“DRONE MEMO” LATEST VIOLATION OF OUR FREEDOMS
By Ron Paul || This week Americans will enjoy Independence Day with family cookouts and fireworks. Flags will be displayed in abundance. Sadly, however, what should be a celebration of the courage of those who risked so much to oppose tyranny will instead be turned into a celebration of government, not liberty. The mainstream media and opportunistic politicians have turned Independence Day into the opposite of what was intended.
The idea of opposing — by force if necessary — a tyrannical government has been turned into a celebration of tyrannical government itself!
The evidence is all around us.
How would the signers of the Declaration of Independence have viewed, for example, the Obama Administration’s “drone memo,” finally released last week, which claims to justify the president’s killing American citizens without charge, judge, jury, or oversight? Is this not a tyranny similar to that which our Founders opposed? And was such power concentrated in one branch of government not what inspired the rebellion against the English king in the first place?
The “drone memo,” released after an ACLU freedom of information request, purports to establish the president alone as the arbiter of who is or is not a terrorist subject to execution by the U.S. government. There is no due process involved, just the determination of the president. Thus far the only American citizens killed by the president are Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenaged son, but the precedent has been established, according to the memo, that the president has the authority to kill Americans he believes are terrorists.
Even The New York Times, which generally backs whatever U.S. administration is in power, is troubled by the White House’s legal justification to claim the authority to kill Americans. A Times editorial last week concluded that:
…the memo turns out to be a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result.
I agree with the Times’ conclusion that, “[t]his memo should never have taken so long to be released, and more documents must be made public. The public is still in the dark on too many vital questions.”
Coincidentally, in addition to the “drone memo” released last week, a broader study of the U.S. use of drones was also released by the Stimson Center. The study, co-chaired by Gen. John Abizaid, former U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, concluded that contrary to claims that drones help prevent wider conflicts by targeting specific individuals, the use of drones “may create a slippery slope leading to continual or wider wars.”
In fact, the study concluded, the use of drones overseas is likely counterproductive. “Civilian casualties, even if relatively few, can anger whole communities, increase anti-US sentiment and become a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations,” the study found.
Seven years ago I wrote in an Independence Day column:
Only the safe-guards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire…I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.
On Independence Day we should remember the spirit of rebellion against tyranny that inspired our Founding Fathers to set out our experiment in liberty. We should ourselves celebrate and continue that struggle if we are to keep our republic.
Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.
97 comments
Anyone here old enough to remember when “Show us your papers!” was the catchphrase used to describe totalitarian regimes that were an anathema to ‘Murrican ideals?
http://www.infowars.com/oregon…
How far we have *progressed.
Has TBG ever been stopped by a representative of an agency of the totalitarian SC government AKA SCHP? Did they ask for your license and registration?
So that justifies it then?
Justification? Who said it was justified. It is however a longstanding practice. Should the SCHP just assume you are legit? I suppose your libertarian dream is that you can drive however you choose and you should not be regulated by “government”. Correct?
“Justification? Who said it was justified.”
What then am I supposed to believe your point is? I’m asking for an explanation.
The point is that we have been “showing our papers” to authorities for eons. It is not some “new” totalitarian requirement. What is your libertarian alternative?
Yea, so basically that’s EXACTLY what you are doing, justifying it. No need for the BS. You shouldn’t have to avoid your point if you feel good about it.
Just remember, there was a time when you didn’t need papers, ID, or anything to go from one end of the country to the other. So while that thought is shocking given the current paradigm, the original intent was maximum freedom and we are way down that slippery slope now.
Ok so what is your counterpoint. That we eliminate all forms of ID. That no one have to show an ID to anyone at anytime. Did you support the voter id law?
I don’t have a counterpoint, I simply asked him if he was justifying the whole “your papers please”, and he is.
Everyone can draw their own conclusions, I just wanted clarification.
Ah so a typical Republican. No answers, just complaints.
