User Panel
[#1]
A moral society only flourishes when others enforce the morality.
Being as no one is perfect, we're going to screw up. In a good society that should be called out immediately, you apologize, explain your actions and change. The concept of the polis was to create a natural association with its citizens that nurtured all that is best in people, at the same time defining their character. In this respect, according to Plato, the person and the polis are mirror images. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#2]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: A moral society only flourishes when others enforce the morality. Being as no one is perfect, we're going to screw up. In a good society that should be called out immediately, you apologize, explain your actions and change. The concept of the polis was to create a natural association with its citizens that nurtured all that is best in people, at the same time defining their character. In this respect, according to Plato, the person and the polis are mirror images. View Quote This hammers home the fact New Yorkers are not Louisianans. They are the product of two entirely different upbringings, raised in two different polis' And we should treat this as such if we're ever going to come to understanding or common ground. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#3]
You cannot outsource anything. Especially your moral agency. It is all that you have, and the only way to live in a beautiful society is to live alongside others who fully accept the gift and responsibilities of moral agency.
|
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#4]
Decentralization Propaganda Will Continue Until Morale Improves |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[Last Edit: WhiskersTheCat]
[#5]
Every man needs to make a conscious choice on who he will serve. There are lots of wrong answers.
Serving yourself is neither valuable nor sustainable. Serving the Federal government is also a poor decision. Serving your family is actually also a poor decision because you are supposed to lead it and not serve it. Always occasionally ask yourself whom you are serving. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#6]
|
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#7]
I think the edibles hit!
|
|
|
[#8]
|
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#9]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Just cracked beer two, are we doing this or letting it archive? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I think the edibles hit! Just cracked beer two, are we doing this or letting it archive? We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. |
|
|
[#10]
Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I think the edibles hit! Just cracked beer two, are we doing this or letting it archive? We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. Do we actually believe in this stuff or are we content to just complain about stuff? I actually believe this. This is what I actually believe and it matters a lot to me. And I want to live amongst other men who also value these things. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#11]
These concepts are not crazy to me, they're inherently sensical.
Maybe I am the outlier. Maybe no one actually believes in this stuff anymore. Maybe I'm the schitzo. All totally possible. But whether I'm wrong or right, every man on earth needs to know that they deserve better. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#12]
Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I think the edibles hit! Just cracked beer two, are we doing this or letting it archive? We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. If you tagged me in an American thread to discuss Constitutional ideas, please do not be surprised when I show up and fill the thread with them. Because I will shit Virginian founding ideals onto this site until the day that I'm banned. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#13]
Speech of Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788) 7 June 1788 patrick_henry.jpg I have thought, and still think, that a full investigation of the actual situation of America ought to precede any decision of this great and important question. That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow: But, Sir, if this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country, I then insist that rejection ought to follow. Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me. I must be convinced, Sir. I shall retain my infidelity on that subject, till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding... You are told [by Governor Randolph] there is no peace, although you fondly flatter yourselves that all is peace--- No peace--- a general cry and alarm in the country --- Commerce, riches, and wealth, vanished--- Citizens going to seek comforts in other parts of the world --- Laws insulted --- Many instances of tyrannical legislation. These things, Sir, are new to me. He has made the discovery --- As to the administration of justice, I believe that failures in commerce, etc. cannot be attributed to it. My age enables me to recollect its progress under the old Government. I can justify it by saying, that it continues in the same manner in this State, as it did under the former government. As to other parts of the Continent, I refer that to other Gentlemen. As to the ability of those who administer it, I believe they would not suffer by a comparison with those who administered it under the royal authority. Where is the cause of complaint if the wealthy go away? Is this added to the other circumstances, of such enormity, and does it bring such danger over this Commonwealth as to warrant so important, and so awful a change in so precipitate a manner? As to insults offered to the laws, I know of none. In this respect, I believe this Commonwealth would not suffer by a comparison with the former Government. The laws are as well executed, and as patiently acquiesced in, as they were under the royal administration. Compare the situation of the country - Compare that of our citizens to what they were then, and decide whether persons and property are not as safe and secure as they were at that time. Is there a man in this Commonwealth, whose person can be insulted with impunity? Cannot redress be had here for personal insults or injuries, as well as in any part of the world - as well as in those countries where Aristocrats and Monarchs triumph and reign? Is not the protection of property in full operation here? The contrary cannot with truth be charged on this Commonwealth. Those severe charges which are exhibited against it, appear to me totally groundless. On a fair investigation, we shall be found to be surrounded by no real dangers. We have the animating fortitude and persevering alacrity of republican men, to carry us through misfortunes and calamities. 'Tis the fortune of a republic to be able to withstand the stormy ocean of human vicissitudes. I know of no danger awaiting us. Public and private security are to be found here in the highest degree. Sir, it is the fortune of a free people, not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves. Our political and natural hemisphere are now equally tranquil. Let us recollect the awful magnitude of the subject of our deliberation. Let us consider the latent consequences of an erroneous decision--- and let not our minds be led away by unfair misrepresentations and uncandid suggestions. There have been many instances of uncommon lenity and temperance used in the exercise of power in this Commonwealth. I could call your recollection to many that happened during the war and since ---- But every Gentleman here must be apprized of them. ...I have said that I thought this a Consolidated Government: I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this Government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our Bill of Rights declares, "That a majority of the community hath an undubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." I have just proved that one tenth, or less, of the people of America, a most despicable minority may prevent this reform or alteration. Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their Government; can a majority of them do it? No, because they are connected with other men; or, in other words, consolidated with other States: When the people of Virginia at a future day shall wish to alter their Government, though they should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented therefrom by a despicable minority at the extremity of the United States: The founders of your own Constitution made your Government changeable: But the power of changing it is gone from you! Whither is it gone? It is placed in the same hands that hold the rights of twelve other States; and those who hold those rights have right and power to keep them: It is not the particular Government of Virginia: One of the leading features of that Government is, that a majority can alter it, when necessary for the public good. This Government is not a Virginian but an American government. Is it not therefore, a Consolidated Government? The sixth clause of your Bill of Rights tells you, "That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people in Assembly, ought to be free, and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their Representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good." But what does this Constitution say? The clause under consideration gives an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation: Suppose every delegate from Virginia opposes a law laying a tax, what will it avail? They are opposed by a majority: Eleven members can destroy their efforts: Those feeble ten cannot prevent the passing the most oppressive tax law. So that in direct opposition to the spirit and express language of your Declaration of Rights, you are taxed not by your own consent, but by people who have no connection with you. The next clause of the Bill of Rights tells you, "That all power of suspending law, or the execution of laws, by any authority without the consent of the Representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised." This tells us that there can be no suspension of Government, or laws without our own consent: Yet this Constitution can counteract and suspend any of our laws, that contravene its oppressive operation; for they have the power of direct taxation; which suspends our Bill of Rights; and it is expressly provided, that they can make all laws necessary for carrying their powers into execution; and it is declared paramount to the laws and constitutions of the States. Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is destroyed in this manner. Besides the expenses of maintaining the Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers; the powers of a King: He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too inquisitive, but I believe I should take up but very little of your time in enumerating the little power that is left to the Government of Virginia; for this power is reduced to little or nothing: Their garrisons, magazines, arsenals, and forts, which will be situated in the strongest places within the States: Their ten miles square, with all the fine ornaments of human life, added to their powers, and taken from the States, will reduce the power of the latter to nothing. The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom: If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans, they will preserve, and hand down to their latest posterity, the transactions of the present times; and though, I confess, my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty: For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but for a scourge: I am willing to give it conditionally; that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, Sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man, that I am a lover of the American Union, that in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our custom houses, and the whole regulation of trade, shall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing; and furnished the last soldier: Nay, Sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent: Even that they should strike us out of the Union, and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, Sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind: The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American Union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that Union: The increasing population of the southern States, is far greater than that of New-England: Consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country: Consider this, and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech Gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation: The Honorable Gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress, are accompanied by a Judiciary which will connect all: On examination you will find this very Judiciary oppressively constructed; your jury trial destroyed, and the Judges dependent on Congress. In this scheme of energetic Government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers -- the State and the Federal Sheriffs. This it seems to me will produce such dreadful oppression, as the people cannot possibly bear: The Federal Sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses he pleases, and ruin you with impunity: For how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: Our State Sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our Legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people: It has required the most constant vigilance of the Legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people: A repeated succession of laws has been made to suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws: In the struggle they have generally triumphed over the Legislature. It is a fact that lands have been sold for five shillings, which were worth one hundred pounds: If Sheriffs thus immediately under the eye of our State Legislature and Judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York? If they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your person or property, you cannot get redress on this side of Philadelphia or New York: and how can you get it there? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go thither, there you must appeal to Judges sworn to support this Constitution, in opposition to that of any State, and who may also be inclined to favor their own officers: When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may search at any time your houses and most secret recesses, will the people bear it? If you think so you differ from me: Where I thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand; and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually happen. I may be told, that it is safe to err on that side; because such regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and because laws are made by our Representatives, and judged by righteous Judges: But, Sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and many reasons there are to induce a belief that they will not: I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death. This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful: Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy: And does not this raise indignation in the breast of every American? Your President may easily become King: Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this Government, although horridly defective: Where are your checks in this Government? Your strong holds will be in the hands of your enemies: It is on a supposition that our American Governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this Government are founded: But its defective, and imperfect construction, puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men: And, Sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad. Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty? I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt. If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute: The army is in his hands, and, if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him; and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, Sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely, and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion, have a King, Lords, and Commons, than a Government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a King, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them: But the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience, think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: He shall come at the head of his army to carry every thing before him; or, he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, Sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not at the head of his army beat down every opposition? Away with your President, we shall have a King: The army will salute him Monarch; your militia will leave you and assist in making him King, and fight against you: And what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue? [Here Mr. Henry strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrid consequences that must result.] What can be more defective than the clause concerning the elections? --- The control given to Congress over the time, place, and manner of holding elections, will totally destroy the end of suffrage. The elections may be held at one place, and the most inconvenient in the State; or they may be at remote distances from those who have a right of suffrage: Hence nine out of ten must either not vote at all, or vote for strangers: For the most influential characters will be applied to, to know who are the most proper to be chosen. I repeat, that the control of Congress over the manner, etc. of electing, well warrants this idea. The natural consequence will be, that this democratic branch, will possess none of the public confidence: The people will be prejudiced against Representatives chosen in such an injudicious manner. The proceedings in the northern conclave will be hidden from the yeomanry of this country: We are told that the yeas and nays shall be taken, and entered on the journals. This, Sir, will avail nothing: It may be locked up in their chests, and concealed forever from the people; for they are not to publish what parts they think require secrecy: They may think, and will think, the whole requires it. Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: It may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked, they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress. I say, they may ruin you;--- for where, Sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will shew you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves: For after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to public and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. --- Where is the responsibility --- that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law --- for there is no existing law to do it. What --- will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility --- and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real, and not imaginary, responsibility --- for there, maladministration has cost their heads, to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were. The Senate, by making treaties may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two-thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided for them, will oblige me. So, Sir, notwithstanding there are eight pillars, they want another. Where will they make another? I trust, Sir, the exclusion of the evils wherewith this system is replete, in its present form, will be made a condition, precedent to its adoption, by this or any other State. The transition from a general unqualified admission to offices, to a consolidation of government, seems easy; for though the American States are dissimilar in their structure, this will assimilate Them: this, Sir, is itself a strong consolidating feature, and is not one of the least dangerous in that system. Nine states are sufficient to establish this government over those nine. Imagine that nine have come into it. Virginia has certain scruples. Suppose she will consequently, refuse to join with those States: --- May not they still continue in friendship and union with her? If she sends her annual requisitions in dollars, do you think their stomachs will be so squeamish as to refuse her dollars? Will they not accept her regiments? They would intimidate you into an inconsiderate adoption, and frighten you with ideal evils, and that the Union shall be dissolved. 'Tis a bugbear, Sir:--- The fact is, Sir, that the eight adopting States can hardly stand on their own legs. Public fame tells us that the adopting States have already heart-burnings and animosity, and repent their precipitate hurry: This, Sir, may occasion exceeding great mischief. When I reflect on these and many other circumstances, I must think those States will be fond to be in confederacy with us. If we pay our quota of money annually, and furnish our ratable number of men, when necessary, I can see no danger from a rejection.... View Quote The moneyquote: Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: It may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked, they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress. I say, they may ruin you;--- for where, Sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will shew you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves: For after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to public and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. --- Where is the responsibility --- that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law --- for there is no existing law to do it. What --- will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility --- and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real, and not imaginary, responsibility --- for there, maladministration has cost their heads, to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were. The Senate, by making treaties may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two-thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided for them, will oblige me. And this was one of the failings of how COTUS was setup. When the supreme court rules outside of the document, what punishment is set for them? WHen the executive exceeds his power, what punishment is set for it? When congress gives away its legislative powers and ceases to be a debating body, leading to a horrific growth of bureacracy, what is the punishment in cotus? When any branch of the government created by the states acts unconstitutionally, who did the founders give the duty to punish them with a just punishment? ------------------------- Because they effectively gave it to none, it falls to all, but because the cotus is a contract between the states, it falls to the states to be the largest bulwark. |
|
|
[Last Edit: FlashMan-7k]
[#14]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: If you tagged me in an American thread to discuss Constitutional ideas, please do not be surprised when I show up and fill the thread with them. Because I will shit Virginian founding ideals onto this site until the day that I'm banned. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I think the edibles hit! Just cracked beer two, are we doing this or letting it archive? We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. If you tagged me in an American thread to discuss Constitutional ideas, please do not be surprised when I show up and fill the thread with them. Because I will shit Virginian founding ideals onto this site until the day that I'm banned. If you haven't noticed I don't generally make short posts. Have a bit of patience on my part. It is not always easy to find things worthy of the effort and time. You saw the length of this starting out. But it must also be made worthwhile and useful. We are humans and subject to all the failings thereof, I think you can survive a tiny bit of jest. |
|
|
[#15]
Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: The moneyquote: Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: It may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked, they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress. I say, they may ruin you;--- for where, Sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will shew you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves: For after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to public and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. --- Where is the responsibility --- that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law --- for there is no existing law to do it. What --- will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility --- and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real, and not imaginary, responsibility --- for there, maladministration has cost their heads, to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were. The Senate, by making treaties may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two-thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided for them, will oblige me. And this was one of the failings of how COTUS was setup. When the supreme court rules outside of the document, what punishment is set for them? WHen the executive exceeds his power, what punishment is set for it? When congress gives away its legislative powers and ceases to be a debating body, leading to a horrific growth of bureacracy, what is the punishment in cotus? When any branch of the government created by the states acts unconstitutionally, who did the founders give the duty to punish them with a just punishment? ------------------------- Because they effectively gave it to none, it falls to all, but because the cotus is a contract between the states, it falls to the states to be the largest bulwark. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Speech of Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788) 7 June 1788 patrick_henry.jpg I have thought, and still think, that a full investigation of the actual situation of America ought to precede any decision of this great and important question. That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow: But, Sir, if this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country, I then insist that rejection ought to follow. Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me. I must be convinced, Sir. I shall retain my infidelity on that subject, till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding... You are told [by Governor Randolph] there is no peace, although you fondly flatter yourselves that all is peace--- No peace--- a general cry and alarm in the country --- Commerce, riches, and wealth, vanished--- Citizens going to seek comforts in other parts of the world --- Laws insulted --- Many instances of tyrannical legislation. These things, Sir, are new to me. He has made the discovery --- As to the administration of justice, I believe that failures in commerce, etc. cannot be attributed to it. My age enables me to recollect its progress under the old Government. I can justify it by saying, that it continues in the same manner in this State, as it did under the former government. As to other parts of the Continent, I refer that to other Gentlemen. As to the ability of those who administer it, I believe they would not suffer by a comparison with those who administered it under the royal authority. Where is the cause of complaint if the wealthy go away? Is this added to the other circumstances, of such enormity, and does it bring such danger over this Commonwealth as to warrant so important, and so awful a change in so precipitate a manner? As to insults offered to the laws, I know of none. In this respect, I believe this Commonwealth would not suffer by a comparison with the former Government. The laws are as well executed, and as patiently acquiesced in, as they were under the royal administration. Compare the situation of the country - Compare that of our citizens to what they were then, and decide whether persons and property are not as safe and secure as they were at that time. Is there a man in this Commonwealth, whose person can be insulted with impunity? Cannot redress be had here for personal insults or injuries, as well as in any part of the world - as well as in those countries where Aristocrats and Monarchs triumph and reign? Is not the protection of property in full operation here? The contrary cannot with truth be charged on this Commonwealth. Those severe charges which are exhibited against it, appear to me totally groundless. On a fair investigation, we shall be found to be surrounded by no real dangers. We have the animating fortitude and persevering alacrity of republican men, to carry us through misfortunes and calamities. 'Tis the fortune of a republic to be able to withstand the stormy ocean of human vicissitudes. I know of no danger awaiting us. Public and private security are to be found here in the highest degree. Sir, it is the fortune of a free people, not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves. Our political and natural hemisphere are now equally tranquil. Let us recollect the awful magnitude of the subject of our deliberation. Let us consider the latent consequences of an erroneous decision--- and let not our minds be led away by unfair misrepresentations and uncandid suggestions. There have been many instances of uncommon lenity and temperance used in the exercise of power in this Commonwealth. I could call your recollection to many that happened during the war and since ---- But every Gentleman here must be apprized of them. ...I have said that I thought this a Consolidated Government: I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this Government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our Bill of Rights declares, "That a majority of the community hath an undubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." I have just proved that one tenth, or less, of the people of America, a most despicable minority may prevent this reform or alteration. Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their Government; can a majority of them do it? No, because they are connected with other men; or, in other words, consolidated with other States: When the people of Virginia at a future day shall wish to alter their Government, though they should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented therefrom by a despicable minority at the extremity of the United States: The founders of your own Constitution made your Government changeable: But the power of changing it is gone from you! Whither is it gone? It is placed in the same hands that hold the rights of twelve other States; and those who hold those rights have right and power to keep them: It is not the particular Government of Virginia: One of the leading features of that Government is, that a majority can alter it, when necessary for the public good. This Government is not a Virginian but an American government. Is it not therefore, a Consolidated Government? The sixth clause of your Bill of Rights tells you, "That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people in Assembly, ought to be free, and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their Representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good." But what does this Constitution say? The clause under consideration gives an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation: Suppose every delegate from Virginia opposes a law laying a tax, what will it avail? They are opposed by a majority: Eleven members can destroy their efforts: Those feeble ten cannot prevent the passing the most oppressive tax law. So that in direct opposition to the spirit and express language of your Declaration of Rights, you are taxed not by your own consent, but by people who have no connection with you. The next clause of the Bill of Rights tells you, "That all power of suspending law, or the execution of laws, by any authority without the consent of the Representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised." This tells us that there can be no suspension of Government, or laws without our own consent: Yet this Constitution can counteract and suspend any of our laws, that contravene its oppressive operation; for they have the power of direct taxation; which suspends our Bill of Rights; and it is expressly provided, that they can make all laws necessary for carrying their powers into execution; and it is declared paramount to the laws and constitutions of the States. Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is destroyed in this manner. Besides the expenses of maintaining the Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers; the powers of a King: He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too inquisitive, but I believe I should take up but very little of your time in enumerating the little power that is left to the Government of Virginia; for this power is reduced to little or nothing: Their garrisons, magazines, arsenals, and forts, which will be situated in the strongest places within the States: Their ten miles square, with all the fine ornaments of human life, added to their powers, and taken from the States, will reduce the power of the latter to nothing. The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom: If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans, they will preserve, and hand down to their latest posterity, the transactions of the present times; and though, I confess, my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty: For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but for a scourge: I am willing to give it conditionally; that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, Sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man, that I am a lover of the American Union, that in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our custom houses, and the whole regulation of trade, shall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing; and furnished the last soldier: Nay, Sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent: Even that they should strike us out of the Union, and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, Sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind: The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American Union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that Union: The increasing population of the southern States, is far greater than that of New-England: Consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country: Consider this, and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech Gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation: The Honorable Gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress, are accompanied by a Judiciary which will connect all: On examination you will find this very Judiciary oppressively constructed; your jury trial destroyed, and the Judges dependent on Congress. In this scheme of energetic Government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers -- the State and the Federal Sheriffs. This it seems to me will produce such dreadful oppression, as the people cannot possibly bear: The Federal Sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses he pleases, and ruin you with impunity: For how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: Our State Sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our Legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people: It has required the most constant vigilance of the Legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people: A repeated succession of laws has been made to suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws: In the struggle they have generally triumphed over the Legislature. It is a fact that lands have been sold for five shillings, which were worth one hundred pounds: If Sheriffs thus immediately under the eye of our State Legislature and Judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York? If they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your person or property, you cannot get redress on this side of Philadelphia or New York: and how can you get it there? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go thither, there you must appeal to Judges sworn to support this Constitution, in opposition to that of any State, and who may also be inclined to favor their own officers: When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may search at any time your houses and most secret recesses, will the people bear it? If you think so you differ from me: Where I thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand; and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually happen. I may be told, that it is safe to err on that side; because such regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and because laws are made by our Representatives, and judged by righteous Judges: But, Sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and many reasons there are to induce a belief that they will not: I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death. This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful: Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy: And does not this raise indignation in the breast of every American? Your President may easily become King: Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this Government, although horridly defective: Where are your checks in this Government? Your strong holds will be in the hands of your enemies: It is on a supposition that our American Governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this Government are founded: But its defective, and imperfect construction, puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men: And, Sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad. Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty? I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt. If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute: The army is in his hands, and, if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him; and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, Sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely, and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion, have a King, Lords, and Commons, than a Government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a King, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them: But the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience, think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: He shall come at the head of his army to carry every thing before him; or, he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, Sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not at the head of his army beat down every opposition? Away with your President, we shall have a King: The army will salute him Monarch; your militia will leave you and assist in making him King, and fight against you: And what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue? [Here Mr. Henry strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrid consequences that must result.] What can be more defective than the clause concerning the elections? --- The control given to Congress over the time, place, and manner of holding elections, will totally destroy the end of suffrage. The elections may be held at one place, and the most inconvenient in the State; or they may be at remote distances from those who have a right of suffrage: Hence nine out of ten must either not vote at all, or vote for strangers: For the most influential characters will be applied to, to know who are the most proper to be chosen. I repeat, that the control of Congress over the manner, etc. of electing, well warrants this idea. The natural consequence will be, that this democratic branch, will possess none of the public confidence: The people will be prejudiced against Representatives chosen in such an injudicious manner. The proceedings in the northern conclave will be hidden from the yeomanry of this country: We are told that the yeas and nays shall be taken, and entered on the journals. This, Sir, will avail nothing: It may be locked up in their chests, and concealed forever from the people; for they are not to publish what parts they think require secrecy: They may think, and will think, the whole requires it. Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: It may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked, they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress. I say, they may ruin you;--- for where, Sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will shew you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves: For after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to public and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. --- Where is the responsibility --- that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law --- for there is no existing law to do it. What --- will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility --- and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real, and not imaginary, responsibility --- for there, maladministration has cost their heads, to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were. The Senate, by making treaties may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two-thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided for them, will oblige me. So, Sir, notwithstanding there are eight pillars, they want another. Where will they make another? I trust, Sir, the exclusion of the evils wherewith this system is replete, in its present form, will be made a condition, precedent to its adoption, by this or any other State. The transition from a general unqualified admission to offices, to a consolidation of government, seems easy; for though the American States are dissimilar in their structure, this will assimilate Them: this, Sir, is itself a strong consolidating feature, and is not one of the least dangerous in that system. Nine states are sufficient to establish this government over those nine. Imagine that nine have come into it. Virginia has certain scruples. Suppose she will consequently, refuse to join with those States: --- May not they still continue in friendship and union with her? If she sends her annual requisitions in dollars, do you think their stomachs will be so squeamish as to refuse her dollars? Will they not accept her regiments? They would intimidate you into an inconsiderate adoption, and frighten you with ideal evils, and that the Union shall be dissolved. 'Tis a bugbear, Sir:--- The fact is, Sir, that the eight adopting States can hardly stand on their own legs. Public fame tells us that the adopting States have already heart-burnings and animosity, and repent their precipitate hurry: This, Sir, may occasion exceeding great mischief. When I reflect on these and many other circumstances, I must think those States will be fond to be in confederacy with us. If we pay our quota of money annually, and furnish our ratable number of men, when necessary, I can see no danger from a rejection.... The moneyquote: Another beautiful feature of this Constitution is the publication from time to time of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: It may extend to a century. Grant that any of them are wicked, they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression will give you no redress. I say, they may ruin you;--- for where, Sir, is the responsibility? The yeas and nays will shew you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves: For after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to public and divulge their iniquity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. --- Where is the responsibility --- that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law --- for there is no existing law to do it. What --- will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility --- and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real, and not imaginary, responsibility --- for there, maladministration has cost their heads, to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were. The Senate, by making treaties may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two-thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land: They may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided for them, will oblige me. And this was one of the failings of how COTUS was setup. When the supreme court rules outside of the document, what punishment is set for them? WHen the executive exceeds his power, what punishment is set for it? When congress gives away its legislative powers and ceases to be a debating body, leading to a horrific growth of bureacracy, what is the punishment in cotus? When any branch of the government created by the states acts unconstitutionally, who did the founders give the duty to punish them with a just punishment? ------------------------- Because they effectively gave it to none, it falls to all, but because the cotus is a contract between the states, it falls to the states to be the largest bulwark. Calhoun continued the Jeffersonian tradition with his concept of universal federal consent. His idea was that every piece of legislation must have 100% state support. "But whiskers what if something really important needs to get passed and Rhode Island is standing in the way? How can such a small state hold the nation hostage?" Well first, if it's THAT important, you could propose an amendment. That would go back to the states (not the federal government). If it gets support and passes, than RI has a decision to make. Say okay, or withdraw from the union. Being as being in the union ideally was revokable, this works. It only doesn't work if you believe the federal monster we created is magically more powerful than what created it in the first place. Which is ridiculous |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#16]
Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: If you haven't noticed I don't generally make short posts. Have a bit of patience on my part. It is not always easy to find things worthy of the effort and time. You saw the length of this starting out. But it must also be made worthwhile and useful. We are humans and subject to all the failings thereof, I think you can survive a tiny bit of jest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I think the edibles hit! Just cracked beer two, are we doing this or letting it archive? We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. If you tagged me in an American thread to discuss Constitutional ideas, please do not be surprised when I show up and fill the thread with them. Because I will shit Virginian founding ideals onto this site until the day that I'm banned. If you haven't noticed I don't generally make short posts. Have a bit of patience on my part. It is not always easy to find things worthy of the effort and time. You saw the length of this starting out. But it must also be made worthwhile and useful. We are humans and subject to all the failings thereof, I think you can survive a tiny bit of jest. Course. I'm just shitposting and trying to rile you up to claim what is yours. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#17]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: At a base level, we have to understand that our freedom was won by confederation. But magically confederation was evil the next time. States are different. Counties are different. Towns are different. The entire point of the American experiment since day one was that people are different and centralized government sucks. I don't want to rule NY or CA. It is indefensible that they should seek to rule me. I agree we have many common interests and I hope to share those interests. But an overwhelming, unaccountable totally centralized national government is not the way to do it. Let the states be themselves, they already are, in spite of federal overreach. View Quote Go back to school. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Articles of Confederation ended in 1781 after 4 years of failure. It created chaos and near bankruptcy. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/new-nation-1783-1815/policies-and-problems-of-the-confederation-government/ |
|
The Devil owns the fence line.
|
[#18]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Course. I'm just shitposting and trying to rile you up to claim what is yours. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I think the edibles hit! Just cracked beer two, are we doing this or letting it archive? We're good man, I just didn't expect the string of posts. If you tagged me in an American thread to discuss Constitutional ideas, please do not be surprised when I show up and fill the thread with them. Because I will shit Virginian founding ideals onto this site until the day that I'm banned. If you haven't noticed I don't generally make short posts. Have a bit of patience on my part. It is not always easy to find things worthy of the effort and time. You saw the length of this starting out. But it must also be made worthwhile and useful. We are humans and subject to all the failings thereof, I think you can survive a tiny bit of jest. Course. I'm just shitposting and trying to rile you up to claim what is yours. I am in my life fairly deep in the forest of having to find reasons to care for things, but those things I do care for burn deep in the embers and do not go away so easily. Plus I'm already doing 3 other forever threads for as long as those news sources hold out, and this one is a much harder topic to have daily worthwhile content. |
|
|
[#19]
Originally Posted By Chisum: Go back to school. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Articles of Confederation ended in 1781 after 4 years of failure. It created chaos and near bankruptcy. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/new-nation-1783-1815/policies-and-problems-of-the-confederation-government/ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Chisum: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: At a base level, we have to understand that our freedom was won by confederation. But magically confederation was evil the next time. States are different. Counties are different. Towns are different. The entire point of the American experiment since day one was that people are different and centralized government sucks. I don't want to rule NY or CA. It is indefensible that they should seek to rule me. I agree we have many common interests and I hope to share those interests. But an overwhelming, unaccountable totally centralized national government is not the way to do it. Let the states be themselves, they already are, in spite of federal overreach. Go back to school. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Articles of Confederation ended in 1781 after 4 years of failure. It created chaos and near bankruptcy. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/new-nation-1783-1815/policies-and-problems-of-the-confederation-government/ Even if what your are posting is true, that would mean it only argues against that particular implementation. The dirty little secret is that cotus, as sold and by the meaning of the text - made our union a confederation of states again. |
|
|
[#20]
Originally Posted By Chisum: Go back to school. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Articles of Confederation ended in 1781 after 4 years of failure. It created chaos and near bankruptcy. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/new-nation-1783-1815/policies-and-problems-of-the-confederation-government/ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Chisum: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: At a base level, we have to understand that our freedom was won by confederation. But magically confederation was evil the next time. States are different. Counties are different. Towns are different. The entire point of the American experiment since day one was that people are different and centralized government sucks. I don't want to rule NY or CA. It is indefensible that they should seek to rule me. I agree we have many common interests and I hope to share those interests. But an overwhelming, unaccountable totally centralized national government is not the way to do it. Let the states be themselves, they already are, in spite of federal overreach. Go back to school. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Articles of Confederation ended in 1781 after 4 years of failure. It created chaos and near bankruptcy. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/new-nation-1783-1815/policies-and-problems-of-the-confederation-government/ Are you positing that failure is bad? This didn't work, the centralized government failed. Clearly we need a bigger centralized government? Is that your argument? |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#21]
Even under the current constitution the entire point of it is for government not to work.
That's legit the idea. States like Montana have intentionally short legislative sessions to curtail the influence of government. Virginia only allows governors to serve one term, to.... come on you'll get it.... to curtail the influence of government. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#22]
|
|
The Devil owns the fence line.
|
[#23]
I have no truck with natural law because it doesn't work, but one would have to be a fool to reject worthwhile content like this:
https://lonang.com/library/reference/frederic-bastiat-the-law-1848/ A FATAL TENDENCY OF MANKIND Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain. PROPERTY AND PLUNDER Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder. But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. View Quote |
|
|
[#24]
THE ANSWER IS TO RESTRICT THE LAW
I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise? Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege? If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote? |
|
|
[#25]
Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I have no truck with natural law because it doesn't work, but one would have to be a fool to reject worthwhile content like this: https://lonang.com/library/reference/frederic-bastiat-the-law-1848/ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: I have no truck with natural law because it doesn't work, but one would have to be a fool to reject worthwhile content like this: https://lonang.com/library/reference/frederic-bastiat-the-law-1848/ A FATAL TENDENCY OF MANKIND Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain. PROPERTY AND PLUNDER Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder. But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. Bastiat is turbo based. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#26]
Sixth : Each branch of government was to be subject to a system of checks and balances from the other two branches so as to maintain a healthy balance of power. Government has been defined as society’s power of “organized coercion.” The genius of Montesquieu’s principle of separation of powers is the fact that when one branch of government exceeds its authority, one or both of the other branches combine against it to use their powers of coercion to put down the oppression of the offending branch. This makes it unnecessary to have the people rise up in revolutionary force to put down oppression View Quote https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-046/page/n357/mode/2up?q=powers Is it though? |
|
|
[#27]
|
|
The Devil owns the fence line.
