Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Lilllabettt]

somewhat tangenital question - which is America's founding document: the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

[BG45]

somewhat tangenital question - which is America's founding document: the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

 

Or if you want to troll, the Articles of Confederation. 

 

Sorry, I'm still running a fever and I totally pulled the AoC on my students yesterday as they had their minds blown that the Constitution wasn't written the same year the Revolution ended.

 

Edit:  For Winnie, I signed the Constitution, or rather a facsimile there-of at the Constitution Center.

Edited February 5, 2013 by BG45

[Socrates]

somewhat tangenital question - which is America's founding document: the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

 

Not sure exactly what you mean, but the Declaration of Independence was written first (1776), and is basically just a document - as its name suggests - declaring the American colonies independent from Britain.  The Constitution, however, is the supreme law of the United States.

[4588686]

Then I suppose it is a form of slavery.

A document can't be a form of slavery. But the document indisputably ratified and ensured the perpetuation of a particularly brutal form of slavery in the political structure that it established.

So I don't know no what your point is. That's its not a very democratic document? Read the federalist a papers. It was pretty self consciously designed to ensure that most of the population was not permitted to politically participate. I don't know what your socio-economic status is but unless you have a lot of landed property then I doubt that they would have been thrilled that you are allowed to vote. They certainly would have been upset that blacks are allowed to civically participate.

[Maggyie]

so what I'm getting from this discussion is that secessionists are like monarchists. Lots of intellectual valor displayed in attempting to defend actions you would never actually take.

 

But we like to chat about it.

 

Taxes are due April 15... let's make a list of all the slaves who are going to start the peaceful process of freeing themselves.

 

anyone?

 

 

 

...edit: tax day is 4/15 not 4/14. How could I forget.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Maggie

[4588686]

I don't think that the Constitution is just a bad thing. I think the American Revolution was a good thing and the Constitution was, in some respects, a real step forward politically for the world. But don't view the document with illusions. Particularly if your going to contrast today's constitution and state with some comically idealized and mythical freedom loving original.

[Winchester]

I don't think that the Constitution is just a bad thing. I think the American Revolution was a good thing and the Constitution was, in some respects, a real step forward politically for the world. But don't view the document with illusions. Particularly if your going to contrast today's constitution and state with some comically idealized and mythical freedom loving original.

 

I hope you're not addressing me. I'm with Spooner. It's unfit to exist.

[4588686]

I hope you're not addressing me. I'm with Spooner. It's unfit to exist.

I was referring to KoC. And Socrates. Who still has yet to explain how tolerance for the individual mandate is comparable, in terms of the public's willingness to accept tyranny, to slavery and Jim Crow.

[Nihil Obstat]

so what I'm getting from this discussion is that secessionists are like monarchists. Lots of intellectual valor displayed in attempting to defend actions you would never actually take.

But we like to chat about it.

Taxes are due April 15... let's make a list of all the slaves who are going to start the peaceful process of freeing themselves.

anyone?



...edit: tax day is 4/15 not 4/14. How could I forget.

Some of us recognize that discretion is often called for when faced with violent people.

[Maggyie]

Some of us recognize that discretion is often called for when faced with violent people.

 

What type of discretion? The type of discretion where you do pay your taxes, or you don't pay your taxes? The type where you stockpile firearms? Or the type of discretion where resistance takes the form of brave, noble Internet posts? where identities can be concealed so that the department of homeland security doesn't git you? enlighten me.

[Nihil Obstat]

What type of discretion? The type of discretion where you do pay your taxes, or you don't pay your taxes? The type where you stockpile firearms? Or the type of discretion where resistance takes the form of brave, noble Internet posts? where identities can be concealed so that the department of homeland security doesn't git you? enlighten me.

I am at work now. I would be happy to do so later tonight. Although I am not really looking forward to it if you intend to keep acting like we are immature morons simply because we do not agree with you. That is pretty bad manners. But you should know that already.

[KnightofChrist]

A document can't be a form of slavery. But the document indisputably ratified and ensured the perpetuation of a particularly brutal form of slavery in the political structure that it established.

 

Well yes, I agree, of course a document (or court case) isn't a form of slavery. It can however, as you point out, be ratified and/or be put into practice and slavery be the effect. But if you agree that the Constitution ensured one form of slavery, why is it so hard to see that Texas Vs. White may be another example of the State enacting forms of slavery? How does an atheist argue in favor of something that claims to be perpetual?

  

So I don't know no what your point is. That's its not a very democratic document? Read the federalist a papers. It was pretty self consciously designed to ensure that most of the population was not permitted to politically participate. I don't know what your socio-economic status is but unless you have a lot of landed property then I doubt that they would have been thrilled that you are allowed to vote. They certainly would have been upset that blacks are allowed to civically participate.

 

My point is that if a document, bill or court ruling put into practice forcefully prevents a State or States from peacefully and/or justly leaving the Union to create another, that this is some form of generational slavery. States should govern with the consent of its people, and remain a member of the Union by the consent of its people. But should for example the people of a State or States elect a majority of elected representatives in favor of independence they should be allowed to leave if they are free rather than slaves.  

Edited February 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

I was referring to KoC. And Socrates. Who still has yet to explain how tolerance for the individual mandate is comparable, in terms of the public's willingness to accept tyranny, to slavery and Jim Crow.

 

Being forced against ones will to do something immoral is a form of slavery. The mandate forces against the will of some citizens to fund immorality. But there are also citizens like you Hasan, that not only tolerant these soft forms of tyranny, but graver ones as well, like the mass-murder of children, another form of slavery, it is after all a human flesh for profit business after all.

[Lilllabettt]

I ask because it is a contentious/interesting question. There is a strain of political thought that suggests the Union predates the Constitution.  That the United States is not just a political union but a "nation." That the Declaration brought that "nation" into existence and established the Americans as a real "people" bonded together not merely by letter of law but by shared culture and history.

 

Lincoln employed this argument at Gettysburg when he used it to widen the objective of the Civil War from "saving the Union" by subduing the South to "saving the Union" by ending slavery in the South ...  he suggested that the North couldn't "save the Union"  without defending the principle that "all men are created equal" as stated in the Declaration. (Which is not an idea explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.) 

 

But before that the idea that the Union predates the Constitution had been for a long time a part of Whig party ideology. They used it to appeal for broader involvement for the federal government. (State's rights are not mentioned explicitly in the Declaration.)

 

I think it is an interesting idea - that the Constitution is not what makes us Americans, the Declaration of Independence is what makes us Americans, We are a "people" because of our shared belief in the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness --- not any collection of laws , revered though they may be.

 

I am soliciting thoughts, is all ...

 

[Fidei Defensor]

Being forced against ones will to do something immoral is a form of slavery. The mandate forces against the will of some citizens to fund immorality. But there are also citizens like you Hasan, that not only tolerant these soft forms of tyranny, but graver ones as well, like the mass-murder of children, another form of slavery, it is after all a human flesh for profit business after all.

 

You are being forced to pay taxes which fund immoral things. Are you a slave to the government?