A state can do whatever it wants so long as it doesnt violate the Constitution, is that correct?
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.
"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."
Ron Paul thinks not and apparently how the US was before the Civil War, that a state can do whateverOriginally Posted by unknown
A state cannot have rights. People have rights. States have powers. The 10th Amendment does not contain the word "right" anywhere.
Now if you want to make believe that the state doesn't have the power to do whatever it wants, bully for you. But if the state didn't have that power, it would not be the state.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Not correct. A state can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't violate Supreme Court decisions.
( the Supreme Court decided a long time ago that their decisions are the highest law in the land,, not the constitution )
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
States have seniority, well at least 13 of them do. Maybe they can grandfather the other ones in also.
With seniority comes senility. They've been placed in a home for their own good and so that their children don't have to be responsible for them in the day to day.
Statehood trumps nationhood, at least until the guns come out. Actually, I'm all for mass secession.
Not if there's such a thing as individual rights or liberty
Here you go - Limited Government defined.... http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr5.html
5. Limited GovernmentGovernments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" - (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that government must be limited in power if Individual Liberty is to be safeguarded, if each Individual's God-given, unalienable rights are to be made and kept enduringly secure.
"Just Powers" Defined2. This philosophy asserts that the self-governing people allow any government they may organize to possess, by grant from them, only the limited and few powers with which the people think the particular government may sensibly be entrusted in order to serve their purposes without endangering their rights--their liberties or freedoms. These powers constitute the "just powers" of government, as the Declaration of Independence phrases it. This is in keeping with the primary purpose for which the people organize governments: to make and keep these unalienable rights secure and most beneficial to themselves and to Posterity--time without end.
"Limited" - a Key Word3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)
Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.
Division of Powers and Checks and Balances5. As a further safeguard for the people's rights, The Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution provided for division of powers not only between the Federal and State governments but also within the Federal government between its three, separate Branches and, further, specified various checks and balances among these Branches, to help prevent either usurpation of power (grasping unauthorized power) or misuse of the limited quantity of power granted to it by the people: as explained, for instance, by Madison in The Federalist number 51. Each of the Branches was designed to help restrain the other Branches from any violation of the Constitution. The admonition on this topic expressed in Washington's Farewell Address reflected the conviction of all of The Founders.
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."--George Washington (Farewell Address; Emphasis added)
The Compound Republic6. The limitation of government's power, by a written Constitution adopted by the people (by the electorate), is the main distinguishing characteristic of a Republic. The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each American government, Federal and State, is a Republic; and such a form of government is expressly guaranteed to each State by the United States Constitution. (Article IV, Section 4.) This makes the American system a combination, or federation , of Republics--a compound Republic as noted in The Federalist number 51 by Madison. Although the term "Federal Republic" has sometimes been used to refer both to the central (Federal) government and to the federated system of Republics--including both central government and State governments (all Republics)--it will facilitate clear thinking if this term "Federal Republic" is applied only to the central government while using the phrase "federated system of Republics" or "federation of Republics" to designate the combination, or confederation, of all of these Republics. Clarity of understanding will be best assured by referring to the central government as the central Republic.
The electorate adopt a Constitution as their basic law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention to frame it for their final approval, or ratification, as was done successfully for the first time in history by the people of Massachusetts with regard to its Constitution of 1780; it was so framed by a convention specially chosen by the people for this sole purpose and then submitted to the people for approval. Final adoption, or ratification, may also be effected in behalf of the people by a specially chosen convention for this sole purpose; and later amendments may be so approved for the people or through the regular legislative body--the alternatives specified in the United States Constitution. This Constitution was framed by the Federal (Constitutional) Convention in 1787 and then adopted in 1787-1788 by State Ratifying Conventions especially chosen by the people for this sole purpose; which is the complete and perfect method of Constitution-making. A Constitutional Convention--one chosen by the people for the sole purpose of framing or ratifying a Constitution--is one of America's greatest contributions, to the mechanics of self-government through constitutionally limited government.
Federal Delegated-Power, and State Full-Power, Republics7. The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual. (See Par. 3, Principle 4.)
The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution8. The Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies "the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government. The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on the power granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." (Discussed also in Pars. 4 and 5 of Principle 11.) Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.
Hamilton's Opinion9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791 ("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflecting the controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining and Defining the Original, Controlling Intent10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) in ascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have never amended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.
The Founders' Warnings11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement of the Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notably numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ." Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Resistance to Usurpers, as Tyrants, Is Obedience to God12. It is a traditional American motto that: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." This motto was suggested by Benjamin Franklin in mid-1776 in the Congress as being an appropriate one for the seal of the United States; and it was so truly expressive of traditional American thinking that Jefferson adopted it for use on his personal seal.
A major part of the American philosophy underlying the resistance to the tyranny of king and parliament prior to the Declaration of Independence, and in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as follows. Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or endanger, the people's God-given, unalienable rights thereby and to this extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and tyrants. They thereby act outside of this supreme law, which defines these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore act without authority from the people. By thus seceding and violating the restrictions of this law, they act outside of Law: lawlessly, as "out-laws." As Samuel Adams stated: "Let us remember, that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others [Posterity] in our doom'" (Emphasis added.) They thereby, in practice, replace Rule-by-Law with Rule-by-Man. These defaulting trustees--thus acting lawlessly--thereby free the people from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to Law and not to law-defying public servants.
The reasoning supporting the above-quoted motto's concept of moral duty is this: Man, being given by his Creator unalienable rights which are accompanied by corresponding duties, has the moral duty--duty to God--to safeguard these rights for the benefit of self and others, including Posterity. Man is therefore obligated to oppose all violators of these rights; and such failure betrays Man's duty as the temporary trustee of Posterity's just heritage. This is in keeping with the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence as reiterated in part, for example, in 1788 in the Virginia Ratifying Convention's proposals for amendments to the Constitution including a Bill of Rights stating in part as follows:
". . . that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."Applied to the United States Constitution, which Federal and State officials are sworn to support, this means that--in resisting Federal officials who, as usurpers, defy the limits on their powers imposed by the "supreme Law of the Land"--the people and governments of the States are opposing Rule-by-Man and defending Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law: the Constitution). They are thus defending the Constitution against its violators: the Federal usurpers; and they are acting in defense of the people's God-given, unalienable rights and the States' reserved powers. The American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government contemplates that the people of the several States--acting through their State governments--will, in last resort, use force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers, that they will use military force (Militia of the States) to oppose any military force used by such usurpers; as Hamilton and Madison explained in detail in The Federalist, numbers 28 and 46.
