How Could You?

[oldfart]

The DOI is a one shot deal.

Most of you folks love it because it mentions god, unlike the Constitution.

But no law is derived from the DOI.

I beg to differ. Lincoln began the Gettysburg Address with a specific time frame that leads back to the Declaration, not the Constitution. In the First Inaugural he argues the nation is formed in 1774 with the first Continental Congress and traces the development of organic law from there. The Cooper Union speech and the appended notes to its publication, which Lincoln proofed himself, gives citations and develops the argument.
He even admits in the First Inaugural of the people's right to change the government constitutionally by amendment or by revolution. In this he echoes the Declaration, defending the right of revolution while recognizing his duty to oppose it; and like the Declaration insisting that revolution be justified to mankind in general.

I would agree with you that of all the "constitutional scholars" on the boards, few understand the Declaration or Constitution, or organic law of any kind.

 

[regent]

The DOI is a one shot deal.

Most of you folks love it because it mentions god, unlike the Constitution.

But no law is derived from the DOI.

I beg to differ. Lincoln began the Gettysburg Address with a specific time frame that leads back to the Declaration, not the Constitution. In the First Inaugural he argues the nation is formed in 1774 with the first Continental Congress and traces the development of organic law from there. The Cooper Union speech and the appended notes to its publication, which Lincoln proofed himself, gives citations and develops the argument.
He even admits in the First Inaugural of the people's right to change the government constitutionally by amendment or by revolution. In this he echoes the Declaration, defending the right of revolution while recognizing his duty to oppose it; and like the Declaration insisting that revolution be justified to mankind in general.

I would agree with you that of all the "constitutional scholars" on the boards, few understand the Declaration or Constitution, or organic law of any kind.

So why did Jefferson change Locke's "life liberty and property" to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[oldfart]

The DOI is a one shot deal.

Most of you folks love it because it mentions god, unlike the Constitution.

But no law is derived from the DOI.

I beg to differ. Lincoln began the Gettysburg Address with a specific time frame that leads back to the Declaration, not the Constitution. In the First Inaugural he argues the nation is formed in 1774 with the first Continental Congress and traces the development of organic law from there. The Cooper Union speech and the appended notes to its publication, which Lincoln proofed himself, gives citations and develops the argument.
He even admits in the First Inaugural of the people's right to change the government constitutionally by amendment or by revolution. In this he echoes the Declaration, defending the right of revolution while recognizing his duty to oppose it; and like the Declaration insisting that revolution be justified to mankind in general.

I would agree with you that of all the "constitutional scholars" on the boards, few understand the Declaration or Constitution, or organic law of any kind.

So why did Jefferson change Locke's "life liberty and property" to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Your question is unrelated to my point, but I'm sure you have an explanation you wish to grace us with. By all means tell us.

 

[regent]

I beg to differ. Lincoln began the Gettysburg Address with a specific time frame that leads back to the Declaration, not the Constitution. In the First Inaugural he argues the nation is formed in 1774 with the first Continental Congress and traces the development of organic law from there. The Cooper Union speech and the appended notes to its publication, which Lincoln proofed himself, gives citations and develops the argument.
He even admits in the First Inaugural of the people's right to change the government constitutionally by amendment or by revolution. In this he echoes the Declaration, defending the right of revolution while recognizing his duty to oppose it; and like the Declaration insisting that revolution be justified to mankind in general.

I would agree with you that of all the "constitutional scholars" on the boards, few understand the Declaration or Constitution, or organic law of any kind.

So why did Jefferson change Locke's "life liberty and property" to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Your question is unrelated to my point, but I'm sure you have an explanation you wish to grace us with. By all means tell us.

Just checking on your understanding of the Declaration.

 

[Dot Com]

PC, the fate of the far right's philosophy: "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin."

Now let's join all in prayer for and with those who desire peace and love our neighbors as ourselves.

I KNEW that sounded familiar Look at Ryan(R) here :

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, the fate of the far right's philosophy: "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin."

Now let's join all in prayer for and with those who desire peace and love our neighbors as ourselves.

I KNEW that sounded familiar Look at Ryan(R) here :

Sounded familiar?


You've never read the source of the phrase?


It becomes easier to understand you, now.

 

[JamesMillman]

People like freebees.