It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

*Revolutionary War Watch* USA

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
The Declaration of Independence is not a law, its a symbolic statement but its not law.




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The Constitution Is the Law of this land, unless it interfears with what this Adminisrtation wants.

Hearing John Ashcroft the Attorney Gerneral of the US stateing that the Constitution hinders him in the fight against terrorists is a buch of crap, our present Attorney General, thinks if you don't agree with him you should have your genitalia elecrtified.

If the hate law thats in congress passes forget about ever expressing your opinions hear, Ever...Again.

The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights is the Basic that form the Constitution, more so than anyother document or book[bible]

peace



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Please spare us your love for this administration.

Now, the bill of rights is a law they are amendments, the Declaration of Independence is not like I said before a law, so it doesn't give you any rights.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Please spare us your love for this administration.

Now, the bill of rights is a law they are amendments, the Declaration of Independence is not like I said before a law, so it doesn't give you any rights.


How come in a different thread you said that gun confiscations in disasters are legal but then in this thread you say the bill of rights are laws. The 2nd Ammendment is part of the Bill of Rights, so wouldn't it be illegal to confiscate guns no matter the circumstances?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
No, if you read what I have posted, I said confiscating guns can be legal depending on the circumstances. It doesn't mean the right to bear arms abolished, so stop looking at things in black and white.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Please spare us your love for this administration.

Now, the bill of rights is a law they are amendments, the Declaration of Independence is not like I said before a law, so it doesn't give you any rights.


WestPoint23

The fact that we are human beings gives us the right to free speech as well as the rest of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. This way of thinking is the natural way of life and is way above you me and the law. This goes for every American, every African, Asian, Middle Easterner. Every person, animal, plant microbe everything, EVERY LIVING CREATURE EVERYWHERE. It's been this way since the beginning and it will be this way until after everyone and thing is long gone from this planet, galaxy, universe. Rememver, life naturally is free thinging and independant.

If WE as a race feel we are being unjustly ruled then WE as a people have every right to do someting about it. We have the right to live the way we want using our rights as living, breathing beings to defend our selves, family, community and way of living. No matter what it takes.

Our minds have, over hundredths of thousand of years developed to think, reason, Communicate, invent, build, explore, to want, to need, to desire, to love, to respect and anything else you can think of. That is where these rights come from. And not you or any politician/leader in ANY country anywhere can take these rights away with any law, justified or not.

WestPoint, I do appologise and absolutely mean no offense, but your logic is dangerously flawed and I really feel sorry for you.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
You speak of rights...but can you tell me what one is? I'm not asking for an example, I'm asking you to explain to me what one is.

Define "right" for me, please.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
its something humans coined as an intellectual species, for the sake of our own insecurities we propagate reflections of what humanity should consist of. thats what our founding fathers determained while drafting the constitution. there are no rights persay, just set laws and belifes brought about by institutionalized architechtures. in this ever changing world do rights and laws for people change?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No, if you read what I have posted, I said confiscating guns can be legal depending on the circumstances. It doesn't mean the right to bear arms abolished, so stop looking at things in black and white.


So if im correct in assuming, you think it would be ok under the right circumstances to suspend the Constitution?...How about the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
it has been done before:

www.propertyrightsresearch.org...

The Civil War is something I have studied since childhood, my father was the same way, we would have Long conversations about it. Look up Shermans March:



The myth of Lincoln is a powerful one owing mainly to his murder and subsequent martyrdom. Had he lived, many believe that his failed national socialist system would be revealed more for the failure it was and is. Once removed from office by the electorate, his many abuses of power and war crimes against humanity would have been exposed by the press. As long as Lincoln was in power, any editorial or reporting critical of his war policies or actions was literally a ticket to jail. Thousands of reporters, editors and publishers were jailed during the war without trial. But since Lincoln was murdered, it became verboten, at least politically, to say or write anything that would besmirch his character. This veil of protection extended to the generals who implemented his policies of "total war," victory at any cost, by any means.


www.georgiaheritagecoalition.org...




When one considers all that occurred during the very turbulent period of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln is usually considered to be a hero. During his presidency, he managed to keep the United States of America together and gave a people held in bondage, American slaves, the freedom they so desperately deserved. Like almost every president who preceded him, Lincoln's actions at the time were somewhat controversial. Some of his most controversial decisions might actually be considered now to be abuses of the Presidential power. During his terms as president, he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution.





The writ of Habeas Corpus protects Americans from being unjustly imprisoned. Without it, law is a sham. The writ creates the gap between freedom and despotism. Its origin dates back to the formation of our country, and the tenet that all men have equality under the law. The writ ensures that no on can be unjustly imprisoned. Any prisoner feeling this right is being abused has the ability to petition to be seen before a judge, who can declare his arrest unlawful and have him released. Yet, during the initial year of the American Civil War, Lincoln used his power and removed that right, first in Baltimore, New York, and eventually the entire union. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ before he made an official proclamation. Joshua Kleinfeld, an author who has researched this issue, wrote that "when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.


www.civilwarhome.com...

Study our history, so we don't make the same mistakes again....the things above are what can happen when the Constitution is Suspended....We as a people Can't let this happen again.

My "Love" for this administration
yeah thats a good one.

But really who are the ones that would suspend the constitution Today? The same type of Republicans that did it so many years ago????
or me?????????

peace

[edit on 3-10-2005 by LDragonFire]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
>its something humans coined as an intellectual species

I was actually looking for a response from jmilici, because he appears to be contradicting himself. But, to be sure, I have to know what he means by the words he's using.

I gave my own answer a few pages back.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
>its something humans coined as an intellectual species

I was actually looking for a response from jmilici, because he appears to be contradicting himself. But, to be sure, I have to know what he means by the words he's using.

I gave my own answer a few pages back.


bucket

I fail to see where I contradict myself. You will need to point that out to me. And for your answer all you need to do is read my post.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
No...I just checked through the entire thread, and nowhere in any of your three messages is it clear to me exactly what you mean by the word "right."

You state that we have them:

"The fact that we are human beings gives us the right to free speech"

...and you give some examples of things you believe are rights we possess:

"WE as a people have every right to do someting about it. We have the right to live the way we want"

...you state where you believe they *come* from:

"Our minds have, over hundredths of thousand of years developed to think...That is where these rights come from.

...and you say that they cannot be taken away:

"not you or any politician/leader in ANY country anywhere can take these rights away"

But nowhere do you state what one is

>I fail to see where I contradict myself.
>You will need to point that out to me.

I will be happy to...just as soon as I'm sure that you are. Again, you might not be. But until I know what you're trying to say, it's difficult for me to tell. So...if everything you've said makes perfect, absolute sense, and I just don't know what y ou're talking about...well, so be it. Worse things have happened.

So, if you could please clarify for me...what exactly is a "right?"



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
First, I only had two posts that were relavent and the fist was just a quick statement that was close to the start of the thread. I have been lurching ever since and decided to post my opinion after reading WestPoint's threads.


Originally posted by LordBucket
>its something humans coined as an intellectual species

I was actually looking for a response from jmilici, because he appears to be contradicting himself. But, to be sure, I have to know what he means by the words he's using.

I gave my own answer a few pages back.


Well, you probably will not be satisified, I usually have a hard time finding the proper wording to describe or give definitions. But I will try. First I took these two definations (definations # 1 &4) from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.




1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

4 : the cause of truth or justice

Link

Those two definations closely match my idea of what 'rights' are. I do however want to add on slightly to the first one. I want to add that even without lawful authority a person still has rights. And, when these rights are not written, spoken or enforced a person has a moral obligation to not abuse those rights. Hopefully with those definations and reading my post above you will understand what 'rights' mean to me.

This statement might help explain myself a little.
I have a right to live.

I will be honest I am having trouble defining it. I never tried to do this before. It is something that has always been an instinct or feeling to me ever since I can remember. I still remember when I first learned about the constitution and was a little dumbfounded that things got so bad that we actually had to write down something that in my opinion is hardwired into a person or living creature.

I hope this satisifies you. And I still cannot see why you would even think that I contradict myself.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
>Those two definations closely match my idea of what 'rights' are.

Unfortunately neither of those two definitions make much sense within the context of the sentences you used the word in. For example:

Original:
"The fact that we are human beings gives us the right to free speech "

Clarified With Definition for "Right"
With Definition #1) "The fact that we are human beings is our quality which constitutes mroal approval of our free speech

With Definition #4: "The fact that we are human beings is the cause of our having free speech"

See? Neither of them really say anything.

>I will be honest I am having trouble defining it.
>I never tried to do this before.

No worries. Like I said, I wasn't very clear on what you were trying to say. If it's because you weren't very claer on the meaning of the words you were using, well...that would explain it.

>This statement might help explain myself a little.
>I have a right to live.

Ok...but what does that mean that you have a "right to live?" Does that mean that "it would be nice if you lived?" Does that mean that "you getting to live would be morally proper?"

Again, it's very unclear.

I presume that you don't mean that your life is certain, or assurred by anyone, because it isn't. You could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Or, you could be charged with treason and executed by the state. Nobody...not me, not the government, not the church, not God...nobody is saying for certain that "you will live." You might. You might not. Oh, sure...it would be nice if you did. But given the force with which people argue over rights, you'd really think they meant something more meaningful than "Gee...it would be nice if..."

So again...I'd very much like to come to know what exactly you (and incidentally...a lot of other people as well) mean, when they talk about "rights."



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Well when I say I have a right to live, I am not leaving it up to anybody or anything but myself. It is up to me to ensure my survival. Therefore I have a right to protect myself and ensure my survival and well being. From there I can then put together my lists (for lack of a better word) of 'rights' that I am entitled to. So long as those rights do not morally hurt the innocence or impede on the rights of another. The right to life or live is one of the more important rights where everything else is built off of.

For example, if my life is threatened I will defend myself with what ever it takes to continue my existence. At the same time, I will try not to use excessive force to achieve my goals or hurt in any way a person that has no invlovement in the matter. That is where the moral side comes in.

As for my definations I was only trying put a something in writing. It is not intended to have my words plugged in. They are just minimum requirements, if you will, to try and explain myself.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I'm still not sure I follow.

You're saying that if something is a "right" that doesn't mean it is in any way certain, or gaunrunteed by anyone. And it doesn't mean that anyone but you is obligated to try to uphold it. But just that you are entitled to *try* to make it so.

Ok.

So...I therefore have the right to have a supermodel for a girlfriend?

After all, no one is ensuring or gaurunteeing it, but I'm certainly entitled to try and make it happen, right?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
I'm still not sure I follow.

You're saying that if something is a "right" that doesn't mean it is in any way certain, or gaunrunteed by anyone. And it doesn't mean that anyone but you is obligated to try to uphold it. But just that you are entitled to *try* to make it so.

Ok.

So...I therefore have the right to have a supermodel for a girlfriend?

After all, no one is ensuring or gaurunteeing it, but I'm certainly entitled to try and make it happen, right?



L.B., no offense but you are looking way too much into it. Your last post actually confused me. It really is not as complicated as you are making it.

I can't think of any other way of explaining myself so I am just going to leave it at what I have posted already.

Also know that I mean no disrespect to you from this post.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
No worries.

I was never very clear on what you meant either.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Revolution? Civil War? There is alot of talk and a lot of speculation about this topic, here is a video of a Russian Professor and his opinion of whats going to happen.



John Titor predicted that the US would split up into 5 different parts [not much of what titor said has come to pass] the Russian says it will be 6. Im not sure what to think, I do know that many militia groups are forming across the US

We all know Sorcha Faal is a hoaxer but there is still alot to talk, and her story about Obama ordering 1 million US troops to be ready by Jan 2010 is most likely another hoax, but what if there is truth in these words?

There is of course the seemingly impending complete economic collapse of the USA. What happens when the dollar completely collapses? We have 300 million plus people armed to the teeth and many of these people have lost everything and have nothing to lose?

What say you?




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join