Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Libertarian

Libertarian Libertarian Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree17Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 1st, 2017, 05:57 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I don't know a person so stupid as to not be able to answer the question.

That's wrong, I know about a half dozen people and you're the leader of the pack.

Why don't you try and just answer the question?

If the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states then why do we have them?
I have answered the question in detail. It is not my problem that you are lacking a basal education of American history. Anytime you want to address my answers to your imbecilic question, fire away with your evidence that the Bill of Rights applied to the states.
Thanks from Jimgorn
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 1st, 2017, 06:10 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I have answered the question in detail. It is not my problem that you are lacking a basal education of American history. Anytime you want to address my answers to your imbecilic question, fire away with your evidence that the Bill of Rights applied to the states.
The only thing lacking in this conversation is an answer to my question.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 1st, 2017, 06:20 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
The only thing lacking in this conversation is an answer to my question.
Anytime you want to stop making yourself by running from my myriad answers to your uneducated question, knock your liberal lights out.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 1st, 2017, 06:33 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
You are viewing the federal government created under the Constitution as having the same power over the states as the British Empire had over the American colonies. That could not be further from the truth. The thirteen sovereign states were not going to give the federal government that they created any power over how they handled their internal affairs. The only power that was ceded regarded foreign affairs and the relationship between the states, which most came from the Articles of Confederation.

The states created and ratified the Constitution was to create a framework of operation for the federal government, not the states. The states did not create the Constitution to place a prohibition on themselves. The only powers for the federal government were constructed from the enumerated powers the states ceded.



You are misreading the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence starts off declaring that the states are sovereign states and the declaration is a compact. You are confusing the term “united States of America” with “United States of America.” The latter being a victim of semantic drift and devoid of a historical basis. The drafters were exact and meticulous regarding the words and the meaning they conveyed. Here is the relevant paragraph from the Declaration of Independence:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The word “united” in “united States of America” is intentionally not capitalized. The “united” not being capitalized was not unique. Examples: Benjamin Franklin’s Join, Or Die cartoon of 1754, and the Lee Resolution of June 7, 1776. The word “States” is capitalized because the states were sovereign states as the word “state” meant sovereign country in the eighteenth century. “United” meant that the sovereign states were united for a specific cause. The term “united States of America” never meant a government body. “United Colonies” is followed by “Free and Independent States.”



The phrase “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" had a specific meaning. It was written to King George. The “created equal” also was a reference to equal under God, not a king. The phrase “pursuit of Happiness” was a religious phrase in the eighteenth century. The entire gist of this paragraph regarded the precursor self-government.



This was also written to King George and was justification for independence. This paragraph regarded any government such as the Continental Congress, the sovereign states, or any form of federal government that the states created. This also regarded removing the government closest to the people, which was the local and the state governments, in an expedited manner.

Jefferson got this concept from the same place that he got the “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” phrase: John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter III, which is referencing local governments and is the actual Lockean libertarianism that this country was founded upon:
But if the unlawful acts done by the magistrate be maintained (by the power he has got), and the remedy which is due by law, be by the same power obstructed; yet the right of resisting, even in such manifest acts of tyranny, will not suddenly, or on slight occasions, disturb the government
Both Jefferson and Locke’s premises aligned with the prevailing thoughts of the Philadelphia convention regarding the states being the most proximate to the people. Hamilton, who was the closest advocate of a strong national government, summed this concept up in Federalist No. 17:
It is a known fact in human nature that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object. Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large, the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union; unless the force of that principle should be destroyed by a much better administration of the latter.
The preamble to the Bill of Rights manifests in unambiguous language that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The phrase “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” is referring to the Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” through the actions of the newly created federal government. The phrase “public confidence in the Government” is specific to the federal government, not the states. “the Government” is a singular expression limited to the federal government via the Bill of Rights.




There was no allowing in the Bill of Rights. The Bills Of Rights were limitations on the federal government demanded by the anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution. This was the states’ intentions. Their judgment and paranoia was justifiably born out of the years leading up to the Revolutionary War and the war itself. The protection of unalienable rights via a constitution was conceived by the states following the Declaration of Independence. You are presenting history as if the federal government created the country, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.



Their judgment was not clouded but was based on thousands of years of history of why nations fail and the lack of rights under King George. You are still viewing the states as colonies of the federal government.

The Bill of Rights was created to prevent the annulment of unalienable rights by the federal government, which is what the federal government has been in the process of doing since liberal activist judges incorporated the Bill of Rights. The Bills Of Rights were created specifically to prevent what is happening today regarding our federal government.