The Conclusion13. The American philosophy reflects the knowledge that the history of Individual Liberty is the history of the effective limitation of government's power, which is expressed in the traditional principle summarized in the phrase: Limited for Liberty.
Quotes Supporting Principle Five...
LIBERTIES SAFEGUARDED THROUGH CHECKS AND BALANCES---TO CREATE DELAYS
The use of checks and balances in the forms of government, is to create delays and multiply diversities of interests, by which the tendency on a sudden to violate them may be counteracted.
LIMITS FIXED BY THE CONSTITUTIONJohn Adams ("On Government," 1778)
Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits, which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution. With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix.
OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION---ONLYU.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
Constitution of the U.S., Art. VI (Note: Art. II, Sec. 1, prescribes a similar oath for the President.)
INSTANT ALARM AND ACTION NEEDED--"AT THE FIRST EXPERIMENT ON OUR LIBERTIES"Because, it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of [the] noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.
DANGER OF USURPATION BY THE SUPREME COURTJames Madison ("Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"-- Addressed to the General Assembly of Va., 1785)
. . . there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the supreme court.
The executive . . . holds the sword . . . The legislative [Congress] . . . commands the purse . . . The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse . . . can take no active resolution whatever . . . liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, [as usurpers] but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments . . ." [in usurping power]Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Wm. Johnson, 1823)
That the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, or of any other Court to be instituted by the Congress, is not in any case to be encreased enlarged or extended by any Fiction Collusion or mere suggestion; . . .The Federalist (no. 78, by Alexander Hamilton)
It is not probable that the Supreme Court would long be indulged in a career of usurpation opposed to the decided opinions & policy of the Legislature [Congress]. Nor do I think that Congress, even seconded by the Judicial Power, can, without some change in the character of the nation, succeed in durable violations of the rights& authorities of the States.New York Ratifying Convention, 1788 (Part of proposed amendments to the Constitution)
A TRUTH ABOUT USURPATION("Durable" emphasized in original; other emphasis added.) James Madison (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)
Another truth respecting the vigilance with which a free people should guard their liberty, that deserves to be carefully observed, is this--that a real tyranny may prevail in a state, while the forms of a free constitution remain.
ESPECIALLY PERTINENT EXCERPTS FROM WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS ...John Dickinson (Emphasis per original.)("Notes" in Political Writings)
ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR CONSTITUTION
The basis of our political systems is the tight of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.
"NO CHANGE BY USURPATION" IS THE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING SELF-GOVERNMENT AND RULE-BY-LAW
If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. (Emphasis added)
EFFECTIVE CHECKS AND BALANCES NEEDED
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. (Emphasis added.)
That oughtta likely cover it your question, unknown.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 08:01 PM.
Of course, then, you have Decentralized Government, too.
Decentralized Government defined...http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr6.html
Decentralized Government". . . true barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State governments . . ." (Thomas Jefferson, 1811 letter to Destutt de Tracy)
The Principle1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that decentralization of governmental power, to the maximum practicable extent, is essential to the security of Man's God-given, unalienable rights.
Man's Unalienable Rights and "States Rights" Doubly Protected2. It asserts that these rights are most securely protected by a federated system of government--consisting of a central government (a Republic) and State governments (each a Republic). Under this system, the whole quantity of governmental power is not only limited by written Constitution, Federal and State, but also decentralized so that the vast majority of powers are kept on the State and local levels. The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by amendment--with its powers divided between three separate branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The American system is "a compound Republic"--a federation, or combination, of central and State Republics--under which: "The different governments will control each other . . . ," while within each Republic there are two safeguarding features: (a) a division of powers, as well as (b) a system of checks and balances between separate departments: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people." (The Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)
Greater Quantity of Power Retained by Each State3. By far the greater quantity and variety of power was retained by the government of each State when the United States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788. Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal, government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist, number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power government--the central Republic--was granted few and limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions specified expressly in the United States Constitution as applying to the governments of the States.
"Home Rule" the Basic, Controlling Principle4. This federated system of decentralized power is a chief characteristic of the American governmental arrangements. This is in keeping with the controlling intent of those who framed and adopted each of its Amendments. The main aim was to preserve maximum "Home Rule" by the States, to keep the greatest feasible quantity of power as close as possible to the source--the people--where they can best watch it alertly so as to check and prevent its abuse or misuse, as well as to prevent its unsound, or unnecessary, expansion, to the peril or perhaps doom of their liberties.
Economic Liberty and Decentralized Government5. Such decentralized government is favorable, indeed essential, to America's traditional philosophy and system of economic liberty--the inseparable and indispensable economic aspect of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty-Responsibility. This includes the system of individual, private, competitive enterprise (called Individual Enterprise--the term used by President Jefferson in his 1801 Annual Message to Congress). This system features a free-market economy--free from Government-over-Man controls, although subject to just regulation as authorized by the Constitution's pertinent provisions) under just laws expressive of "just powers" (to use the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to protect the equal rights of all Individuals and thus to safeguard sound competition--which gives full play to individual initiative inspired by the incentive of economic liberty of The Individual and is a main characteristic of the traditional American philosophy. This right is not a goal or end, in and of itself, but a necessary means, and it is an essential and main support of Man's unalienable rights. It involves freedom of choice by both producer-seller and consumer-buyer, subject always to the potently persuasive influence of community opinion and standards in the sound environment of an ethical society which emphasizes the duty factor of Individual Liberty-Responsibility, including due respect for the equal rights of others. This means that the central government is limited strictly to the consistent role of mere regulation (not control) to those ends--regulation as limited by the Constitution. This excludes any control by the central government directly or indirectly of the whole or any part of the national economy, which includes all of the people's economic activities.
The free-market economy is controlled by the people as a whole through their acting as buyers and sellers--a multitude of Individuals generally acting individually as both buyer and seller of things or services a number of times each day in the ordinary course of life's daily activities, involving transactions great or small--through their exercise of freedom of choice daily, even hourly; for example, the free-market economy is both a result and instrument of the exercise of this freedom of Individuals--not a mechanistic, independently operating "Thing" which oppressively controls human beings.
Sample Warnings by The Founders6. The American people and their leaders in 1776-1787 were determined that the central government should never be allowed to possess power to act, or be permitted to act, as a "consolidated" government with sovereign, unlimited power over all of the people and things in the country. Vigilant friends of Individual Liberty, including for example leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, warned repeatedly and emphatically against the danger of ever permitting such a government to exist in America.
