Life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness(Property) (1 Viewer)

[haymarket]

What does it matter though, if they decided upon a case using the any part of the DoI, then it is validated as law.

You know laws can be pulled from the multiple pieces of legal information that the government has passed over the past 2 centuries.

It matters. I think it is fairly obvious that you are attempting here to transplant the DofI to the same legal level as the CONSTITUTION just so you can get in the " life, liberty and pursuit of happiness bit as some enshrined right. Sorry, But you have not come close to establishing a case for it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It matters. I think it is fairly obvious that you are attempting here to transplant the DofI to the same legal level as the CONSTITUTION just so you can get in the " life, liberty and pursuit of happiness bit as some enshrined right. Sorry, But you have not come close to establishing a case for it.

So you're telling me that the will of the people on one hand, is not law but the will of the people on the other is, it's contradictory.

The Declaration of Independence was the first piece of law, passed by the new nation.

 

[haymarket]

So you're telling me that the will of the people on one hand, is not law but the will of the people on the other is, it's contradictory.

The Declaration of Independence was the first piece of law, passed by the new nation.

No. It was not a law of a framework for a government. That was the Articles of Confederation. In fact, the committee which drafted the Articles comes but one day after the one set to write the Declaration.
The Founders clearly separated the two and knew the difference between the two.

from Wikipedia

On June 12, 1776, a day after appointing a committee to prepare a draft of the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress resolved to appoint a committee of 13 to prepare a draft of a constitution for a union of the states. The final draft of the Articles was prepared in the summer of 1777 and the Second Continental Congress approved them for ratification by the states on November 15, 1777, after a year of debate. In practice, the final draft of the Articles served as the de facto system of government used by the Congress ("the United States in Congress assembled") until it became de jure by final ratification on March 1, 1781; at which point Congress became the Congress of the Confederation. The Articles set the rules for operations of the United States government. It was capable of making war, negotiating diplomatic agreements, and resolving issues regarding the western territories. Article XIII stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual".

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

No. It was not a law of a framework for a government. That was the Articles of Confederation. In fact, the committee which drafted the Articles comes but one day after the one set to write the Declaration.
The Founders clearly separated the two and knew the difference between the two.

Who said law of framework?

I said first it was the first piece of law, declaring that it was a new nation and the general values which the new nation held.

The fact is that the supreme court has cited it in their decision making process.
So even if it weren't meant to be law, it was incorporated as such.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

George Mason was right and we are not guaranteed these rights . . .

All that means is that Mr Mason understood the meaning of inalienable rights.

Really, how are inalienable rights able to be guaranteed and by who?

 

[haymarket]

Who said law of framework?

I said first it was the first piece of law, declaring that it was a new nation and the general values which the new nation held.

The fact is that the supreme court has cited it in their decision making process.
So even if it weren't meant to be law, it was incorporated as such.

NO. It was not a law. It was a simple birth announcement to the world of the intention of those who signed it. No more and no less. It served its purpose and then was filed away and forgotten for many years.
from Wikipedia citing the excellent work fo Pauline Maier. Her book AMERICAN SCRIPTURE is excellent.

Having served its original purpose in announcing the independence of the United States, the Declaration was initially neglected following the American Revolution.[148] Early celebrations of Independence Day, like early histories of the Revolution, largely ignored the Declaration. Although the act of declaring independence was considered important, the text announcing that act attracted little attention.[149] The Declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the United States Constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document.[150] George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was more influential, and its language was echoed in state constitutions and state bills of rights more often than Jefferson's words.[151] "In none of these documents", wrote Pauline Maier, "is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men's minds as a classic statement of American political principles."[152]

The romanticization of the document occurred much later in our history. I suspect that it is now cited by those on the far right because of its usage of the term liberty and pursuit of happiness that they define as property rights.

You are making far too big of a deal that it was mentioned in one or two cases. And thats all it was.... was mentioned.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

NO. It was not a law. It was a simple birth announcement to the world of the intention of those who signed it. No more and no less. It served its purpose and then was filed away and forgotten for many years.
from Wikipedia citing the excellent work fo Pauline Maier. Her book AMERICAN SCRIPTURE is excellent.

I disagree, it was the first legal document the nation produced.
If it were just a birth announcement it wouldn't have detailed the reasons behind the separation.

The romanticization of the document occurred much later in our history. I suspect that it is now cited by those on the far right because of its usage of the term liberty and pursuit of happiness that they define as property rights.

You are making far too big of a deal that it was mentioned in one or two cases. And thats all it was.... was mentioned.

No, I'm simply debating this for fun.
It matters not if it were a legal document or not, because it wouldn't be followed now anyway.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I am still learning everyday about our constitution from folks such as Mike Church and other and off course through reading. Some I agree on with Mike others I don't..