The Founders were spot on regarding the Bill of Rights, and if the Bill of Rights had not been usurped by liberals, then our country would not be divided today. The mistake is allowing any branch of the federal government to commandeer the Bill of Rights.



Majority vote? How about five justices on the Supreme Court taking away unalienable rights? Where is that in the Constitution?

You are again presenting history through the lens of presentism. The colonies suffered years of oppression by the British; suffered oppressive taxation by the British; suffered oppressive and unjust laws by the British; and fought a bloody war with the British. Why would these men and these sovereign states, under any circumstance, want to create another government with that type of power their sovereign states? The governmental purpose of the Constitution cannot be understood without understanding the Mount Vernon Conference and the Annapolis Convention and the subject matters discussed.
You equated "power over how they handled their internal affairs" with power over unalienable rights. Doesn't work for me. Piss on any state that believes it has any power over unalienable rights bestowed by our creator.

The DOI does not begin by declaring that the states are sovereign states and the declaration is a compact. The DOI starts off by identifying itself:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
I am aware of "united." Presently, these are the United States of America and have been for a long time.

Of course the states were wary of trading off too much sovereignty, but on the issue of unalienable rights, they are the reason the States were uniting, for King George had assumed the power to abrogate unalienable rights. The point being, NO government has the right to abrogate unalienable rights. Each and every State of the u/United States of America must accede to the inviability of not treading upon sacred, personal unalienable rights.

If you believe the States did not accede to this principle, then as I said earlier, they were mistaken. Times change Jimmy. We don't have slaves any longer, for instance.

I'm well aware of the nature of the BOR, its setting absolute limits on what the federal government could not do in carrying out its constitutional duties.

"The Bill of Rights was created to prevent the annulment of unalienable rights by the federal government" and despite original intent the Bill of Rights must have the power to prevent the annulment of unalienable rights by the States' government. It's my powerful belief, regardless of the original intent.

The next section of your post you ramble off into stating your partisan views. Yes they are partisan in my opinion.

Quote:
You are again presenting history through the lens of presentism. The colonies suffered years of oppression by the British; suffered oppressive taxation by the British; suffered oppressive and unjust laws by the British; and fought a bloody war with the British. Why would these men and these sovereign states, under any circumstance, want to create another government with that type of power their sovereign states? The governmental purpose of the Constitution cannot be understood without understanding the Mount Vernon Conference and the Annapolis Convention and the subject matters discussed.
We live in the present. Some attachment to the past is wise, however a strict, unwavering attachment to it is unwise. Again, I'm well aware of the circumstances in the lead-up to the Revolutionary War. But if the Founders were men of such arrogance as to think States did not have to accede to the principle of unalienable rights bestowed upon us, the People, by our Creator, t[COLOR="Red"]hen they were wrong-headed in that thinking [/COLOR

And that's just my opinion.

Last edited by imaginethat; May 1st, 2017 at 06:36 PM.
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 2nd, 2017, 01:08 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You equated "power over how they handled their internal affairs" with power over unalienable rights. Doesn't work for me. Piss on any state that believes it has any power over unalienable rights bestowed by our creator.

The DOI does not begin by declaring that the states are sovereign states and the declaration is a compact. The DOI starts off by identifying itself:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
I am aware of "united." Presently, these are the United States of America and have been for a long time.

Of course the states were wary of trading off too much sovereignty, but on the issue of unalienable rights, they are the reason the States were uniting, for King George had assumed the power to abrogate unalienable rights. The point being, NO government has the right to abrogate unalienable rights. Each and every State of the u/United States of America must accede to the inviability of not treading upon sacred, personal unalienable rights.

If you believe the States did not accede to this principle, then as I said earlier, they were mistaken. Times change Jimmy. We don't have slaves any longer, for instance.

I'm well aware of the nature of the BOR, its setting absolute limits on what the federal government could not do in carrying out its constitutional duties.

"The Bill of Rights was created to prevent the annulment of unalienable rights by the federal government" and despite original intent the Bill of Rights must have the power to prevent the annulment of unalienable rights by the States' government. It's my powerful belief, regardless of the original intent.

The next section of your post you ramble off into stating your partisan views. Yes they are partisan in my opinion.

We live in the present. Some attachment to the past is wise, however a strict, unwavering attachment to it is unwise. Again, I'm well aware of the circumstances in the lead-up to the Revolutionary War. But if the Founders were men of such arrogance as to think States did not have to accede to the principle of unalienable rights bestowed upon us, the People, by our Creator, t[COLOR="Red"]hen they were wrong-headed in that thinking [/COLOR

And that's just my opinion.
Quote:
The DOI does not begin by declaring that the states are sovereign states and the declaration is a compact. The DOI starts off by identifying itself:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
I am aware of "united." Presently, these are the United States of America and have been for a long time.
Indeed, the Declaration of Independence did declare the states sovereign, and that concept is consistent well into the nineteenth century.

