You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Perhaps if the latter respected the will and consent of all individuals. At which point, such an enscription would be either impossible or unnecessary.
It concerns me how many people that I encounter out there in meatspace who don't understand this. Many good people on the right side of things will say things about how the Constitution "gives" us rights. No sir, it is merely an affirmation that we consider those things to be inalienable God-given human rights that no person or government has the right to deny a citizen.
This country has been in big trouble since long before any of us were born. It does occur to me which is sometimes easy to forget that the people already tried to stop the government from growing into a cancerous, toxic abusive power. It was the Civil War, falsely portrayed as a noble struggle against the practice of slavery, wherein half the country attempted to refute an encroaching Federal Government declaration of overreaching power over sovereign states. As it goes, the victors make sure the reality of that sad loss can never be discussed because of the "racism" bogeyman they use to obfuscate the truth of that conflict.
[–]grillmaster0 points
2 points
2 points
(+2|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Do these inalienable, God given rights exist for all people or just citizens of the states? It is important to remember that claiming you have rights is all well and good. At the end of the day, only the ones who can defend themselves have rights at all when nature has a say about it.
Lincoln was doubtless a great leader, but his posthumous hero worship is a major disservice to the thousands of people who opposed expansive Federalism. It's rarely mentioned that he stomped all over habeus corpus, having a man arrested and held without trial in direct defiance of a the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who was acting as a sort of Circuit Court Judge at the time) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
Anything else would be magic. People have all these things, and grant some of them to government. Government isn't the source of things; how could it grant something which people didn't already have?
The constitution is what constituted the legal person USA. That owns the land area often called America, sometimes called Columbia (not Colombia, that is another land area). If that legal person hadn't been constituted, it would not exist, and so there would have been no such legal person to restrain.
This is what constitution is, it's creation, legalistic creation, word magic. Constitution is quite like incorporation, where the latter creates a different type of legal person, a corporation, that is subject to the jurisdiction of The State. Whereas a The State is sovereign, subject to no one and nothing, and restrained only by itself.
Many people (on the left) claim that the right to keep and bear arms refers to the "well-regulated militia". They're essentially claiming that the Bill of Rights, which in every other line specifically enumerates the rights of The People, is suddenly, for a single clause, concerned with "granting rights" to the Government. Statements like Patrick Henry's provide context and support for an argument to the contrary. Unfortunately, the opinion of one of the Founding Fathers is unlikely to hold much weight when people are already ignoring the text of the document itself.
[–]SolarBaby0 points
2 points
2 points
(+2|-0)
ago
Yet people are not uncomfortable enough yet to risk their lives to put things right.
I think were the USA embroiled in a civil war the bigger threat may well be a country such as China taking advantage of the situation to stage their own invasion.
I checked my display library and couldn't find one, and then I went up to my "stacks" and also could not locate one. Apparently, I do not own a biography of Patrick Henry to recommend. I must have gained my knowledge of him through secondary sources - Chernow's Hamilton , McCullough's John Adams, Avlon's Washington's farewell, Ellis' His excellency or Broadwell's George Mason or Leonard White's series on the early parties (Federalists, Jeffersonians, and Jacksonians.) Those are what I have downstairs. I'm sure there are more upstairs that mention Henry's opposition.
I remember he famously denied Madison from being named the first senator from Virginia, so Madison had to run for Congress as a Representative. Henry called the Constitution a reformation of the tyranny of King George. Maybe he came around in his later years. (?)
I'll have to check the local history bookstore next time I am there for a PH Bio.
Sort: Top
[–] [deleted] 1 point 10 points 11 points (+11|-1) ago
[–] fl3x 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I'm just glad we have people who know what's truly best for us to make the hard decisions like shredding it to pieces.
[–] rejectedfromreddit 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Apparently people missed your sarcasm
[–] Dysnomia 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Muskets are more effective tools of liberty than words on parchment.
[–] Greenzero86 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
When the former enforces the latter, you get the most ideal tool of liberty.
