Thomas Jefferson

[fuji]

Which as has been pointed out by now approaching ad nauseam it is not.

Good luck in court (in the U.S.A) arguing that the Declaration of Independence supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps you care to enlighten us then: Is there any legal basis whatsoever for the existence of the United States of America? The very existence of the nation is predicated on there being universal human rights which supercede any sovereign constitutional arrangement. If there are no such "unalienable rights" then the the US has no legal or moral basis on which to exist.

 

[GlennQuagmire]

What! When you get a raise, do you move to a cheaper house? But I can show you a Con at 24 Sussex who cut taxes and increased spending in bad times. Fool enough to promise he'd never ever run a deficit too.

And GeorgeII left how big a deficit while he did the same?

So you are against deficit spending during bad times? Great, we agree on something. (You must be outraged at the obscene deficit spending levels of Obama and the democrats).

 

[Aardvark154]

Perhaps you care to enlighten us then: Is there any legal basis whatsoever for the existence of the United States of America?

Yes, the United States Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

In other words a new state, a federal state was created which succeeded the former loose confederation of thirteen independent States (The Articles of Confederation) which had severed their previous colonial connection with Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783 (generally in Canada lumped with the treaties with France and Spain and all termed the Treaty of Versailles of 1783).

 

[fuji]

In other words a new state, a federal state was created which succeeded the former loose confederation of thirteen independent States (The Articles of Confederation) which had severed their previous colonial connection with Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783 (generally in Canada lumped with the treaties with France and Spain and all termed the Treaty of Versailles of 1783).

So your view is the Continental Congress was a wholly illegitimate entity with no lawful authority whatsoever, and therefore any of its acts should be considered illegal, and of no lawful force or effect? Who therefore legally represented this non-existant United States at the Treaty of Paris, if the Continental Congress was an unlawful and illegal enterprise?

Either that or you think it in fact had some lawful authority, flowing from what exactly?

You know very well the answer, and it's clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Aardvark154]

So your view is

You asked:

Is there any [more politely phrased: what is the] legal basis whatsoever for the existence of the United States of America?

That question was answered.

How you then extrapolate that to my stating that the Continental Congress was illegitimate I'm unsure.

Of course from a Loyalist or British Government perspective (which one somewhat expects a Canadian to espouse) the Continental Congress was illegitimate (indeed its members were subject to the penalties for treason). The British Government only acknowledged the legitimacy of the Congress and of the Revolutionary Governments of the various states in the Treaty of Paris.

As I've mentioned before you really have a problem with nuance. Particularly governmental/political and legal nuance.

Further, seemingly you utterly fail to grasp the dramatic change in political thought in the thirteen British North American Colonies between 1775 and 1787. When the Revolution began it was about restoring what they saw as the English Constitution. Therefore they saw their authority flowing from that, not from some lofty ideal that Adams and Jefferson latter came up with.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Incorrect, the Constitution is not and was not the Supreme Law of the USA. It never has been, and it never will be. In fact the drafters of the US Constitution took great pains to point that out when they wrote up the Declaration of Independence. In that document they espoused that universal human rights are superior to ANY constitutional arrangement, and used the supremacy of human rights as the justification for overthrowing the government, and in so doing, denying that their actions were treasonous.

Bull crap. Unless by exception, 'universal rights are superior' IS a supreme law which is in the Constitution. What do they ultimately appeal to when a local law is challenged?

As a degenerate slave owner the man has not got an opinion on freedom that is worth listening to.

Okay so you do admit to renouncing his Declaration of Independence and famous human rights statement. Thank you.

Nope. I honestly don't know what Jefferson's economic policies or theories are, other than this quote, so that can't be it.

Oh bull crap Fuji. You used his reputation as a slave owner to deny his quote by the OP (a political economic statement if there was one) but in fact it's really about you disagreeing with the notion of 'more freedom thru less government'.

 

[GPIDEAL]

judging the past by today's standards will always allow us to feel better. he fitted in very well to his era. and began the changes which led to todays society. more to come. as for all those character flaws, they were normal around the world until less than 50 or 60 years ago in the western world. they are still normal in some areas. we can't free everybody. social evolution will take time.

