Time for a New Declaration of Independence?

[Moonglow]

Given how divided our nation and people have become and given how hostile our Government is to the people I think it might be time to look at dividing this nation. Our Constitution is fine what isn't fine is our elected representatives have figured that they can rule by fiat without the consent of the people.

how can we be operating by(buzz word) fiat? The people that are in charge are elected by the masses

Obama is now attacking 6 nations without the consent of congress his supporters say that is fine. Congress has driven our nation so far into debt that we will never see the light of day without the consent of the people and when the people step up to put a stop to it they are attacked by the same supporters.

Our nation is a nation of law's not of men today those law are being ignored in fact flaunted before the very people to which they are accountable to.

Our Nation and its Laws can only work if they are enforced and understood today we see these law's being subverted by those whom we hold in charge.

Reagan enjoyed bombing nations on his war on terrorism. I guess you think we should notify the terrorist with a telegram to them and Congress before we strike?

 

[westwall]

So the question is:

Do you agree with the strong majority that a free people govern themselves?

Or do you agree with the political class that a strong central government is necessary to govern the people?

I'll take free individualist government for 2000 Mr. Trebeck!

 

[Robert]

how can we be operating by(buzz word) fiat? The people that are in charge are elected by the masses

Obama is now attacking 6 nations without the consent of congress his supporters say that is fine. Congress has driven our nation so far into debt that we will never see the light of day without the consent of the people and when the people step up to put a stop to it they are attacked by the same supporters.

Our nation is a nation of law's not of men today those law are being ignored in fact flaunted before the very people to which they are accountable to.

Our Nation and its Laws can only work if they are enforced and understood today we see these law's being subverted by those whom we hold in charge.

Reagan enjoyed bombing nations on his war on terrorism. I guess you think we should notify the terrorist with a telegram to them and Congress before we strike?

As I said the supporters think its fine.... Its not

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think we need to look any farther than the situation in Europe, social democracy failed there and it will fail here if we go down that road. I am totally against a strong central gov't that continually chips away at our individual rights and freedoms. But we've got too many people who aren't paying attention and don't know what's going on. In one sense I can't blame them, it's hard enough making a living and taking care of your family. And the media in this country is biased one way or the oher, so it's difficult to get the truth. But we better get invloved and become more informed or we're going to pay a heavy price. And our children will have to pay it too, which really bothers me. We fucked it up for them, and there's no excuse for that.

Europe has never been out from under a despotic, dictatorship, totalitarian, monarchal, and/or strong central governments that were more democratic but still assigned the rights that the people would have.

The Declaration of Independence was a ringing endorsement for recognition of God given unalienable rights which government could not touch, and for a people to be free of feudal lords and monarchs and authoritarian popes or any other central government authority that would tell the people what rights they would have. The USA was the first nation in all of history in which the government would recognize and secure the rights of the people and the people would then form whatever society they wished to have--govern themselves.

We have lost that in fits and starts, drip by drip, as people were willing to give up freedoms to government in return for the government making other people behave as they 'should'. I'm thinking about the civil war thing, but I have always looked to the Teddy Roosevelt administration as the time when we began drifting back toward the European models of authoritarian government.

And we may have created a government that we again, sooner or later, may have to declare independence from. I would much prefer to go the Tea Party (or similar groups) route and reform the government we have though.

 

[Moonglow]

Obama is now attacking 6 nations without the consent of congress his supporters say that is fine. Congress has driven our nation so far into debt that we will never see the light of day without the consent of the people and when the people step up to put a stop to it they are attacked by the same supporters.

Our nation is a nation of law's not of men today those law are being ignored in fact flaunted before the very people to which they are accountable to.

Our Nation and its Laws can only work if they are enforced and understood today we see these law's being subverted by those whom we hold in charge.

Reagan enjoyed bombing nations on his war on terrorism. I guess you think we should notify the terrorist with a telegram to them and Congress before we strike?

As I said the supporters think its fine.... Its not

Whatever it takes to get the job done and the terrorist gone.

 

[Anachronism]

FoxFyre, the problem is that our utterly naive Founders forgot to include something in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution..... The RESPONSIBILITIES and DUTIES of a citizen. They took great pains to describe the Freedoms and Liberties but forgot to include the other side of the equation.

 

[Robert]

Reagan enjoyed bombing nations on his war on terrorism. I guess you think we should notify the terrorist with a telegram to them and Congress before we strike?

As I said the supporters think its fine.... Its not

Whatever it takes to get the job done and the terrorist gone.

Yes we've seen that 10 years after the Fact Obama put's the brown shirts to work attacking travelers with no clear constitutional basis for doing so.....again the supporters say its fine. While the rest of the nation only want's to travel to where ever they are going.

 

[Contumacious]

Given how divided our nation and people have become and given how hostile our Government is to the people I think it might be time to look at dividing this nation. Our Constitution is fine what isn't fine is our elected representatives have figured that they can rule by fiat without the consent of the people.

how can we be operating by(buzz word) fiat? The people that are in charge are elected by the masses

Obama is now attacking 6 nations without the consent of congress his supporters say that is fine. Congress has driven our nation so far into debt that we will never see the light of day without the consent of the people and when the people step up to put a stop to it they are attacked by the same supporters.