Real Liberty is Protection | Liberty Documents

Why do people feel compelled to point out that it's really 'property' without point out that it also contained 'health?'

life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things

I find this continual avoidance of the actual phrase when 'recapping the changed phrase' to be fascinating. Why is it that 'property' is the perceived inconsistency wrothy of being pointed out?

 

[deltabtry]

Why do people feel compelled to point out that it's really 'property' without point out that it also contained 'health?'



I find this continual avoidance of the actual phrase when 'recapping the changed phrase' to be fascinating. Why is it that 'property' is the perceived inconsistency wrothy of being pointed out?

It's not the continual avoidance, I am quoting Thomas Jefferson and he was well aware that this phrase had nothing new to add to the declaration of independence as pointed out by John Adams and Jefferson agreed. I believe your quote goes back some 100 years prior to 1776.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It's not the continual avoidance, I am quoting Thomas Jefferson and he was well aware that this phrase had nothing new to add to the declaration of independence as pointed out by John Adams and Jefferson agreed. I believe your quote goes back some 100 years prior to 1776.

Indeed it does. But isn't it intriguing?
I think I'll write a term paper on this next month.

 

[redohio]

Jefferson specifically chose the word "happiness" instead of "property". He was not big on Locke. He preferred David Hume.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I would say that yes you must be a participating member to a society to be guaranteed these rights, because it will be society that will have maintain and protect this. George Mason was right and we are not guaranteed these rights because if we were and without being a participant of society, just imagine anarchy with no recourse to reverse direction. It is human nature not to afford rights such as those that are stated. to people who never wish to conform to societal laws.

This is philosophically problematic. By this standard, the revolutionaries were not deserving of the rights they were fighting for. By splitting with England, they would be foregoing the protections of the state and acting as criminals outside the state.

The Declaration of Independence defines these rights as inalienable -- meaning they cannot be taken away. That document is the case for revolution. Certainly, Jefferson intended to convey these rights as being fundamental and not subject to state powers.

 

[deltabtry]

This is philosophically problematic. By this standard, the revolutionaries were not deserving of the rights they were fighting for. By splitting with England, they would be foregoing the protections of the state and acting as criminals outside the state.

The Declaration of Independence defines these rights as inalienable -- meaning they cannot be taken away. That document is the case for revolution. Certainly, Jefferson intended to convey these rights as being fundamental and not subject to state powers.

I agree but, to have a civil society under the umbrella of states and Unions of states these freedoms alienable as it is stated still must be maintained by participating in a society or these rights can be lost. I would think states can not be rules by anarchy so to speak No..thoughts?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I agree but, to have a civil society under the umbrella of states and Unions of states these freedoms alienable as it is stated still must be maintained by participating in a society or these rights can be lost. I would think states can not be rules by anarchy so to speak No..thoughts?

I see your point that rights require social cooperation to be maintained -- that your right to life, for example, is likely to be stripped from you without social protections such as laws and a police force. My take is that these inalienable rights mark the point at which an individual or group is justified in breaking from an existing society. That is, once a society fails to adequately protect these rights, it can be deemed corrupt and revolt becomes proper and just.

 

[deltabtry]

I see your point that rights require social cooperation to be maintained -- that your right to life, for example, is likely to be stripped from you without social protections such as laws and a police force. My take is that these inalienable rights mark the point at which an individual or group is justified in breaking from an existing society. That is, once a society fails to adequately protect these rights, it can be deemed corrupt and revolt becomes proper and just.

Yes this is true and it seems that these days are getting closer. Our rights are being protected so much so, that it is also being diminished. The question is is our own government over stepping it authority in the name of equal protection and in return we are losing our inalienable rights.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Yes this is true and it seems that these days are getting closer. Our rights are being protected so much so, that it is also being diminished. The question is is our own government over stepping it authority in the name of equal protection and in return we are losing our inalienable rights.

I would say no. I think our representative republic affords people a legal means of addressing their grievances or pursuing their own happiness. As long as we have a just share of political will, then we are represented and our rights are recognized. That is, we have the means to change society to accomodate us without outright revolt -- at least for now. I'll concede, though, that building and maintaining a just society requires vigilance, and in that way our rights are perpetually at risk.

 

[American]

Very interesting concept. Maybe it should be a privilege that one looks to earn by being a participating and productive member of society, rather than something people should feel they are entitled to without conditions. Just a thought.

Yeah, maybe you should have to be a taxpayer. That would certain cut out a lot of people, huh?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I would say that yes you must be a participating member to a society to be guaranteed these rights, because it will be society that will have maintain and protect this. George Mason was right and we are not guaranteed these rights because if we were and without being a participant of society, just imagine anarchy with no recourse to reverse direction. It is human nature not to afford rights such as those that are stated. to people who never wish to conform to societal laws.

Its an interesting thought, but my concern is that we would end up being like the roman empire if we did not guarentee these rights by law.

 

[American]

I disagree, it was the first legal document the nation produced.
If it were just a birth announcement it wouldn't have detailed the reasons behind the separation.



No, I'm simply debating this for fun.
It matters not if it were a legal document or not, because it wouldn't be followed now anyway.

haymarket doesn't believe in the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....because he thinks the state should be in charge of those things. He thinks by marginalizing a document (supposedly very unimportant) that is prominently displayed in the US Capital, it gives his side power over the people. That's ultimately what it's all about ..... POWER. The lefties that argue over the DoI see it as an obstacle to their agenda.

 

[haymarket]

haymarket doesn't believe in the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....because he thinks the state should be in charge of those things. He thinks by marginalizing a document (supposedly very unimportant) that is prominently displayed in the US Capital, it gives his side power over the people. That's ultimately what it's all about ..... POWER. The lefties that argue over the DoI see it as an obstacle to their agenda.

Here is what Haymarket believes and I have it on good authority that this post is reliable unlike yours:

Haymarket thinks that cute and fuzzy meaningless cliches like liberty and pursuit of happiness are very nice bumper stickers and make for great lapel pins.

Hayarket observes from a study of both history and government that rights come from the people having enough power to create a government which serves their needs and places the rights the people want in the law and makes sure the government of the people, by the people and for the people protect those rights. His beliefs about religion and the fantasy world have nothing to do with it.

Haymarket thinks the DofInd is a very nice birth announcement that was very well written and did the job it was intended to do. He think the ones for his two kids were very nice also and did the job they were intended to do. He think the ones friends and family send of new births in their families are very nice also and did the job they were intended to do. And all those were then placed away in the drawer or the attic and never looked at again because their purpose was served and finished.

Haymarket knows of no progressive who sees the DofInd as any sort of an obstacle to anything.

Haymarket has visited the National Archives in our nations capitol and enjoyed seeing the document greatly. He proudly showed it to his kids when they were little and to his grandson only last year and was proud to do so.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Jefferson specifically chose the word "happiness" instead of "property". He was not big on Locke. He preferred David Hume.

Nah, not big at all . . .

That's why he required students to read Locke and Sidney at the University of Virginia.

 

[TurtleDude]

haymarket doesn't believe in the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....because he thinks the state should be in charge of those things. He thinks by marginalizing a document (supposedly very unimportant) that is prominently displayed in the US Capital, it gives his side power over the people. That's ultimately what it's all about ..... POWER. The lefties that argue over the DoI see it as an obstacle to their agenda.

haymarket believes if it gets dems elected it is good.

 

[American]

Here is what Haymarket believes and I have it on good authority that this post is reliable unlike yours:

Haymarket thinks that cute and fuzzy meaningless cliches like liberty and pursuit of happiness are very nice bumper stickers and make for great lapel pins.

Hayarket observes from a study of both history and government that rights come from the people having enough power to create a government which serves their needs and places the rights the people want in the law and makes sure the government of the people, by the people and for the people protect those rights. His beliefs about religion and the fantasy world have nothing to do with it.

Haymarket thinks the DofInd is a very nice birth announcement that was very well written and did the job it was intended to do. He think the ones for his two kids were very nice also and did the job they were intended to do. He think the ones friends and family send of new births in their families are very nice also and did the job they were intended to do. And all those were then placed away in the drawer or the attic and never looked at again because their purpose was served and finished.

Haymarket knows of no progressive who sees the DofInd as any sort of an obstacle to anything.

Haymarket has visited the National Archives in our nations capitol and enjoyed seeing the document greatly. He proudly showed it to his kids when they were little and to his grandson only last year and was proud to do so.

The Founders didn't have bumper stickers, and I have it on good authority that you couldn't stand toe-to-toe with any of them in a debate over the founding documents. They had a command of the English language that you could only have wet dreams over.

 

[deltabtry]

The Founders didn't have bumper stickers, and I have it on good authority that you couldn't stand toe-to-toe with any of them in a debate over the founding documents. They had a command of the English language that you could only have wet dreams over.

Our founders fathers certainly did have command of the English language along with excellent writing skills, and at a early age as a rule. That said, this is why I have always said, "our founding father have always said what they meant and meant what they said, nor parsing of words or manipulation of of the English language written or spoken".

 

[haymarket]

The Founders didn't have bumper stickers, and I have it on good authority that you couldn't stand toe-to-toe with any of them in a debate over the founding documents. They had a command of the English language that you could only have wet dreams over.

Your 'good authority' sucks big time if you think the Declaration was anything more than the birth announcement it was and then forgotten about by the people who wrote it. Pauline Maeir writes all about in her work. You should read it and learn from the expert. In case you actually care about historical fact

http://web.mit.edu/pmaier/www/maier.htm

And while the Founders lacked bumper stickers, the zealots on the right who believe they can channel their very thoughts and intentions sure do.

Keep your wet dreams in your own pajamas.