Everyone who doesn’t agree with your world view is a “Republican” huh?
Even though you’d like a nice Yes or No, black or white style answer, the world is filled with grays that require deeper thought at times Tom.
I doubt you know what my world view is, and we have all had a hell of a lot of time to think about all these things at this point. So our thoughts should have gone pretty deep by now. I am simply expressing frustration that politicians and others simply complain or take totally hypocritical positions without going out on a limb with some real ideas of their own. And by ideas I mean ideas that aren’t controverted by facts.
As for your political affiliation, I may be wrong. When was the last time you voted for someone who was not a Republican?
I haven’t voted for a while now. Just like you doubt I know what your world view is, I doubt you know mine.
I’m really just asking questions in a Socratic method to try to uncover the truth, nothing more.
People that don’t like the questions would naturally call it “complaining” I suppose, or stupid questions, whatever….but it’s still just questions.
So Sic Willie and you don’t vote? Yet you both bitch. One for profit. What’s your reason?
I simply don’t choose to be a pawn in a game that is a loser for pawns…that’s all. I see it as a big waste of time.
Then I was wrong about your political affiliation. Not voting makes you nothing.
That’s correct, I’m not a identifiable label or participant in the voting process.
I’m an observer and occasional commenter on it. Some might suggest that I shouldn’t be allowed to comment on it, but obviously I find that ridiculous.
Has TBG ever been stopped by a representative of an agency of the totalitarian SC government AKA SCHP? Did they ask for your license and registration?
Yes.
Yes.
Did you read the article TBG linked to?
As I recall you supported the Voter ID law.
As I recall you supported the Voter ID law.
Your recollection is correct.
So to answer your specific question, yes I do remember that. In fact I think it still is.
TBG would not be averse to having voting restricted to only property owning males, so obviously using Voter ID to thwart non-citizens and the like from voting doesn’t wad his loincloth.
Now before y’all try to head up to the reservation and shove Ol’ TBG into a cattle car…remember it was the aforementioned guys (or a subset of them) that ended slavery and pushed through universal suffrage.
und vy can you not sign ze papers?
be..be..because you have cut off both of my hands!
Comments from sheeple ridiculing Ron Paul’s most recent words of wisdom coming in, 5, 4, 3, 2,…
Sadly: “That government is best which governs least” has become, “That government is best which gives away the most free stuff”. We need more “freedom FROM government” than “freedon OF government.” Please celebrate the right thing. Happy Fourth.
Government is in essence, “to govern”, so naturally it’s size determines how much freedom one can have, for better or worse.
Size of government has a direct inverse relationship to the amount of freedom you have and the amount of money in your pocket.
So called conservatives don’t want to shrink Government. They want to shrink the parts of government they do not think benefit them. They are perfectly fine with the government they think benefits them. For example there are probably a lot of limited government types in the upstate. Yet where is the demand we stop paying money to build and repair roads in the upstate? Where is the demand we slash the border patrols in Texas and Arizona to save tax money? Where is the demand we stop building Airports? Were is the demand that we tell Michelin, BMW, and Boeing hell will freeze over before we give them another dime? Where is the demand we stop spending money on bridges in Charleston, Greenville and Columbia; or beach re-nourishment programs. Really where is the demand we shut down the military bases in our state.
The truth is the so called Limited Government Movement is a lie. Fueled by the myth that the government is being bankrupted by poor people getting welfare checks, and that we can solve our problems by eliminating those small programs. Unfortunately that number pales in comparison to Corporate welfare and programs that benefit the wealthy. In the end the entire movement is being funded and pushed by a few greedy bastards who are only interested in what benefits them. They have no sense of country or unity or the good of the nation. They only care about their pocketbook.
The only Americans killed were those two. At least, that we know of. Of course, the number of innocent bystanders in foreign countries we’ve killed…
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ~Thomas Jefferson
So says the owner of Sally Hemmings.
Don’t like that one, here’s another.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. ~Thomas Jefferson
Now, now, Jefferson wasn’t perfect so anything he said has no meaning.
So true, many great men of the past do not meet the standards of today’s PC society, Wonder how the great men of today will be judged by future societies.
Jefferson was two faced in his generation. Yet you want to deify him.
I deify no one, regardless his inequities as a man, his words evoke thought , should we scrape the Deceleration of Independence?
There’s only one man that supposedly walked the earth in perfection…I’m surprised so many are so eager to try to use him as a barometer.
I presume you mean scrap. No we shouldn’t but we should separate the words from the writer. You can find loads of “PR” writers who can produce a “declaration” that will satisfy an audience. It doesn’t necessarily mean the writer believes what they wrote. They may be writing what they know will “sell”. In the case of Jefferson, he predated C Street wherein he was blind to his own foibles.
You presumed right.
I disagree, we should never separate the words form the writer, you must take the good with the bad and learn from it.
This site is dead and/or ignorance-based. . I’d say Liberal-Tarians do as much to perpetuate tyranny as liberals. You cannot ignore tyrants, then rant against bondage.
Anyway: Much better reads on http://scdigest.blogspot.com/
Jesus, you have no shame. If anyone deserves an IP ban now, it’s you. At the very least, you should be prohibited from advertising your site for free on a competing blog, you should at least have to pay Will for it.
don’t be fooled. he is Will. catering to different readers with different platforms.
I don’t buy that myself, I know it’s a popular theory among the Will haters…but I just don’t buy it.
Burn Books Much???
Remember, Hitler and you have a lot in common. A closed mind allows your ignorance to grow, instead of your knowledge. You CANNOT afford any more Ignorance.
Tyranny…. the will of the minority trying to control the majority. Men taking women’s rights…. that’s tyranny.
Tyranny? muslim Obama has even scared the securalists on SCOTUS to the point of b#$ch slapping him and the regime at every turn to try and save America!
Hobby Lobby!!!!
Says the asshat with no uterus.
Go have an abortion on Gay Pride Day.
Will make a liberal hag like you feel better!
“Go have an abortion on Gay Pride Day.”
LMAO! Ok, normally a lot of your stuff I just ignore…but kudos to you for the funniest line of the day!
Hey now! I don’t have a uterus…am I an asshat too?!
Don’t bother, this woman has adopted the haggish behavior, imparted upon the simple-minded. She thinks the men who fight for her freedom are the enemy.
Ignorance will always lead to failure. Blues Woman is one of the most-ignorant cliches on here. And she seems like a failed and not very happy person….like many NAGs (National Association of Gals) as Rush has so accurately defined them.
So to all the women who wonder whether there is any truth to the Republican war on women; please note they consider you a NAG. Keep that in mind in when you are in the voting booth.
And to the few Stepford wives still left out there. Think of your daughters and remember your husband does not know what you do in the voting booth.
You must be a NAG, Jan…LMAO…you know who you are..That’s for sure. Hahahaha…
Believe me: anybody stupid enough to believe there is a War on Women, from the right, is already firmly locked into the democrat party.
I rest my case. Remember women are 51% of the population. So vote. If you are a working woman, single mother, middle class, poor, or have a daughter; you are a fool to vote Republican.
Blues Woman is one of the most-ignorant cliches on here.
Pot…kettle.
Women winning over 80% of child custody cases is… justice?
no.. it’s misogyny.
the revolutionary war was fought to establish an american government, not to establish no government at all. and isn’t tyranny a silly word to use over and over? the british had an elected parliament. they just didn’t pay much attention to this part of the empire. but they weren’t treating us like slaves – we were the ones with slaves.
We probably would have been better off in the long run of we had stayed under he crown versus our own home grown rulers. Canada and New Zealand both seem to be doing a bit better than us.
Yeah but the “British Empire” has been in decline since the 1800s and we were doing pretty well until liberalism became institutionalized.
When do you say we were doing well and when do you say liberalism became institutionalized?