With all due respect to Fuji, he rejects any logical debate on the OP's quote by Jefferson by discrediting or diverting attention away from Jefferson's statement with an anachronism because IMHO, he doesn't agree with his politics (Republicanism).

At the end, President Jefferson even signed off on banning the importation of slaves. That's social evolution. We saw that even as recent with JFK and Johnson, when they had to deal with civil rights.

Thomas Jefferson was a complex man who, despite his flaws, founded the guiding principles upon which U.S. law is based or strives to be.

 

[markvee]

Really?

We have gone through all this before on TERB not that long ago.

The War of 1812 was brought on by the War Hawks who saw in it opportunities for westward expansion.

Impressment of Americans by the Royal Navy had been halted before the war began.

The principal shipping sections of the U.S., in particular New England were against the war.

The only clear-cut U.S. military victory of the war was fought after the peace treaty had been signed.

The major U.S. Naval victories of the war were during roughly the first half of it.

The Treaty of Ghent returned everything to status quo antebellum (territorially everything was as it was before the war)

So what did the war do: In Upper Canada it was the impetus for the beginning of a sense of national identity rather than the previous state of we are in exile here and someday everything will be made right and we will all go home. (And what was to become Dalhousie University had a Bursary fund thanks to it.)
In the U.S. it became "the Second War of Independence" the U.S. had managed to survive a war with the world's foremost Naval Power. The Battle of New Orleans remembered, previous defeats ignored.
In the U.K. save for changes in Frigates that lasted until the pre-dreadnaught age it was a minor annoyance in the midst of the very serious struggle of the Napoleonic Wars.

I am claiming victory for the Americans only with regard to impressment, not with regard to American expansionism.

I don't agree that the practice of impressment had ceased prior to 1812.

 

[markvee]

Those who launched the Vietnam war believed that if communism was allowed to take root in one country it would eventually sweep the whole free world. I think that view is mistaken, but it's not a war crime to be mistaken. I think they honestly believed it.

The conscripts weren’t mistaken; their opinions were irrelevant to those who were mistaken.

Would you rather be compelled to pick cotton or compelled to kill and die against the Vietnamese over someone else’s mistake?

Your hindsight is 20/20 that Jefferson committed a crime against humanity by committing slavery.

I hope that you will one day see conscription with the clarity that Daniel Webster saw it in 1814.

 

[markvee]

The Domino Theory of course!
John Birchers were carping the commies are coming, commies are coming, commies are coming, 24/7!
Commies HAD to be stopped in NAM before they came to the USA!....

Today these GOPer carping Cons trade with these SAME commies!

Your partisanship is tiring.

You will fall all over yourself stating that the Dems are powerless against the Military Industrial Complex whenever they control the government that throws its interventionist weight around.

By the way, President Truman (D) got the US into war with Vietnam without a Constitutional declaration of war by Congress, and President Nixon (R) got the US out.

I'm sure your tongue will be out in force to lick the boot of hapless Truman rather than agreeing that he treated the Constitution like a damn piece of paper.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Your partisanship is tiring.

By the way, President Truman (D) got the US into war with Vietnam without a Constitutional declaration of war by Congress, and President Nixon (R) got the US out.

WOW!
Got some documentation for your OxyContinized brainfart above skippy??????

IKE got the USA into NAM after the French pulled out!
IKE did it secretly and covertly with few knowing anything about it!
JFK was first told about it when he went to the White House!
JFK was shocked at this revelation of the USA being in NAM!
This is what REAL History books taught for years.

What bullcrap book did you get your revsions from???....

 

[Aardvark154]

I am claiming victory for the Americans only with regard to impressment, not with regard to American expansionism.

I don't agree that the practice of impressment had ceased prior to 1812.

Look it up in any history of the War of 1812.
Lord Liverpool's government repealed the Orders in Council May 11.
The U.S. declared war on June 18

 

[fuji]

Of course from a Loyalist or British Government perspective (which one somewhat expects a Canadian to espouse) the Continental Congress was illegitimate (indeed its members were subject to the penalties for treason).

And from an American perspective was it illegitimate? And if not, why not?

