The Chicken and the Egg of American History

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
It is no quirk in that the Declaration precedes the Constitution. It is of immense importance.


1.The Declaration of Independence gave birth to the nation in 1776, the Constitution was written in 1787. By itself, the Declaration did not specify any particular form of government. The only thing that makes our government legitimate is that it secures those natural rights from our Creator, and that said government continues to be regularly validated by consent of the governed.

As the first Republican President put it, government of, by, and for the people.

Government proves it is for the people as long as it secures those natural rights.




2.The great debate for America is where, exactly, the line drawn between those natural rights each individual has as their birthright, and the authority of the society to make laws that are necessary and proper to allow the nation to function.

While natural rights are affirmed by the Declaration of independence, but majority rule is the mode directed by the Constitution. It is important to recognize which came first and has priority.
The Declaration is the preface, and gives the purpose of the Constitution: to secure each American’s unalienable rights.

3.Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution [states] that “American constitutional history has always hovered in the mutual resistance of two principles: the right of each individual to be free, and the power of the majority to make rules.” For Sandefur adherence to the natural rights theory of Declaration of Independence manages the tension between the two principles. Indeed, the Declaration is “more than a merely rhetorical statement.” It “sets the framework for reading our fundamental law…” “‘This Republic of Federalism:’ A Review of Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution,” By Adam Tate




4. “Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve. The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.” https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=279


Without an understanding of the proper order of authority, meaning that the natural rights of individuals are ahead of majority rule, America fades into a tyranny of the majority.

“Freedom is the starting point of politics; government’s powers are secondary and derivative, and therefore, limited…” Sandefur, “The Conscience of the Constitution,” p.2

In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”





If the history, and what makes our country truly exceptional, were to be taught in government school, would there be the necessity to have a Supreme Court even consider whether bakers could be forced to create a cake they find objectionable, or a group of nuns forced to give out birth control?

What have we become under Democrat/Progressive rule????
 
It is no quirk in that the Declaration precedes the Constitution. It is of immense importance.


1.The Declaration of Independence gave birth to the nation in 1776, the Constitution was written in 1787. By itself, the Declaration did not specify any particular form of government. The only thing that makes our government legitimate is that it secures those natural rights from our Creator, and that said government continues to be regularly validated by consent of the governed.

As the first Republican President put it, government of, by, and for the people.

Government proves it is for the people as long as it secures those natural rights.




2.The great debate for America is where, exactly, the line drawn between those natural rights each individual has as their birthright, and the authority of the society to make laws that are necessary and proper to allow the nation to function.

While natural rights are affirmed by the Declaration of independence, but majority rule is the mode directed by the Constitution. It is important to recognize which came first and has priority.
The Declaration is the preface, and gives the purpose of the Constitution: to secure each American’s unalienable rights.

3.Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution [states] that “American constitutional history has always hovered in the mutual resistance of two principles: the right of each individual to be free, and the power of the majority to make rules.” For Sandefur adherence to the natural rights theory of Declaration of Independence manages the tension between the two principles. Indeed, the Declaration is “more than a merely rhetorical statement.” It “sets the framework for reading our fundamental law…” “‘This Republic of Federalism:’ A Review of Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution,” By Adam Tate




4. “Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve. The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.” https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=279


Without an understanding of the proper order of authority, meaning that the natural rights of individuals are ahead of majority rule, America fades into a tyranny of the majority.

“Freedom is the starting point of politics; government’s powers are secondary and derivative, and therefore, limited…” Sandefur, “The Conscience of the Constitution,” p.2

In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”





If the history, and what makes our country truly exceptional, were to be taught in government school, would there be the necessity to have a Supreme Court even consider whether bakers could be forced to create a cake they find objectionable, or a group of nuns forced to give out birth control?

What have we become under Democrat/Progressive rule????


Your post is way too informative for most of the dopes to understand
 
It is no quirk in that the Declaration precedes the Constitution. It is of immense importance.


1.The Declaration of Independence gave birth to the nation in 1776, the Constitution was written in 1787. By itself, the Declaration did not specify any particular form of government. The only thing that makes our government legitimate is that it secures those natural rights from our Creator, and that said government continues to be regularly validated by consent of the governed.

As the first Republican President put it, government of, by, and for the people.

Government proves it is for the people as long as it secures those natural rights.




2.The great debate for America is where, exactly, the line drawn between those natural rights each individual has as their birthright, and the authority of the society to make laws that are necessary and proper to allow the nation to function.

While natural rights are affirmed by the Declaration of independence, but majority rule is the mode directed by the Constitution. It is important to recognize which came first and has priority.
The Declaration is the preface, and gives the purpose of the Constitution: to secure each American’s unalienable rights.

3.Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution [states] that “American constitutional history has always hovered in the mutual resistance of two principles: the right of each individual to be free, and the power of the majority to make rules.” For Sandefur adherence to the natural rights theory of Declaration of Independence manages the tension between the two principles. Indeed, the Declaration is “more than a merely rhetorical statement.” It “sets the framework for reading our fundamental law…” “‘This Republic of Federalism:’ A Review of Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution,” By Adam Tate




4. “Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve. The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.” https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=279


Without an understanding of the proper order of authority, meaning that the natural rights of individuals are ahead of majority rule, America fades into a tyranny of the majority.

“Freedom is the starting point of politics; government’s powers are secondary and derivative, and therefore, limited…” Sandefur, “The Conscience of the Constitution,” p.2

In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”





If the history, and what makes our country truly exceptional, were to be taught in government school, would there be the necessity to have a Supreme Court even consider whether bakers could be forced to create a cake they find objectionable, or a group of nuns forced to give out birth control?

What have we become under Democrat/Progressive rule????


Your post is way too informative for most of the dopes to understand


Thank you...but let's hope not.


I have 4 more posts for this thread, hope they make it all clear.

The tragedy is that this is not a lesson in government school.
 
Last edited:
It is no quirk in that the Declaration precedes the Constitution. It is of immense importance.


1.The Declaration of Independence gave birth to the nation in 1776, the Constitution was written in 1787. By itself, the Declaration did not specify any particular form of government. The only thing that makes our government legitimate is that it secures those natural rights from our Creator, and that said government continues to be regularly validated by consent of the governed.

As the first Republican President put it, government of, by, and for the people.

Government proves it is for the people as long as it secures those natural rights.




2.The great debate for America is where, exactly, the line drawn between those natural rights each individual has as their birthright, and the authority of the society to make laws that are necessary and proper to allow the nation to function.

While natural rights are affirmed by the Declaration of independence, but majority rule is the mode directed by the Constitution. It is important to recognize which came first and has priority.
The Declaration is the preface, and gives the purpose of the Constitution: to secure each American’s unalienable rights.

3.Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution [states] that “American constitutional history has always hovered in the mutual resistance of two principles: the right of each individual to be free, and the power of the majority to make rules.” For Sandefur adherence to the natural rights theory of Declaration of Independence manages the tension between the two principles. Indeed, the Declaration is “more than a merely rhetorical statement.” It “sets the framework for reading our fundamental law…” “‘This Republic of Federalism:’ A Review of Timothy Sandefur’s The Conscience of the Constitution,” By Adam Tate




4. “Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve. The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.” https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=279


Without an understanding of the proper order of authority, meaning that the natural rights of individuals are ahead of majority rule, America fades into a tyranny of the majority.

“Freedom is the starting point of politics; government’s powers are secondary and derivative, and therefore, limited…” Sandefur, “The Conscience of the Constitution,” p.2

In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”





If the history, and what makes our country truly exceptional, were to be taught in government school, would there be the necessity to have a Supreme Court even consider whether bakers could be forced to create a cake they find objectionable, or a group of nuns forced to give out birth control?

What have we become under Democrat/Progressive rule????


Or gay banking for that matter, something the SC will ultimately have to rule against. Or maybe this opens to the door to white only, asian only, japanese only credit unions.

America’s First Gay Credit Union Gets Green Light From Michigan
 
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing
 
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing



It is THE statement of the fundamental principles of the United States.


Who said it had legal standing?



Although I try never to interact with that poster, who is Clintonesque in that he lies at every opportunity, his post could not come at a better point in the thread.

It reflects the Democrat racist Progressive Woodrow Wilson who railed against unalienable rights and against God's position in our founding.

He remains the stereotypical Progressive.



“Wilson therefore sought a reinterpretation of the Founding—a reinterpretation grounded in historical contingency. To the Founding’s ahistorical notion that government is rooted in an understanding of unchanging human nature, Wilson opposed the historical argument that the ends, scope, and role of just government must be defined by the different principles of different epochs and that, therefore, it is impossible to speak of a single form of just government for all ages. This was a self-conscious reinterpretation, as Wilson even suggested that the Declaration ought to be understood by excluding from it the foundational statements on equality and natural rights contained in its first two paragraphs. In a 1911 address, Wilson remarked that “the rhetorical introduction of the Declaration of Independence is the least part of it…. If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.” The Heritage Foundation

Exactly the view of the liar....er, poster.
 
While natural rights are affirmed by the Declaration of independence, but majority rule is the mode directed by the Constitution. It is important to recognize which came first and has priority.
The Declaration is the preface, and gives the purpose of the Constitution: to secure each American’s unalienable rights.




