The Declaration of Independence

[RogueUSMC]

Just last Saturday my wife and I enjoyed the musical "1776" and we learned a little more about Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin than we knew before. Of course, we're sure the musical jazzed things up a little. It's amazing that all the states' delegates finally agreed to the wording and signed off. New York and Pennsylvania delegates came close to spoiling the brew. Interesting stuff.

Swing states?...lol

[anygunanywhere]

A very timely post...

"...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. "

We are not bound to the federal leviathan. Those who profit from its existence, of course maintain that we are...

Jeff B.

Ahh but we are. The conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression and Texas v. White settled that. Once a State has entered the union, it is no longer an independent state and cannot dissolve the bonds of said union peacefully or through force. Since the Constitution states that it and Federal Law is "the supreme law of the land", once in, the formerly free state must now be subject and no longer wholly free.

Says the court that is part of the government that threatens force against free states.

[Middle Age Russ]

The fires of Liberty on these shores were stoked by the actions of the Crown, as documented in the Declaration. The actions of the Crown were hard on all the subjects in the Colonies, but unacceptable to a small percentage of the landed gentry, whose tireless efforts culminated in the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War. Had the King's actions been less onerous on the average subject in the Americas, the cries of the few for throwing off the shackles of tyranny would have been for naught. As it turned out, the cries were like the first coals catching fire in a forge.

Because we, the People, have allowed the Federal government to escape the bounds of the Constitution -- and helped that process along in most cases -- it is up to us to rein in the stampede of Federal tyranny. Liberty requires accountability, responsibility and limited government, and we must demand these things of our elected officials -- and of ourselves.

[ScottDLS]

A very timely post...

"...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. "

We are not bound to the federal leviathan. Those who profit from its existence, of course maintain that we are...

Jeff B.

Ahh but we are. The conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression and Texas v. White settled that. Once a State has entered the union, it is no longer an independent state and cannot dissolve the bonds of said union peacefully or through force. Since the Constitution states that it and Federal Law is "the supreme law of the land", once in, the formerly free state must now be subject and no longer wholly free.

You only quoted part of it. The declaration of Independence is speaking to the right of ALL the colonies/states COLLECTIVELY to what other NATION STATES do, not the individual state entities. This is further reinforced in the Constitution as amended. Federal supremacy was well established by the time of the "Whiskey Rebellion" in Western Pennsylvania & territories, but even shortly after the Civil War the Federal government was no where near as intrusive as it is today. Funyy thing is if you look at the reasons in the Declaration of Independence and for the Confederate states rebellion, they are in some ways very minor compared to what we put up with from the central government today...

[Jeff B.]

A very timely post...

"...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. "

We are not bound to the federal leviathan. Those who profit from its existence, of course maintain that we are...

Jeff B.

Ahh but we are. The conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression and Texas v. White settled that. Once a State has entered the union, it is no longer an independent state and cannot dissolve the bonds of said union peacefully or through force. Since the Constitution states that it and Federal Law is "the supreme law of the land", once in, the formerly free state must now be subject and no longer wholly free.

You are correct...

For now. Nothing is ever settled if there are those who don't accept the prevailing or imposed view.

It's conceivable that the "secession" that everybody usually associates with the South or various parts of the West/NorthWest, could come from a surprise movement from someplace like California, from a desire to get away from the reactionary and non enlightened States of the interior.

If that was to come to pass I surely wouldn't stand ion their way.

Jeff B.

[wil]

A very timely post...

"...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. "

We are not bound to the federal leviathan. Those who profit from its existence, of course maintain that we are...

Jeff B.

Ahh but we are. The conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression and Texas v. White settled that. Once a State has entered the union, it is no longer an independent state and cannot dissolve the bonds of said union peacefully or through force. Since the Constitution states that it and Federal Law is "the supreme law of the land", once in, the formerly free state must now be subject and no longer wholly free.

If the basis of legitimate authority is based on the consent of the governed, as identified in the declaration of independence.
Why can that same consent not be withdrawn when the same government becomes destructive to the ends it was originally designed to protect? As is also correctly identified in the declaration of independence.
Consent given freely can also be withdrawn freely, is one of the supreme laws of this country as identified in the declaration of independence.
Can you give me a basis of validity why this is not true?

