- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,177
- Reaction score
- 7,551
- Location
- Ft. Campbell, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.
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?
On this July 4th Thomas Jefferson would probably have found it a bit weird and icky to be championed by a member of the Waffen SS. :wow:
Just sayin'.
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?
Do you have more personal liberty today than on the Fourth of July 2012?
This is how the article begins:
I wonder what the descendants of Jeffersons slaves would say to that inquiry?
This is how the article begins:
I wonder what the descendants of Jeffersons slaves would say to that inquiry?
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?
It speaks directly to his opening question.
who cares about jefferson, he is not the subject..........he is talking about our freedom this is the point of the article.
Tell that to whoever wrote the title of the article.
are you tired, sleepy, the article is about the freedom of the people in comparison to government, based on time.............take a nap please.
are you tired, sleepy, the article is about the freedom of the people in comparison to government, based on time.............take a nap please.
Tell that to the person who wrote the headline you linked to.
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.
and people have been violating the constitution from it beginning, however that does not change the meaning of the constitution at all.
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.
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
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.
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.
this america must follow law, be seeking his capture thru other countries.
but the constitution does not allow secret courts, to find people guilty
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?