Santorum on the Constitution and the Declaration

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem Santorum has is one that many people have when a Libertarian speaks. They don't understand Libertarians and how they think and so it goes over their head and they misunderstand what is being said.

No, libertarians make themselves quite clear, there are no misunderstandings.

It's like someone reading Shakespeare for the first time. A lot of the nuances are lost on them.

Shakespeare wrote mostly fiction, the Framers, not.

 

[g5000]

The problem Santorum has is one that many people have when a Libertarian speaks. They don't understand Libertarians and how they think and so it goes over their head and they misunderstand what is being said.

No, libertarians make themselves quite clear, there are no misunderstandings.

Santorum completely blew himself out of his own ass when talking about Ron Paul.

QED.

 

[ebin]

In a question about the Constitution and Ron Paul, Rick Santorum replied with the following:

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the “why” of America; it’s the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights. And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France. You see, during the time of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, “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.”

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution. The French had 21, I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does. But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.

I am strongly starting to lead toward Santorum as my nominee choice. He nailed it with this answer.

Sounds a bit....religious??

 

[Photonic]

I am strongly starting to lead toward Santorum as my nominee choice. He nailed it with this answer.

Hokay…

What you quoted was gibberish. Santorum clearly has no idea what he’s talking about.

Funny, Gibberish usually doesnt make perfect sense.

It does when you're insane.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In a question about the Constitution and Ron Paul, Rick Santorum replied with the following:

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the “why” of America; it’s the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights. And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France. You see, during the time of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, “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.”

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution. The French had 21, I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does. But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.

I am strongly starting to lead toward Santorum as my nominee choice. He nailed it with this answer.

Though many of the ideals are embodied in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence actually has no legal standing in our system.


That's great - Santorum is accusing Paul of being French. Seriously? Hey - look at THAT guy! He's FRENCH like! Don't vote for him, he's a LOSER!

 

[Oddball]

In a question about the Constitution and Ron Paul, Rick Santorum replied with the following:

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the “why” of America; it’s the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights. And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France. You see, during the time of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, “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.”

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution. The French had 21, I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does. But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.

I am strongly starting to lead toward Santorum as my nominee choice. He nailed it with this answer.

inSanetorum didn't nail jack shit....He's either a liar or a historical ignoramus.

Libertarians relate to Bastiat, not Rousseau.

I'm leaning towards liar.

 

[Avorysuds]

In a question about the Constitution and Ron Paul, Rick Santorum replied with the following:

Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution. I do not. The Constitution has to be read in the context of another founding document, and that’s the Declaration of Independence. Our country never was a libertarian idea of radical individualism. We have certain values and principles that are embodied in our country. We have God-given rights.

The Constitution is not the “why” of America; it’s the “how” of America. It’s the operator’s manual. It’s the rules we have to play by to ensure something. And what do we ensure? God-given rights. And so to read the Constitution as the end-all, be-all is, in a sense, what happened in France. You see, during the time of our revolution, we had a Declaration of Independence that said, “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.”

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

My understanding of our founding documents and the purpose of this country is different. I would argue that [Paul’s] understanding of the Constitution was similar to the French Revolution and the French understanding of the Constitution. The French had 21, I think, constitutions, but their constitutions were initially patterned after the American Constitution. Gave radical freedom, like ours does. But their founding document was not the Declaration of Independence. Their founding watchwords were the words, “liberty” and “fraternity.” Fraternity. Brotherhood. But no fatherhood. No God. It was a completely secular revolution. An anti-clerical revolution. And the root of it was, whoever’s in power rules.

I am strongly starting to lead toward Santorum as my nominee choice. He nailed it with this answer.

And when he never makes it to be President maybe you can help him shovel all the gays into a giant oven and light them on fire.

 

[Oddball]

inSanetorum is not an idiot.

He's not a guy like Gingrich, whose mouth runs concurrently with the stupid ideas that pop into his head.

His comments are deliberate and pointed.

His comments are blatant lies, meant to pander to authoritarian social engineers in the GOP.

Fucking suckers.

 

[Avorysuds]

inSanetorum is not an idiot.

He's not a guy like Gingrich, whose mouth runs concurrently with the stupid ideas that pop into his head.

His comments are deliberate and pointed.

His comments are blatant lies, meant to pander to authoritarian social engineers in the GOP.

Fucking suckers.

I admit I'm a lil shocked Avatar would "lean towards Santorum." The guy has no plans to balance a budget wants to spend vastly more on NEW wars and even alludes to the possibility of going BACK INTO IRAQ lolz...

I still can’t get over Santorum claiming during one of the "debates" that he does not view people in groups, then claims that's what Obama and democrats do... Then Santorum wants to make it a federal law to make it so gays can’t get married.... Then he goes on to talk about why Iran is dangerous because they involve Religion in their politics....

