What Ever Happened to the Constitution?
Awesome Video!
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0sNWbiAMf80?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0sNWbiAMf80?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> |
27:26
The Government exists for only one reason and that is to preserve our freedom and everything else the government does is illegitimate immoral and not authorized by the constitution. Check out 28:00 to 29:42 Amen brother |
An hour well spent. Very educational.
G - agreed with the 28minute mark...good stuff. T |
I thought the part where he talked about where our rights come was interesting. Note that he didn't say that they come from the Constitution or The Bill of Rights! In another thread I posted that our rights come from GOD, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and I got blasted. Judge Napolitano talks about "Natural Law".
In the Number One Skier Dad thread someone said, "He has the right courtesy of the Bill of Rights and because he obeyed the law." I would just like to point out that this is not the case and that our rights do not come from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, are you saying that the very ideals that the country was founded on are false? Or are you saying that the country was not founded on these ideals at all? Where do you think our rights come from? |
"The Government exists for only one reason and that is to preserve our freedom and everything else the government does is illegitimate immoral and not authorized by the constitution."
What a load of sheet. If I am not mistaken, McVeigh subscribed to that same sort of reasoning. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
"It has always been shown that "might makes right"; so do you think the US is built on that idea? Wake77, "What a load of sheet. If I am not mistaken, McVeigh subscribed to that same sort of reasoning." In your opinion what is the purpose of the US government? |
I think preserving our freedoms is a responsibility of our government, but to say "everything else the government does is illegitimate immoral and not authorized by the constitution" is absurd.
I have a question. If "our rights come from GOD", does this mean that people that do not believe in GOD (or believe in a non-Christian GOD) have no rights? It sounds like a paradox. |
Awesome link and very educational. I've been watching it when I can here at work :D
|
Quote:
I guess what you want to hear is that the US is a Republic. Quote:
|
Quote:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness;" John Adam's version said, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness;" it was later changed to, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;" in the official version and no one can explain how, why, or who the change was done. Based on what I have been told and my opinion in general I don't think any of the founding fathers meant any specific God, but one in general. If you read the Federalist Papers they mention Natural Law. The Judge in the above video does the same. |
Quote:
Also what is the biggest minority in the US, and why is it important? |
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;"
If all men are created equal, why did they have slaves during the Colonial days? If all men are "endowed certain unalienable Rights", why did the "Trail of Tears" happen? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
To answer the second part of your question, why did the Trail of Tears happen, according to my reading, which up to this point has been little, was very similar to the slavery debate. The opinions were divided and as a result of the division a compromise was made. Similar to what is happening today, some of the leaders at the time had personal beliefs that they placed in front of those of the individual (individual as largest minority, which the US was founded on protecting). Many of the founding fathers would not participate in the removal indians from the South. I have read the memoirs of Andrew Jackson that was published and he believed that removal was indeed the only policy available if the Indians were to be protected from certain annihilation. |
Quote:
see An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic A pure Democracy is nothing more than mob rule with no provisions for the rights of the individual. The Founding Fathers saw this as one of the worst forms of government and in their wisdom provided a framework to secure the rights of the individual. BTW, I don't claim to be an expert in this topic, but merely wish stimulate the discussion and overall topic based upon what I have been taught, read, and believe. Maybe I am |
I don't think an individual qualifies as a minority under the use of the word in the English language. However, it is a colorful application in the context of the discussion.
|
I would argue that our form of government is a "Democratic Republic". One only has to look at the events that transpired in NYC recently with the proposed Muslim community center. The overwhelming "majority" did not want the center built, which contradicts the "Republic" idea of protecting the minority, and many political leaders joined on the side of opposition, and that by no means, was a rare occurrence. Our elected officials are less-inclined to please the majority of constituents and more inclined to serve the needs of the people with the "means" to get them reelected.
|
Quote:
"It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators." Maybe this is cause of the current state of the union. I think that many politicians probably know less about this topic than we do. John, I would argue the opposite! The definition of the word Minority includes: 3-a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment I would argue that the word Individual as defined; 1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group. can easily fit that description. An individual is a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics. |
You could argue it but I disagree. How is an individual often subjected to differential treatment? If I'm not subjected to differential treatment then does that mean I'm not a minority? Does being an individual mean that there will always be frequent differential treatment? I'd say yes. If so then the addition of "often subjected to differential treatment" becomes superfluous. That alone would indicate a flawed definition.
This is simply forcing logic into a dictionary definition to create a new, but unintended meaning. I doubt that dictionaries have such strict rules of definition as to stand the test of all possible logical deduction. |
Quote:
Others, including me, have put the idea in the context of largest minority because the individual is both the largest and smallest minority by definition. The quote is found in several spots in the book: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (Paperback) by Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen on page 61, which was written by Rand. |
A good example of artistic liberty.
|
Quote:
The secularists have attempted to separate "Natural Law" from the Law of God as revealed in the Bible. But they are the same! "Natural Law" is revealed by studying Creation (Laws of physics, mathematics, etc.); and by using the Laws of Logic, one arrives at the same moral laws and laws of polity as are revealed in the Bible. Thus, Ayn Rand, a secularist, arrived at basically the same moral laws as are revealed in the Bible. Cicero, a pagan, arrived at basically the same principles of civil government as are revealed in the Bible. READ the "5000 year Leap". One of my favorite books is C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man". It's a short double spaced book - very profound - and Lewis proves the commonality of the "Natural Law" which was discovered by pagans, and the "Revealed Law" as taught in Scripture. Your life will never be the same if you read this book! It is profound, but there are study guides on line. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:31 AM. |