Consent is checked too. This ain't, never was, and never will be, a democracy.
On Jul 5, 12:07 pm, Mark <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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.
