• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On this Fourth of July, Thomas Jefferson is weeping

ernst barkmann said:
On this Fourth of July, Thomas Jefferson is weeping | Fox News
Click to expand...

What self righteous bull****.

He wrote that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Not only did he write those words, but the first Congress adopted them unanimously, and they are still the law of the land today.
Click to expand...

Ya those words, they aren't the law of the land. The Declaration of Independence is not law.

Anyway, Thomas Jefferson was a mine of his time, not our time, there's a lot the article fails to mention, like a standing Army for example, that would have raised Jefferson's eyebrows.
 
Wiseone said:
What self righteous bull****.



Ya those words, they aren't the law of the land. The Declaration of Independence is not law.

Anyway, Thomas Jefferson was a mine of his time, not our time, there's a lot the article fails to mention, like a standing Army for example, that would have raised Jefferson's eyebrows.
Click to expand...

first what he is saying is, are you free as you were before?.......becuase the government is spying on us, and killing american over seas.

the DOI is law...its u.s. code. organic law.

The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
 
head of joaquin said:
Yep, you've deviated into sense for once. Why did Bush and his cronies pass the Patriot Act and demagogue 9-11 to do so?
Click to expand...

this has nothing to do with BUSH, OR EVEN A democrat president.

this has to do with government, were in the constitution can government create secret courts, and pronounce people guilty.

this is not a partisan issue.
 
joG said:
Then I do not totally agree. If a man plots murder and pays to have it done, one must be allowed to stop the threat. How do you propose to do this, where the threat is from outside the country?
Click to expand...

this america must follow law, be seeking his capture thru other countries.

but the constitution does not allow secret courts, to find people guilty
 
haymarket said:
This is how the article begins:



I wonder what the descendants of Jeffersons slaves would say to that inquiry?
Click to expand...


what does this have to do with what the man is talking about....and that is the government............it is not talking about slaves, or are you not able to follow along?
 
haymarket said:
This is how the article begins:



I wonder what the descendants of Jeffersons slaves would say to that inquiry?
Click to expand...

The slaves, yes. The rest of us, no...
 
ernst barkmann said:
what does this have to do with what the man is talking about....and that is the government............it is not talking about slaves, or are you not able to follow along?
Click to expand...

It speaks directly to his opening question.
 
ernst barkmann said:
who cares about jefferson, he is not the subject..........he is talking about our freedom this is the point of the article.
Click to expand...

Tell that to whoever wrote the title of the article.
 
ernst barkmann said:
are you tired, sleepy, the article is about the freedom of the people in comparison to government, based on time.............take a nap please.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the person who wrote the headline you linked to.
 
ernst barkmann said:
are you tired, sleepy, the article is about the freedom of the people in comparison to government, based on time.............take a nap please.
Click to expand...

You do know the Founders who became president took measures which had violated civil liberties and had violated the Constitution, right?

John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it a crime to speak ill of the government.

The same Founders that you look at as infallible demigods were hypocrites.
 
zstep18 said:
You do know the Founders who became president took measures which had violated civil liberties and had violated the Constitution, right?

John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it a crime to speak ill of the government.

The same Founders that you look at as infallible demigods were hypocrites.
Click to expand...


what civil liberties, and yes i know of the Alien and Sedition Act, and Madison denounces it.

and people have been violating the constitution from it beginning, however that does not change the meaning of the constitution at all.
 
ernst barkmann said:
and people have been violating the constitution from it beginning, however that does not change the meaning of the constitution at all.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the fact that the Founders themselves had violated the Constitution, makes them hypocrites.

The Founders, after all, were human, and subject to error.
 
zstep18 said:
Sure, but the fact that the Founders themselves had violated the Constitution, makes them hypocrites.

The Founders, after all, were human, and subject to error.
Click to expand...

thats true, not one is perfect, but that does not change the constitution and its meaning...no...if it affirms people have rights, but because there were slaves, does that mean people dont have rights ...no
 
ernst barkmann said:
thats true, not one is perfect, but that does not change the constitution and its meaning...no...if it affirms people have rights, but because there were slaves, does that mean people dont have rights ...no
Click to expand...

Right. I guess I am just saying that the idea that the Founders would be rolling in their grave today is laughable. There have been blatant violations of the Constitution since the beginning.
 
zstep18 said:
Right. I guess I am just saying that the idea that the Founders would be rolling in their grave today is laughable. There have been blatant violations of the Constitution since the beginning.
Click to expand...


yes there have, and today they have no bones about doing to plainly in the open, and state they dont care.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
first what he is saying is, are you free as you were before?.......becuase the government is spying on us, and killing american over seas.

the DOI is law...its u.s. code. organic law.

The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
Click to expand...

I suppose your technically correct, although I was going for a different use of the word when I said "law" as in its not something you can sue someone for violating in court.
 
ernst barkmann said:
this america must follow law, be seeking his capture thru other countries.

but the constitution does not allow secret courts, to find people guilty
Click to expand...


I am afraid that won't work in a world, where there are enemy countries, terrorist countries and warlord run regions. You are no longer in Kansas there.

Not to allow something is quite different from forbidding it. If law is passed, that certain courts hear charges in closed session? If the controls attached are trustworthy? If the danger from such courts is eliminated, I see no reasonable argument against the procedure.

The only argument I could see is that we are investing too much in the effort and the destruction and deaths caused by terrorism do not justify the costs.
 
joG said:
I am afraid that won't work in a world, where there are enemy countries, terrorist countries and warlord run regions. You are no longer in Kansas there.

Not to allow something is quite different from forbidding it. If law is passed, that certain courts hear charges in closed session? If the controls attached are trustworthy? If the danger from such courts is eliminated, I see no reasonable argument against the procedure.

The only argument I could see is that we are investing too much in the effort and the destruction and deaths caused by terrorism do not justify the costs.
Click to expand...

sorry that would be a constitutional violation, because every person under the constitution has the right to face his accuser.

this is not Kansas, but you sure to not wish to follow supreme law, instead you believe federal law overrides constitutional law, and it does not
 
joG said:
I am afraid that won't work in a world, where there are enemy countries, terrorist countries and warlord run regions. You are no longer in Kansas there.

Not to allow something is quite different from forbidding it. If law is passed, that certain courts hear charges in closed session? If the controls attached are trustworthy? If the danger from such courts is eliminated, I see no reasonable argument against the procedure.

The only argument I could see is that we are investing too much in the effort and the destruction and deaths caused by terrorism do not justify the costs.
Click to expand...

sorry that would be a constitutional violation, because every person under the constitution has the right to face his accuser.

this is not Kansas, but you sure to not wish to follow supreme law, instead you believe federal law overrides constitutional law, and it does not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom