Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Indeed–like Leonidas, forever remembered, forever exemplifying the Greek ideal of ARETE–not a bad way to die!
I knew that all those hours studying attic Greek would come in handy. They will not come for youunless you are selling auto-sears to the local youths or have a few RPG's hidden under the floor. Ifthey come they will come in force with weapons vastly superior to ours and with an endless numberof young men inculcated with the idea that following orders and eliminating enemies (sic) of thegovernment is a patriotic and honorable thing to do.Here is a plausible vision of the future--not here yet.
Perhaps--but consider this. As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.I would argue that the "right" is dependent on your behavior and in that sense is conditional--do you not agree? It is the same for life, liberty and happiness--all dependent upon what the state considersappropriate deportment. The state can take all of these away under certain conditions so one couldmake the argument that these are not in fact inalienable, but conditional--do you not agree?The state may block access to the voting booth, it might incarcerate a person, it might deny access to arms, but the power to deny does not mean the power to take rights or coerce someone to abdicate said rights. The government can only take what I allow them to take with my consent if it is something I alone truly possess...which is my life, my liberty, and my inalienable rights. The government can't take away any of these things legally without my consent. The Constitution is the legal document from which I gave my consent to the government to act against me in the case where I fail to live up to my end of the social contract. The government can do many things out of its excessive might, but might doesn't make right. If I enter into a court of law, I consent to the verdict made by the courts. The courts serve to mete justice, and if my actions harm others, then I have already given consent to the courts to act by my social contract under the Constitution and the powers of the court system found therein. In other words, the government has no power that I and everyone else did not create for it. If the government violates its part of the social contract, I have the right, the power, and the duty to dissolve it and recreate a more perfect government to replace it.inalienable is easily defined as something that cannot be taken from you or given by you by or to anything or anyone. In a a de facto sense a convicted felon is debarred from the voting booth eventhough in a de jure sense you might claim he has the "inalienable" right to vote. What nonsense is this. The convict cannot vote, gave no consent to the government to prevent his voting and in fact, to make it really gnarly--let us assume for arguments sake that he is, in fact, innocent of the crimes for which he was imprisoned. He did not enter the court of law; he was dragged in with fetters. If hewas never a government office holder, in the military, a natural born citizen or an elected official of some sort, he never had to swear to abide by the laws of the Constitution. He consented to noauthority over him and given the same set of circumstances either did you. Neither of you signed or agreed to any Social Contract and few people would agree with you. I understand exactly what you mean, but in practice the words ring loudly in an empty chamber. Nobody gave you a chit saying thatyou possessed inalienable rights and a number to call if you believed that someone or something wastrying to alienate them.If you believe that the courts primary purpose is to mete out justice, your education is not quite complete, but we can leave that for another time.Today we can try to agree that your precious "rights" are in fact balanced on a precarious precipiceand so long as you are a good sheep, a loyal sheep, a non-threatening and quiescent sheep, you mayeat, sleep, excrete, produce and replicate whilst basking in the comfortable glow that comes with knowing that you have "rights".Real or perceived illegal actions on your part or actions of the government can turn a halcyon day into a nightmare where your "rights" are, in a de facto sense, ephemeral at best.At this point I was going to list the top 10 cases where "inalienable" rights of US Citizens were abrogated, but you already know them so I shall save energy and electrons and sign off as it is time to dine.As always:A pleasure.
Perhaps–but consider this. As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.I would argue that the "right" is dependent on your behavior and in that sense is conditional--do you not agree? It is the same for life, liberty and happiness--all dependent upon what the state considersappropriate deportment. The state can take all of these away under certain conditions so one couldmake the argument that these are not in fact inalienable, but conditional--do you not agree?
Suffrage is a conditional “right”. Originally there were restrictions–no women, no slaves no convictsor felons and people deemed vagrants had restrictions placed upon them. Further, at times various states had tests for literacy or poll taxes which were then upheld by the courts. I see no reasonwhy some requirement ought not to be imposed. Under your blanket statement morons, idiots, imbeciles and cretins would be able to vote with impunity. Apparently sanity or mental competenceplays no part in the scheme. The horror.The Constitution has been amended many times--there is nothing sacred about the text--amend it again.Good show on your numbers--some growth is good!
Agreed, but tell that to the the semi-moron who has no idea really about what he is voting for but has people in organizations (like the ACLU) who tell them regardless the Constitution gives them the right to vote and therefore he goes out and instead goes out and votes by the seat of his pants.Personally, I think some sort of yearly exam should be administered to determine those who are qualified to vote. But you fall into who administers it, and then the Cath-22 that the Constitution grants the right to all citizens, regardless of your intelligence.So we can only hope that people will educate themselves on the issues, political positions of those running, and of our own individual conscious. Alas, you will get exactly what we have now. A by the seat of your pants government. By a LEGAL by the seat of your pants governmenExcellent idea. As I recall it is the various states that establish voter requirements. As we have precedents for sex and age why not a provision for civic literacy? One would still have the "right" to vote once you established your competence. Think of this--the Constitution guarantees us liberty, yetyou can be jailed for not working under vagrancy laws. Can we say that you are free so long as you work or have independent means? Tests could be administered by a public or private entity--it matters not--and would not be terribly difficult. Perhaps the test required of new citizens could be used as a template. The only downside is that both political parties would lose voters as both havelegions of uninformed or just plain ignorant members. Good luck on this. My opinion is that thepoliticians--call them the herders--do not want the electorate--call them the sheep or us--to be wellinformed as swaying them in one direction or another would require more cerebral activity and lesschanting of slogans, cliches and misinformation.
But as we are willing to have a semi-fake educational system where geography, history, civics andcomparative government are rare or relegated to the non-essential areas unlike math and Englishwhich are necessary in the workplace be it bench or cubicle, nothing will change. We have an uninformed electorate swayed by silver tongued devils preying on their prejudices and ignorance andthe fault is ours. Quality education is expensive in the short run, but in the long run it is essential ifwe have hopes that this Republic will not fall into the hands of Fascists, Socialists or ranters tellingthem that not paying income taxes is legal, that secession is legal (especially in Texas) and thatour President is--not a citizen, a Muslim and perhaps the anti-Christ. I have entered here and almost given up hope.
Dear Devil:The catch 22 is of our own making and we continue to tolerate ignorance. The whole premise ofDemocracy is based upon the assumption that citizens will pay close attention to the activities of thegovernment as their lives will be directly influenced by the laws made in their name. An informed electorate is one of our best guardians of our freedom and might even be better than owning a semi-automatic weapon. We do not have an informed electorate and we ought to ask ourselves why we permit this situation to exist. Idiots (in the Greek sense) abound in our midst. Oh the horror.
It is possible that you might be absolutely right. On the other hand, the opposite is possible. I have no idea at all except to say that bureaucracies at all levels are prone to mistakes and heavy static oncommunication lines.
Your students were fortunate. Ought we to scourge ourselves each morning for letting our young grow to adulthood with many totally ignorant of the many points you made? We pay taxes and produce an unacceptable quotient of students that are illiterate, coarse, maleducated and irresponsible and then let them vote!
look at it this way, we've got Star Wars and Star Trek. Luke Skywalker vs Achilles to the death woo hoo!Ah yes, but Star Wars teaches the same basic principles as the Greeks; do you supposein 2000 years will we be teaching SW's rather than the Greeks to 6th graders? Culture is the passing on of what one generation thinks is important enough to teach the next.Wow!Star Wars vs. Greek Legends and Literature? The gruel is a bit thin in my opinion, but then the lessonstaught by the Greeks about the madness of honor as exemplified by Achilles in the Iliad or the madness of war as in the Trojan Woman or in Thucidides' description of the Sicilian expedition are perhaps too obscure for our children today. If we last 2000 years more I hope we cleave to the"right stuff" and Agamemnon will still lust after Achilles' war prize, Hector will still scare his young son with his shining helmet, Paris will still depend on his beauty to survive, Penelope will still keeptrue to her husband while he consorts with brazen women and slays his way homeward and Achilles will continue to slay Trojans with heroic joy in arms fulfilling his destiny of "being the best". Nowif Star Wars can beat that for 2000 years and serve as a better tablet on which we write our lessonsfor our children, then we should forget about the Greeks and embrace "the force". In sorrow, I go now to have my breakfast while reading Phaedra ; you have vexed me greatly with your postbecause it might be true. The world shudders.
So–although many opinions were expressed about “THE UNION” there was no divorce clause in theoriginal document. The statement made by Virginia in 1861 then seems without merit unless they had CCliff notes concerning the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention.You are most perceptive. I asked my wife if during the marriage ceremony she recalled any wordsdealing with divorce proceedings. She looked at me askance.Thanks for the research.
