Is The US Declaration of Independence Illegal? - UK (Law) Thinks So...

Originally posted by ilian51378
This thread is rather amusing to people like me who do not belong to either party...

Don't let that stop you joining in, poking fun at some of the uber-patriotic americans till they're frothing at the mouth and threatening to nuke your country is probably the best fun to be had on the internet

Back to topic,
All the bickering is moot, all that's happening is some lawyers having an entirely hypothetical debate amongst themselves. No action could or would be taken whatever the outcome, fun as a mental exercise though

LOL

I fear this thread has drawn the biggest idiots from both side of the Atlantic

As a resident of the UK and blood born Englishman, I must say, I couldn't give a flying whether or not the US constitution is legal, illegal or even made of rice paper.

In fact.... I'm pretty sure the US government think the same way.

ALS

reply to post by Skewed


You are not free from british imperialism we are still helping you fight your proxy wars around the world and vice versa. Both of our countrys are controlled by a higher power that doesn't put itself on public display. If you think your president and our priminster are making the decesions then you are very delusional.

reply to post by jrmcleod


Just a few historical observations.

- The UK was bankrupt by the end of 1941 and could only continue fighting Hitler due to US lend lease.

On the other hand, while lend lease was free, the UK did make payment of sorts by transferring UK bases around the world to the US and a wholesale transfer of British UK high tech (at that time the UK & Germany were the clear technological world leaders), without any payment or subsequent royalty payments.

- The US didn't declare war on Germany. After Pearl Harbor, US support for a war in Europe was lukewarm at best.

Pearl Harbor was on the 7th Dec 1941.

US declared war on Japan 8th Dec 1941.

Hitler declared war on the US on 11th Dec. The US Navy had been attacking U Boats for a number of months.

US declared war back on 11th Dec.

- Lend Lease - 1/3 of all lend lease to Russia was British and almost all lend lease was carried to Russia from the UK in British ships.

Could the UK has continued fighting Germany after 1941?

Not a chance, without US support. On the other hand, the US did effectively force the UK to dismantle its Empire as part of the deal.

On the other hand, the UK couldn't afford it anymore anyway.

EDIT - to add more info

- Germany had effectively lost the war in Russia by not winning in 1941. US support to Russia at that time had little to no effect on that result in 1941.

What US Lend lease later did was shorten the war in the East but the Russians would have almost certainly have won it anyway.

Interesting facts - at any one time after the German invasion of the USSR, 85% of the German war machine was tied up on the Eastern front.

Even after D-Day, over 70% of the German war machine was still on the Eastern Front.

Think about that - after D-Day the British Commonwealth and the Americans faced less than 30% of the German war machine in the West, while over 70% of it was still fighting the Russians in the East.

They do say that in WWII, the British bought time, the Americans brought munitions and the Soviets paid in Blood.

Historical accuracy in this thread is amazingly informative.

For instance I've just recently watched U-571 with Matthew McConaughey.

I had no idea it was the Americans who captured an Enigma machine and codebook and deciphered it for us.

So from a grateful Brit I say thanks very much

reply to post by beezzer


Yes they would, because once Russia conquors that land who is going to help you guys?

reply to post by jrmcleod

The article linked below indicates that UK researchers have found that the Declaration of Independence is indeed illegal.

Maybe that is why King George declared all of the signees as traitors and then sent troops. It was illegal from England's perspective nad legal from ours. It to a war to settle the issue.
Next question?

reply to post by citizen3273676


Recently released documents in Russia now show how inportant the role Britain played in lend-lease to the USSR. As for the tanks that the US supplied to the USSR...........well some of them didn't reach the Russians, the Yanks used them themselves. Info here:-

www.historynet.com...

I'm not gonna read it all... Probably already mentioned.. But wasn't the the Britisch claim already illigal by "natural" law...

