CDZ Confusion

[Gdjjr]

never liked the pledge of allegiance- even as a kid- it always seemed to phony and Fascist like to demand that we kids repeat that we are good little citizens over and over.

I never needed any pledge of allegiance to be a patriotic American, and I never saw any purpose behind it other than brain washing. Teach kids why the ideals of America are important- don't just make them all repeat something that made old men feel like they were doing something patriotic.

I didn't think about it as a kid and I wouldn't have known what fascist was- I just did it. Later in life, 15 or so years ago, when I became politically curious reflection came pretty easy- it does even today, which is the reason I started this thread (and many others)- as adults I would hope reflection is part and parcel to what we did and do- my first using the pledge as a tool, if you will, was during the Obama/Romney circus- the word patriotism was, and still is, thrown around a lot by both sides- it occurred to me, the pledge says to the Flag for which it stands- it say absolutely nothing about a Party or a person- the Republic is nothing even close to fascist, but Party and people are- I'm still not a fan of coerced allegiance though- this Republic, for which the Flag stands, was founded on the principles of inherent rights of man to act freely as he saw fit unless/until harm is caused to another by violating anothers inherent rights- Party and/or person are immaterial in determining patriotism. Period.
America, this republic, not democracy, touts itself as being exceptional because of the freedom enjoyed- (that is for another confusing topic a bit later in the thread) - yet, both sides in the politics of personality don't want the others (whomever they may be) to have any say so about anything and want to force, often under the color of law, their beliefs, left or right- there is nothing exceptional about that, never mind freedom reflected- my point in using the pledge is that confusion starts early because, 1, we're not a Nation, and 2, we don't set the example of Liberty and Justice for all- we espouse it but we don't abide by it- that means we're hypocrites- that is the example set and examples are what's emulated by sponges for brains into adulthood and it obviously affects our Republic negatively, since we aren't really United-

 

[Porter Rockwell]

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

I may be repetitive a couple of times, but it is to put the rulings into their proper context.

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..."
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

That last ruling is from the United States Supreme Court

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

MORE TO COME

Blacks Law Dictionary- not much help there.

What is INALIENABLE?

Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things whichcannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers andpublic highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.

What is UNALIENABLE?
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution used the terms interchangeably.
The Declaration of Independence: Unalienable / Inalinable

Here is a listing of known versions of the Declaration, showing which word is used:

The Declaration on parchment, now in the Department of State unalienable
The Declaration as written out in the corrected Journal unalienable
The Declaration as printed by Dunlap under the order of Congress unalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in The American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia inalienable
The Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the New York Public Library inalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston inalienable
The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society. unalienable
In a footnote in "The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas" by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922, we learn:

The Rough Draft reads "[inherent &] inalienable." There is no indication that Congress changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote " unalienable." Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. "Unalienable" may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.


“Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence

With that- I will leave you to continue to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Thank you for not reading the thread

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What happened? After all we looked at relative to unalienable Rights… unchangeable, absolute, natural, inherent, God given Rights, the United States Supreme Court reverses all those precedents we discussed earlier. How? And did they have the authority?

If any of you want to know the answer to that, we can go on.

I suppose because they felt they had the authority to do so

Know i'm not disagreeing with the context of your 'unalienable' posts Porter

it's simply i see each amendment ,and every constitutional 'right' you speak of run through the litigant meat grinder

thus the true art of subjugation

making those that are, believe they are not.....

~S~

No Right is safe as long as the United States Supreme Court is not held accountable for their actions. They are just as apt to misapply the law as the Executive or Legislative branches.

 

[sparky]

the Constitution was opposed by Anti-Federalists

hmmm, hadda look that one up!>>>

What did the anti federalists believe?

Many Anti-Federalists preferred a weak central government because they equated a strong government with British tyranny. Others wanted to encourage democracy and feared a strong government that would be dominated by the wealthy. They felt that the states were giving up too much power to the new federal government.

interesting ....like they has a crystal ball looking ahead.....or maybe knew world history at their time well enough?

would they be called 10thers today?

No Right is safe as long as the United States Supreme Court is not held accountable for their actions. They are just as apt to misapply the law as the Executive or Legislative branches.

Given over 2 centuries of inclusions ,exceptions and caveats , I wonder what Patrick Henry would say about them......?

In fact the world's turned a LOT ...imagine should the FF's magically appear in 2020 , to be confronted by modern governance collapsing under it's own weight ,along with it's sidearm Homeland Insecuity, PA, TSA, NSA, CIA, FBI, FEMA .....

~S~

 

[Circe]

Repetition is what?
If words cease to have meaning why bother using them at all?

Propaganda, indoctrination, the Big Lie.

It DOES work.

Or it did. Nowadays there isn't so much of that tolerated --- I doubt they do the Pledge in school anymore. Probably just as well. I'm not much in favor of indoctrination. I think it's easier to choose one's own Truth now.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?

Because they are just words.

 

[Circe]

I want more! I will say, this is the absolute best I've ever read, outside of some really good fiction, which this ain't- we're getting schooled, for no cost other than a little time-
I sincerely appreciate and applaud you- of course it doesn't hurt that unalienable rights are at the center what with my passion being just that and preaching them every chance I get. Yes. Preach.

I'm surprised you think there are such a thing as rights. Seems to me there is only what we are lucky enough to get, or win. If there were rights, we wouldn't die. No one would maltreat children, or women, or do or force prostitution. But there are no rights -- there is only power, and powerlessness. We have what we can secure, that's all, and a lot of that is luck.

 

[there4eyeM]

Because one can speak does not mean one can converse. Because one knows how a car works does not make him a good driver. Because tow people can make a child does not make them real parents.
Until the population takes the time to understand vital words and concepts, no conceivable constitution alone can do very much except empower manipulators.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

the Constitution was opposed by Anti-Federalists

hmmm, hadda look that one up!>>>

What did the anti federalists believe?

Many Anti-Federalists preferred a weak central government because they equated a strong government with British tyranny. Others wanted to encourage democracy and feared a strong government that would be dominated by the wealthy. They felt that the states were giving up too much power to the new federal government.

interesting ....like they has a crystal ball looking ahead.....or maybe knew world history at their time well enough?

would they be called 10thers today?

No Right is safe as long as the United States Supreme Court is not held accountable for their actions. They are just as apt to misapply the law as the Executive or Legislative branches.

Given over 2 centuries of inclusions ,exceptions and caveats , I wonder what Patrick Henry would say about them......?

In fact the world's turned a LOT ...imagine should the FF's magically appear in 2020 , to be confronted by modern governance collapsing under it's own weight ,along with it's sidearm Homeland Insecuity, PA, TSA, NSA, CIA, FBI, FEMA .....

~S~

If I had lived back then, I'd probably be an anti-Federalist. But if they did come back today, the anti-Federalists would be saying I told you so and the Federalists would be pulling their hair out by the roots.

Today I see history as Alexander Tytler did when he came up with the
Cycles of History:

The Tytler Cycle | Common Sense Government

 

[Gdjjr]

I think it's easier to choose one's own Truth now.

One's own truth? Can you expound on that?

 

[Gdjjr]

Because they are just words.

So if words mean nothing why use them at all? Can we say that about stupid laws and have them repealed?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Because one can speak does not mean one can converse. Because one knows how a car works does not make him a good driver. Because tow people can make a child does not make them real parents.
Until the population takes the time to understand vital words and concepts, no conceivable constitution alone can do very much except empower manipulators.

We live in a time when people don't care about the Constitution. They care about being right and making the Constitution say what they want it to say.

Most of the time I find myself having to tell people things they don't want to know and, ironically, in the 15 + years I've been arguing with them over constitutional issues, I have NEVER had a critic ASK me what I thought personally before lighting into me. Most of the time when you try to explain legal concepts to political propaganda prostitutes, they push back harder - even when they have something to personally gain. I'd like to give you an example:

I'm in debates on this board over the constitutionality of sanctuary cities. The anti-immigrants rage over them, but refuse to listen to reason. If not for sheriffs who did not want to enforce the Brady Bill, sanctuary cities would not exist. So, if local / state governments protect undocumented foreigners with sanctuary cities, you know there is a cost to the equal protection of the law. Today, gun sanctuary cities are popping up all over America wherein local and state LEOs will not confiscate weapons, impose Red Flag Laws, nor put people in jail for owning gun magazines and / or having a "prohibited" stock on their firearm.

Okay, the anti-immigrants want to keep the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. But, without sanctuary cities, your local and state LEOs are little more than lap dogs for the federal government and will not be able to protect you from tyranny in government if you believe in the Right to keep and bear Arms. But, society has become childish and ignorant. They don't want to understand the law. They just want it to give them what they want - the long term ramifications be damned.