I wasn’t referring though to the British Empire…I was referring Canada and NZ….not that I disagree with you about the decline of the US Empire…
How do you define “doing pretty well”?
I have a more simple question. Who is we?
1. I don’t know of anybody who celebrates the government on July 4. We celebrate our nation’s Independence from Great Britain.
2. Opponents of the memo cleverly call it the “Drone Memo”. Nowhere in the memo are drones mentioned.
3. Paul seeks 5th amendment rights for Americans targeted by the military.
A. The fifth amendment does not distinguish between the rights of American citizens and a foreigners. The first two words are “No person”. The targeted individuals citizenship is irrelevant in regards to his Fifth amendment rights. A non citizen has the same right to an “indictment of a Grand Jury” as a citizen.
B. Paul objects to memo, “which claims to justify the president’s killing American citizens without charge, judge, jury, or oversight?” But the Fifth Amendment has exceptions. …..”except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;”…… Even in the US the police can use lethal force without warrant or indictment if there is a “public danger” and non lethal force is not possible. The entire Civil War was against US citizens ( the confederacy was never recognized ) without charge, judge or jury.
C. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The freely elected government is the will of the people and has the right to defend itself and its citizens against enemies, foreign or domestic.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The freely elected government is the will of the people and has the right to defend itself and its citizens against enemies, foreign or domestic.”
In a weird way, it is a suicide pact(for some). You can’t have a “freely elected government” as the “will of the people” if specific regions are not free to leave(secession). There is always a tyranny of the majority, as well noted by the Founders(and rationally concerned with). That is the nature of elections, which was obviously feared and they tried to temper it(unsuccessfully in my opinion) with Republicanism.
The right of succession could devolve to the state, county, city and the individual. What you are defending is the right to rebel. The Colonies rebelled against Great Britain. But a freely elected government also has the right to preserve itself. Otherwise no government could survive endless succession. Such dispute are usually settled peacefully, but the government has some rights.
My stronger points are made in part 3A and 3B. Any comments on them?
“Otherwise no government could survive endless succession.”
Well, generally speaking, no governments last forever. They success rate of governments over written history is undeniably 0%. :)
“but the government has some rights.”
Where does the government get its rights?
Given that you are a Bible Thumper, I’m also curious as to your opinion on where man gets his rights…please share.
I really have no opinion on 3a or 3b per se, other than I see some moral issues with the argument…but technically I can’t say I agree or disagree at this time. I was more interested in your last paragraph.
Where does man get his rights?
The bible frequently mentions individual rights, liberty and equality. Even though it was a sin, Eve biting the forbidden fruit was the first free act of man. It was from the tree of “Knowledge of Good and Evil”. Whether someone believes this story literally or figuratively, I believe it truly describes man’s condition. Rights involve responsibility and knowing right from wrong. We don’t hold animals responsible for their actions because they don’t know right from wrong. We may destroy a dangerous animal, but we do not think of a shark as evil or wrong because it is doing as nature intended. We may not agree on what is right and wrong, but every sane adult human understands the concept of right and wrong. Although there has been a lot of recent studies on the social behavior of animals, most believe they don’t understand this concept.
This knowledge by its nature makes us free in spite of our condition in relation to the government. Even a man in prison is free to a certain extent as long as he can think.
Where does government get its rights?
Romans 13:1-4 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”
I believe that when the last sentence in that verse is violated then you have the right to rebel. The bible does not endorse democracy, but it is the form of government that is most likely to fulfill that verse. There can be just undemocratic rule. Japan was justly ruled by the US after defeat in WW II. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that modern democracy first succeeded in a diverse predominately Judeo-Christian country where the ties between church and state were relatively weak and spread first to other Christian counties. There are good government concepts in the bible, such as the rulers are subject to the law and separation of powers. ( read about David and Bathsheba ) Also that government is for the people and not the people there for the rulers.
