Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
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.


My god...this thread is...nevermind!

Don't judge a book by its cover, don't judge a thread by its title. Read the article and you will see that (the UK thinks so) is from a UK Law Aspect...

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




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Perhaps you remember a little tiff called WW1? Perhaps you are aware that the A.I.F. fought in areas of North Africa and Turkey?
Well back then, we had to train our MotherLand brothers in Desert Warfare......Back then it was known as..

G.O.Y.H.Y.B.A.S.!!!! translated too....Get On Ya Horse Ya Bastard And Shoot!!!
Ever Heard of the Light Horse Infantry.....Well they were the Aussie SAS, who taught the Poms....

Im Mean seriously!! You guys are so sensitive......We Kick your Arse in Cricket, Rugby, Soccer and any other sport you love.......Dont feel bad..

BTY, we fought in Every war that England has ever had, from Waterloo to the Roman invasion.
Remember Australia didnt exist as a country until 1901.
As we are still 90% Anglo Saxon.....We ARE the British!!!




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Of course the Declaration of Independence is illegal under British law. It only makes sense.

It would be like Alaska or Hawaii trying to declare independence from the US today. The feds would have a cow, and our legal system would show them 100 reasons why they can't do that. It's illegal. And it's treasonous. I think it's called a revolution.
Unfortunately, neither state would fare well in an armed conflict though, and would still fall back into US hands.

A good thread. S&F OP.

It's interesting to note though. Citizens of both the UK and the US still have our little national pride. And we'll get in a thread and dis on one another about superiority. But we won't come together and throw out the treasonous bastards that sit in the seats of power in both countries. What's wrong with this picture?
edit on 10/20/2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 


Parliament did indeed exist during that time, but a Parliament being headed by an elected Prime Minister did not, which was my point. A point I should have made, I suppose. Semantics.

This thread has quickly diluted down into a pissing contest between Brits and Yanks, which is exactly what I thought would happen. Patriotism on both sides is running rampant, which is both admirable and amusing.


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



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod

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?



What can "subjects" expect from a "crown"? What are they paying for? I don't know anyone that like to pay for nothing. It's happening again right now.

And the gov't, again, will say independence is illegal. And, again, the people won;t care what the gov't thinks.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
"The UK thinks so," that's got to be one of the greatest generalisations i've read in a while. The UK is incapable of independant thought, it's made up of 60 million + individuals who all have their own opinions.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


This whole thing was basically an academic debating club between US and British lawyers, therefore it isn't even accurate to say UK law or US law "thinks". Rather the thread should be called "as an interesting debating tool between legal eagles on either side of the atlantic, is the US declaration of independence illegal?".

And i stand by my response in the other thread. Give us back Alaska and call it quits - we need it but will be nice and allow you to repatriate Sarah Palin first



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
"The UK thinks so," that's got to be one of the greatest generalisations i've read in a while. The UK is incapable of independant thought, it's made up of 60 million + individuals who all have their own opinions.


OK title changed...

On a side note, did you actually read the article?



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
America never claimed the declaration of independence was legal under British law.

The declaration of independence is not a legal document but rather a declaration of independence.

At the time, it was illegal, treason, which is what started the American Revolution when the British invaded America.

The British lost that war, making the legality of America's independence a moot point.

If the British have a problem with this they could start another war.

The British ultimately took control over America through the financial system since they could not defeat them through warfare.
edit on 20-10-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by gort51
reply to post by alldaylong
 



Im Mean seriously!! You guys are so sensitive......We Kick your Arse in Cricket, Rugby, Soccer and any other sport you love.......Dont feel bad..



I take exception to that. You never beat us at footba.....rugb......well at least we have the cricket!



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


I did, i think it was an exercise in futility, maybe there were some bored lawyers with some time on their hands. I wonder if they'll debate the legality of The British Empire invading india, south africa and hong Kong. While we're at it let's debate if The Romans had a legal reason to invade Gaul.
edit on 20-10-2011 by Hopeforeveryone because: Typo



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
What a load of crap.

1: Colonizing, is what viruses do. Just because some nation has glory only through their virus-like behavior, doesn't make them cool, it makes them historically like a plague. Colonizers, are just as the name implies: Infectious viruses.

2: Lawyers (esquires) have nothing to do with America, though we are populated with them like fleas on a dog's back. Americans do not acknowledge titles, though yes, the authority does try to float them alot, but in the end, we need no knights or royal classes thinking they're better. No thanks, everyone know the BAR association is an anti-American body, and I look forward to the day when they are gone from US soil. Feel free to ask me what would take their place. It's called "truth and justice" which are mortal enemies of the lawyers class.

3: The best and most honorable "King" the sax/gotha/hapsburgs/windsors/whatnots ever produced was the guy who abdicated. What a true and great King he was, to set the crown down and just go be a normal man! Three cheers for the only good King these colonizers ever produced! Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! Here's to future abdications of silly monarchs!

4: Jefferson just stole his ideas from the Algonquin nations, who had peace among themselves. HENCE: No need for stupid Jacobin Kings to have adventures here, no need for silly French Kings to have adventures here, and certainly no need for horrid Papist inquisitors and their paid legions to have adventures here. It was criminal for them to assume titles over the original inhabitants of the US territories, and it is sheer insanity for them to equate themselves to "Spiritual Israel" as Ezra Stiles and his ilk have done. That religous scam has yet to be fully rolled back to the doorsteps of those who cast their Puritain/Hugenot/psuedo-Christian dregs and other religious wackjobs onto the ocean, and allowed them to drift onto American beaches.

5: There is one entity, Rothschild/Bauer banking occult clan, which rules the London-DC-Vatican triad of non-cities, which is the main enemy of America. It is there law-fetish non-humans who are wrecking the world, and who are behind the grossest violations of humanity, via the slave trades, and fomenting the WW2 events of Stalin (Jesuit) and Himmler (Jesuit). This group has already attacked the US in the past. I feel really bad for people in London who continue to support their evil masters. It will be tragic for them, if they do not "abdicate" like their one good King did. I believe Jesus himself, refused an unholy Kingship, he refused to accept Satan's crown. Think hard on that.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


Well, if Jesus even existed. Pics or it didn't happen



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


He was doing well untill he brought up Jesus ! Whats that got to do with lawyers debating the Declaration of independance is beyond my feeble intellect.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Originally posted by Skewed
Who cares what UK thinks in this case. We separated from them, it is what it is.
If UK has a problem with it then they can start another war to get us under their control.
They can get over it, legal or not, we are free from UK control.
Besides, illegal according to UK laws? So what. What are they going to do about it.

Nothing personal against UK, but.....


First Charters Of Virginia *cough* ..... America still belongs to the crown , theyre lying to Americans ...... its that simple.


Ya,

The Treaty of Paris had a mistake too.

The original spelling for the new country was:

"The UKnighted States of America"

I think Ben Franklin objected on grounds of public confusion.


I think the treaty favored Britain....

the King was still the "Prince" of the colonies?

something about all debts had to be paid?

and maybe some waterway rights?

We are still paying !!



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Are you really still paying ? I was led to believe we only finished paying off the debt to the US from the second world war in 2006, you'd think they would have merged the account.

Ah just checked we're (the UK) still paying for loans from the first world war - outstanding !
edit on 20-10-2011 by Hopeforeveryone because: added a bit
edit on 20-10-2011 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
WTF does this mean?

Will we be forced to pay taxes to the British crown again?

Who else wants in on the action?

Stand in line to tax the dumb Americans, they're so stupid they'll pay anyone who asks to be paid
edit on 20-10-2011 by InformationAccount because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


Well, if Jesus even existed. Pics or it didn't happen


Haha.

Well we know Pharisees and lawyers exist, and so why not assume their enemy existed?

It is fine to remove the one true and good King from history, one would expect a fully Rothschildian nation to do that.

Lawyers = plague to earth. Notice how in Ireland, which still retains some humanity, one is not limited to "lawyers" when one has legal weapons applied to them and their family. No, because in Ireland there are stilll other classes of "law helpers" who are allowed to assist the common folks when the judges and lawyers bring law-violence against them.

Not so in the less-than-free USA where you must have a foreign representative, a lawyer, and therefore, you must declare yourself incompetent. It is a fact of law, that an attorney sees you as incompetent, before he will take you as his client. However in societies that are more real, and more free, the public are given a choice of helpers when they are faced with law-as-weapon.

Lawyers, and Rothschild, are like two fists bashing against the face of the human race for the last 300 years at least. This thread only reflects how far away from reality they have drifted as a group.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
the constitution is definitely treason.
Treason against a corrupt and tyrannical government.
Legal? well that depends on whether you were a tyrant or one of the oppressed.
Legality has nothing to do with right or wrong.
.. and has everything to do with who writes the laws.
Yup, it was illegal under England's tyrannical law.. but not under US law. The right to rise up is guaranteed to US. citizens.


And England tried to enforce their law... and see how it worked out for them?


Legal or not, treason or not, it was the right thing to do.
People were taxed to death..litterally.

in other words, this case has been to "trial"......England lost their case.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by InformationAccount
WTF does this mean?

Will we be forced to pay taxes to the British crown again?

Who else wants in on the action?

Stand in line to tax the dumb Americans, they're so stupid they'll pay anyone who asks to be paid
edit on 20-10-2011 by InformationAccount because: (no reason given)



I thought we paid taxes back to Britain with Obama's bank stimulus?





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join