Samuel Adams' Opinion7. Samuel Adams, firebrand patriot-leader always in the lead for both American Independence and Man's Liberty against Government-over-Man, expressed fear in this regard in 1789 (letter to Richard Henry Lee) in keeping with his never varying sentiments. He said that he feared misinterpretation of the Constitution would bring about fully centralized (consolidated) power in the Federal government at the expense of the States and "sink both in despotism."
Hamilton's Opinion8. In the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788, Hamilton warned sharply that the States' powers reserved under the Constitution must be safeguarded for the sake of Individual Liberty and that Congress would never fail to safeguard them: ". . . unless they become madmen."
Hamilton and Madison in "The Federalist"9. This sound line of thought was stressed by Hamilton and Madison, in their joint report in The Federalist (for example, numbers 17 and 28 by Hamilton, and 45 and 46 by Madison), recording the intent of the 1787 Framing Convention as expressed in the Constitution. The foregoing sentiments of these leaders were shared by their fellow leaders and the American people in general of that day--as reflecting truly American principles--and by Jefferson second to none.
Jefferson's Opinion10. In his First Inaugural Address as President, Jefferson stated that the State governments are "the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies"--that is, tendencies which conflict with the American form of government: a Republic. He stated in a letter to Destutt de Tracy (1811): "But the true barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State governments . . ." With regard to the people's freedom from Government-over-Man controls by the Federal government, in keeping with the Constitution's limits on that government's power, Jefferson stated in his Annual Message to Congress, in 1801: "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." In the above-mentioned 1811 letter, Jefferson also discussed the prospective use of the Militia of the States--all acting together--to resist the forces of any Federal usurpers acting in violation of the Constitution to oppress or dominate the people or government of any State.
Some Peaceable Remedies of the People Against an Offending Federal Government11. Some of the peaceable remedies of the people of any State against what they consider to be anti-Constitution, or otherwise offensive, conduct by the Federal government--by any of its Branches, or by all of them combined--as contemplated by the Convention which framed the Constitution, were specified in The Federalist number 46 by Madison, with silent acquiescence of his co-author Hamilton, as follows:
"On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular states, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people, their repugnance and perhaps refusal to co-operate with the officers of the union, the frowns of the executive magistracy [officials] of the state, the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose in any state difficulties not to be despised; would form in a large state very serious impediments, and where the sentiments of several adjoining states happened to be in union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."The most extremely "unwarrantable measure" is an unconstitutional measure. Madison here expressed the understanding also of those who framed the Constitution and of their fellow leaders in the State Ratifying Conventions as well as of the people in general--all extremely jealous of their hard-won liberties and determined to act vigorously against any danger to them from the greatly feared, central government if it should ever threaten to over-step the limits imposed on its powers under the constitution, as amended. Protests by State legislatures against what they would consider to be abuses of power or usurpations, potential or actual, by the central government were of course included as a main element in what Madison referred to her as "legislative devices . . . impediments . . . obstructions." Actual examples occurring afterward are the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and the Hartford Convention Resolutions of 1815 (discussed in Principle 3, Pars. 5-6). Some additional remedies of the people, of a peaceable nature, are political action--use of the ballot in elections--and amendment of the Constitution by the people (Art. V); while impeachment by Congress of any officials guilty of acting as defaulting public trustees is provided for (Art. I, Sec. 2,3).
State's Self-defense by Force, in Last Resort, per "The Federalist"12. With regard to use by the States of force--use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms)--in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces. This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)
The Civil over The Military13. The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort.
The Conclusion14. The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty.
Quotes Supporting the Principle of Decentralized Government....
NON-RESISTANCE TO USURPERS IS SLAVISH
And he that would palm the doctrine of unlimited passive obedience and non-resistance upon mankind . . . is not only a fool and a knave, but a rebel against common sense, as well as the laws of God, of Nature, and his Country.
And yet I think it may be presumed, a free-born People can never become so servile as to regard them [obey tyrants' edicts], while they have Eyes to see that such Rulers [who violate basic Law] have gone out o! the Line of their Power.--There is no Reason they should be Fools because their Rulers are so . . .James Otis ("The Rights of the British Colonies," 1764)
. . . tyranny and arbitrary power are utterly inconsistent with, and subversive of the very end and design of civil government, and directly contrary to natural law, which is the true foundation of civil government and all politick law: Consequently the authority of a tyrant is of itself null and void . . .Rev. Elisha Williams (Emphasis per original.) ("A Seasonable Plea . . ." 1744)
The king is as much bound by his oath, not to infringe the legal rights of the people, as the people are bound to yield subjection to him. From whence it follows, that as soon as the prince sets himself up above law, he loses the king in the tyrant: he does to all intents and purposes, unking himself, by acting out of, and beyond, that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in. And in such cases, he has no more right to be obeyed, than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission. The subjects obligation to allegiance then ceases of course; and to resist him, is no more rebellion, than to resist any foreign invader. (Emphasis added except in last sentence.)Rev. Samuel West (Election Sermon, 1776)
Third: That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.Rev. Jonathan Mayhew (Election Sermon, "Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers," 1750)
THE STATES' MILITIA INTENDED, IN PART, FOR DEFENSE AGAINST FEDERAL USURPERSNorth Carolina Ratifying Convention (Among proposed amendments to the Constitution; and similarly the Virginia Ratifying Convention)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
USE FORCE TO DEFEND LIBERTY BUT ONLY AS THE LAST RESORTU.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment (in keeping with various States' Bills of Rights, such as Sec. 13 of 1776 Bill of Rights of Virginia)
That no man shou'd scruple, or hesitate a moment to use a-ms. [arms] in [defence of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet A-ms. [arms] . . . should be the last . . . resort.
STATES RIGHTS DEFENDED BY FORCE--IN LAST RESORTGeorge Washington (Letter to George Mason, 1769)
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents [by usurping power], there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state . . . It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the state governments will in all possible contingencies afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the state governments, would not excite the opposition of a single state or of a few states only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations in short would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial o/ force would be made in the one case, as was made in the other.The Federalist (no. 28, by Alexander Hamilton) (Note: Means by use of States' Militia in self-defense, in last resort.)
THE STATES ESSENTIAL TO LIBERTY--ACCORDING TO THE THINKING OF THE FOUNDERSThe Federalist (no. 46, by James Madison) (Note: Emphasis added; means use of States' Militia in self-defense, in last resort.) * In the American Revolution
No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.
[As to danger of the Supreme Court's misinterpreting the Constitution soas to concentrate power in Washington] To this I am opposed; because, when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington . . . it will render Powerless the checks . . . will become as venal and oppressive . . . [as Great Britain's government] . . . If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become his true historians.John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. (Speaking for the Court in 1819 McCulloch v. Md. case; in 1788 was a member of the Va. Ratifying Convention)
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Charles Hammond, 1821)REPEL "LAWLESS ATTACK" ON LIBERTY
The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter.--Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish o! our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember, that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event. (Emphasis per original.)
Samuel Adams (Essay in Boston Gazette, 1771)
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 08:08 PM.
Is that a yes or no?
Federal and State Republics were referenced in paragraphs in post #9 directly under The Compound Republic.
Do you want to discuss your question seriously, or are you just blowing smoke up my ass, unknown? It's important to recognize the fundamental principles that establish the answer to your question. There are no shortcuts, man. Which is why I shared them with you.
Aside from that, and, per post #5, a true Republic funtions in a manner that is consistent with limiting The Majority strictly, whether they be State or Federal Republics. Limited for Liberty. As such, The Minority of One is protected.
Is that where you want to go with this? Individuial rights? If so, just cut the crap and get to it.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 08:31 PM.
States dont have rights, only individuals do. Governments have powers and can dole out privileges.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Seems like the confusion here comes from ignoring the fundamental difference between a Republic and a Democracy within the context of the initial question.
To be clear, The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
Additionally...
The Majority - Limited for Liberty
".. . this sacred principle . . ." [Majority must respect Minority's rights] (President Jefferson's First Inaugural Address)
The PrincipleThe traditional American philosophy teaches that The Majority must be strictly limited in power, and in the operation of government, for the protection of The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and, therefore, of the rights of The Minority--of all minorities.
A Restricted Mechanic of GovernmentSelf-government's system of rule by majority vote is based on necessity. Rule by majority vote is a necessary mechanic of any government of the popular type, featuring rule by the people through free, periodic elections such as, for example, those held in the United States. Under this philosophy, rule by majority vote is always subject to the "sacred principle" defined in President Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, quoted below.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
A Minority of One ProtectedThe protection provided by this principle applies fundamentally, of course, in favor of a minority of one: The Individual. No majority, however great even all of the people but one Individual--may properly infringe, or possess the power to infringe, the rights of any minority, however small--even a minority of a lone Individual.
America a Republic--Not a Democracy--In Form of Government--So As to Limit Effectively The Majority To Protect the IndividualTherein lies the reason why the American leaders who framed and ratified the United States Constitution in 1787-1788 chose, for America's form of government, that of a Republic and not a Democracy. (The then existing Confederation was merely a treaty arrangement between completely independent and separate State governments, by agreement of their legislatures only and not by consent of the people, with no real central government--with only a legislative body--and with no power over those governments or over individual citizens; so it provided no protection for the rights of The Individual or The Minority against tyranny by The Majority in any State--later remedied, as to certain rights, by prohibitions in the original Constitution expressly made applicable against the States.) A Republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. In a Republic, the whole system is designed primarily to protect The Individual's unalienable rights--therefore The Minority, all minorities--against any violation by government or by others. As the Declaration of Independence expresses this American goal of safeguarding these rights, the people form their governments "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them secure.
The Majority Omnipotent in Any DemocracyThis is not the case under a Democracy, speaking of it as a form of government and not merely in the more general sense of its meaning a popular type of government. In a Democracy, The Majority is omnipotent, whether it be a Representative Democracy or a Direct Democracy. In the Representative type, the people function governmentally through an elected legislature, which selects and controls the head of the Executive Department, as in Great Britain where "the authority of the parliament is transcendent and uncontrolable" (as stated in The Federalist number 53, by Madison)--where in fact the House of Commons alone has by law become supreme. In the Direct type, all of the electorate (those entitled to vote) assemble as a single group to debate and decide directly and conclusively all governmental questions. This is suitable only for a very small number of people--as in a New England town with a town-meeting system of government, or in a situation like that of the small city-states of ancient Greece. (Decisions of a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the State and United States Constitutions which protect the rights of The Individual and The Minority, so such a town-meeting government is not a true Democracy featuring The Majority Omnipotent.)
In a Democracy, The Individual Is Subservient and Must Be Submissive to The Omnipotent MajorityAny Democracy, either Representative or Direct, does not even recognize the existence of any unqualified rights of The Individual, much less his possessing God-given, unalienable rights as conceived by the American philosophy. A Democracy in America, as a form of government, would therefore provide no protection for these rights. Under a Democracy, Man is considered to have only qualified privileges permitted by The Majority in control of government and revocable by it at any time. This spells Rule by Omnipotent Majority, with The Individual and The Minority as well as all minorities victimized at the pleasure of The Majority, without limit and without any legal basis for objection or practical remedy. The idea of such unlimited rule, as if by "divine right of The Majority," is as abhorrent in the eyes of the traditional American philosophy as is the idea of rule by "divine right of kings."
The Uniquely American Principle Was Thoroughly Understood in 1776The traditional American philosophy requires a Republic's constitutionally limited form of government for the security of Man's unalienable rights against violation by The Majority, by government, as well as by others. This philosophy was well understood in America in 1776 but was imperfectly practiced by the States in the post-1776 period, during which rights were violated. This correct understanding was exemplified by the previously noted (Par. 8, Principle 2) town-meeting petition of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, addressed to the legislature of Massachusetts in May, 1776. It urged the adoption by the people--as "the fountain of power"--of a Constitution as their fundamental law, to fill the void created by the end of royal rule, as "the first step to be taken" by the people in order to guard against despotism--against "the wanton exercise of power"--and it asserted, that the only safeguard is "the formation of a fundamental constitution" by the people. Their aim was to safeguard their liberties. This was accomplished by the people of Massachusetts in 1780, by their creating the first true Constitution and Republic in the world. They utilized successfully, for the first time in history, a constitutional convention--which is America's great, if not greatest, contribution to the mechanics of self-government through constitutional government. (Earlier Acts of Legislatures of other States were erroneously classified as "constitutions," while some countries' governments throughout history had generally been erroneously classified as "republics"--a much-misunderstood and loosely used term. See the correct definition of a Republic in Paragraph 4, above.)
