Can an Unarmed People be a Free People?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that this issue *was* addressed, that this issue is why the Constitution needed amending, and that the Tenth Amendment settled it. But we are taught a false construction of the Tenth. We try to make it say that undelegated powers are reserved to the people of the US, which is perfectly wrong.

I think it is interesting to note how the South began the CSA Constitution:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character ... do ordain and establish this Constitution


Jefferson Davis explained:
We have changed the constituent parts, but not the system of our Government. The Constitution formed by our fathers is that of these Confederate States, in their exposition of it, and in the judicial construction it has received, we have a light which reveals its true meaning.
 
Hugh, I think you're confusticating two different things:

  1. The AUTHORITY to establish the Federal Government.
  2. The MECHANISM by which the formal documents were ratified.


The AUTHORITY - the power - comes from the PEOPLE.

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 to 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.


The MECHANISM by which this authority was exercised is through the election of representatives by and for each state, which representatives then voted to either ratify (or not) the Constitution.

However, the MECHANISM does not replace the source of authority, which is THE PEOPLE. The same people who, in the Constitution, delegated some limited powers to the Fed.Gov, retained all powers not explicitly delegated.
 
No! US authority absolutely does NOT come from the people of the US.

US authority comes from the States.

The flow of power in the US is People->State->US.

The people of the US have only the authority which the States delegate them.

When the Declaration says that people have a right to form/alter/abolish government,
it means the people of each State have such a right, not the people of the US.

It was the States which declared independence. July 4th is really "States' Rights Day".
 
HughDamright said:
When the Declaration says that people have a right to form/alter/abolish government, it means the people of each State have such a right, not the people of the US.
Tell that to THE PEOPLE of South Carolina - circa 1857...

<ducking - running for cover...>
 
Fallacious reasoning

"No! US authority absolutely does NOT come from the people of the US.
US authority comes from the States.
The flow of power in the US is People->State->US.
The people of the US have only the authority which the States delegate them."

Nonsense.

PEOPLE directly elect Federal senators. PEOPLE directly elect Federal congressmen. The Electoral College REFLECTS the popular vote, by state, for President.


And those congressmen are apportioned according to the FEDERAL census taken every decade.

In what way,shape, manner, or form are the people constrained by STATE action in ANY of the foregoing? :rolleyes:
 
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I looked for the part that said we the "States of the United States", but this was as close as I could come. :rolleyes: Then I looked to see if the founders were confused as to whether "People" and "States" were one and the same, and I came up with:
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Among dozens of other examples.

Lots of folks these days feel the need to distort language and history. My bet is that folks like that have always existed, but now - with the advent of mass-media, the 'net, and other technological wonders - those whose world view isn't reflected in history or present reality feel a desperate need to redouble their efforts at obfuscating truth. A certain Bubba that once questioned the meaning of "is" would serve as a classic example for this.

The fact that I observe this phenomenon most often in academia is what I find most disturbing. A Bubba lying to keep his old battle-axe at bay is one thing. Professors who lie in order to warp young minds to their falacious ways of (un)thinking, really frost me!

See my sig line for another classic example of a leftist that admits in his own words that his world view is based on a lie. That didn't stop him from releasing his piece of trash non-documentary (Bowling For Columbine) ode to Leni Reifenstahl though did it?

Feh! With all of the above mentioned tech wonders, the folks that allow themselves to adopt beliefs which have no basis in reality have only themselves to blame.
 
No! US authority absolutely does NOT come from the people of the US.

US authority comes from the States.

The flow of power in the US is People->State->US.

The people of the US have only the authority which the States delegate them.

When the Declaration says that people have a right to form/alter/abolish government,
it means the people of each State have such a right, not the people of the US.

It was the States which declared independence. July 4th is really "States' Rights Day".


Hugh, There's a whole pile of documents that informed the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, and there are the writings of the FF themselves. Anyone who has not read those, cannot know what the Constitution says.

Here you go.
 
Quartus, I used to see it your way, then I read:
The Declaration of Arms
The Declaration of Independence
The Paris Peace Treaty
The State Constitutions
The Articles of Confederation
The Constitutional Debates & "Secret Debates"
The US Constitution
The State Ratification Conventions
The State Ratifications
The Federalist Papers
The Antifederalist Papers
The Record of our First Congress
...
Must I go on? Can you say that you have read all this?
...
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
...

FYI:
The Declaration Of Independence, the actual Document, says across the top:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
I hope nobody is going to try to say that it was unanimous because every single person agreed to it. I have heard that 1/3 agreed, 1/3 were loyalists, and 1/3 didn't care. Yet all the States agreed to it. So you see the States do not necessarily reflect the will of the people of the US.

I am not trying to to take "the people" out of the recipe. But to say the people of the US are the source of authority ... the people of the US did not declare the State of America, the Colonies declared themselves free and independent States ... and then later these States formed the United States, delegating limited power to a central government ... US authority comes from the States, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Re: #6 ...

PEOPLE directly elect Federal senators. PEOPLE directly elect Federal congressmen. The Electoral College REFLECTS the popular vote, by state, for President.
1) The Constitution called for the Senators to be elected by the State Legislatures, not the people. This was changed by the 17th Amendment. I think this was a mistake and should be repealed. I understand this to be a popular sentiment.

2) Yes, the people were intended to have the lower House of Congress, but that is all.

3) The Electoral College was not intended to reflect the will of the people. Originally the people of each State voted for their Electoral College, and the Electoral Colleges would vote on who they wanted in the White House and send their tallies into Congress.

Further, to this day, if nobody gets a majority of the electoral college vote then Congress selects from the top three (used to be five) winners. AND THEY DO NOT HAVE TO CONSIDER WHO GOT THE MOST VOTES.

This knowledge of the Constitution was used by the States' Rights' Party in the 40's ... they knew Strom Thurmond could not win the Electoral College vote, but he didn't have to. If he could only come in third and keep anyone from getting a majority vote, then his name would be sent to Congress with two others and he would have an equal chance.



In what way,shape, manner, or form are the people constrained by STATE action in ANY of the foregoing?

1) SENATE - The States still elect the Senators, but today it is by the people of the State not the State Legislatures. How can you even ask how the Senate is constrained by the States?

2) HOUSE - The Congressional Districts cannot cross State lines. Otherwise yes here is the part that is "the people of the US".

3) EXECUTIVE - The Electoral College gives the smaller States extra weight. Didn't you learn that in 2000? How can you ask this?
 
If you are calling me a statist, you guys need to get some coffee or something.

I think some things are best handled on the local level, others on the county level, others on the State level, but that only limited and enumerated things should be handled by the federal government. YOU guys are the statists, and you don't even know it.
 
Hmmm... I happen to think that nearly everything (including providing for the common defense [military duty] and promoting the general welfare [charity to one's fellow man]) should be handled on the personal level. Guess that makes me a statist. Doubleplusungood :rolleyes:
 
Sound like a damn libertarian to me. ;)

I think libertarians are statists. They think that there is one set of rights, one set of values, one culture, and they need a big central government to force that on everyone. I, in contrast, am a "States' Righter", and I believe that for the most part that the people of each State are free to define their own culture and society.
 
I, in contrast, am a "States' Righter", and I believe that for the most part that the people of each State are free to define their own culture and society.
And provided that they do not tread on rights that would make it "...necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." I would agree.

As far as I am concerned, Kommiefornia, the People's Demonratic Communewealth of Mass., New Yawk, and N.J. The Landfill State, et al. have already crossed that line long ago. I :barf: on them all.
 
Where exactly do I lose you guys?

1) US powers are delegated by Constitutional amendment.
2) Constitutional amendments are ratified by the States.
3) "States" can mean the State Legislatures, or State conventions.

California has 70 times as many people as Wyoming, but when it comes to ratifying amendments, each State gets one vote. I think it is a misconstruction to say this represents the people of the US rather than the States. I think you guys are perpetuating a myth.
 
Where exactly do I lose you guys?
Here for one:
The people of the US have only the authority which the States delegate them.
Here for two:
When the Constitution begins "We, the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution", I have learned to read it to say "We the States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution".
The "revolutionary" aspect of the founding of our country was in adopting the ideals of a republic"...of the People, by the People and for the People".
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.
The founders of our country toyed with the idea of a monarchy. They could have simply mimicked the mother country, or they could have chosen a triumvirate, or some other form of government. They knew that vesting power outside of the governed would lead inevitably to tyranny and ruin. Mankind needed to at least attempt something better.

The result was that a tiny handful of humanity - blessed with massive amounts of personal liberty of a type and quantity heretofore unknown - eclipsed all of the known world in less than 2 centuries.

You say that you have learned to read things in the fashion of "We the States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution". Well good for you. Thanks to people that don't read it that way it is a free country, and ironically enough, that allows you the liberty of reading things any way you please.

As for me, I have rights granted to me by my Creator. Said rights do not hinge on the presence, nor the absence of, ANY state. Those rights are not as frivolous (nor as ridiculous) as "God gave me the right to wear a hat". The rights I speak of also do not depend on whether or not someone had the forethought to write them down somewhere.

A few years ago, TFL's own Dennis Bateman put it thus:

It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some
physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of
the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir
emotions greater than the value of the material item.

I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged
honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends,
the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers
than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.
Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of “American
soil” upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about
America.

Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing
out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they
marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always “The Flag!” Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.

See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.

Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at
Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and
says in a choked whisper, “I was there.” Ask him, “Is it just metal and clay?” Ask
him. I dare you.

The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his
father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.

My guns? They’re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They
are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all
of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation.
What could be of such value?

The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under
restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.

Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a
new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!

Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have
maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the
times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They
wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.

They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate
themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their children’s
children, through the generations.

Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of “We the People!” instead of the “Powers of the Monarchy.”

Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government.
And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its
continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots,
it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.

Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at
any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of
immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.

Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens -
but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we
ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?

They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote
limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights
was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.

Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.
Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.
Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.

Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood
and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.

We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away.
Today we compromise. We try to appease man’s insatiable appetite for power by
throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not
be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the “Blessings of Liberty” won for us by our forefathers.

We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready,
we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward.
But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to
win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have
sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.

If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we
will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.

So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.

It is far more eloquent than anything I could say, and it can be found here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top