Can an Unarmed People be a Free People?

[Hugh Damright]

1) The People of the US have only the power which the States delegate them.

Can you name a power that the people of the US can exercise that was not delegated by the States?

Are you saying that the people of the US have a divine right to do whatever seems ... divine?

if we would compare the sovereignty acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond. We admit of no government by divine right - President Harrison's Inaugural Address

2) When the Constitution begins "We the People" it means "States".

The US Constitution was established and ordained by the States not the People.

Is there any bit of federalist spin that doesn't sweep you guys off your feet?



3)The States are Republics. The US is not a simple republic, except in the minds of simple people.

In a State, i.e. a simple republic, the government is of/by/for the people as one sovereignty.

In the Union, i.e. a compounded republic, the government is empowered by the States, and these powers are exercised jointly by the States and by the people.

Here we are back to where we started - the people of the US have only the limited powers delegated by the States.



Let me ask you guys a couple of things:

1) Why are we the United States of America and not the State of America?

2) Why does the Tenth Amendment use the word "respectively"?

3) Why is it that the Constitution and amendments must be ratified by the States,
which can mean either the State Legislatures or a State Convention,
and NOT ratified by the people of the United States?

So far, I must say I am not impressed with the corn fed reconstruction view expressed here.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Can you name a power that the people of the US can exercise that was not delegated by the States?

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

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.

Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI also spring immediately to mind.

Are you saying that the people of the US have a divine right to do whatever seems ... divine?

All people have the right to secure for themselves their divine human rights. Some do, some don't, some just sit on the sidelines disparaging our human rights while making certain to enjoy them themselves. Pussbags like Mikey Moore spring to mind when I think of the latter example.

2) When the Constitution begins "We the People" it means "States".

So you say.

3)The States are Republics. The US is not a simple republic, except in the minds of simple people.

If you recall some of the earlier posts, you were admonished for trying to make this more simple than it is. As has been pointed out, your contention(s) lack historical context. Nothing the size and power of the United States is ever "simple".

As to your remark about "simple people", well, given that you confuse the mechanisms for achieving political organization for the authority for said organizations, speaks volumes in that regard don't you think?

1) Why are we the United States of America and not the State of America?

Because a group of people collectively known as Americans decided to make it so. In that decision, they agreed to conduct themselves in a particular fashion. For instance, at one time some Alabamans thought that it was right and just - and probably even funny - to make women of African-American decent walk to the back of the bus. I think they had your create their own "culture" BS in mind. Fortunately for us all that BS doesn't play well. The "sovereignty" of 'Bama takes a backseat (backseat, get it?) to a person's "divine" right to be treated as A HUMAN BEING!! Plain enough for you?

2) Why does the Tenth Amendment use the word "respectively"?

Because the 10th Amendment recognizes that not all states will wish to adopt some of the powers afforded to the States. They added "or to the people" so that folks like yourself might understand that there are other rights that the States may not interfere with, because those rights belong to "the people". They wrote it in plain English.

3) Why is it that the Constitution and amendments must be ratified by the States, which can mean either the State Legislatures or a State Convention,
and NOT ratified by the people of the United States?

Because the folks who founded the country needed to have a mechanism for organization. They chose a representative republic as that method of organization.

So far, I must say I am not impressed with the corn fed reconstruction view expressed here.

How delightful.

 

[Quartus]

So let me get this straight. When the Founders wrote People, they meant State?

Oh. NOW I get it!

So here we go! The Hugh Damwrigth Annotated Bill of Rights!


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the STATES peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the STATES to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the STATES to be secure in their STATES, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the STATES or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No STATE shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any STATE be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against ITself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the STATES.

Amendment X

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 STATES.





"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."


And we doesn't argue with Humpty, does we? It does no good, does it?


No, it does no good. <gollum>

 

[Fred Hansen]

Naaasty Dumpty! Always tricksy and FALSE! Not nice, no precious, not nice at all!

 

[Hugh Damright]

You guys cut and paste the BOR with no comprehension of it. I think you might have more integrity if you were to cut and paste the 14th "Amendment". That is what you have, an extremist 14th "Amendment" view.



With July 4th coming up, maybe we should go off on this topic.

Let me begin by trying to make clear that I *know* how they do it up North. I know all about the yankee construction. America's Birthday: In 1776, the people declared themselves independent from Great Britain and formed a new Country, of/by/for the people, and dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal.

Can anybody say "Civil War Propaganda"?

This view I described is not the Declaration of Independence, it is the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln said that this COUNTRY was OF/BY/FOR THE PEOPLE and dedicated to the principle that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

Some people cannot shake off this reconstruction propaganda. They never will. It is imprinted on them like a baby duck imprints a moving object as its mama. Others know better, but they have to stick to their story regardless.

But I will try to speak to the general audience and hope that somewhere out there some neurons fire up and new synaptic pathways form. Some people, IF THEY TRY, have the ability to shake off what they were taught and form adult views. I did it. There's nothing to be scared of - the truth can only set you free.

On July 4th 1776, our fathers brought forth on this continent THIRTEEN new Nations, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the principle that no man has a right to wear a crown and rule over others.

There is no justification for royalty. You can take a King and a subject and strip them down and look them over and there is no mark to tell them apart. There is no natural distinction. All men are created equal. On the other hand, our Founders thought it was perfectly natural and proper to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction such as race and gender. The Lincolnesque idea that we are founded on the principle of racial equality is absurd Civil War Propaganda.

In 1776, each British Colony declared itself to be a free and independent Nation/State/Country. It was unanimous. They were united. The united States. The united States was not a Nation/State/Country in 1776. It was thirteen. There is no doubt. The Declaration says that the Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States. Not State, States. And the Paris Peace Treaty recognizes the free and independent States and lists them all by name.

