Posted on Feb 11, 2021
6
6
0
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The key phrase "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it". I say this as I feel our government could possibly be described as a soft despotism democracy especially considering the rhetoric from many progressives wanting to "pack the courts", do away with the electoral vote as well repeal the 2nd amendment. All of which would fundamentally change America and more importantly limit our "constitutional rights" and freedoms.
https://fee.org/articles/soft-despotism-is-the-unique-threat-to-american-liberty/
The key phrase "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it". I say this as I feel our government could possibly be described as a soft despotism democracy especially considering the rhetoric from many progressives wanting to "pack the courts", do away with the electoral vote as well repeal the 2nd amendment. All of which would fundamentally change America and more importantly limit our "constitutional rights" and freedoms.
https://fee.org/articles/soft-despotism-is-the-unique-threat-to-american-liberty/
Rights
Government
Law
Edited 4 y ago
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 5
11
11
0
The Constitution does not create rights nor does it provide for all rights (which includes the natural right of people to "...to alter or abolish [their government] and to institute new Government..." That last mentioned right was exercised to "sever" [America's] ties with Great Britain and form a new government. Natural rights aren't recognized outside of America in any time of history. Indeed, it appears that the Left doesn't hold much truck with them either (although they are exercising the right to abolish our present government and the Constitution by which it was formed).
(11)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SPC David S.
I feel many of our founding fathers made it rather clear in their writings of the dangers in allowing our democracy to default to a despot democracy. Not trying to start a revolution more so trying to understand the limits of our natural rights. I think the days of grabbing your pitchfork are long gone but equally feel the same about our original democracy.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
History is written by the victor, and the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter/patriot is measured in victory.
BLUF: if you rebel, and you lose, you will forever be branded traitors and terrorists in the history books.
If you win, you can write the history books and call yourselves patriots and heroes.
Whether or not a rebellion is constitutional depends on who wins, and can subsequently write the history books.
BLUF: if you rebel, and you lose, you will forever be branded traitors and terrorists in the history books.
If you win, you can write the history books and call yourselves patriots and heroes.
Whether or not a rebellion is constitutional depends on who wins, and can subsequently write the history books.
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
SFC Casey O'Mally in fairness, when the southern states wrote their articles of secession and declared their "god given right to own slaves" as their primary reason for secession, they kinda doomed themselves to the villain category.
Its kinda hard to put a positive spin on that, though the gods know people are still trying to this day...
Its kinda hard to put a positive spin on that, though the gods know people are still trying to this day...
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Michael Hasbun - We say that now... and most likely Northerners would continue to say that. But if the South had won? I bet they would have a pretty different outlook.
Of course, the entire world would be a different world if there was not a United America come World War I, let alone World War II. (And America would also likely have not expanded to its current size, but I digress.) So it is very hard to see what "right" would look like today, because for all we know, we could be speaking German in that alternate reality.
(Please do not think that I am in anyway advocating or defending slavery. Just looking at it from a historical/"what if" perspective, without using values judgments.)
Of course, the entire world would be a different world if there was not a United America come World War I, let alone World War II. (And America would also likely have not expanded to its current size, but I digress.) So it is very hard to see what "right" would look like today, because for all we know, we could be speaking German in that alternate reality.
(Please do not think that I am in anyway advocating or defending slavery. Just looking at it from a historical/"what if" perspective, without using values judgments.)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
So, SPC David S., you state that "many progressives wanting to "pack the courts."" I'm wondering what you used the word progressives instead of politicians. As I remember, then-President Obama placed the name of Merrick Garland in front of the Senate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, some 300 days before the end of Obama's presidency. But Leader McConnell chose to "wait for the next president to make an appointment" and Garland's nomination died at the end of the 114th session of Congress. Then, 28 days later, we saw the onslaught of conservative justices nominated and appointed in the next 3 years. Sounds like packing to me.
And what about Trump's appointments of some 250 conservative judges across the United States? Were any of the openings filled by Democrats (I still like to refer to them by their party name instead of your "progressives")? I think not........
We should be careful what language we use so as not to create the type of situation we see taking place right now in the Senate chambers.
And what about Trump's appointments of some 250 conservative judges across the United States? Were any of the openings filled by Democrats (I still like to refer to them by their party name instead of your "progressives")? I think not........
We should be careful what language we use so as not to create the type of situation we see taking place right now in the Senate chambers.
(2)
(0)
SGT Mark Halmrast
Packing historically has meant expanding the number of Justices.
Filling vacancies with Justices if a particular judicial philosophy has historically not been considered "packing" but "shaping" the Court.
Shaping the Court is the norm. Packing the Court is not the norm.
Just trying to be careful with the language.
Filling vacancies with Justices if a particular judicial philosophy has historically not been considered "packing" but "shaping" the Court.
Shaping the Court is the norm. Packing the Court is not the norm.
Just trying to be careful with the language.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Karl Swenson
Thank you for the correction and explanation SGT Mark Halmrast, we all need to learn what we're talking about. It is indeed neccesary that we use right and careful language - especially in these days. And that is why I object to the use of the word "progressives" instead of Democrats because most folks do not know the true meaning of the word and its history. The Progressive Party was actually a splinter party that broke away from the Republican Party in 1912 and actually fielded Teddy Roosevelt as its presidential candidate that year. Roosevelt lost that election to incumbent Taft and the party begin to dissolve with no sign of it by 1920. So, then looking at the current dictionary definition of Progressive is "one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action." Sounds Democratic to me....
(2)
(0)
SGT Mark Halmrast
MAJ Karl Swenson Airborne, sir.
I think the term Progressive re-emerged on our political scene when Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Socialist and member of the Democrat Caucus, gained in popularity during his presidential runs. It has since been applied to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez of NY and others that are generally considered left of left-of-center.
Seems to be a case where the precise use has been, or is in the process of being, replaced by the present day common usage.
The labels can become distracting...a way to distill beyond the terms is to examine the policy positions and, importantly, policy actions. Your example of the shift in the courts is an example of that.
Thank you for the chat, sir.
I think the term Progressive re-emerged on our political scene when Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Socialist and member of the Democrat Caucus, gained in popularity during his presidential runs. It has since been applied to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez of NY and others that are generally considered left of left-of-center.
Seems to be a case where the precise use has been, or is in the process of being, replaced by the present day common usage.
The labels can become distracting...a way to distill beyond the terms is to examine the policy positions and, importantly, policy actions. Your example of the shift in the courts is an example of that.
Thank you for the chat, sir.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google