“Rights involve responsibility and knowing right from wrong.”
So if I understand your viewpoint properly, you are saying that rights involve a God given understanding of right and wrong when it comes to individuals?
And then you say the government is also given its rights from God as well, correct?
Do I understand you properly?
My beliefs on the rights of government are more complex, but perhaps I can defend them only using the bible, but my knowledge of the bible is not sufficient at this time to do so. I do support the use of other sources such as science, nature and history.
John Locke’s idea that governments are instituted among men in which some natural rights are given up to preserve the rest. For instance, if I am robbed, I have the natural right to reclaim my property by force. In a civil society I give up that right and must rely on the government for justice. There is some justification for this in the bible. The requirement for two witnesses and delineation between intentional crimes and civil penalties. I believe in these ideas, but they are not necessarily biblical. I firmly believe that just because a government is not democratic is not reason enough to rebel. Also, there would a particularly high bar to support rebellion against a democracy, because there are non violent ways to change it. Rebellion should only be the last resort after less violent methods are exhausted. I may turn the other cheek for an injustice to myself, I am not required to accept injustice to others.
The Declaration of Independence
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Sometimes unjust governments are tolerated because the chaos resulting from civil war is more oppressive than the existing government and often better government doesn’t result. Some places are not ready for democracy. Syria and Libya are possible examples. US policy should be to promote human rights, but that doesn’t always mean democracy.
Well, it’s good that you see a lot of grey and complexity.
I think ultimately in your quest to discern where rights come from(whether it’s natural, divine, designed, etc.) that you should consider if any of the philosophy’s involved can be applied consistently and how objectively…
That seems to be the path by which we minimize human conflict and maximize freedom in my mind….
So for example, the “non aggression principle” might be something that most people can subjectively think is reasonable and be applied fairly consistently….and that might also include “property rights” as well. (again, with the idea that you are trying to minimize conflict by establishing rights)
Regardless, good for you for searching and knowing your current limitations. (we all have them, me included)
Thank you for your comments. Some misunderstand why I call myself BT. Will despises any politician’s use of religion, I exercise only a healthy skepticism and a resistance to being manipulated. I use Bible Thumper like gays who embrace Queer. It’s my little jab at Will for using the term so often.
Still agitated that no one has commented on my interpretation of the Fifth Amendment ( 3A and 3B on my original comment ). I have some Libertarian leanings, but can’t stand Paul’s extreme views and always blame America attitude.
“I have some Libertarian leanings, but can’t stand Paul’s extreme views and always blame America attitude.”
Well there’s nothing wrong with having libertarian leanings. It has the root word for liberty after all.
What do you want people to say?. You’re Fifth Amendment interpretation is largely correct. The people have various levels of rights. Inalienable rights (primarily life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), which we have historically held apply to all persons everywhere and which can only be taken in relatively extreme circumstances; secondary rights which are granted by the Constitution of the US, and tertiary rights granted by the Constitutions of the various states. Secondary rights arguably only apply to citizens of the US, and Tertiary rights only apply to the citizens of the respective states. When rights come into conflict secondary rights must give way to inalienable rights and tertiary rights must give way to secondary rights. Conflicting rights is what constitutional jurisprudence is all about.
Since you obviously think about these things, I only wish you could see how wrong you are on the free speech issues,and it frightens me for this country that you can’t.
Kind of sounds like you have all the answers to me. Good job.
The right to secede is noting more than the right to abandon your country and force others to go with you whether they want to or not. You can leave your country any time you want. But you actually have to leave your country. The government is obligated to defend my rights. If they let a group of people force me to leave my country over my objection, they aren’t doing a very good job.
“The right to secede is noting more than the right to abandon your country and force others to go with you whether they want to or not.”
That is true, that’s EXACTLY what happened when the US left the British Empire. In fact, it was a minority that made it happen.
“You can leave your country any time you want. But you actually have to leave your country.”
If that was the case in terms of reality, then the US would have never existed.