Principle Violated by "Elective Despotism" after 1776The post-1776 period witnessed gross violations by State Legislatures of the unalienable rights of victimized Individuals. In Virginia, for example, Jefferson protested vigorously against the Legislature's acts of tyranny by The Majority, stating: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for ("Notes on The State of Virginia," 1782; emphasis Jefferson's). Misconduct in this period by The Omnipotent Majority in the legislatures of a number of the States was in reaction against the earlier oppressive rule by the king and his royal governors and judges. At that time, except in Massachusetts under its Constitution of 1780, there were no real State Constitutions to restrain the legislatures, which made sure that the governors and judges were without power to prohibit legislative enactments (by which the violations of unalienable rights were effected). The New Hampshire Constitution, based on this pattern, was not adopted until 1784 after a Constitutional Convention was successful in framing one acceptable to the people--several earlier conventions having been unsuccessful. Other States did not follow suit for a number of years, some not for decades.
"The Excesses of Democracy"This type of tyranny, by Omnipotent Majority, is always possible under any Democracy as a form of government. This is what The Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution and their fellow American leaders meant when, in the 1787-1788 debates with regard to the framing and adoption of the Constitution, they denounced the 11 excesses of democracy. They were, of course, not criticizing popular government as such--for instance as it exists under the Republic of the United States featuring constitutionally limited government, as limited by the Constitution. They were, therefore, not condemning democracy in the general sense of the term--meaning merely a popular type of government. They were speaking in support of America's being a Republic, not a Democracy, as a form of government. The more general meaning of Democracy--popular government--also applies to America; but this use of the term is only confusing in any discussion, as here, of the characteristics of different forms of popular government: a Republic in contrast to a Democracy.
Federal and State RepublicsThe foregoing explains why the traditional American philosophy requires that the central (Federal) government and the State governments be Republics. (See Pars. 6-7 of Principle 5.) Each State is guaranteed the form of government of a Republic by the United States Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 4). The foregoing also makes clear why this philosophy requires that The Majority, at any time in temporary charge of government, administer its affairs in keeping with the Constitution's limitations and for the benefit of all Individuals composing the people as a whole, meaning The Minority and all minorities as well as The Majority--not merely for the benefit of those constituting only The Majority of the moment.
The ConclusionThe traditional American philosophy demands that the power of The Majority be limited for the protection of The Individual's unalienable rights, for the security of Man's Liberty against Government-over-Man, in keeping with the American formula: The Majority--Limited for Liberty.
Quotes supporting the Principle....
THE MAJORITY OMNIPOTENT FATALLY DANGEROUS TO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
[As to Bill of Rights] Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current . . . In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. (Emphasis per original.)
James Madison (Letter to Jefferson, in Paris, 1788)Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations: but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. If we consider the peculiar situation of the United States, and what are the sources of that diversity of sentiment which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great danger to fear, that the same causes may terminate here, in the same fatal effects, which they produced in those republics. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against.
James Madison (Va. Ratifying Convention, 1788)It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil . . . [The existence of "an hereditary or self-appointed authority" superior to the majority, to the people; or, in the alternative, the existence of so many conflicting interests among the citizens as to constitute a safeguard against any dominant majority likely to become oppressive] . . . The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from, and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
MAJORITY VOTE
But in every distinct house of these states, the members are equal in their vote; the most ayes make the affirmative vote, and most no's the negative: They don't weigh the intellectual furniture, or other distinguishing qualifications of the several voters in the scales of the golden rule of fellowship; they only add up the ayes, and the no's, and so determine the suffrage of the house.
Rev. John Wise (Regarding church organizations.) (A Vindication etc., 1717)THE CONSTITUTION DESIGNED TO CHECK ANY OVERBEARING MAJORITY
[The Constitution was designed to remedy existing injustices perpetrated] by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
AN AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT--A CONSTITUTION TO CONTROL THE LEGISLATURE
The idea of a constitution, limiting and superintending the operations of legislative authority, seems not to have been accurately understood in Britain. There are, at least, no traces of practice conformable to such a principle. The British Constitution is just what the British Parliament pleases . . . To control the power and conduct of the legislature, by an overruling constitution, was an improvement in the science and practice of government reserved to the American States. (Emphasis added.)
James Wilson (In the Pa. Ratifying Convention, 1788)THE INDIVIDUAL--THE MINORITY--VICTIMIZED BY THE MAJORITY UNLIMITED
If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice? to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations. And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world. To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission of some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen . . . In popular governments, minorities constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies . . . [Majority in control of government manipulates public sentiment to suit its aims].
John Adams ("On Government," 1778)WISE COUNSEL FROM A CHIEF FRIEND OF SOUND SELF-GOVERNMENT, BY MAJORITY-RULE, THROUGH LIMITING THE MAJORITY BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
I believe . . . that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society . . .
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Dupont de Nemours, 1816)I have seen with deep concern the afflicting oppression under which the republican citizens of Connecticut suffer from an unjust majority. The truths expressed in your letter have been long exposed to the nation through the channel of the public papers, and are the more readily believed because most of the States during the momentary ascendancy of kindred majorities in them, have seen the same spirit of oppression prevail.
President Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Thomas Seymour, 1807) (Note: "republican" refers presumably to the Republican Party, which Jefferson founded and headed, in opposition to the Federalist Party.)[As to the all-powerful legislature in Virginia] All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice· As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others . . . [But in forming, in 1776, new State governments (by mere acts of legislatures) the legislatures were made all-powerful and have dominated the Executive and the Judiciary] . . . And this is done with no ill intention. The views of the present members are perfectly upright . . . [But before long it will be different] . . . Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. (Emphasis per original. )
Thomas Jefferson ("Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782)
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 09:15 PM.
So, is there contained, anywhere in this wall of text, an explanation of how states can't actually do whatever they want?
I have eyes and ears, and I can plainly tell that they can.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
The difference between A Republic and A Democracy is explained, yes. That seems to be where the op veers off into redundancy. He didn't place it into perspective with his question. As well, an explanation of why each State is A Republic in and of itself.
I do apologize for the so called wall of text, fisharmor, however, it is a rather critical wall of text and should be read. It isn't just any old wall of text.
As I'd mentioned to robert68, there really are no shortcuts. Defending the principles of Individual liberty isn't convenient. It's a constant fight, as you surely may know. Backdrop like that which I've shared here will serve to help along the way. And, as was also mentioned by the source of the wall of text, with whom I tend to agree, Intelligent choice--between 1776 Americanism and conflicting Isms (chiefly Socialism in the USA today)--requires primarily thorough knowledge of these Principles. The specific question asked by the op indicates a shortcoming in terms of knowledge of these fundamental principles. A thorough understanding is necessary so that the question he asked remains redundant, as it should.
