What does this Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence Mean?

[$ecular#eckler]

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.

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

And how about this?

The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

 

[Kilroy2]

Well I don't know but it is kind of vague but does present a vague reason for revolution as long as its not for trivial reasons. It is okay for corrupt regimes that set's itself up as permanent rulers. The people can dispose of corrupt rulers. Still who decides when a ruler is corrupt? There will always be supporters of a ruler and those who are not happy with the ruler. Revolution is not a pretty picture. It also doesn't guarantee that the next regime will be any better. The old saying that power corrupts has a grain of truth. Thus the founding fathers put term limits on the president. The question is does power reside in the ruler or the state? Obvious rulers can be easily changed but the same ruler does present a sense of continuity. yet the power will corrupt the weak. The state well that is a different matter. Political parties want to control the state from the shadows. To much spot light is inviting scrutiny. Personally I prefer disagreements as a way of testing ones resolve. One must be able to change for the better or stay the course.

 

[Gdjjr]

What's the problem with the understanding? It's simple English (except for shewn)- that's shown in today's verbiage.

Does someone (other than the Districts of Criminals around the Country) disagree with it? Or does simple English escape them? I wouldn't be surprised at the latter. They are, allegedly, higher educated.

 

[danielpalos]

Well I don't know but it is kind of vague but does present a vague reason for revolution as long as its not for trivial reasons. It is okay for corrupt regimes that set's itself up as permanent rulers. The people can dispose of corrupt rulers. Still who decides when a ruler is corrupt? There will always be supporters of a ruler and those who are not happy with the ruler. Revolution is not a pretty picture. It also doesn't guarantee that the next regime will be any better. The old saying that power corrupts has a grain of truth. Thus the founding fathers put term limits on the president. The question is does power reside in the ruler or the state? Obvious rulers can be easily changed but the same ruler does present a sense of continuity. yet the power will corrupt the weak. The state well that is a different matter. Political parties want to control the state from the shadows. To much spot light is inviting scrutiny. Personally I prefer disagreements as a way of testing ones resolve. One must be able to change for the better or stay the course.

All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

 

[Gdjjr]

Jefferson to Madison is a letter expressing a speculation- as with many things he (and Madison) feared/speculated have come to be.

The DoI quote is just that. A quote of grievance making a statement to shore up how strong the beliefs were.

 

[Gdjjr]

All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

AMEN! Of course, this brings into question who decides what is best for the public welfare?

I think that's where those employed in the Districts of Criminal around the Country usurp their authority.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

And how about this?

The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

1) "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, if the government tries to weaken by abuse and usurpation the laws under which the government operates, it is the duty of of citizens to reject and replace. In modern times, this began in 2016.

2) The power of amendment and repeal held by the citizens permits changes to the Constitution over the whims of government as if the law had an expiration date.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Well I don't know but it is kind of vague but does present a vague reason for revolution as long as its not for trivial reasons. It is okay for corrupt regimes that set's itself up as permanent rulers. The people can dispose of corrupt rulers. Still who decides when a ruler is corrupt? There will always be supporters of a ruler and those who are not happy with the ruler. Revolution is not a pretty picture. It also doesn't guarantee that the next regime will be any better. The old saying that power corrupts has a grain of truth. Thus the founding fathers put term limits on the president.

There were no term limits until after FDR.

The question is does power reside in the ruler or the state? Obvious rulers can be easily changed but the same ruler does present a sense of continuity. yet the power will corrupt the weak. The state well that is a different matter. Political parties want to control the state from the shadows. To much spot light is inviting scrutiny. Personally I prefer disagreements as a way of testing ones resolve. One must be able to change for the better or stay the course.

I am suggesting that we are enduring political chaos (the state), and that that can be adjusted by reordering the entire chartering system using what we know about government that the founders did not know, and the communications technology, and manpower, that we have now, that they did not have, to make a better approach to domestic tranquility.