Our nation is a nation of law's not of men today those law are being ignored in fact flaunted before the very people to which they are accountable to.

Our Nation and its Laws can only work if they are enforced and understood today we see these law's being subverted by those whom we hold in charge.

Well, very very soon the powers that be will admit that they fucked up but they had "good intentions". Then they will demand that you shut the fuck up and enjoy martial law.

TaTa.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

FoxFyre, the problem is that our utterly naive Founders forgot to include something in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution..... The RESPONSIBILITIES and DUTIES of a citizen. They took great pains to describe the Freedoms and Liberties but forgot to include the other side of the equation.

Whatever they might have been, naive is not a trait I would attach to a single one of the Founders. Their eyes were wide open. They knew the Constitution would not work long for any but a religious and moral people. But they knew the people had to bring the morality and incorporate it into whatever social contract their respective communities or states would live by. They knew once the federal government seized authority to say what responsibilities and duties the people would have, we would have lost the heart of the Constitution and would again be serfs to a government that had total power over us.

People who value freedom first want to decide for themselves what will be their duty and what each will be responsible for.

Statists or the political class want government to do that, as they think it should be done of course. The problem is, who do you trust to determine what your duty and responsibility will be. Think of all the people or concepts you object to and think what if THEY were in charge? It doesn't take too much critical thought that way to begin understanding why the Founders never wanted that authority placed with the Federal government.

 

[Jack Fate]

we have more of a represenative domocracy than when George Washington was elected by Congress and the states appointed Senators, Women were not allowed to vote and slaves had not rights what so ever.

The seeds for those rights were planted in the Constitution and happened in natural events, exactly the way they are supposed to in a free society. It works.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So the question is:

Do you agree with the strong majority that a free people govern themselves?

Or do you agree with the political class that a strong central government is necessary to govern the people?

Why re-write the Constitution? Why not just get rid of the electoral college?

 

[Anachronism]

Whatever they might have been, naive is not a trait I would attach to a single one of the Founders. Their eyes were wide open. They knew the Constitution would not work long for any but a religious and moral people. But they knew the people had to bring the morality and incorporate it into whatever social contract their respective communities or states would live by. They knew once the federal government seized authority to say what responsibilities and duties the people would have, we would have lost the heart of the Constitution and would again be serfs to a government that had total power over us.

I use the word naive because I have sufficient respect for the individuals that I prefer not to use stupid or incompetent in place of naive. I understand what you're saying, but so far as I'm concerned it's complete and utter nonsense (nothing personal). What you're saying is that their thought process was.... "We know this won't work without morals and value, but we don't want to tell anyone that so they have to figure it out themselves, even though we all know they're not going to do it." If that's so, what was the point of installing that form of government to begin with?

People who value freedom first want to decide for themselves what will be their duty and what each will be responsible for.

Some of us believe that Morality, Duty, Repsonsibility, and Values are so much more important than Freedom or Liberty as to not even be worth discussing in the same breath.

Statists or the political class want government to do that, as they think it should be done of course. The problem is, who do you trust to determine what your duty and responsibility will be. Think of all the people or concepts you object to and think what if THEY were in charge? It doesn't take too much critical thought that way to begin understanding why the Founders never wanted that authority placed with the Federal government.

The problem is that they never demanded that it be placed with anyone else either. They completely and totally IGNORED the topic in every single possible public document they created. To the point of demanding that the Government could not be involved in choosing religious preferences. They went so far out of their way to NOT impose any Morals or Values on society that they in fact opened the door for the inevitable renouncement of both concepts by essentially the entire country.

 

[Foxfyre]

we have more of a represenative domocracy than when George Washington was elected by Congress and the states appointed Senators, Women were not allowed to vote and slaves had not rights what so ever.

The seeds for those rights were planted in the Constitution and happened in natural events, exactly the way they are supposed to in a free society. It works.

Exactly right. As visionary, innovative, creative, and forward looking as they were, the Founders were all remarkable and brave men, but they weren't saints. They had their sins to atone for as did the people they served. In the implementation of our Constitutional government, our leaders have made a lot of mistakes, sometimes got it wrong, sometimes miscalculated, but as long as they understood and allowed the basic principles to prevail, they created and sustaind the greatest, most free, most innovative, most prosperous, and most productive nation the world had ever known.

But now we teeter at the brink. Do we take back those basic principles and restore that greatest nation? Or do we continue down the path of ever more authoritarian central goverment, higher misery indexes, fewer and fewer freedoms, and headed straight into bankruptcy and permanent economic depression for most?

 

[Contumacious]

So the question is:

Do you agree with the strong majority that a free people govern themselves?

Or do you agree with the political class that a strong central government is necessary to govern the people?

Why re-write the Constitution? Why not just get rid of the electoral college?

Excuse me Vern.

We have a huge welfare state as it is.

WHY do you want to give the Parasitic Faction even more power?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

.

 

[Rambunctious]

we have more of a represenative domcracy than when George Washington was elected by Congress and the states appointed Senators, Women were not allowed to vote and slaves had not rights what so ever.

Most of what you described is exactly the problem (with the exception of the slavery bit). This country was never intended to be run by the Masses, but rather by an Informed and Educated electorate. While I would suggest that the definition of an Informed and Educated electrorate has changed slightly over time, I would say it's much closer to what it was at that time than what it is now.

The informed and educated electorate. Question: What does the word electorate mean to you? To me it means the people choose who will lead. You seem to be advocating that appointed leadership would be better than leaders being selected by the "masses". Interesting choice of word (masses) why do people who have zero respect for America and his fellow man always refer to the people as the masses? It's so insulting. You are lost forever. Over the edge my friend, this nation will never be a satisfying place for you to live. Too bad.

 

[JimH52]

Why not let the Tea Baggers write it. Then we can call it "The Document of Disfunction"

 

[Anachronism]

The informed and educated electorate. Question: What does the word electorate mean to you? To me it means the people choose who will lead. You seem to be advocating that appointed leadership would be better than leaders being selected by the "masses". Interesting choice of word (masses) why do people who have zero respect for America and his fellow man always refer to the people as the masses? It's so insulting. You are lost forever. Over the edge my friend, this nation will never be a satisfying place for you to live. Too bad.

The word "electorate" refers to the individuals who are allowed to vote. It does not necessarily imply the full citizenry, but rather only those individuals who are allowed to vote. I'm not advocating an appointed leadership (except possibly for the US Senate). I am advocating for a reduction in the groups of people who are allowed to vote.

Yes, I am probably lost forever. As my screenname indicates, I am not a man of this day and age, and probably never will be. This is not the country it was even a century ago. I can't see my Great-Grandparents leaving Germany to come to the USA of 2011 like they did in 1910.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the OP, the poll says 77% of the people don't believe we have a representative democracy.

They’re correct, we are not. And should not be.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; we are ruled by law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly. The rule of law protects the rights of individual Americans from government excess and overreach, and that includes the tyranny of the majority through the democratic process. That the majority advocate a certain thing is irrelevant if that thing violates the rule of law and the Constitution. See: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943).

Do you agree with the strong majority that a free people govern themselves?

We are a free people, we do govern ourselves.

What you and others on the extreme right don’t understand is the concept of the rule of law.

For example, Texas’ law criminalizing homosexual acts was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the 14th Amendment:

Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be "drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law." Id., at 633. Texas' invocation of moral disapproval as a legitimate state interest proves nothing more than Texas' desire to criminalize homosexual sodomy. But the Equal Protection Clause prevents a State from creating "a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake." Id., at 635. And because Texas so rarely enforces its sodomy law as applied to private, consensual acts, the law serves more as a statement of dislike and disapproval against homosexuals than as a tool to stop criminal behavior. The Texas sodomy law "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected." Id., at 634. Lawrence v Texas (2003).

That a majority of the people of Texas supported the law as enacted by the state’s legislature is immaterial – there was no compelling governmental interest in support of the law, the people of Texas and the state of Texas were in violation of the rule of law, homosexuals were subject to the tyranny of the state’s majority.

The people were never intended to have direct rule save through the House in Congress; the Framers were wise enough to know the pitfalls of democracy. The people may have their say in the House, checked by the Senate and Executive. The Executive and Legislative are then checked by the Judiciary per the rule of law. No branch of government is above the law – not the Congress, president, or courts. It was the original intent of the Framers to give the people a voice but the actual reins of governance.

This has obviously been a source of confusion and frustration for many Americans for quite some time – this thread but a more recent example.

ill say this, if there was a group of citizens wanting to take the country back to the foundation of liberty for all and limited self government, i would join them.

And what would be the mechanics of this ‘taking back’?

I read only bluster and threats from libertarians and the extreme right – but never any specifics or details as to how exactly their goals are to be accomplished.

 

[Too Tall]

I believe that at this time a Strong Central Government IS necessary. The American people do not have the courage to embrace the morals, values, ethics, and ideals which are needed to allow people to properly self-determine.

Everyone knows that the politicians have incredibly strong morals, values, ethics and ideals. Bill Clinton comes to mind. Another is Anthony Weiner. And the list goes on!

 

[Too Tall]

So the question is:

Do you agree with the strong majority that a free people govern themselves?

Or do you agree with the political class that a strong central government is necessary to govern the people?

I don't agree with either statement.

The failure of the Articles of Confederation resulted in our Constitution, a document which balanced a federal government with checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of a majority or an absolute ruler.

I support the representative democracy which exists and reject efforts by demagogues and radicals whose subjective opinions are often based on avarice, bigotry, a callous disregard for their fellow citizens and ignorance.

In the OP, the poll says 77% of the people don't believe we have a representative democracy.

I realize it may be a matter of semantics, but I would have voted with the 77%. We have a Constitutional Republic.