The op has effectively asked a redundant question. And my intention in sharing these particular principles was to share with the op some relevant backdrop to them so that he may discover the redundancy himself.
Anyway. Those are good reads. All should read them regardless of any inconvenience it may be. This is, of course, a choice. Do or do not.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 09:48 PM.
Of course "states" can't "do" anything. They are legal fictions and exist only on paper and in the minds of those who "believe". The "powers" that the "believers" think they have is nothing more than gangs of men violating the rights of their fellow man (in the name of the fiction "state"). When a goon in blue locks up a peaceful person simply for growing a plant that's a violation of rights. The goon "justifies" this attack on a fellow man by claiming that a "state" has "ruled" that such plant is "illegal" (please, tell God about it-He created it). Thus the goon (himself a man I think) thinks (believes) that he has a power over others when in fact he only has a gun and the willingness to use it to kill those who are not "believers". It's the worlds most dangerous religion...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
By this model, it would appear that The People have lost control of their Government.
Here are the principles that establish how our Republic is framed to function....
Man Organizes Governments To Be His Tools
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . ." - (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that government is merely the creature and a tool, or instrument, of the sovereign people.
Government's Primary FunctionThe people create their governments primarily to serve one supreme purpose: to "secure" the safety and enjoyment of their God-given, unalienable rights. To make and keep them secure is government's primary function and chief reason for existence, according to the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
Government a ToolThis makes clear the correct role of government in relation to the people, as viewed by the American philosophy. It is merely their tool, like any other tool such as saw, or a plow, or a steam engine, created by them to serve its assigned and limited purpose. As the people's tool, or instrument, any government could never soundly be said to possess sovereign power--that is, unlimited, or total, power over all things and all persons. Under the American philosophy, no legal, meaning governmental, sovereignty exists anywhere; while any political sovereignty is possessed by the people alone and even they are limited by the obligation to keep inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of every Individual. Government may possess and its officials may exercise, as the people's servants and trustees, only such limited part of the people's power as they see fit from time to time to delegate to it through their fundamental law: the Constitution, as amended by them; and this applies to all governments and Constitutions, Federal and State.
Government Lacks "Just Power" to Violate RightsTherein lies the significance of the limitation by the people of government's role and power, under the American philosophy. The fact that government cannot have any "just" power or authority--as meant by the term "just powers" in the Declaration of Independence--to violate any unalienable right of The Individual follows from the fact that no Individual can have any right, power or authority to violate any other Individual's unalienable rights. Because it is created by the people (a group of Individuals) primarily for the purpose of making secure all rights of all Individuals, this tool of the people, government, could not conceivably derive from them any power or authority, morally or constitutionally, to do the opposite by infringing any such right. Since no Individual possesses, or could grant, any such power or authority, the many Individuals composing the people of a country are similarly lacking; many times zero equals zero. No vote of the people, by however great a majority--even all of the people but one Individual, opposed to that lone Individual--could give to any government any such authority or power. (This is subject, of course, to the point previously discussed in Paragraph 9 of Principle 3 , regarding just punishment of offenders against just laws, or against the rights of other Individuals.)
Government Cannot Delegate Any Power to Violate Man's RightsBy the same token, it is impossible for the people's tool, government, to possess any authority from the people--any "just power" (to use the term of the Declaration of Independence)--to delegate to others any power which it does not and could not possess under the traditional American philosophy. As such a tool, government could not possibly possess, could not be given, any power to authorize any person, group or organization to do that which it is itself powerless to do. This precludes, for example, government's authorizing or empowering any person, group, or organization to violate any Individual's unalienable rights--including the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"--or any of the supporting rights, such as the right to property and to freedom of association.
No Coercion of Man as to His LaborUnder the American philosophy, these supporting rights include, for example, The Individual's right to use all of his faculties, talents, abilities and energies--basically his own labor--as, when and where he sees fit without any restraint by government or by others. This is subject, of course, to his duly respecting the equal rights of other Individuals (in part as discussed regarding Equality in Pars. 8-9 of Principle 7) and just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. This means, for example, the enjoyment of this right without any such restraint upon his right to freedom of association, to freedom of choice with regard to joining, or not joining, any organization--for instance, an organization of his fellow employers or an organization of his fellow workers. Violation of this right involves necessarily violation of his unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as well as of the supporting rights--notably the right to property (money or any other type), including acquiring, possessing and using it. Such violation results in any case of coercion of The Individual to join, or not to join, such an organization. This is true whether perpetuated by government directly, or by it indirectly through others acting with its sanction--for instance, by any group or organization of other Individuals who exert pressures of any kind or degree to induce, or impel, him so to join, or to refrain from joining. As Man's tool, government not only can have no just power so to perpetuate any such violation but is affirmatively obligated, under just laws, not only not to tolerate but actively to prevent such violation by others--always strictly in keeping with its limited powers and related responsibilities as prescribed in the applicable Constitution (as amended), Federal or State, as the case may be. To repeat, any Individual's right to freedom of association (freedom of choice of associates) is always subject to the equal rights of others - including their right to similar freedom of choice of associates. This right's enjoyment always involves the essential factor of mutual consent, free from any element of coercion.
Sovereign Citizen over Public ServantAll public officials are subordinate as public servants to all citizens. Under the American philosophy of Man-over-Government, the American heritage assumes that the most modestly circumstanced Individuals among the sovereign people rank higher than any public officials, even those serving as the highest ranking of public servants. It is a case of The Sovereign over servant--each Individual in this regard representing in a sense the sovereign people as the creator of their tool, or instrument: government.
Betrayal of the American HeritageIt was the firm conviction of those who founded America--notably the leaders of the period 1776-1787 and their fellow Americans in general--that to forget, neglect , or defy this great American principle is to betray the American heritage of Individual Liberty--Man's Freedom from Government-over-Man--and to contribute in practice to its erosion, or subversion. Sins of omission in this connection are as heinous as sons of commission. Any public servants who ignore this truth are guilty of desecration of the spirit of traditional America and the higher the offender's rank, the worse the offense morally. Any Individual who condones such an offense against this heritage is similarly blameworthy.
The ConclusionEach Individual, among the sovereign and self-governing people, embodies a part of the supreme sovereignty of the people in relation to their creature and tool, or instrument, government, and to its officials as public servants--wholly subservient to the people as their superiors, their masters.
Quotes supporting this Principle....
PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS
Rulers are the servants and agents of the people; the people are their masters.