[Hoodasnacks]

with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

With firm reliance on the protection of divine providence...that is the only thing that will save us now. I do not see the constitution being saved--even if we get the right judges for one more term of a presidency. In order to rely on providence, we need to be worthy of it. That is where I am focusing my efforts. Let's not get too wrapped up in the daily garbage and remember that we may need to band together. If we can then rely on divine providence, we will be unstoppable.

[Pawpaw]

with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

With firm reliance on the protection of divine providence...that is the only thing that will save us now. I do not see the constitution being saved--even if we get the right judges for one more term of a presidency. In order to rely on providence, we need to be worthy of it. That is where I am focusing my efforts. Let's not get too wrapped up in the daily garbage and remember that we may need to band together. If we can then rely on divine providence, we will be unstoppable.

The constitution will survive.

It may require the millions of American veterans, along with other like-minded individuals, rising up in armed revolt, but the constitution will survive. You see, we swore an oath...

[The Annoyed Man]

You see, we swore an oath...

And as my Life Group leader says sometimes, no one has relieved him of it yet.

[Hoodasnacks]

with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

With firm reliance on the protection of divine providence...that is the only thing that will save us now. I do not see the constitution being saved--even if we get the right judges for one more term of a presidency. In order to rely on providence, we need to be worthy of it. That is where I am focusing my efforts. Let's not get too wrapped up in the daily garbage and remember that we may need to band together. If we can then rely on divine providence, we will be unstoppable.

The constitution will survive.

It may require the millions of American veterans, along with other like-minded individuals, rising up in armed revolt, but the constitution will survive. You see, we swore an oath...

Your point is well taken, I would amend to say...I do not see it being saved for the country as we know it. It will always exist with good people of this land. I think (and hope) balkanization would happen before revolution. Either way, I will stand with good people.

My main point is...man could we use some providence like our founders had.

[oljames3]

You see, we swore an oath...

And as my Life Group leader says sometimes, no one has relieved him of it yet.

September, 1973, 'til death do us part.

[bblhd672]

A very timely post...

"...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. "

We are not bound to the federal leviathan. Those who profit from its existence, of course maintain that we are...

Jeff B.

Ahh but we are. The conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression and Texas v. White settled that. Once a State has entered the union, it is no longer an independent state and cannot dissolve the bonds of said union peacefully or through force. Since the Constitution states that it and Federal Law is "the supreme law of the land", once in, the formerly free state must now be subject and no longer wholly free.

That would be the same "Supreme" Court that says it is constitutional to kill unborn babies by the millions, that essentially rewrote Obamacare in order to declare it constitutional? The same court that under a Clinton presidency will likely say the 2nd Amendment as we know it is no longer valid?
The words of the Declaration clearly lay out for us today what our rights are as the people to dissolve a non-working, corrupt and belligerent government.

[Jeff B.]

This is and has been a great discussion thread. The most impressive part has been the method and tone off our exchanges. On many boards, this discussion would have degenerated into a flame war and mud slinging.

Not here, in large part due to the example set by the proprietor of this virtual water cooler.

Jeff B.

[Papa_Tiger]

That would be the same "Supreme" Court that says it is constitutional to kill unborn babies by the millions, that essentially rewrote Obamacare in order to declare it constitutional? The same court that under a Clinton presidency will likely say the 2nd Amendment as we know it is no longer valid?
The words of the Declaration clearly lay out for us today what our rights are as the people to dissolve a non-working, corrupt and belligerent government.

I'm just saying that the last time a group of states tried to leave the union, they were dragged back in after an estimated 620,000 men lost their lives in the line of duty. The next time a state or group of states decides that it is time to pull out of the American experiment or try to reboot it... Lets just say it will not be pretty for the US or the rest of the world.

Remaking nations is not a pretty business and not something that should be done while the evils of the current government are sufferable.
I have a hard time believing that even under Hillary
* The US government will commit enough blatant atrocities to rekindle the warrior spirit of the American People
* There are enough people who live on principle in the US and are willing to die on principle that they will rise up against an overreaching government
* Those who would rise up would have the support they needed to win against said despotic government, particularly when the masses who have in large part voted for said government have their entitlements and handouts disrupted

It is one thing to dissolve allegiance to a government that is weeks away by the fastest transport available when communication is slow at best when you are relatively self sufficient. It is another thing entirely to dissolve allegiance to a government that is at most 5 hours away by plane that has near instantaneous communication capability and a significant monopoly on force.