Lincoln lied. Our fathers did not form a Country, it was not of/by/for the people, and it was not dedicated to racial equality.

In reality, our Fathers formed thirteen Countries, each of/by/for its own people, and they were dedicated to the principle that each State would do what seemed best to them. They called this "independence".

 

[Fred Hansen]

Lincoln lied. Our fathers did not form a Country, it was not of/by/for the people, and it was not dedicated to racial equality.

In reality, our Fathers formed thirteen Countries, each of/by/for its own people, and they were dedicated to the principle that each State would do what seemed best to them. They called this "independence".

A lot of people believed this. They seceded from the Union. They got stomped. Funny thing is, they were right in some respects. The individual states did have the right to operate in ways that were different from other states. The mistake they made was hitching their Confederate wagons to an idea that is anathema i.e. SLAVERY.

Let me put it simply for you. The Confederates believed that they had the "right" to hold other HUMAN BEINGS in slavery. Other folks had a contrary point of view. Unfortunately for you, the Southerners lost.

Try to think of it like this: some people believe in evil so strongly they will fight for it, while others believe in defeating evil so strongly, they will fight against it. Is that clear enough for you?

If you wish to pick a state to be a vassal of, that's your business. It's a free country (there's that irony again), but if you, or some gun-grabber or some other statist lifeform really want to have a mind-blowing introspective experience, try this little thought experiment: I - and many others - am/are willing to fight to the death to preserve human rights irrespective of the state(s) in question. The real question is are you willing to fight to the death as a vassal of whatever state(s) to deny human rights?

The poor misbegotten sods of the South found their answer at Appomattox. If you wish to base your world view on the track record of those chuckleheads, that's your business.

 

[Hugh Damright]

You can play the race card until the cows come home.

I do not believe in rewriting history, perpetuating myths, or intellectual dishonesty.

And I call *that* the moral highground.

 

[Fred Hansen]

I do not believe in rewriting history, perpetuating myths, or intellectual dishonesty.

So you deny that the Confederates held slaves?

 

[Hugh Damright]

No, I mean to refer to the rewritten history re: July 4th. And the notion that the US is one sovereignty, empowered by the people of the US.

But re: slavery, the Confederates *did* have a right to slavery. They had a *constitutional right* to slavery. When you say "rights" you seem to be talking about your feelings, not the Constitution.

 

[Fred Hansen]

United States Constitution

Section. 10.
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Sounds mighty sovereign to me.

 

[Hugh Damright]

I have heard the US referred to as a "federal system of dual sovereignties".

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

- Federalist Paper #45

That the obvious tendency, and inevitable result, of a consolidation of the states into one sovereignty, would be to transform the republican system of the United States into a monarchy, is a point which seems to have been sufficiently decided by the general sentiment of America.

- Madison, Response to Virginia Resolution (1799)

 

[Fred Hansen]

As I said earlier, pick a sovereign state (dual or otherwise) to be a vassal of. If you wish to be on the losing side of history, then good for you.

 

[Hugh Damright]

You said that you saw the Constitution as creating a US that was one sovereignty. That is simply incorrect.

 

[Fred Hansen]

You said that you saw the Constitution as creating a US that was one sovereignty.

All sovereign nations may make treaties, build standing armies, declare war, etc, etc, etc...

Again, Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 U.S. Constitution:"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."


Find me one American state that has successfully done so.

Or how about Article 3 Section. 2. Clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Gee, looks like the Federal Judiciary has the final say so. Need I bother to raise the "Full Faith and Credit" clause? Oh, but that would be further proof of the state's subsidiary relationship to the nation.


Look, be a vassal of a state if you like. No skin off my nose. You might even get lucky, and get to be a vassal in a state where they will allow someone to own you by virtue of having kidnapped you successfully. Maybe you will get to live in a hut and pick your master's crops. Whatever floats your boat dude.

That is simply incorrect.

Right. They just made a mistake when they wrote people instead of state, and they just made another small mistake when they forgot to let the states do ALL of the things that constitute a sovereign nation, and a few other small mistakes here and there that make the position you've taken a fiction. All of it is one big typo. Or would that be quillo?

The 50 states have every right to conduct their business as they see fit with the provision that they do so in good faith, and that the do not impinge upon the basic human rights accorded Americans under federal law. Those states not wishing to do so get their asses kicked provided there are people who actually give a damn. So, "Can an Unarmed People be a Free People?" Certainly not for long, especially when they won't even bother to arm themselves with the truth.

If ignorance of the historical quest to perfect human liberty is to be the plan, then "arms" would be of little value. Better to just crawl under an 18th century rock and die.

 

[Hugh Damright]

OK I didn't read all that because you have proved you haven't a clue.

But let's get something clear here:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

How can you quote this and say that the US has jurisdiction over affairs between a Citizen and his State? As usual, you miss the whole point and turn against the intent.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Need I bother to raise the "Full Faith and Credit" clause? Oh, but that would be further proof of the state's subsidiary relationship to the nation.

Guess I should have bothered...no, that's right, you say you don't even bother to read what I post. Never mind. Enjoy your little fantasy world. I'm out.

Ooops! Forgot to add "Welcome to my ignore list!"

 

[Hugh Damright]

So was that your admission that the US Judicial Power was NOT intended to have jurisdiction over intrastate affairs, or are you just reduced to hissy fits now?

 

[TheBluesMan]

So much for respectfully agreeing to disagree.

This one's been beaten to death... and then some.

Closed.

As always, feel free to email or PM if you have any questions about this action.

-Dave