 

[Gdjjr]

I'm surprised you think there are such a thing as rights. Seems to me there is only what we are lucky enough to get, or win. If there were rights, we wouldn't die. No one would maltreat children, or women, or do or force prostitution. But there are no rights -- there is only power, and powerlessness. We have what we can secure, that's all, and a lot of that is luck

Sadly, politicians are on board with that line of thinking- however, the founders were smarter in their fingernail clippings than most people today, especially politicians- how can you deny you have the right to life? You were born. If you don't think you have the right to life, then stop it. Pretty simple. If you have the right to life what good is that life if you can't live it the way you choose? Evil exists, as does idiocy- that doesn't mean there's no right to repel them. What do you mean no one would maltreat? There are no guarantees in life. However, our rights, naturally assumed at birth, were guaranteed to be protected by ourselves, it's called responsibility of self preservation The founders recognized that gov't should secure those rights against "power" of gov't tyranny ensuring citizens remained armed as the final say against that power. Rights are not tangible. They cannot be given or taken only restricted- forcing ones will on another is not a right it's criminal- if rights are restricted by the force of law then who's the criminal?
Many people, such as yourself, don't believe in natural rights- you believe only in evil- power. That says a lot about our world and it ain't pretty- however, anyone and everyone has the right to repel evil- they have to choose to do so, by exercising the most basic right- choice. Evidence can be cited all day long about evil in play- no evidence can be cited about a world that shows respect- why is that?

The reason I started this thread is to illustrate the confusion in this small forum- it's not scientific but there are plenty of opposing views, a fairly decent cross section if you will. Now, had all the readers here been fully informed of the Truth, and exposed to examples of it throughout their life, do you not think they would be a little more open minded about their political faults? What we see in places like this in opposing views is the mass confusion brought about by ignoring and intentionally disregarding the Truth- Porter posted some fascinating law situations- and founders quotes here and in the Gun Control threads- but, I apologize, I digress-

About Natural Rights- they are inherent. Like it or not, agree or disagree and every time you consciously make a choice you are exercising that right.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?

When you're made to say something like that, over and over. It ceases to have meaning.

Ya mean like "racist"?

 

[Gdjjr]

They just want it to give them what they want

And here you have it boys and girls- an ingrained confusion started early in life carried into adult? hood and acted on- give, give, give- earned be damned? I'm entitled- no, entitled means earned. The consequences of being given are not appreciating- the consequences of earned is a willingness to fight for. The absolute refusal to acknowledge History and Truth is appalling- History proves, they will come for you- forcing ones will on another guarantees conflict- it doesn't matter how the force is applied it will garner retaliation- somehow, someway and you can bet your sweet patooty it won't be pretty.

Why? Simply because people are confused and say "words don't mean anything"- which begs the question then why did you use words to express that thought? SMH-

 

[Circe]

I think it's easier to choose one's own Truth now.

One's own truth? Can you expound on that?

There is less pressure to believe in socially sanctioned "truths" now than in years past when society moved more in lockstep. We are (probably fatally) divided now and cannot stand as a nation, but at least there is less pressure to believe the various indoctrinations so many are so eager to promote.

 

[Circe]

Most of the time I find myself having to tell people things they don't want to know.

Why do you HAVE to tell people what they don't want to hear from you?

Because you know things and they are ignorant? Not a popular posture, or indeed one that makes sense. If you know the truth, everyone knows the truth, because you are not special.

Therefore, since there are a variety of enunciated "truths," what people believe is not truth but just --- what they believe.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Because they are just words.

So if words mean nothing why use them at all? Can we say that about stupid laws and have them repealed?

Kids need to be taught what the words mean.

 

[Gdjjr]

There is less pressure to believe in socially sanctioned "truths" now than in years past when society moved more in lockstep. We are (probably fatally) divided now and cannot stand as a nation, but at least there is less pressure to believe the various indoctrinations so many are so eager to promote.

Socially sanctioned truths? LOL- are you kidding me? Truth - is constant, if true yesterday it's true today and will be true tomorrow- for instance, we were founded as Sovereign States agreeing to a pact (the constitution) in order to form more perfect union- sovereign is control of a limited sphere- a union is a coming together of like minded- to stand as a nation is a mockery of the founding- it's a term used to keep people intentionally confused- and it obviously works as it's promoted by everyone, especially Nationalists who somehow have come to believe only their indoctrination is patriotic which is a load of crap-

I have to go- have some things to do, but I'll be back and further dissect your statement.

 

[Crepitus]

A back and forth in a different thread prompted this. There are several things that confuse me. I'm looking for clarity. The following is just the beginning.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

We're expected, as sponges for brains, to recite that in school, with our little hands over our little hearts, I suppose to add gravity to the words, yet, as adults we stray from it in many ways. Why?

When you're made to say something like that, over and over. It ceases to have meaning.

Ya mean like "racist"?

No, thanks. There are far too many here already.