That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants . . .Patrick Henry (Va. Ratifying Convention, 1788)
Here, [in America] the people are masters of the government: there, [in Britain] the government is master of the people.
Governors have no right to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants. (Emphasis added.)U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791 )
The multitude I am speaking of, is the body of the people--no contemptible multitude--for whose sake government is instituted; or rather, who have themselves erected it, solely for their own good--to whom even kings and all in subordination to them, are strictly speaking, servants and not masters. (Emphasis Adams'.)Resolutions of Town of Boston, 1772 ("The Rights of the Colonists . . .")
It seems to have been imagined by some that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free Governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors & sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them--and it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them, to keep them always in a State of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the Masters. Benjamin Franklin (Emphasis per original.)Samuel Adams (Essay in Boston Gazette, 1771)
THE PEOPLE'S POWER TO CONTROL THEIR CREATURE AND TOOL: GOVERNMENT(Remarks in Framing Convention, 1787 as summarized by Madison in his record)
All [American] writers on government agree . . . That the origin of all power is in the people, and that they have an incontestible right to check the creatures of their own creation, vested with certain powers to guard the life, liberty, and property of the community . . .
THE PEOPLE SUPREME OVER PUBLIC SERVANTS
Elbridge Gerry (An essay, 1788)
Rulers surely, even the most dignified and powerful of them, should not be so elevated with the thoughts of their power, as to forget from whom it comes; for what purposes it is delegated to them . . .
NO POWER IN GOVERNMENT, OR OTHERS, TO OBSTRUCT A MAN'S EARNING A LIVELIHOODRev. Jonathan Mayhew (Election Sermon, 1754 )
I believe . . . that no one has a right to obstruct another, exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature . . .
UNJUST OF GOVERNMENT TO DENY FREE USE OF FACULTIES, FREE CHOICE OF OCCUPATIONSThomas Jefferson (Letter to Dupont de Nemours, 1816) (Note: refers, for example, to Man's work to earn a livelihood)
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called . . .
LIKE EVERY OTHER TOOL OF MAN, GOVERNMENT HAS A SPECIAL FUNCTION AND IS RESTRICTED IN USEFULNESSJames Madison (Essay, National Gazette, 1792) (Note: Full text is quoted at pages 232-233 of this study-guide.)
. . . government is, or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community . . .
That government governs best which governs least.
Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. (Emphasis added)(A traditional American maxim) (Erroneously attributed by some to Jefferson's writings, but typical of his views and of the views of most of his fellow Americans.)
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now [under a State-established church]. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.President Thomas Jefferson (First Inaugural Address)
Thomas Jefferson ("Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782)
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 10:20 PM.
The principles of liberty and the principles of republicanism are directly at odds. The former presumes the individual to be self-owning. The latter assumes individuals to be property ("citizens" in legalese Newspeak) of the state, which are in turn property of the federal regime. This was well understood by thoughtful men back in the 18th century, hence the very specific language of the BoR and the Anti-Federalist papers.
Perhaps. But all men are created equal. And in context with the DoC, it equates to equal in freedom of The Individual. Getting back to that Cardinal Postulate that osan was scheming about.
Yeah. He does. But we can't leave things out, either. He leaves sht out sometimes. Likely on purpose, though. Which I say respectfully. I understand why he does that. Ultimately, though, the spiritual is supreme. The Individual isn't beholden to men. The Individual's moral duty is a product of a higher law. Which is the fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy. So, we get into Natural Law there. Which I don't really feel like right now. One of you guys can and I'll chime in maybe. I'm going to turn on my random spin and listen to some tunes.Yeah, my brother Osan does some great work!
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-28-2016 at 10:42 PM.
I disagree with the way that's worded. It's deceptive. And misleading. A very worldly premise for Natural Law that stimulates a Man-over-God Principle. And it's strategically counterintuitive to the fundamental philosophy that provides for the historic benchmark for our Republic.
The first sentence really is a predictor of the direction the author takes. Seems like he tends to focus on a science of Man-to-Man relations. Ronin, your source strategically omits the spiritual from that. And the spiritual is supreme. So, then, his benchmark for what surmises Natural Law itself seems deceptive. The author omits the spiritual from the start.
Here is what many (including the founders) conclude to be a more precise and relevant explanation of Natural Law and where Man's true moral duty exists for the purpose of guiding proper human relations.
See underlined specifically...
The Spiritual is Supreme
". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
The PrincipleThe fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.
Religious NatureThis governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.
The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.
An Indivisible WholeThe American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.
The Individual's Self-respectThe concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.
Some Things ExcludedThis concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.
It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.
The Truly American Concept
Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.
This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.
America a Haven For All ReligionsThe traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.
The ConclusionBelief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.
Quotes supporting the Principle...
AMERICANS A RELIGIOUS PEOPLE
From the day of the Declaration . . . They [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.
FAITH IN GOD SUFFICIENT, WITHOUT "PROOF"John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State (Oration celebrating July 4, 1821)
The sceptical philosophers claim and exercise the privilege of assuming, without proof, the very first principles of their philosophy; and yet they require, from others, a proof of everything by reasoning. They are unreasonable in both points . . .
RIGHT AND MORAL DUTY TO WORSHIP GODU.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.
RELIGION, MORALITY, LIBERTY
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
(Emphasis his) President George Washington, Farewell Address
RELIGIOUS BELIEF (TYPICAL OF THE FOUNDERS) OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN--FAMED AS A SCIENTIST--FALSELY CLAIMED BY SOME TO HAVE BEEN AN ATHEIST
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? . . . I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel . . .
I never doubted, for instance, the existence of a Deity; that he made the world and governed it by his providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crimes will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.In Federal [Framing] Convention, 1787, making a motion for Prayer (Note: emphasis Franklin's; word "God" underscored twice in original.)
. . . I can only shew my Gratitude for these mercies from God, by a readiness to help his other Children and my Brethren ."Autobiography"
. . Even the mix'd imperfect Pleasures we enjoy in this World, are rather from God's Goodness than our Merit; how much more such Happiness of Heaven. For my own part I have not the Vanity to think I deserve it, the Folly to expect it, nor the Ambition to desire it; but content myself in submitting to the Will and Disposal of that God who made me . . .
I BELIEVE there is one supreme, most perfect Being . . . Also, when I stretch my imagination through and beyond our system of planets, beyond the visible fixed stars themselves, into that space that is every way infinite, and conceive it filled with suns like ours, each with a chorus of worlds for ever moving round him; then this little ball on which we move, seems, even in my narrow imagination, to be almost nothing, and myself less than nothing, and of no sort of consequence . . . That I may be preserved from atheism . . . Help me, O Father! . . . For all thy innumerable benefits; for life, and reason . . . My good God, I thank thee!Letter to Joseph Huey, 1753
RELIGION MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL"Articles of Belief "1728 (Note: written by Franklin when 22 years of age)
. . . every encroachment upon religion, of all things the most important, ought to be considered as the greatest imposition . . . By religion, I mean an inward habitual reverence for, and devotedness to the Deity, with such external homage, either public or private, as the worshiper believes most acceptable to him. According to this definition, it is impossible for human laws to regulate religion without destroying it; for they cannot compel inward religious reverence, that being altogether mental and of a spiritual nature; nor can they enforce outward religious homage, because all such homage is either a man's own choice, and then it is not compelled, or it is repugnant to it, and then it cannot be religious the consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation . . .[any delegation of power over religion to public officials] . . .would be a mere nullity, and the compact by which it was ceded, altogether nugatory, the rights of conscience being immutably personal and absolutely inalienable, nor can the state or community as such have any concern in the matter.
THE INDIVIDUAL'S RELIGION AND VIRTUE THE KEY TO PUBLIC HAPPINESS AND LIBERTY(Attributed to) William Livingston, Governor of N.J., 1778 (Emphasis in first line added; all other emphasis per the original.)
. . . I fully agree in Opinion with a very celebrated Author, that "Freedom or Slavery will prevail in a (City or) Country according as the Disposition & Manners of the People render them fit for the one or the other"; and I have long been convincd that our Enemies have made it an Object, to eradicate from the Minds of the People in general a Sense of true Religion & Virtue, in hopes thereby the more easily to carry their Point of enslaving them. Indeed my Friend, this is a Subject so important in my Mind, that I know not how to leave it. Revelation assures us that "Righteousness exalteth a Nation"--Communities are dealt with in this World by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe. He rewards or punishes them according to their general Character. The diminution of publick Virtue is usually attended with that of publick Happiness, and the public Liberty will not long survive the total Extinction of Morals. ("convincd" in original.)
Samuel Adams (Letter to John Scollay, 1776)
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-29-2016 at 09:20 AM.
There's no doubt in my mind that God (The Creator of all) is supreme. The doubt I have is that any men are properly the definers and enforcers of God's will. Yes, our duty as the created is to do the will of God but I don't believe any other man can tell me what that will is. Quite frankly I reject most of what the "church" (harlots) say. The will of God is only known by Him and no one can tell me what it is. That's second hand and unreliable. As far as first hand direction God has not personally told me any specific instruction so I have to go by what is written in my heart and that is to love and respect my fellow man and don't infringe on their rights. That means I can't lock them up for perceived "violations" of "law" written by men. If another man moves to harm me or my family and friends, THEN I can act against them in self-defense...
Don't try and write "laws" for me to follow because I reject them ALL offhand.
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
Yeah. That's the fundamental Principle that guides Individual Liberty itself, and, subsequently, proper human relations. It is unfortunate that it's absent from our Mission Statement. And likely a factor in our shortcomings.
Agreed. Which is why I took issue with Ronin's science of Man and God piece, there. The source specifically omitted the spiritual in a way that provided a benchmark to define proper human relations out of scope and removed from the true fundamental principle of Natural Law.The doubt I have is that any men are properly the definers and enforcers of God's will.
Nope. Me either. It's why it's so important to openly reject cleverly disguised words that stimulate that very thing. Failure to reject such dialogue stimulates a Man-over-God philosophy that strategically redefines Natural Law for the purpose of enslaving the ignorant to self-rightous, power seeking, men.Yes, our duty as the created is to do the will of God but I don't believe any other man can tell me what that will is.
Me, too. I think it is important to understand that The Church is defined as an assembly of people in God. An assembly of people of God. Not some celebration of the ideology of worldly scholars and otherwise trustees in a Man-over-God philosophy who've arbitrarily provided for themselves the position to act as some kind of governing body over the fundamental principles of Natural Law.Quite frankly I reject most of what the "church" (harlots) say.
This has always brought me some pause over the years. So I continue to think on it. I often tend to think that it is dangerous to follow our hearts. Reason being is because it stimulates a worldly perception of Man's relationship with the spiritual. He loses sight of his moral duty. Which compounds the problems we have today that derive from men seeking power. Much evil has been done in God's name. And some men do truly believe that what they are doing is proper. It's how society has been led to worship the state.The will of God is only known by Him and no one can tell me what it is. That's second hand and unreliable. As far as first hand direction God has not personally told me any specific instruction so I have to go by what is written in my heart and that is to love and respect my fellow man and don't infringe on their rights.
But regardless of that, I understand what you're saying here and I do support the fundamental principles of non-aggression.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-29-2016 at 11:37 AM.
I only very rarely take folks on for what the choose to not say. Spooner was covering and addressing what he wanted. His choice.
Everything said always leaves everything else unsaid. <shrug>
True. Which is why I suggested that specific attention be given to the underlined there in post #24. The unsaid often contracticts what is said. And strategically so. So, we'd do well to acknowledge the contradictions when they immediately occur. Especially given that Natural Law is the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty and proper human relations. Contradictions in that particular regard stimulate deception in the highest order. Contradictions to that extent are also counterintuitive to the fundamental principle of, not only Natural Law, but, subsequently Individual Liberty and proper human relations.
It's how we end up with private cartels, too.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-29-2016 at 12:05 PM.
Spooner works for me.True. Which is why I suggested that specific attention be given to the underlined there in post #24. The unsaid often contracticts what is said. And strategically so. So, we'd do well to acknowledge the contradictions when they immediately occur. Especially given that Natural Law is the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty and proper human relations. Contradictions in that particular regard stimulate deception in the highest order. Contradictions to that extent are also counterintuitive to the fundamental principle of, not only Natural Law, but, subsequently Individual Liberty and proper human relations.
It's how we end up with private cartels, too.
Spooner works for me.
Yeah, I know. I was just saying that Spooner doesn't work for me. So I opted to share why he didn't. Which, unfortunately, leaves you and I in disagreement with the primary fundamental Principle of Individual Liberty given that a contradiction of the primary fundamental Principle of Natural Law, itself, equally exists in our particular points. Is what it is. Fukit. You've been around here for a long time anyway so I accept that your position is your position. I just disagree with it is all.
Anyway. I keep saying I need to get off here and get work done but I keep tinkering around here. Later...
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-29-2016 at 12:41 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us