“The government is obligated to defend my rights.”
I’m not sure that’s the case, there’s an inherent conflict in the use of democracy…hence “tyranny of the majority” and its associated discussions by the Founders.
Not only that, but we have to seperate the theoretical from the reality, because we all know that the US government is not operating by strict standards under the Constitution.
So I can’t really agree with your last statement, or disagree for that matter….I just know that what government “should” be doing in your opinion is certainly far from what it IS doing.
You are confusing secession and rebellion. Those who believe in a right of secession, believe that by vote they should be allowed force US citizens to give up their country and their rights under the laws of that country; and the federal government should not intervene to protect the rights of those people.
In rebellion, no one alleges they have the right to rebel under the laws of their nation. They know they are committing treason under those laws, and the consequences if they lose. Their neighbors are free to choose sides as well, and most certainly will. This is a contest of physical power not legal right.
“Those who believe in a right of secession, believe that by vote they should be allowed force US citizens to give up their country and their rights under the laws of that country; and the federal government should not intervene to protect the rights of those people.”
Ok, let’s stop for a moment and consider this:
You believe your right is to be able to stay within your home yet remain part of a government the MAJORITY of the population rejects(secession per your definition).
How is this any different from someone that say, wants to keep more of their money yet not have to move if the MAJORITY of the populace decides to take it?
I don’t need to take minute to consider that. You are very confused. There is no doubt the US government has the right to collect taxes under our Constitution. In a democracy or a democratic republic, the majority does in fact rule on some things. Collecting taxes is one of those things. This is not anarchy were you can decide to do anything you want. Taxes are the price of civilization. If you do not want to live by the rules of the country, you have the right to leave. But you don’t have the “right” to force others to leave because you do not like the rules established by the majority.
Now in some circumstances you may have the physical power to subjugated the people within a geographical region to a government of your formation, and the nation they are forced to leave may not have the physical power to stop you. That is a rebellion. This is what the Confederacy attempted to do and failed.
I really don’t feel confused. I don’t believe your answered my question, so I’ll try one more time:
What is the difference between a majority of people voting to force you to live under a government in the geographic region you live in(you called that secession) and that of those same people voting to take your money?
If you could just focus on that question, it would probably help us both.
Because the geographical region you live in is the United States of America and you have no right to unilaterally change that. Within that geographical region, the Constitution guarantees you certain rights. While under our out theory of government you have certain inalienable rights, all of your rights are not inalienable. Theoretically inalienable rights come from the creator and the other rights come from the people. Property rights come from the people. The rights granted by the people can only be altered by a majority, and sometimes under or compact, a super-majority of the people in the geographical region. You do not have the right to unilaterally subdivide that geographical region into regions of your choosing; or the choosing of a group of you in contravention of rights of others in your selected geographical region.
For example, what if the State of SC wanted to form a Theocratic State run by Baptist ministers where there were no property rights. Ministers would decide how much you were to give to god and the church would run the government. Even if 95% of the people of this state wanted that, they do not have the “right” and thank god not the power, to subject me to that type of government, by vote.
“Because the geographical region you live in is the United States of America and you have no right to unilaterally change that. ”
Yes, but under your argument the MAJORITY does. You’ve made that argument several times now, like here:
“The rights granted by the people can only be altered by a majority”
So, you have in essence argued for the right of secession, by your own definition.
It’s really an odd argument you are posing, in that regard you are right, I am confused….by your argument.
No! your argument is nonsense. The whole cannot secede from itself. Secession is by definition a portion of the whole separating from the whole. No portion of the whole has a right to do so, unless a majority of the whole, and under our compact a super majority of the whole agree to the separation. In other words it would take a constitutional amendment. That is not secession, that is a voluntary dissolution of the Union.
Ok, I think I understand you now. You are saying that the people who vote on a local basis(whether it’s state, county, town, etc.) have no right to secession from the larger governments above them because if they cannot form a majority on a larger basis.
They have to remain part of the “whole” as you put it, whether they like it or not.
So your argument is for tyranny of the majority, which I’m fine with as long as you are clearly stating it.
So in essence, you would have disagreed with rebellion from the Crown as well during that period, correct?
Also, if the majority of people in the United States were in favor of secession, then it would be OK then for them to establish a new government over you even if you liked the old one, correct?
You are saying that the people who vote on a local basis(whether it’s state, county, town, etc.) have no right to secession from the larger governments above them because if they cannot form a majority on a larger basis.
I am saying it would take a constitutional amendment.
So your argument is for tyranny of the majority, which I’m fine with as long as you are clearly stating it.
This is not tyranny by any logical definition, and certainly nothing the founders were concerned with. We are all subject to a compact or agreement, the Constitution. The states entered this agreement voluntarily, and set out the rules for operation of the country, and rights of the people. This his how governments operate, and our case I believe it has worked very well.
If 51% of the citizens of Greenville SC can vote to leave the US, and force the remaining 49% to go with them, the rights guaranteed by the Constitutions are meaningless. That would in fact be tyranny by the majority, i.e. any small group of people surrounding you could take away all of your rights, so long as they were a majority of some to be defined geographical region..
So in essence, you would have disagreed with rebellion from the Crown as well during that period, correct?
No. You are again confusing secession and rebellion. The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of rebellion, not secession. No colonist thought they had the right to renounce their allegiance to the Crown under the British Constitution. They resolved to engage in treason under British law. Jefferson asserted a right to abolish governments that seek to abridge inalienable rights, but the neither the British Crown, nor the British Constitution recognized such a right.
The colonies understood the consequences of failure in their rebellion. They took that risk. Their rebellion was successful and they formed a new government. Under a theory of government by the people. We live under the results of that rebellion and I am very happy we do. I would like to believe I would have supported the rebellion were I alive at the time, but I also know I would not have been asked.
Also, if the majority of people in the United States were in favor of secession, then it would be OK then for them to establish a new government over you even if you liked the old one, correct?
We have a procedures within the Constitution for amending the Constitution. So long as you can get enough people to agree to a Constitutional Amendment and call a Constitutional Convention you can do almost anything you want, including disbanding the Union and separating the country into 50 or 500 mini-countries.
Under the theories espoused by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence you could not legitimately abrogate inalienable rights of the people, even with a Constitutional Convention; however, without courts, I don’t know who would defend your rights..
“We live under the results of that rebellion and I am very happy we do. I would like to believe I would have supported the rebellion were I alive at the time, but I also know I would not have been asked.”
So you like the results of the US rebellion, which you admit by the Crown standards were treasonous and not based on the majority preference…but you don’t like the idea that a minority of a smaller governance trying to vote to separate from a larger governance?
Really, don’t you find that somewhat inconsistent in terms of viewpoint, regardless of whether you label any separation attempt secession or rebellion?
They are both an attempt to separate…only the method being different. (legality being the question you’ve posed…and you are actually ok with the CLEARLY non-legal method)
If you want to start a rebellion against the United States have at it. I will not support you, and I will in fact enter the fight against you if you try to take away my rights as a citizen of the US. Which obviously you feel you should have the right to do.
I am certain whatever system of government you would try to establish over your new country would be far more tyrannical than the government we have.
I really have no wishes to do any of that, I’m just pointing out that you seem to have conflicting viewpoints.
I understand that might be upsetting to you.
Not upsetting at all, and I have absolutely no conflicting viewpoints. You simply fail to understand that there are only two ways for a portion of the country to leave the Union. 1. By constitutional amendment and 2. by successful rebellion. There is nothing in between. This is not tyranny of the majority this is the opposite of tyranny of the majority.
If a portion of the country can leave the union at will there is no way for the Federal Government to protect the constitutional rights of the people in those areas; Which despite your belief, it has an absolute obligation to do. “To secure these rights governments are instituted among men. . . ” “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Your proposal is anarchy. Try Somalia. It works they way you want there.
“Not upsetting at all, and I have absolutely no conflicting viewpoints.”
Ok, you win.
No offense, but you seem to be railing against “tyranny by the majority” by arguing we should have tyranny by the majority. You do realize under your theory you have no rights at all that can’t be taken away by an even smaller majority?.
“No offense, but you seem to be railing against “tyranny by the majority” by arguing we should have tyranny by the majority.”
Really? How’d I do that?
Yet the media CONSTANTLY celebrates Ancient “Civil Rights” notations.
When ALL Americans begin to respect the US system that freed all of us from our foreign oppressors, this country will go backward:Some still hate the only nation that ever cared for them, and their welfare.
Better explained here: http://scdigest.blogspot.com/2014/06/can-we-get-over-all-these-silly-civil.html
I’m celebrating Independence today, the administration got bitch slapped twice by the Supreme Court today – it’s not the ball game, but it’s a good start.
I will state the honest to god truth in regards to Democracy. The fear all along was the unruly mob that would lead the people to destruction or decline. Why was
this thought prevalent? It is because, historically, only a few, usually the educated affluent people, were given credit for not just bunching together in a crazy out of control mob like a stampede of cattle.
What we are talking about here is whether man is capable of exercising democratic practices. Both biblically and scientifically man is a combination of animal and a higher being capable of much more than mere animals. Biblically we mostly just herds that need Sheppard’s. Scientifically we come from monkeys but have evolved into something more. Unquestionably, no matter which camp you support, our greater potential is due to our power of reason. Our evil potential is due to the animal in us.
Unquestionably, you can occasionally see the animal part of man. Just last week I saw some ladies admiring an engagement ring. I heard multiple ohs and ahs. I had to chuckle as I realized these natural sounds, spoken by people around the world regardless of language, were the same as a bunch of chimpanzees. Imagine five or six chimpanzees surrounding a shiny object shrieking oh, oh, oh, ah, ah, ah. It is funny how we are blind to the obvious.
Many things are attributed to our animal nature. Not just intolerance and racism, but how about faith. As pack animals, we have a natural tendency to elevate our pack above all others. Our own identity is defined from the packs we belong to. Our self worth can only be great if we hold our packs in the highest esteem. It can be fun, such as in supporting our college football team. It can also be ugly, such as denigrating others who are different. This human trait is what makes all these terrorists acts possible. Of course we all come from the same stuff. While we
always point out the stupidity of the other groups, we seem incapable of
realizing our own stupidity. Our groups define us. The truth of it is easily seen in the
differences between democrats and republicans. Most in each party fully believes in all of the specific stances of our party. Gun rights, abortion and so on. Given nothing but an individual’s power of reason, the likelihood of this is very small. Obviously we are not using our power of reason, but instead our emotions in regards to our affiliations.
We are silly animals who claim to be intelligent, but who act based on animal emotions and drives. This “bunching” of humans into packs, and the resulting rival packs, is the cause of more calculating humans being able to mentally enslave us all to use for their own financial betterment. The study of this is group dynamics, and it is a much sought after degree if you are starting a career and money is important to you.
The best way to rise above this severe inherent human weakness (frailty) is to recognize that we all suffer from it because we are all humans. Once you recognize that, it will not be as easy to be manipulated. Those wanting to manipulate you will tell you such things as Christianity is the most elevated religion, republican party are the good guys, America is beacon of light … Question everything. Once you stand alone in your thoughts and opinions, having truly seen all sides, then you are a being that is truly worthy of democracy. Otherwise, you are just a part of someone else’s construction that is serving whatever purpose they choose for you.
If you want to celebrate independence, start with yourself.
I’m gonna continue to write this guy in until somebody better comes along…
But on a lighter July 4th note:
“Inappropriate Fireworks”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRVT65TKyc
[A 2 minute comedy video!]