- Go to this site and click on the founders each name will provide you some real incite to the founders thinking and why.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permit me take conversation back in time to B.C. dates - here are some great proofs of TJE's views.He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
Aristotle
Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life.
Aristotle
All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince.
Plato
I do not know whether there are gods, but there ought to be.
Diogenes
It is the privilege of the gods to want nothing, and of godlike men to want little.
Diogenes
It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself.
Epicurus
It were better to have no opinion of God at all than such a one as is unworthy of him; for the one is only belief - the other contempt.
Plutarch
Here is a modern one to close with and show that there is a continuity in the belief in the natural rights that man has come from a Creator?Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
C. S. Lewis
- Permalink Reply by on
- I MHO Natural law is so common that it is universally understood. Like a man has the right to consume the Oxygen that he breaths. I know of nothing written that gives man that right, but it is understood, and it does not require that it is codified in law. Everyone in every country understands that it is a right, wither G-D given or not. The same is true of many things that we take for granted everyday. Many Natural Laws are not written as a statute but if violated there will be a consequence. Like if you deny some their right to consume oxygen or atempt to, there will be a punishment for having done so.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nor did the Founders limit the Natural Rights - they simply limited Government and codified some of the individuals right but stated not all of their rights. As in all right not stated are maintained by the people.
- Permalink Reply by on
- IMO,Man is an unruly animal that will do harm to itself. So, it the higher power is removed all sense of constraint is gone and anarchy will be the norm.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Proving the point that man is harmful to man no matter what with out the enforcement of the Natural Law of Freedom and individual rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Progressive Liberals [left leaning] have maintained the Constitution is just a outline, or rough draft of a government for Congress and Courts to modernize, change or alter anytime they feel it is required to permit their desired goals. The FDR black mailing of the Black Robes has left a black stain on our Freedoms and rights - IMHO it will take mass nullification and most likely the Article V convention to restore the original Constitution and the intend of the founders.Congress, the court, the executive will not vote to reduce their power and tenure in office so it is up to the States to protect "WE THE PEOPLE" by declaring the usurped powers and all laws passed by those usurpations "NULL, VOID AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED".
- Permalink Reply by on
- Keep in mind that Locke did not create all those thoughts he studied the Masters of Philosophy and the histories of societies then he weaved the fabric of NATURAL LAW for it is a logical extension of the ancient tribal customs to the now recognized modern concepts of rights and origins of freedoms.I would envision Locke debating the other great minds of his time and in my opinion some of them would be quite heated. Complex realities are developed over the eons and not at one sitting.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Federalist 17“It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.”When the Constitution was written the first sentence it should have made it apparent that it was the intention of the National Government to strip the States of their sovereign rights as States . It was apparent to the Anti- Federalist that there was a strong danger that our Constitution would lead to Mob rule to a democracy instead of a Representative Republic.``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.''It should have stated "We the States of the United States in Order to form'-------
- Permalink Reply by on
- I’m curious to know if Hamilton believed there was a threat to state sovereignty or if he cared. He understood the corrupting influence of power. The drive of power for powers sake and the inherent jealousy and ambitions to abuse the common man in pursuit of power. Yet he seems devoid of understanding that when the Federal Government is left to determine the constitutionality of any law against a sovereign state through the federal governments own federal courts that your only asking for trouble. The final arbiter of constitutional law is the Supreme Court. Just a bunch of federal “lawyers” sitting around deciding what they believe is write or wrong.When you consider the Constitution that he proposed at the convention and it was his forceful opinions that was principal in the writing the Constitution that we have today is is no wonder that there has been an continuous erosion of the Rights of the State.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The American people of the 21st century are too ignorant of the long-term impact of their ill-considered public policy desires. Our rights of private property will always be sacrificed on the altar of democracy. If the masses can confiscate the wealth of the few through the use of government under the color of “social justice,” “economic justice,” “environmental justice,” and “shared responsibility,” they will.The senate was supposed to be populated with disinterested statesmen of integrity and honor–closer to Franklin than Franken. The civic knowledge landscape of the American electorate and the elected is not a pretty picture. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s (www.isi.org) reports for the last few years present a dismal, horrifying dumbing down of Americans. We’ve gotten to the point where someone like me, just a common man, could now be seen as an elitist.
Just give the people their bread and circuses (panem et circenses) In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace.The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel).and the individual rights and liberties of others can be trampled without notice or concern to the long-term detriment of all.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.
Hugo Black
No comments:
Post a Comment