Further, seemingly you utterly fail to grasp the dramatic change in political thought in the thirteen British North American Colonies between 1775 and 1787. When the Revolution began it was about restoring what they saw as the English Constitution

The declaration of Independence was drafted in 1776, not 1787.

 

[Aardvark154]

And from an American perspective.

As said not good at nuance.

For a final time: The (penultimate - this is erroneous it should read) ultimate source of law and government in the U.S.A. since its ratification is the U.S. Constitution.

 

[fuji]

And from an American perspective the continental congress was illegal, and all of its acts unlawful acts?

Stop dodging the question.

 

[oldjones]

As said not good at nuance.

For a final time: The penultimate source of law and government in the U.S.A. since its ratification is the U.S. Constitution.

And, 'penultimate' being 'the one before the ultimate', what is the ultimate source? If the Constitution's only penultimate, doesn't fuji win?

 

[Aardvark154]

And, 'penultimate' being 'the one before the ultimate', what is the ultimate source?

You are right - my bad. I probably should have used just plain 'ultimate' or 'the last word.'

 

[fuji]

Aardvark won't answer the question because he can't answer the question. The legal basis for the continental congress, the lawful authority of the team that went and negotiated the Treaty of Paris, all flowed from the claim that Britain lost its sovereign authority through acts that contravened the unalienable rights of the colonists.

In short, the colonists asserted that there was a higher authority than the British sovereign constitutional authority.

They used that authority as the basis to fight a revolution and then to authorize negotiations with the British crown.

It's an assertion that has been made many times throughout history by many peoples from many different cultures--it's something we all universally know is true: There are unalienable human rights, and when a sovereign systematically violates them, and refuses to end or correct the violations, then the sovereign loses the right to be sovereign, regardless of what the constitution of the day may say.

 

[Aardvark154]

Aardvark won't answer the question because he can't answer the question. The legal basis for the continental congress, the lawful authority of the team that went and negotiated the Treaty of Paris, all flowed from the claim that Britain lost its sovereign authority through acts that contravened the unalienable rights of the colonists.

In short, the colonists asserted that there was a higher authority than the British sovereign constitutional authority.

They used that authority as the basis to fight a revolution and then to authorize negotiations with the British crown.

That is a political not a legal argument.

As even Nineteenth Century American Historians acknowledged. The Second Continental Congress had no explicit legal authority to govern, however, it took upon itself the functions of a national government. Further, each delegation was limited by the instructions it had received from its state. Now you can say that this power flowed from the people or that Royal or Proprietary Governments had lost their authority through acts by the Imperial Government that contravened the unalienable rights of the colonists. The only problem with that is that even John Adams would admit that 2/3 of the people disagreed with such a statement.
If you bothered to read books (which you have told us you don’t) you might look at George Bancroft’s History of America where he made basically the above statement in the third quarter of the Nineteenth Century.

Even the Revolutionaries most certainly did not in 1775 assert that they were taking up arms in answer to some higher authority (of course except for God) than the British Constitution.

I really wish that you had a better grasp on this since the Revolution was really at least 13 separate Revolutions more when you ask what was different about Nova Scotia (in part the answer is the "Missing decade"), unfortunately neither UofT nor the University at Buffalo currently offer a course on the Revolution and early Federal periods.

The Declaration of Independence while a wonderful piece of prose was neither the actual vote of the Congress for Independence, nor did it actually achieve it, that was accomplished by British unwillingness to continue a world wide war, when it had become apparent that the genie could not be put back into the bottle.

 

[Aardvark154]

It's an assertion that has been made many times throughout history by many peoples from many different cultures--it's something we all universally know is true: There are unalienable human rights, and when a sovereign systematically violates them, and refuses to end or correct the violations, then the sovereign loses the right to be sovereign, regardless of what the constitution of the day may say.

You Fuji are as bad in your own way as "Sovereign Citizens" or Income Tax Protestors.

Talk all you want about higher law. The Bottom line is that the basis of law in the U.S.A. is the United States Constitution. If something is unconstitutional it really doesn't matter how wonderful or upholding of "universal human rights" it may be, it will be struck down.

I have wasted more than enough time, as the expression goes “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”