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

You know, there was a time when I was all for demanding that colony back, including back taxes. But now? Nah, it's in an even worse economic state than we are so rather pointless!

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Those were my first thoughts on the whole subject.

I actually read a thread a while back it...But didn't know what exactly it was called..So thanks for reminding me!

So, does this mean, "we", still own "them"..Yet they don't know it?

I don't know much about that era, I guess our American cousins (traitors that they are ) will know more about it due to it being the birth of their Country.

Have the US ever compensated the Brits for assets, like land that was seized around that time? I'm sure many Brits owned land back then.

As for the legality of claiming independence, well a revolution is a revolution, who's laws should the revolutionists have to adhere to?

We lost the Americas a long time ago through the will of the people who lived there.

If the UK was charging the US to "recoup the cost of protecting" them and they were charging ludicrous taxation with no representation of those being taxed then the King was out of line.

If a people are to pay taxes to a government that does not provide anything to those people, then that gov't has no standing in that land.

Let's forget for the moment all the rest of the reasons. If the UK had an uprising in India threatening a more profitable continent then North America and could not offer the "protection" due all of it's colonies, then it wasn't due any of the profits of those people who would have to protect themselves.

That a King, 1000's of mile away, laid claim to every acre, every tree, every animal, while the people in the frontier had to hack out a means of survival from, those resources were earned from the land by the people with their own blood.

Britain's protection of "their own" property from the French had nothing to do with the welfare of the people and had only to do with an international power play by the worlds superpowers of the day and nothing to do with the Americans at all.

reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe


Interesting....But who is the "WE"??

The UK of now is FAR FAR Removed from the UK of 1770 or even 1870.

For at Least the Last 200 years the "REAL" British have been leaving the little Island in Droves, to seek warmer clims and greener (well maybe not) pastures.
America, Australia, Western Canada, NZ are all populated from solid REAL British stock, while during the past 50 years, the UK has realised it lost all the "Good Ones" and have repopulated with peasants and the like from India, Pakistan, West Indies, and Africa....to the obvious destruction of its society.
I seriously doubt that Mother England could survive another war like WW2...There are just Not Enough British citizens Loyal to Britain left.....not to mention the lack of Engineering and industrial know-how to get the job done.

Of course, you could call back your original genetic stock, perhaps with the offer of a nice castle or two, or one of those country homes on 1000 acres......that would be nice thanks.......Tally Ho, pip pip...theres a Jolly good fellow. See...We still Got it.. .

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

Those were my first thoughts on the whole subject.

I actually read a thread a while back it...But didn't know what exactly it was called..So thanks for reminding me!

So, does this mean, "we", still own "them"..Yet they don't know it?

Pretty much ... yes

Originally posted by gort51
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe

 

Interesting....But who is the "WE"??

The UK of now is FAR FAR Removed from the UK of 1770 or even 1870.

For at Least the Last 200 years the "REAL" British have been leaving the little Island in Droves, to seek warmer clims and greener (well maybe not) pastures.
America, Australia, Western Canada, NZ are all populated from solid REAL British stock, while during the past 50 years, the UK has realised it lost all the "Good Ones" and have repopulated with peasants and the like from India, Pakistan, West Indies, and Africa....to the obvious destruction of its society.
I seriously doubt that Mother England could survive another war like WW2...There are just Not Enough British citizens Loyal to Britain left.....not to mention the lack of Engineering and industrial know-how to get the job done.

Of course, you could call back your original genetic stock, perhaps with the offer of a nice castle or two, or one of those country homes on 1000 acres......that would be nice thanks.......Tally Ho, pip pip...theres a Jolly good fellow. See...We still Got it..

.

Its actually not that far removed .... and theres alot of proud British people .... and as for England couldnt survive another war like WWII .... you just dont realise how effective the S.A.S and The Royal Marines are

Infact they train american armed forces ... soooooo ...

reply to post by ReptileRipper


And who do you think trained the British SAS......Thats right...The Aussie SAS!!...For Desert Warfare....And Jungle Warfare.

reply to post by gort51


I didn't even know the Aussie's had an SAS

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

Do you really think America cares what The UK may think of our Constitution?

This isn't really a case of does America care what the UK thinks...

Its a case of (and only a question with no opinion from me) "Was the US Built On A Lie?"

The American peoples opinion of the UK's opinion is kinda irrespective here!

edit on 20/10/11 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)

Of course America was built on a lie. Not only that but built by thieves as well. Everything America has has either been stolen or there has been a series of grand lies and plots to achieve the goal. That's why we are "The land of the free."

Must add this, your title is totally incorrect. I am from the UK and I certainly do jot think the declaration of independance is illegal. In fact the complete opposite is true. So when you say the "UK" thinks so, you are totally wrong, sorry.

The Power That Be dont like it because it stops them from having overall power in the US, if this goes then so does the fourth of july celebrations.

reply to post by gort51


Its all the same technique .... and the S.A.S was banded in England ..... soooo .... theres only one REAL S.A.S.

reply to post by gort51


So you reckon the Aussies train the SAS? So answer me this..........The SAS was formed in 1941 (The Worlds first special forces) The fought in the Desert's of North Africa against Rommel. So who trained then to fight in the Desert in 1941? I will awit your answer with interest.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
Our separation from the tyranny of King George was just, and the British cannot argue that point as they themselves removed the monarchal control over their own kingdom and replaced it with a Parliament, basically removing the rule of a single master and replacing that “rule” with a hand up the ass. Were they treasonous in doing so? Let them argue that.

Erm I think you'll find parliament was established BEFORE King George's rule.

At the time of the English civil war the roundheads were indeed committing treason against King Charles. BUT, subsequent changes to the rule of law and compromises resulted in a new parliament and limited powers of the monarchy.

At the time of the US war of independance the citizens of the thirteen colonies were UK citizens and under the rule of UK law and therefore the declaration of independance was an act of treason. However, just like all these things, subsequent events mean it was the basis for a new country and constitution.

Now, if the UK had won the war of independance then many (if not all) of the signatories would have been shipped to the UK, tried for treason and hung.

So in 1776 it was treason, in 1783 (treaty of Paris) it wasn't !!!!!!!!

Semantics, timing, an academic debating point that's all. However, it is a curious point that when fighting started in 1775 the militias did so because they believed their rights as Englishmen were being eroded and they remained loyal to King George! Needless to say that sentiment soon evaporated when King George, idiotically, declared them traitors.

Just one question...



Who cares?


The UK doesn't and the US doesn't...

Originally posted by neformore
Before this thread turns into a territorial peeing contest, please note that this is a debate between lawyers and not an actual position by "the UK"

So, who cares what these lawyers think? I don't. Its a ridiculous exercise and a waste of debate because it won't change a damn thing.

But just to be clear, once again, because the title of the thread is completely sensationalised and totally misleading "some lawyers may think its illegal"

"The UK" doesn't.

Your totally right...but from a UK Law point of view and from a US Law point of view, the US thinks its legal and the UK thinks its illegal.

So although this isn't the expressed opinions of the UK or US people, it still stands on the sides of Law in the respective countries and their perception of the law.

If people took the time to read what i quoted and the article itself, people would understand that this isnt the opinion of the UK people as such, more of the UK opinion regarding the law.

reply to post by alldaylong


Although i agree with what you have just said ..... i`m sure he means in modern warfare ...... but still , those techniques were already known to most of the S.A.S , but OZ has a good layout for desert op training ..... still ...... when it comes to urban / jungle / and desert warfare ...... only an idiot would fight the S.A.S

And the S.A.S was disbanded , then re-formed , they even done the first ever combat halo jump .... they lost their weapons and equipment but stayed behind enemy lines for 2 weeks using side arms and grenades to destroy fuel depots and grounded aircraft ... ... no one messes with the S.A.S

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

Those were my first thoughts on the whole subject.

I actually read a thread a while back it...But didn't know what exactly it was called..So thanks for reminding me!

So, does this mean, "we", still own "them"..Yet they don't know it?

The thread regarding "The Crown Owns The US", was one of the best threads i read in a while. How much of it is true i have no idea...

Originally posted by TreadUpon
If the UK was charging the US to "recoup the cost of protecting" them and they were charging ludicrous taxation with no representation of those being taxed then the King was out of line.

If a people are to pay taxes to a government that does not provide anything to those people, then that gov't has no standing in that land.

Let's forget for the moment all the rest of the reasons. If the UK had an uprising in India threatening a more profitable continent then North America and could not offer the "protection" due all of it's colonies, then it wasn't due any of the profits of those people who would have to protect themselves.

That a King, 1000's of mile away, laid claim to every acre, every tree, every animal, while the people in the frontier had to hack out a means of survival from, those resources were earned from the land by the people with their own blood.

Britain's protection of "their own" property from the French had nothing to do with the welfare of the people and had only to do with an international power play by the worlds superpowers of the day and nothing to do with the Americans at all.

But...

Wasn't most of the US population at the time from a UK background (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England) or a commonwealth country?

If so then they were subjects to the crown and should have been liable to pay their taxes to the crown...no?

Originally posted by gort51
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

And who do you think trained the British SAS......Thats right...The Aussie SAS!!...For Desert Warfare....And Jungle Warfare.

Lol...What the Aussie SAS who is actually made up mainly of UK citizens or lineage?

Oh Dear!!!