|
[#28]
Originally Posted By Chisum: It is disturbing to me that any man would pursue any other form of governance and rationalize we can be free. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Chisum: Originally Posted By primuspilum: It's cute to me that people still think we're living under constitutional governance. It is disturbing to me that any man would pursue any other form of governance and rationalize we can be free. Neither of you is wrong, what you need to realize is individual action is required for that to work. You can't just abdicate that responsibility to others |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#29]
Originally Posted By Scalped: https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-046/page/n357/mode/2up?q=powers Is it though? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Scalped: Sixth : Each branch of government was to be subject to a system of checks and balances from the other two branches so as to maintain a healthy balance of power. Government has been defined as society’s power of “organized coercion.” The genius of Montesquieu’s principle of separation of powers is the fact that when one branch of government exceeds its authority, one or both of the other branches combine against it to use their powers of coercion to put down the oppression of the offending branch. This makes it unnecessary to have the people rise up in revolutionary force to put down oppression https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-046/page/n357/mode/2up?q=powers Is it though? You'll note that cotus has no prescribed punishment nor principal for how to determin the proper punishment for many if not most trespasses of the text of cotus. As far as regards the body of the people and tyranny, I'd point out again that the states made the fedgov. The states can dissolve it and make another, or none at all, if they decide so. This is the natural route against the beast that has come of the perversion of the text. Or the states can decide to simply and as made necessary enforce the clauses of the contract themselves, however that is made necessary by the ones breaking those terms. |
|
|
[#30]
Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: You'll note that cotus has no prescribed punishment nor principal for how to determin the proper punishment for many if not most trespasses of the text of cotus. As far as regards the body of the people and tyranny, I'd point out again that the states made the fedgov. The states can dissolve it and make another, or none at all, if they decide so. This is the natural route against the beast that has come of the perversion of the text. Or the states can decide to simply and as made necessary enforce the clauses of the contract themselves, however that is made necessary by the ones breaking those terms. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By Scalped: Sixth : Each branch of government was to be subject to a system of checks and balances from the other two branches so as to maintain a healthy balance of power. Government has been defined as society’s power of “organized coercion.” The genius of Montesquieu’s principle of separation of powers is the fact that when one branch of government exceeds its authority, one or both of the other branches combine against it to use their powers of coercion to put down the oppression of the offending branch. This makes it unnecessary to have the people rise up in revolutionary force to put down oppression https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-046/page/n357/mode/2up?q=powers Is it though? You'll note that cotus has no prescribed punishment nor principal for how to determin the proper punishment for many if not most trespasses of the text of cotus. As far as regards the body of the people and tyranny, I'd point out again that the states made the fedgov. The states can dissolve it and make another, or none at all, if they decide so. This is the natural route against the beast that has come of the perversion of the text. Or the states can decide to simply and as made necessary enforce the clauses of the contract themselves, however that is made necessary by the ones breaking those terms. Sometimes when you shoot in Charlottesville, it is said the ghost of Thomas Jefferson will whisper "alter or abolish" into your ear. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#31]
Subscribing for home school lessons…
|
|
24/365 Most Portable
24/365 Most Likely to Outshoot Her Spouse 24/365 Most Likely to Eat Your Heart Somewhere you jumped the monogomy shark and landed in beastiality - Stickfigure |
[#32]
|
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#33]
The entire world, as large and as complex as it is is your responsibility.
It will never be made great by someone else, you need to do it. Only you can be a good friend, or a good husband. Don't worry about everyone else, focus on your own morality. Because from there you can develop a culture. Gun rights don't exist because of magical words on a page. They exist because fathers taught sons and friends taught friends. And husbands taught wives. Jefferson believed in pushing decision making to the lowest possible level. I think he is correct. I would not much care to fight California gangsters, but I would very much take arms to defend my family and my town. I listened to a Theology podcast a few years ago and the central argument was against the common good. Not because people disagreed on good but people definitely disagreed on what is common. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#34]
The rights of individuals, which we all clearly believe, must be defended by individuals.
A government at best is a collector of laws, and at worst is oppressive. It is up to you and only you how you will be governed |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#35]
Originally Posted By Chisum: Go back to school. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Articles of Confederation ended in 1781 after 4 years of failure. It created chaos and near bankruptcy. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/new-nation-1783-1815/policies-and-problems-of-the-confederation-government/ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Chisum: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: At a base level, we have to understand that our freedom was won by confederation. But magically confederation was evil the next time. States are different. Counties are different. Towns are different. The entire point of the American experiment since day one was that people are different and centralized government sucks. I don't want to rule NY or CA. It is indefensible that they should seek to rule me. I agree we have many common interests and I hope to share those interests. But an overwhelming, unaccountable totally centralized national government is not the way to do it. Let the states be themselves, they already are, in spite of federal overreach. Go back to school. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The Articles of Confederation ended in 1781 after 4 years of failure. It created chaos and near bankruptcy. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/new-nation-1783-1815/policies-and-problems-of-the-confederation-government/ Go back to the same school that told us Virginia just wanted to enslave black people. Nope. Turns out Virginia did enslave people, but joined the fight because they hated the federal government. The flag is a civil war flag. "Go to school" lmao. Yes, go to a centralized power so they can give you stuff to internalize. No, seek objective truth, brother |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[Last Edit: FlashMan-7k]
[#36]
Today's bit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Althusius Political legacy After his death, Althusius remained a controversial thinker. His Politica was attacked by Henning Arnisaeus and Hugo Grotius during the 17th century for its defense of local autonomies against the rise of territorial absolutism and proponents of the modern united nation state.[5] Interest in Althusius' theories continued into the second half of the 17th century, but Althusius was forgotten once the European wars of religion had ended.[6] https://constitution.org/2-Authors/alth/alth.htm The chapter quoted: https://constitution.org/2-Authors/alth/alth_38.htm CHAPTER XXXVIII TYRANNY AND ITS REMEDIES The nature of just and upright administration should be sufficiently clear from the things that we have said. We will now throw light on the opposite of these things, which is tyranny, and will add to this the remedies of tyranny by which the commonwealth is liberated and preserved from so much evil.[1] Tyranny is the contrary of just and upright administration. By it the foundations and bonds of universal association are obstinately, persistently, and insanely destroyed and overthrown by the supreme magistrate against his pledged word and declared oath.... A tyrant is therefore one who, violating both word and oath, begins to shake the foundations and unloosen the bonds of the associated body of the commonwealth. A tyrant may be either a monarch or a polyarch that through avarice, pride, or perfidy cruelly overthrows and destroys the most important goods of the commonwealth, such as its peace, virtue, order, law, and nobility....