Are you really that ignorant to believe the government can't commit treason? You really are brainwashed.
jeeze... please don't respond to me again. government CAN'T be treasonous.
dismissed.
have a good stay on the boards.
Only the violent overthrow of the government is forbidden
This is the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence:
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Preamble
Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[78]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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?
good luck.
what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?
good luck.
Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?
The Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are also for decoration, according to @jillian.
what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?
good luck.
Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?
Since when does that matter to the far lefties who throw the racist label around so freely ?
what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?
good luck.
Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?
that's nice. again... nothing in the declaration is enforceable as law.
she's making things up. you of course are all het up about it because she's a teatard, but have at it.
what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?
good luck.
Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?
that's nice. again... nothing in the declaration is enforceable as law.
she's making things up. you of course are all het up about it because she's a teatard, but have at it.
I agree with you. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence is enforceable as law, including the establishment of the new government.
That is your position, correct? Have I learned wrong? I'm genuinely asking. I'm here to learn, not pontificate. Such is the nature of enlightened lybyryls.
Yes, name-calling makes you sound much more intelligent than the rest of us. It shows that you are mature enough to handle an opposing view. NOT!
what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?
good luck.
Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?
that's nice. again... nothing in the declaration is enforceable as law.
she's making things up. you of course are all het up about it because she's a teatard, but have at it.
I agree with you. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence is enforceable as law, including the establishment of the new government.
That is your position, correct? Have I learned wrong? I'm genuinely asking. I'm here to learn, not pontificate. Such is the nature of enlightened lybyryls.
but the constitution IS enforceable. so your point?
you don't "learn" anything when you're intentionally misrepresenting and making up what people say.
typical teatards.
You didn't say the Times was liberally biased, Jillian...the Times themselves admitted that they were.
really? that would be interesting. no doubt you can tell me where I get my news, hon.
Oh you're a NYTimes reader
NPR
BBC
NY Times (should I be embarrassed about that? the right loved the times when they did baby bush's bidding in the run-up to the Iraq war).
Jerusalem Post
I could go on.
oh... to save you the trouble... never fake news. I don't believe in being intentionally misinformed.
You don't believe in being intentionally misinformed yet you read the Times who have admitted that they are liberally biased? Hmmmm....
when did I say the times is liberally biased?
I said they did baby bush's bidding. or have you forgotten judy miller's propaganda with the false intel about WMD's in Iraq.
I do like how you ignore the other things I read. the times is only one. and intelligent people generally recognize it to be the paper of record.
oh right.
It's sad, Jillian that at one point The New York Times WAS the paper of record but that's a time that has passed. The Times traded it's reputation for journalism to support the liberal agenda of the people who ran it.
As for the "other" things you read? Do you really not know that NPR also has a liberal slant?
the times is still the paper of record. but i'm not going to have that debate with you since your idea of journalism is fake news.
you're also still ignoring the fact that i noted a cross-section of sources because you're only interested in railing againsg the new York times.
btw, if you weren't doing the rightwnignut thing and actually asked me my thoughts, i'd have told you that there is a lot in the times' editorial policy with which i disagree.
but you didn't ask because you aren't really interested. you're only interested in doing the winger dance.
Sure wish we had negs back. You're a lying POS.