The first major document was the Articles of Confederation to substantiate this was six years later on March 1, 1781.

Article II:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III:
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Article IV:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
The full faith and credit clause is a comity clause regarding international cooperation between sovereign nations for the recognition and enforcement of laws and rights claimed by individuals between countries. The states were sovereign states and were recognized in the same capacity as another country.

Article I of the Treaty of Paris of 1873 recognized each state by name as “free sovereign and independent states":

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
The full faith and credit clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution is pretty much word for word from Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which is a comity clause between sovereign states:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
James Madison, in Federalist No. 39 on January 16, 1788, explained to the State of New York that the states retained their sovereignty and the Constitution did not form a nation, but a compact between the states:
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States… Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution… But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government.
Ten years later, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 by Thomas Jefferson:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
Ten years later, the Virginia Resolution of 1798 by James Madison:
That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.
Thirty seven years later, James Madison’s Essay on Sovereignty dated December of 1835:
As a ground of compromise let them, the advocates for State Rights acknowledge this rule of measuring the federal share of sovereign power under the Constl. Compact, and let it be conceded on the other hand, that the States are not deprived by it of that corporate existence & pol. unity, which wd. in the event of a dissolution voluntary or violent, of the Constl. replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the condition in which they entered into the compact.
The concept of the states not retaining all the powers they had under the Articles of Confederation would have been a concept foreign to the Founders and detached from the intent of the Constitution.

Quote:
The Bill of Rights was created to prevent the annulment of unalienable rights by the federal government" and despite original intent the Bill of Rights must have the power to prevent the annulment of unalienable rights by the States' government. It's my powerful belief, regardless of the original intent.
There is nothing in history or the structure of our government to support this. This premise would have prevented the Constitution or country from ever happening.
Quote:
The next section of your post you ramble off into stating your partisan views. Yes they are partisan in my opinion.
This section is unbiased and factual history. Documented history is what it is.

Quote:
We live in the present. Some attachment to the past is wise, however a strict, unwavering attachment to it is unwise. Again, I'm well aware of the circumstances in the lead-up to the Revolutionary War. But if the Founders were men of such arrogance as to think States did not have to accede to the principle of unalienable rights bestowed upon us, the People, by our Creator, then they were wrong-headed in that thinking.
We are not living in the present in the context of my statements. We are living in the pre-Revolutionary War, pre-Civil War, and the historical circumstances that have caused pretty much every nation and empire to fail in the context of my statements.

This country is brutally and unrepairable divided, and it is not going to revert to states united under the Constitution specifically because the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states.

You are using the word "Founders" in the wrong context and still presenting history as the states being no different under the Constitution than they were as colonies under King George. The Founders, drafters, and ratifiers were the states. The states are who each Founder, to the man, represented. There were no Founders and then the states.

Of all the history dating back thousands of years and the causes of their failures, the same cause can be found thousands of years ago, Great Britain after WWII, the U.S.S.R., and as recently as Brexit: countries, states, colonies, etc. do not tolerate being controlled by a remote entity. A Congress in Washington D.C. with representatives from across the country and thousands of miles away making laws that negatively impact and are in opposition to the culture of the distant states, has a very short shelf life.

The states are going to split at some point. No country comprised of separate states that are as divided as we will stand the test of time and never have. You make the perfect argument for splitting up the states now in an amicable manner as your arguments are the blueprint of why the colonies declared independence and why empires and countries fail. We are right in the process of repeating history because the Bills of Rights have been applied to the states.

In my opinion.
Thanks from Jimgorn and Bentley

Last edited by Jimmyb; May 2nd, 2017 at 01:41 PM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Libertarian

Tags
bill, people, rights



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
meet the people who support getting rid of the bill of rights Sabcat Current Events 3 January 26th, 2016 05:34 AM
The bill of rights Sabcat Americas 38 December 12th, 2015 07:02 PM
the US Constitution there're 10 bill or rights only one right is not to be infringed TNVolunteer73 Current Events 0 May 6th, 2013 05:45 PM
More Bad News For Who Want to deny Equal Rights to Gay People knowuryder Gay and Lesbian Rights 34 April 21st, 2011 03:50 PM
What Kind of People Fight Equal Rights? tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 19 August 13th, 2010 08:28 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.