To my best knowledge native Indians are the rightful owners...

reply to post by jrmcleod


I think the most that Lord North and Parliament could have claimed was that America was represented by ... invisible proxy of some sort. Additionally, I read from historical accounts that Americans in general construed themselves to be Englishmen, despite titles accorded by common or written laws. Some appeared to be quite proud of that as well, much as, perhaps, the title of Roman citizen was cherished by those not natural born Romans. In any case, I also read that those who heralded the movement away from the British Crown understood that their actions constituted treason--that is, they could be executed. From that point further there (at least from what I understand) no longer existed a set of rules or an institution to determine what was or was not just. From the standpoint of that juncture I liken events that followed to those of OIF: America effectively took unilateral action under the broad interpretation of UN Security Res 1441 with the support of a "coalition of the willing." Who supported Iraq? I've no idea; possibly Syria. But in terms of the American Revolution the French and Americans eventually brokered a deal, and as far as Britain's support from the international community for follow-on operations--well I'm not certain what the consensus was at the time. Suffice it to say I think events eventually demonstrated that what is lawful is determined by outcome (i.e. to the victor go the spoils). Granted some of what I've written may be flawed & vague from an historical point of view, but in the final analysis I think this is a pretty interesting thread you've posted that I will have to think about and research for some time to come.

reply to post by jrmcleod


Of course it was illegal and treasonous to the Brits. Thats why we fought two wars with them over it.

This sounds like an excersice in futility between between people who think they are high minded and have nothing better to do.

It would be nice if they spent their energies doing something productive, and helpful to society in stead of something divisive.

there are documents, that i have read that still exist as current law in the U.S that the U.K still owns the U.S, that independence was never actually declared under oath of law.

But don't get all angry and hasty over my comment, does it really matter? because when we pull from the E.U via referendum or by brut force of civil war, the U.K cannot exist and protect itself alone and will likely join the U.S in the same way Hawaii or Alaska did or secretly like Puerto Rico within my lifetime, my guess 2015.

reply to post by technologicalsingularity


As I recall the crown still owns some of the most valuable real estate in the world.

I heard they own Manhattan island somewhere.

Doesn't the act of declaring independence kind of, sort of, well, completely and intentionally disregard any law against doing so? Defiance was the point.

Really, how is it relevant?

Stupid Sadaam... he should have just enacted a law against US invasion...

reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar


what isnt being asked by anyone, is why the sudden investigation into this, what provoked it, what instigated the investigation, who started the investigation and why? something is on the horizon folks.

reply to post by technologicalsingularity


A bunch of lawyers from the UK and UKSA(lol) performing an experiment, nothing more, nothing less. No-one is making any claims of ownership or anything, just some folks blow things out of proportion.

Originally posted by TechniXcality

Originally posted by sith9157
Yeah who really cares what the U.K. thinks about this. This document was put into being to escape paying taxes to a tyrannical monarchy across the ocean. England has done worse throughout the ages to its neighbors. Scotland anyone?
We were not going to be ruled by a king.

wouldnt be a king, it would be a queen. Infact we are the King, thats why we caught so much slack from or spouse, U.K but we love them, and they love us. we are allies and will never betray eachother

edit on 20-10-2011 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)

When the Declaration was written, it was a king...George III was the King of England from 1760 to 1820

reply to post by jrmcleod

I agree, who cares what the British see as legal or not. It was Revolution. It was treason against a tyrannical government.

Originally posted by sith9157

Originally posted by TechniXcality

Originally posted by sith9157
Yeah who really cares what the U.K. thinks about this. This document was put into being to escape paying taxes to a tyrannical monarchy across the ocean. England has done worse throughout the ages to its neighbors. Scotland anyone?
We were not going to be ruled by a king.

wouldnt be a king, it would be a queen. Infact we are the King, thats why we caught so much slack from or spouse, U.K but we love them, and they love us. we are allies and will never betray eachother

edit on 20-10-2011 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)

When the Declaration was written, it was a king...George III was the King of England from 1760 to 1820

Whatever man, you people are really annoying? as if any of this conjecture has anything to do with our current relations? I think i said it before in my posts but ill say it again, American independence had to be won for our current relationship to exist as it is. All you anti Americans need to shut up, All you anti British need to shut up. This alliance is the strongest alliance ever formed by two nations, that happen to be super powers. We need to be focusing on more important topics at hand. Like the governments who hate us, and wish nothing but western philosophy to end. For both of you patriotic bickerings, isnt it intresting that when reffering to the west they are reffering to the two superpowers and there allies? Own it, Im a yank, proud to be.. Thanks for reading this and all of my yank mispellings/grammatical erros, who was so lazy and drunk not to use spell check.