It should not be that difficult to realize that the Justice Department needs to be a separated entity. The founders, obviously, did not even know that it needed to be established. They only established State, Treasury, and Defense; and did not know how to do it in the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

AMEN! Of course, this brings into question who decides what is best for the public welfare?

I think that's where those employed in the Districts of Criminal around the Country usurp their authority.

The People.

 

[Gdjjr]

The People.

The people elect representatives- re present a tive- they don't. Now what? Well, in all honesty, they do represent- a minority (moneyed interests who can and do contribute to their campaign coffers)- but, again, now what?

 

[Kilroy2]

The justice department enforces the law and represents the government in legal matters and is under the executive branch. Are you suggesting another branch of the government? I see the problem more of who is in charge of it.

 

[Kilroy2]

The justice department enforces the law and represents the government in legal matters and is under the executive branch. Are you suggesting another branch of the government? I see the problem more of who is in charge of it. There will always be political chaos as people have different opinions. I think chaos is a good thing as it shakes up the status quo. Controlled chaos or lets agree to disagree.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The justice department enforces the law and represents the government in legal matters and is under the executive branch. Are you suggesting another branch of the government? I see the problem more of who is in charge of it.

Because it is not a separated entity it will always appear to be corrupt, because the president always nominates the attorney general who is not going to investigate the president who nominated him. Making it a separate entity is done by using the state attorneys general to nominate the federal attorney general.

 

[MisterBeale]

So big government is the problem, and professor genius has a solution. . . BIGGER GOVERNMENT!

 

[danielpalos]

The People.

The people elect representatives- re present a tive- they don't. Now what? Well, in all honesty, they do represent- a minority (moneyed interests who can and do contribute to their campaign coffers)- but, again, now what?

This is another reason why it is important for the People to understand the language our Constitutions were written in.

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments which can make appeals to authority a fallacy.

All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

So big government is the problem, and professor genius has a solution. . . BIGGER GOVERNMENT!

You're just throwing shit at the wall - what makes you think I want bigger government. You are not making any inquiries to understand a clearer sense of what I am posing. You a dumb fuck, just like everyone else.

No. I am saying, correctly organize the government that we have, that the founders did not know was necessary for a robust government. We need to make it more efficient, and that requires sophisticated reorganization of the entities, including separating some that cannot be done with the subsisting constitution. The separation of entities is hardwired to the outline of the constitution, and that needs to be reordered.

It can be done. I wish it could be done with the people like what we form on Internet discussion forums, but nobody seems to be willing to try and understand a new way.

If the (brilliant) founders had what we have - what do you think they would do - the same thing??? including the fucked-up electoral college, and the original Senate, and the original House of Representatives to meet in Washington?

You are right - I am a genius.

 

[Kilroy2]

The justice department enforces the law and represents the government in legal matters and is under the executive branch. Are you suggesting another branch of the government? I see the problem more of who is in charge of it.

Because it is not a separated entity it will always appear to be corrupt, because the president always nominates the attorney general who is not going to investigate the president who nominated him. Making it a separate entity is done by using the state attorneys general to nominate the federal attorney general.

You make a valid point. It is clear when you have someone like Barr who has made a living protecting presidents in trouble that the office has got a bad rap. Still should we condemn the office because of one idiot. Still the question would be who would appoint the AG even if it was an independent entity. Congress is just as political. It is up to congress to say no to someone like Barr but it can't when it comes to politics. Even the Supreme court with the right logs and the left log it is a log jam. I am impressed with the chief justice as he seems to have his head on straight and tries to play the middle road.

I think that for appointments it is clear that congress should be more of a factor instead of just rubber stamping the president. I think they need something like a 75 percent or higher vote for confirmation. Better yet make the choice someone of the opposite political persuasion.

 

[Englewood]

Perhaps the problem is that the Founders made all three branches political? The Judicial branch should make their decisions in that big Courthouse in the sky.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

To Burn Loot Murder it is a license to commit any crime they want.