[2] When a ruler has failed only in some part of his office or government, however, he is not immediately to be called a tyrant. Regarding such a person one must consider that even the best at some time or other are weak in the performance of their offices, and are not for this reason to be thought of and treated as tyrants, provided the foundations and bonds of the universal association remain safe and unharmed, and are not shaken, assaulted, or upset by vices or faults of princes. Nor is one to be treated as a tyrant who, having already started on the road to tyranny, nevertheless does not obstinately and insanely persist on it.[3] For the wicked life of a magistrate does not invalidate his royal authority, just as a marriage is not dissolved by every misdeed committed by one mate against another — unless it is the misdeed of adultery, because this is directly contrary to the nature of marriage. So not every misdeed of a magistrate deprives him of his sceptre, but only that in which he, having accepted and then neglected the just rule of administration, acts contrary to the fundamentals and essence of human association, and destroys civil and social life....[4] This tyranny, or tyrannical administration of a commonwealth, is twofold. One type of it is concerned with the overthrow and destruction of the fundamental laws of the realm. The other consists in the administration of functions and things of the associated body in a manner that is contrary to piety and justice. The first type of tyranny has two species. One specie occurs when the supreme magistrate violates, changes, or overthrows the fundamental laws of the realm, especially those that concern true religion. Such a tyrant was Athaliah.[5] Such also was Philip, king of Spain, who established an administration in Belgium by force and arms against the fundamental laws and hereditary ways of the commonwealth.... The other occurs when he does not maintain faith with the associated body, despises his oath, and breaks up the orders and estates, or impedes them in the performance of their offices.... The second type of tyranny is either general or special. General tyranny stands opposed to the universal association in all things, as when the supreme magistrate like an enemy plunders, perverts, and upsets the church and commonwealth. Likewise, general tyranny occurs when the supreme magistrate exercises absolute power, or the plenitude of power, in his administration, and violates the bonds and shatters the restraints by which human society has been maintained.... Special tyranny stands opposed to certain parts and aspects of just administration. This is to say, it is contrary to the just administration of the functions of the associated body, of its goods, or of the right of private persons....[6] Having become acquainted with the nature of tyranny, we are now to look for the remedy by which it may be opportunely removed. This consists in resistance to and deposition of the tyrant, which remedy has been entrusted to the optimates alone.[7] This resistance is the process by which the ephors impede the tyranny of the supreme magistrate by word and deed. And when he is incurable, or the rights (jura) of the associated body cannot otherwise be kept sound, well-protected, and in good condition, or the commonwealth free from evil, they depose him and cast him out of their midst.... In order that the ephors may rightly exercise this right of resistance to a tyrant, it is necessary that they pay attention to the following matters: (1) what optimates or ephors can resist a tyrant and are responsible for doing so, (2) when, (3) in what manner, and (4) how long and how far? Concerning the first matter, the optimates of the realm[9] both collectively and individually can and should resist tyranny to the best of their ability. For since they have the right of creating the magistrate by the consent and command of the people, they also receive the power of judging and deposing him....[10] Subjects and citizens who love their country and resist a tyrant, and want the commonwealth and its rights to be safe and sound, should join themselves to a resisting ephor or optimate. Those who refuse to help the resisting ephor with their strength, money, and counsel are considered enemies and deserters. Therefore, each and all ought to move quickly against a tyrant as against a common fire, and eagerly carry water, scale the walls, and confine the flame so that the entire commonwealth does not burn. Above all they ought to do this when a tyrant is engaged in the actual act of tyranny.[11] Special ephors are obligated to defend only that part of the realm whose care and safety have been entrusted to them. But they certainly ought not to abandon the subjects and region over which they preside, unless they first have attempted all legitimate courses of action, and have given them up as hopeless.... What is to be done collectively by the estates or ephors of the realm is not permitted to one of them when the others do not consent. That is to say, one of the ephors may not take imperium away from the magistrate, declare him to be a private person, kill him, resist him beyond the boundaries of this ephor's own territory or of the region assigned to this ephor, or persecute him. For what concerns the whole cannot be exercised by individuals separately and by themselves when the rest or the largest part of them disagree. However, it shall be permitted one part of the realm, or individual ephors or estates of the realm, to withdraw from subjection to the tyranny of their magistrate and to defend themselves.... It should be observed, nevertheless, that even one ephor is required to drive from the entire realm the tyranny of an enemy and someone without title (tyrannus absque titulo) who wishes to force himself into the position of a legitimate magistrate when he is not one. A single ephor is expected to defend the associated body of which he is a member against force and injury.... So Holland, Zeeland, Frisia, Gelderland, and other confederates defended the remaining estates and orders of the Belgium provinces against the force and tyranny of Spain. But those writers are wrong who assign to the Roman pontiff the power of deposing kings and emperors.[12] We turn now to the second matter, or when a tyrannical magistrate may be resisted. This involves three aspects: when tyranny proper —which pertains to a tyrant by practice (tyrannus exercito) — is to be publicly acknowledged, when it is to be considered firmly entrenched, and what to do when other remedies are to no avail.... To make such tyranny publicly acknowledged and recognized it is necessary that the optimates of the realm call a council and assemble a general meeting of all orders of the people, and that they therein undertake to examine and judge the activities and deeds of the tyrant. If there are no ephors, then public defenders and deliverers should be constituted ad hoc by the people itself.... Tyranny is said to be firmly entrenched when the magistrate, having been admonished often by the optimates without effect or correction in the performance of his office, still does not cease from tyranny but instead persists in it, so that he can do anything at all with impunity. Remedies other than deposition for curbing and coercing tyranny should first be attempted time and again until they prove to be without effect, in order that the remedy not become more dangerous than the malady itself. For not only should the permissible be explored, but also the expedient. On the other hand, when there is danger in delay, when evil increases and gathers strength, one may resist immediately and confront the tyrant courageously in order that through delay the malady not become more difficult or even impossible to cure. Third, the manner of resisting one who has entered upon tyranny is by defensive, not offensive means, namely, by action within the boundaries of the territory assigned to the resisting ephor. The tyrant is to be resisted, I say, by words and deeds: by words when he by words only violates the worship of God and assaults the rights and foundations of the commonwealth: by force and arms when by military might and outward force he exercises tyranny, or has so progressed in it that without armed force such tyranny cannot be restrained, confined, or driven out. In the latter event, it is permitted to enlist an army from among the inhabitants, confederates, friends, and others, just as against an enemy of the fatherland and realm....[13] Fourth, he is to be resisted so long as tyranny endures, and so far as he assails or acts contrary to the declared covenant. He should be resisted until the commonwealth is restored to its original condition. And to this end the optimates can remove such a person from office, deprive him of his entrusted administration, and, if they cannot defend themselves against force by any other means, even kill him, and substitute another in his place. If an oppressed commonwealth, however, should solemnly consent to a change in its laws, and he who was a tyrant without title should receive the title, there should no longer be resistance to this legitimate magistrate....[14] What, then, is to be decided about private subjects from among the people? For the position we have thus far taken about the ephors applies only to public persons. It plainly does not apply to private persons when the magistrate is a tyrant by practice because they do not have the use and right of the sword (usus et jus gladii), nor may they employ this right.... This is to be understood, however, in such a manner that these private persons are not forced to be servants of tyranny, or to do anything that is contrary to God. Under these circumstances they should flee to another place so that they avoid obedience not by resisting, but by fleeing.