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I suggest you both read the Declaration more closely.

Can you point to anything in the Declaration of Independence that governs us and/or has the force of law? It's basically a notice of divorce from the Colonies to an English King.

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians

So you're arguing that we are legally still part of Great Britain?

I dont think that's going to fly.

Actually the DOI didn't make us independent from Britain....the Lee Resolution did....


It states:

"Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation."


And for the record it was voted on July 2nd 1776...so you can't even argue that the DOI is what really made us independent. It's a list of reasons as to why we sought independence.


John Adams famously wrote to his wife:

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."




So you're arguing that the DOI made us independent?

I dont think that's going to fly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Santorum is misinterpreting the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. It is not a document to establish that all men are created equal. It is a list of grievances against the British rule and an explanation of why we are leaving

But Jake just said it doesnt explain why.

Different why

But what the heck......you are trying

Jake said that the DoI explains the why of America and states clearly it is not a document of governance. The secular constitution is the document of governance.

 

[Sallow]

Santorum's concept of the role of the Declaration of Independence is opinion. The DoI does not have the force of law. It does not have the force of "why", other than a 'blow me' to King George III. The charter of our governance is the secular Constitution. End all, be all.

Exactly right.

Theocrats, like Santorum, try to map the two together because the Constitution does not mention a deity.

It's a specious attempt to "Christianize" it.

 

[California Girl]

Santorum's concept of the role of the Declaration of Independence is opinion. The DoI does not have the force of law. It does not have the force of "why", other than a 'blow me' to King George III. The charter of our governance is the secular Constitution. End all, be all.

I agree!

I suggest you both read the Declaration more closely.

I agree!

 

[rightwinger]

Santorum's concept of the role of the Declaration of Independence is opinion. The DoI does not have the force of law. It does not have the force of "why", other than a 'blow me' to King George III. The charter of our governance is the secular Constitution. End all, be all.

Exactly right.

Theocrats, like Santorum, try to map the two together because the Constitution does not mention a deity.

It's a specious attempt to "Christianize" it.

The Declaration of Independence makes a passing reference to the creator and then goes into a long harangue about how King George sucks.
The religious right interprets this as the Declaration being a declaration of Christianity

 

[LibertyForAll]

The constitution was designed to protect us from religious fanatics who would use it to gain control of the rest of us and force us to adhere to their world view.

 

[Oddball]

inSanetorum has done exactly the same thing with his pious opinion of what constitutes "morality" and "responsibility", that socialist progressives have done to "compassion", viz. their beloved socialistic welfare state....He can take his holier-than-thou chickenshit and jam it up his ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Santorum's concept of the role of the Declaration of Independence is opinion. The DoI does not have the force of law. It does not have the force of "why", other than a 'blow me' to King George III. The charter of our governance is the secular Constitution. End all, be all.

Exactly right.

Theocrats, like Santorum, try to map the two together because the Constitution does not mention a deity.

It's a specious attempt to "Christianize" it.

The Declaration of Independence makes a passing reference to the creator and then goes into a long harangue about how King George sucks.
The religious right interprets this as the Declaration being a declaration of Christianity

Libertarian atheists try to ignore that the DoI mentions deity five times and states that human rights evolve from deity.

Can't get around it: fact.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Exactly right.

Theocrats, like Santorum, try to map the two together because the Constitution does not mention a deity.

It's a specious attempt to "Christianize" it.

The Declaration of Independence makes a passing reference to the creator and then goes into a long harangue about how King George sucks.
The religious right interprets this as the Declaration being a declaration of Christianity

Libertarian atheists try to ignore that the DoI mentions deity five times and states that human rights evolve from deity.

Can't get around it: fact.

It doesn't matter where the rights come from, we have them and they are inalienable. You can not cite the DofI as a legal document. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

 

[jillian]

I am strongly starting to lead toward Santorum as my nominee choice. He nailed it with this answer.

not really... the declaration of independence isn't law. what the constitution has to be examined in light of is caselaw.

 

[jillian]

The Declaration of Independence makes a passing reference to the creator and then goes into a long harangue about how King George sucks.
The religious right interprets this as the Declaration being a declaration of Christianity

Libertarian atheists try to ignore that the DoI mentions deity five times and states that human rights evolve from deity.

Can't get around it: fact.

It doesn't matter where the rights come from, we have them and they are inalienable. You can not cite the DofI as a legal document. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

inalienable? really. you might want to tell that to japanese citizens who were interned during WWII.

the declaration of independence isn't law... and rights don't exist unless they're enforced.

it's not that complicated.

i do agree with you that there is separation of church and state for a reason.