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.
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.
Comment