm afraid it is only a matter of time before they come for the words of the constitution.
Sorry that is the hand we are dealt... and why we need smart people in SCOTUS, they have the hard work of interpreting old written law.Also I have a bit of trouble with the idea that we're to interpret some lines in the spirit of the times, while using other lines in the spirit of literalism, especially when it supports polarizing arguments (for example, "a well regulated militia"). I don't think calls for a revision should be unquestionably taboo, as amendments have pretty much stopped occurring as well. Of course that seems like an impossibility in this day and age. How much of the 'living constitution' is made frozen due to the interpretation of lines that benefit particular interests? It's all a legal shell game now, imo, run by corporate interests.
No IMO it is actually in the spirit of the 4th to celebrate our founding principles, with warts and all of our founders, while we need to be thoughtful, to not #metoo them unfairly.Apologies if I'm not in keeping with the vibe of the 4th. I appreciate you posting the 1st issue of the Constitution.
Enter your email address to join: