I cannot say, whether my expressions are welcome, or they are not. But I cannot help expressing.
Liberty, according to the U. S. Constitution, cannot be defined, according to me. The state is supposed to uphold liberty, but so is the individual. Which entity, the state or the individual, is more important in upholding liberty? The United States founders, it seems, were so fair, that they acknowledged, that the individual, or the state, can act against the ideals of that nation. I did mention this, earlier, but the right to carry firearms, for citizens, is actually, in my opinion, a safeguard for the individual, even against the state. The founders of the United States, were intimating, that if that nation did not stand up to it's ideals, the people were free to stand up to theirs, and if the people did not stand up to their ideals, then the state had to do it's duty.
I admire President Lincoln, but, if the people of the South, were not upholding the ideals of the United States, neither did the President of the United States, by enforcing the Constitution on the people, and the Constitution, according to his interpretation. The hidden meaning of the Constitution of the United States is revealed. If the individual is acting against the ideals of the United States, then the state will have no choice, but to act similarly. For the people and the state to act for the United States, both the people and the state, will have to act in accord, and concord. The founders, I believe, felt that if the nation did not stand up for it's ideals, then it was free to choose anew.
Now, what if both the nation of the United States, and the government, act in concord, and accord, thus upholding the state, but what if both do not act according to the ideals of the Constitution of that nation? Is this possible, according to the people and state of the United States? I think, that I admire the founding, and ideals of that nation, but I have no idea of her Constitution, nor am I a citizen of that nation.
You know, if you look at the movie, 'Gladiator', the Roman state was in a situation, where the people and the state were acting in concord, and accord, but against the ideals of that state. What is interesting, is, the movie, shows this situation existing, just after one of the greatest Emperor's of Rome is dead.
What's your point?
-dale
Looks like he has the Constitution mixed up with the Declaration of Independence which justifies the right of revolution.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Texas v White the people retain the right of revolution but not rebellion. Revolution being one of two ways for a state to leave the union. The other being by and with the agreement of the other states.Originally Posted by JAD_333
Z:
Don't confuse the poor guy with facts.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
For starters, how about this ?
In essence, WHO is more important ? the people or the state.
A question that gets me into regular conflict with my countrymen.
Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Apr 12, at 16:18.
the state is meant to serve the people, not the other way around. almost every geopolitical horror of the 20th century can be attributed to the doctrine of all for the state.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
ofc, but the sticking point is the degree and that is the space statist idealogies play in.
Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Apr 12, at 15:59.
AM asks two questions
- Where is liberty defined in the US constitution
- Who gets the final say in its upholding.
the US constitution defines the proper role, responsibilities, and limits placed on the state. liberty is not explicitly defined; the Constitution "secures the blessing of liberty to ourselves and to posterity".
note that it is WE THE PEOPLE as the upholder and executor of the Constitution, not the state. federal/state officials swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, first and foremost.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
ok, so liberty isn't defined, specfically in the USC.
Can we say it emerges as a byproduct ?
USC was crafted in a specfic way to allow for this.
Liberty was one of the defining principles the founding fathers had in mind.
Does this do away with the inevitable gunnut question..
'What is the right amount of liberty'
yeah, the people as a collective are superior above all.
Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Apr 12, at 18:05.
as a collective?? lol.
if anything state will go after individuals, not ppl as collective. as individual you are not above the state.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
DE,
not as a byproduct. it's one of the primary GOALS of the USC, left deliberately vague. strictness in interpretation would actually favor the autocracy.ok, so liberty isn't defined, specfically in the USC.
Can we say it emerges as a byproduct ?
not quite. the people as a collective is superior above all except when it comes to the unalienable individual rights.yeah, the people as a collective are superior above all.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Consider the time when the USC was written. The US was a small country and the citizens were a small part of the population of the small country (white male land owners, and many of them did not participate in the workings of the government). The US had no modern technology, letters were hand delivered - in small quantitiies, they took months to arrive, the average person didn't write them - reading and writing was not as common as it is today. Newspapers, pamphlets or handbills were the only source of news and they were not available on a regular basis to most of the country, electricity was a natural phenomenon - and hadn't been harnessed to any appreciable extent.
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: