PratchettFan
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 7,238
- 746
- 190
I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.
Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.
Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law. They recognize it and abide by it. Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Seems you have not.
Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.
The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence. It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others. Bolded below.
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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.
How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?
You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.
The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.
The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.
The ideals address needs, not wants.
You are against ideals, you are against the constitution. You have no plan. You have no morals and ethics. You have no hope.
What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.
As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.
Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.
Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?
You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.
If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.
You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.
It appears you do have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.
Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.
Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.
American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.
Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.
I don't think I have evaded it. I've dealt with it head on. It is a myth, a lie, a totally untrue concept. There is no such thing as natural law. There is no such thing as an inherent right. They do not exist. All you have are those rights the society allows you to have, whether you are willing to accept that reality or not.
You are living in a fantasy world. Your choice, but I don't plan to join you.
You are not reading. I repeat.
"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."
You are not reading. I have already responded to that claim and done so more than once. They didn't intend. Not even a little bit. Your claim that Article V is about that is absurd. I understand you want it to be that way, but wanting it doesn't make it so. And your thinking there is even a small minority of American citizens who desire that, let alone are calling for it, is pure fantasy.