US Constitution = Declaration of Independence?

[Ifreann]

aww, i was hoping this would be about house minority leader john boehner getting the two documents confused while out teabagging today
http://www.politico.com/singletitlevide ... 8488521001

Isn't teabagging the act of lowering one's scrotum-wrapped testicles into another person's mouth?

I don't know why teabagging is suddenly so popular in the US. It seems sort of gay.

I wouldn't have expected that kind of talk from you, Sin. Surely your mouth has played host to a few pairs of balls?

[Sarkhaan]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

[Greed and Death]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

Individuals have a duty to disobey laws they feel violates morality, or what they see as constitutional.

That's fine.

But that doesn't change the fact the Supreme Court is the final arbiter as to whether something is constitutional. Just because you believe something is doesn't always make it so. though, if the court does find differently than you believe it should- for instance, you believe abortion isn't actually a constitutionally protect medical procedure, you can always start the process of amending the Constitution to "fix" the problem.

If the government banned all guns and the court decided that didn't violate the 2nd Amendment, you could amend the Constitution to make sure you do have the right to a gun and sue again. Or you can wait until the Supreme Court changes its mind on its own. Until then the law is the law and you'll either have to abide by it or suffer the consequences.

Though I you should always work against laws that you think are unjust, absolutely.

The individual always is the final arbitrator, Scotus can make rulings until they are blue in the face. It is the individuals that accept and abide by those rulings or do not.

With Abortion for instance if I feel it is unconstitutional I can simply refuse to get an abortion(given this is what I think most of the pro life camp should do).

And with guns yeah the likelihood I would obey any law restricting my gun rights is nil. And I mean it in the sen of their being dozens of dead LEOs around where I end up making my last stand. They can take my Grand dads WWII rifles only once I've expended all its ammo.

[Greed and Death]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

That's like saying secession would have been justified if the South won the civil war.

[Goath]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

Individuals have a duty to disobey laws they feel violates morality, or what they see as constitutional.

That's fine.

But that doesn't change the fact the Supreme Court is the final arbiter as to whether something is constitutional. Just because you believe something is doesn't always make it so. though, if the court does find differently than you believe it should- for instance, you believe abortion isn't actually a constitutionally protect medical procedure, you can always start the process of amending the Constitution to "fix" the problem.

If the government banned all guns and the court decided that didn't violate the 2nd Amendment, you could amend the Constitution to make sure you do have the right to a gun and sue again. Or you can wait until the Supreme Court changes its mind on its own. Until then the law is the law and you'll either have to abide by it or suffer the consequences.

Though I you should always work against laws that you think are unjust, absolutely.

The individual always is the final arbitrator, Scotus can make rulings until they are blue in the face. It is the individuals that accept and abide by those rulings or do not.

With Abortion for instance if I feel it is unconstitutional I can simply refuse to get an abortion(given this is what I think most of the pro life camp should do).

And with guns yeah the likelihood I would obey any law restricting my gun rights is nil. And I mean it in the sen of their being dozens of dead LEOs around where I end up making my last stand. They can take my Grand dads WWII rifles only once I've expended all its ammo.

Well, killing police officers is always the best way to address your displeasure with a decision by the Supreme Court.

Either you respect the document or you don't. If you do, you'll respect the Courts authority to interpret it. If you don't, well, I think you just said what you'd do- you'll just ignore both the Constitution and the Court.

In the end, if the right to own guns or the right to an abortion or the right to vote is really, honestly absolute in the document, it'll never be changed. If it isn't absolute, it might be changed, and if it isn't absolute you either have a responsibility to follow the law or change the Constitution to make whatever it is you want it to say what is actually says.

[Sarkhaan]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

That's like saying secession would have been justified if the South won the civil war.

The DoI and CSA secession were identical acts: one group of individuals ruled by government X saying "You don't rule us anymore.". Given the fact that the CSA does not exist today, it cannot be a mere speech act to assert independence. Yes, the speech act does carry a certain level of power...however, untill both sides agree (IE the current power holders agree to stop killing everyone that goes against their rule) then it is not truly independence.

It's akin to a teenager stomping their feet and saying "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO". Well, that's an adorable statement and all, but the parents can, in fact, take away the car keys, phone, computer, etc. Not quite independence, even after the declaration is made. It becomes independence when the parents say "You know what? You're right. We are no longer obligated to support you, and in turn, you can control your own life. Consider the ties severed."

[Cecilia Penifader]

I wouldn't say that the Declaration of Independence is "illegal." It just has no legal standing in modern America, like a check that hasn't been signed or something. The US is an independent country. Besides the whole declaring independence thing, and the war that ensued, there was a treaty signed by Great Britain and the United States in which territories were carved out and independence was acknowledged.