[–] Dysnomia 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Perhaps if the latter respected the will and consent of all individuals. At which point, such an enscription would be either impossible or unnecessary.
[–] SolarBaby 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
It concerns me how many people that I encounter out there in meatspace who don't understand this. Many good people on the right side of things will say things about how the Constitution "gives" us rights. No sir, it is merely an affirmation that we consider those things to be inalienable God-given human rights that no person or government has the right to deny a citizen.
This country has been in big trouble since long before any of us were born. It does occur to me which is sometimes easy to forget that the people already tried to stop the government from growing into a cancerous, toxic abusive power. It was the Civil War, falsely portrayed as a noble struggle against the practice of slavery, wherein half the country attempted to refute an encroaching Federal Government declaration of overreaching power over sovereign states. As it goes, the victors make sure the reality of that sad loss can never be discussed because of the "racism" bogeyman they use to obfuscate the truth of that conflict.
[–] grillmaster 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Do these inalienable, God given rights exist for all people or just citizens of the states? It is important to remember that claiming you have rights is all well and good. At the end of the day, only the ones who can defend themselves have rights at all when nature has a say about it.
[–] rejectedfromreddit 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Lincoln was doubtless a great leader, but his posthumous hero worship is a major disservice to the thousands of people who opposed expansive Federalism. It's rarely mentioned that he stomped all over habeus corpus, having a man arrested and held without trial in direct defiance of a the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who was acting as a sort of Circuit Court Judge at the time) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
[–] prairie 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Anything else would be magic. People have all these things, and grant some of them to government. Government isn't the source of things; how could it grant something which people didn't already have?
[–] uab 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The constitution is what constituted the legal person USA. That owns the land area often called America, sometimes called Columbia (not Colombia, that is another land area). If that legal person hadn't been constituted, it would not exist, and so there would have been no such legal person to restrain.
This is what constitution is, it's creation, legalistic creation, word magic. Constitution is quite like incorporation, where the latter creates a different type of legal person, a corporation, that is subject to the jurisdiction of The State. Whereas a The State is sovereign, subject to no one and nothing, and restrained only by itself.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
[–] rejectedfromreddit 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Many people (on the left) claim that the right to keep and bear arms refers to the "well-regulated militia". They're essentially claiming that the Bill of Rights, which in every other line specifically enumerates the rights of The People, is suddenly, for a single clause, concerned with "granting rights" to the Government. Statements like Patrick Henry's provide context and support for an argument to the contrary. Unfortunately, the opinion of one of the Founding Fathers is unlikely to hold much weight when people are already ignoring the text of the document itself.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] SolarBaby 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Yet people are not uncomfortable enough yet to risk their lives to put things right.
I think were the USA embroiled in a civil war the bigger threat may well be a country such as China taking advantage of the situation to stage their own invasion.
[–] Dysnomia 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The US gov would probably try to ally itself with China if there was ever an insurrection.
[–] xobodox 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
And, they don't have the numbers to protect you. If you go along with it, they will "protect" you.
[–] cyclops1771 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Wait, wasn't Patrick Henry virulently ANTI-Constitution?
[–] rejectedfromreddit ago
I'm not familiar with any of his thoughts other than "Give me liberty or give me death...". Do you have any recommended reading?
[–] cyclops1771 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I checked my display library and couldn't find one, and then I went up to my "stacks" and also could not locate one. Apparently, I do not own a biography of Patrick Henry to recommend. I must have gained my knowledge of him through secondary sources - Chernow's Hamilton , McCullough's John Adams, Avlon's Washington's farewell, Ellis' His excellency or Broadwell's George Mason or Leonard White's series on the early parties (Federalists, Jeffersonians, and Jacksonians.) Those are what I have downstairs. I'm sure there are more upstairs that mention Henry's opposition.
I remember he famously denied Madison from being named the first senator from Virginia, so Madison had to run for Congress as a Representative. Henry called the Constitution a reformation of the tyranny of King George. Maybe he came around in his later years. (?)
I'll have to check the local history bookstore next time I am there for a PH Bio.