5. “The progressive project, now in its second century, has been to reverse this, giving majority rule priority over liberty when they conflict, as they do, inevitably and frequently. This reflects the progressive belief that rights and are the result of government….This doctrine amounts to, and was intended as, the overthrow of the Founder’s vision,…

In December 1835, at the age of eighty-four, eighteen years after he left the presidency, and seven months before his death, Madison wrote an “Essay on Sovereignty” in which he argued that ‘the sovereignty of the society’ is ‘vested in and exercisable by the majority’ which ‘may do any thing that could be rightfully done.’ However, ‘the reserved rights of the individuals (of conscience, for example)’ are ‘beyond the legitimate reach of sovereignty.’
George Will, “The Conservative Sensibility,” p. 150






When the rights of the individual conflict with the claims of he majority, even when laws are passed demanding the individual bake a cake for progressives......the individual rights prevail.


6. “West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The Court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials" .West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette - Wikipedia


“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
 
Now….about those natural rights, the ones Progressives deny exist…..

While nature rights are God-given, assuming them took time.



7. The primacy of the individual, armored with his natural rights, is baked into the creation of Western Civilization. Three millennia ago, the idea was authorized in Genesis.

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27


In 1215, the Magna Carta underscored the premise with this language:
“Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our soul, and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs,…. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”
1215: Magna Carta - Online Library of Liberty




“This expansion of liberty by an act of the sovereign’s grace was progress and was followed by other incremental gains….Then, however, came 1776. Writing in 1792, James Madison said, ‘In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example…of power granted by liberty.
Rather than rights being granted by government
to set people increasingly at liberty, people who are born free to exercise their freedom create a government for their convenience, and particularly to secure their natural rights that pre-exist government.” George Will, Op. Cit.



This view is fundamental to conservatism.
In their attempt to reverse this idea, Progressive's aim is to return society to feudalism, with citizens as serfs.
 
8. We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

These words from the Declaration precede the Constitution, which was designed to instruct government on the practices and procedures to put into effect those 55 words.





9. “Governments can derive many powers from the consent of the majority, but not all exercises of those powers are, simply because they flow from a majority, ‘just.’
…governments are instituted to ‘secure’ our pre-existing rights, not to bestow them’...

…the great divide in America today is between those who believe, as the Founders did, that ‘first come rights and then comes government,’ and those who believe, as progressives do, that ‘first comes government and then come rights.”
George Will, “The Conservative Sensibility,” p. 158




In modern parlance, those of the latter belief may be described as Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis or Communists…
…but certainly not Americans.
 
The enumeration of mans natural or inherited rights in not as significant as the revolt from rule by an all powerful monarch or Royal Family, to rule by the consent of the people.
 
In regards to governing, I don't put any stock in the Declaration of Independence. It was written to politically spin the notion that the founders were within reason to rebel. I would characterize it much like a defense lawyer's summation to the jury. These founders knew the risk, the Declaration spun why it was justified.
 
The enumeration of mans natural or inherited rights in not as significant as the revolt from rule by an all powerful monarch or Royal Family, to rule by the consent of the people.


"Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’
A top US abortionist has left a BBC reporter lost for words after admitting he has no problem killing “babies.”

...Ms Andersson asked Carhart how late in the pregnancy he would perform an abortion. Carhart refused to respond on camera, but then left Ms Andersson visibly stunned by saying:
The baby has no input in this as far as I’m concerned.”

Ms Andersson then pointed out Carhart’s use of the word “baby” rather than “fetus”, asking why he would use that word when others prefer more dehumanizing terms.

“I think that it is a baby,” Carhart interrupted. “And I use [the word baby] with patients.”

Ms Andersson then asked if Carhart had any problem with killing a baby?

“Absolutely not,” Carhart coldly replied.
Much time and energy is spent trying to persuade pro-abortion apologists that an unborn baby is a human life, as though that fact wasn’t bleeding obvious to everyone."
WATCH: Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’





Aren't you the Progressive who bragged about endorsing abortion?

Aren't you the savage who said this?

"I guess that's no, I don't really care about the lives of these babies."
Liberals On Abortion





So, of course, unalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness couldn't mean anything to you.

How about you get lost?
 
In regards to governing, I don't put any stock in the Declaration of Independence. It was written to politically spin the notion that the founders were within reason to rebel. I would characterize it much like a defense lawyer's summation to the jury. These founders knew the risk, the Declaration spun why it was justified.


So you're a government school grad, huh?
 
I'm going to post a thread where Libtards claim America is going to fall like the Roman Republic did.

That got me to thinking about the principals of the Declaration and the form of government our Founders established for us.

Historians talk about Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic. But, they never tell you the truth about either.

Greek democracy was never for ALL Greeks. It was only for the elite landowners and those with power. It had absolutely nothing to do with freedoms of the protection of a minority.

The same holds true with Rome. The common people had absolutely no say over the laws and regulations. The Senate was composed of powerful, wealthy men with lots of slaves to keep them rich and in power. They were a tyranny of the few and the creation of an emperor was a natural progression.

Thank God we have a form of government where EVERYBODY is protected and a majority cannot run roughshod over minorities.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top