[Goath]

I wouldn't say that the Declaration of Independence is "illegal." It just has no legal standing in modern America, like a check that hasn't been signed or something. The US is an independent country. Besides the whole declaring independence thing, and the war that ensued, there was a treaty signed by Great Britain and the United States in which territories were carved out and independence was acknowledged.

When it was issued, the Declaration was nothing more than treason. If those brave souls who signed it had been caught by the British they would have been hung from the nearest tree.

And, yep, after winning the war with Britain and signing a peace treaty independence was recognized.

The Declaration of Independence is a fine document, but needs to remain in its present context- a historical document, nothing more.

[Buffett and Colbert]

They are two completely different documents of complete different legal status.

[Grave_n_idle]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit. If they did, that'd be the case unless the Supreme Court at a later date reversed itself.

Individuals have a duty to disobey laws they feel violates morality, or what they see as constitutional.

A 'duty'?

You have the option, certainly - for which you eill pay the price. No one has a 'duty' to disobey laws just beause they don't think it jibes with their morality.

[Grave_n_idle]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

That's like saying secession would have been justified if the South won the civil war.

Secession was justified. It just wasn't successful.

[Grave_n_idle]

So if they pass legislation that out laws all guns, then that dosen't go against the constitution.

Only if the Supreme Court rules it does- which they probably would do. But the Supreme Court could rule that it was totally legit.

If at least five of the nine justices had no understanding whatsoever of constitutional law and even less common sense, yeah.

<.<

Well, no - all they'd have to do is take the reading (that has been suggested before) that the Second Amendment relates to militias and the states, rather than to personal ownership, per se.

[Goath]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

That's like saying secession would have been justified if the South won the civil war.

Secession was justified. It just wasn't successful.

Well, justified in the minds of the Southerners, at least.

[Seculartopia]

No, The Delcaration of Independence was a document written in context to Britain declaring America's independence.

The Constitution is America's founding document, laying America's system out. (And in Secularity, i might add)

[Seculartopia]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

That's like saying secession would have been justified if the South won the civil war.

Secession was justified. It just wasn't successful.

Well, justified in the mines of the Southerns, at least.

Justification of Secession is Subjective.

Think about it, Would you consider the north a tyranny that need be seceded from?

[Grave_n_idle]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

That's like saying secession would have been justified if the South won the civil war.

Secession was justified. It just wasn't successful.

Well, justified in the mines of the Southerns, at least.

'Justified' in as much as there's a theoretical right to secede that is finally resolved in the Civil War.

I assume most Northerners appreciated the justification the South was claiming, and just preferred a reality in which the South remained part of the Union.

[Goath]

IF the declaration is illegal then so is the Constitution on the grounds of the US not being an independent nation.

Not really. The DoI didn't grant us independence. It stated "This is what we think". The English still had to grant us independence. We may count July 4th 1776 as our birthday, as it is the first moment we collectively said "You don't control us anymore", but it was still two years before England said "You know what? You're right.".

Evidence of this is what would have happened had the Americans lost the war. Yes, we would have stated that we were independent, but those who signed would still have been hanged under English law.

That's like saying secession would have been justified if the South won the civil war.

Secession was justified. It just wasn't successful.

Well, justified in the mines of the Southerns, at least.

'Justified' in as much as there's a theoretical right to secede that is finally resolved in the Civil War.

I assume most Northerners appreciated the justification the South was claiming, and just preferred a reality in which the South remained part of the Union.

Indeed- i get what you're saying.

And I apologize for the miserable spelling in my post- I need to drink less at dinner.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed- i get what you're saying.

And I apologize for the miserable spelling in my post- I need to drink less at dinner.

Ah, the curse of the liquid lunch.

[Desperate Measures]

All I know is that your county Sheriff doesn't have to do anything the president tells him to if it does go against the Constitution cause that is what the Sheriff takes his oath to, not the president.

Did Wyatt Earp just go 88 mph in a Delorean?

[SF Penguins]

but if they take away any of our rights it is our job as part of democracy to say no. The first 10 amendments are the ones that if they do change then shit is going to hit the fan. You go and tell every person who owns a gun, which includes me, that we can't have them anymore and you'll be dealing with a revolt. Which is exactly why the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms.

[Greed and Death]

but if they take away any of our rights it is our job as part of democracy to say no. The first 10 amendments are the ones that if they do change then shit is going to hit the fan. You go and tell every person who owns a gun, which includes me, that we can't have them anymore and you'll be dealing with a revolt. Which is exactly why the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms.

10 has partial been over written via the 14th amendment already.