[15] Nevertheless, when manifest force is applied by the magistrate to private persons, then in case of the need to defend their lives resistance is permitted to them. For in this case private persons are armed against the magistrate who lays violent hands upon them by the natural law (jus naturale) and the arrangements constituting kings. Accordingly, such private persons may do nothing by their private authority against their supreme magistrate, but rather shall await the command of one of the optimates before they come forth with support and arms to correct a tyrant by practice. But when a tyrant without title invades the realm, each and every optimate and private person who loves his fatherland can and should resist, even by his private authority without awaiting the command of another.... It is not to be thought that by attributing such power to the ephors the right and power of the supreme magistrate is thereby diminished. Rather it is augmented and confirmed by the ephors' power. The reason is that he who might otherwise be undone by his own fault and negligence is upheld by a strength not his own and thereby delivered from ruin. For it pertains to the power and duty of ephors to see that the imperium and administration of the supreme magistrate is established according to justice and the norm of laws, and that he does not depart from what is called true and legitimate administration. Were he to do so his administration would be nothing other than a plundering, or the conspiracy of a band of robbers and evil men.[16] Even God is not thought to be less powerful because he is intrinsically unable to sin. Nor do we think someone is less healthy because he is attended by medical doctors who dissuade him from intemperance, forbid him from eating harmful foods, and even purge his body from time to time when it needs cleansing. Whom should we consider to be his true friends: these medical doctors who care for his health, or those flatterers who obtrude everything harmful and unhealthy upon him? One of the estates,[17] or one part of the realm, can abandon the remaining body to which it belonged and choose for itself a separate ruler or a new form of commonwealth when the public and manifest welfare of this entire part altogether requires it, or when fundamental laws of the country are not observed by the magistrate but are obstinately and outrageously violated, or when the true worship and disclosed command of God clearly require and demand that this be done. And then this part of the realm can defend by force and arms its new form and status against the other parts of the realm from which it withdrew. Thus the Israelites broke loose from the house and imperium of David and founded their own realm....[18] Thus also subjects can withdraw their support from a magistrate who does not defend them when he should, and can justly have recourse to another prince[19] and submit themselves to him.[20] Or if a magistrate refuses to administer justice, they can resist him and refuse to pay taxes.[21] Albert Gentili has recently disapproved of this position concerning the power of the ephors against a tyrannical magistrate,[22] as William Barclay[23] and Giovanni Beccaria[24] also do. But they have been persuaded by the most trivial reasons, indeed I would even say no reasons. It should also be noted that Henning Arnisaeus has a different viewpoint from mine concerning the marks of tyranny.[25] The chief reason that Gentili employs is this. The paternal right and imperium are not to be taken away from a father, much less is force to be inflicted upon him. And therefore not upon the prince either. But I say that there are cases in which this is permitted,[26] especially when some precept of the first table of the Decalogue requires it. For the precepts of the second table are inferior to the precepts of the first table, as examples indicate.[27] And as Christ says, 'whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me'.[28] The prince is called by analogy the father of his country because he ought to embrace his subjects with equal affection. However, analogy proves nothing but only illustrates, as the logicians teach. Whence an argument entered upon from analogy is said to be defective. Whoever is a father is such by nature. A magistrate is not a father by nature, but only by election and inauguration. A father supports his children. A prince does not support his subjects, but is supported by them. And he collects treasures not for his subjects, but for himself. And we do not say that a tyrannical prince is immediately to be killed, but that resistance is to be made against his force and injury. In one instance only can he justly be killed, namely, when his tyranny has been publicly acknowledged and is incurable: when he madly scorns all laws, brings about the ruin and destruction of the realm, overthrows civil society among men so far as he is able, and rages violently: and when there are no other remedies available. When a mad and foolish parent cannot manage his own responsibilities properly, his son can be assigned as trustee.[29] And a parent who abuses his paternal power can be rightfully deprived of it.[30] Whence Andreas Gail[31] and Fernando Vasquez[32] assert the same thing about an intermediate magistrate who abuses his jurisdiction. Subjects abandoned by their prince who does not defend them when he should can have recourse to another prince....[33] The Jesuit Beccaria proceeds further and denies that there are any orders or optimates.[34] I think we have sufficiently refuted this opinion already by rational arguments and by sacred and profane examples....[35] But the philosopher and theologian Bartholomew Keckerman acknowledges optimates and ephors, or estates, only in the more imperfect principality, and does not recognize them in the more perfect and distinguished principality.[36] But in my judgment this is wrong because of previously stated reasons and examples of the best polities, especially of the Jewish polity constituted as it was by God. For we should not fashion a Platonic commonwealth and polity, or the Utopia that Sir Thomas More invents,[37] but only a commonwealth as in this ocean of human affairs can be adapted to the weakness of our nature. Furthermore, who permitted the fullest power of ruling, which is called absolute, to be conceded to the king in such a more perfect state? We have said that absolute power is tyrannical.[38] It would follow from this that no power would be left to the associated political body, and that the power of doing and managing those things that we have attributed to the ephors would be taken away from it. But if we nevertheless declare that power has been left to the associated body, then it is necessary that we also grant to it the exercise and capability of acting. Why give authority (jus) to someone to whom the use of it is denied? Clearly, whoever wishes law to be superior to the king, and the king to be subjected to law, or as we have plainly said, whoever considers justice and God himself to be the supreme lord, must also grant to the associated body those things that we have attributed to the ephors.... View Quote Optimates The traditional view of the optimates refers to aristocrats who defended their own material and political interests and behaved akin to modern fiscal conservatives in opposing wealth redistribution and supporting small government.[21][a] To that end, the optimates were viewed traditionally as emphasising the authority or influence of the senate over other organs of the states, including the popular assemblies.[21] In other instances, the optimates are defined "somewhat mechanically, as those who opposed the populares".[21] The word "ephors" (Ancient Greek ἔφοροι éphoroi, plural form of ἔφορος éphoros) comes from the Ancient Greek ἐπί epi, "on" or "over", and ὁράω horaō, "to see", i.e., "one who oversees" or "overseer".[1] The ephors were a council of five Spartan men elected annually who swore an oath monthly on the behalf of the state. The Spartan kings, however, would swear on behalf of themselves.[2] The ephors did not have to kneel before the Kings of Sparta, and were held in high esteem by the citizens because of the importance of their powers and because of the holy role that they earned throughout their functions.[3] When he refers to these, he means government officials. In particular, those who are to represent or lead the people under their jurisdiction. In other words, a governor of a state vs the feds. Those who run a county vs a state power run amuck. A city council or mayor vs a county gone insane. Or the county vs the city. Etc. He explains how not every trespass by those in government is tyranny proper: When a ruler has failed only in some part of his office or government, however, he is not immediately to be called a tyrant. Regarding such a person one must consider that even the best at some time or other are weak in the performance of their offices, and are not for this reason to be thought of and treated as tyrants, provided the foundations and bonds of the universal association remain safe and unharmed, and are not shaken, assaulted, or upset by vices or faults of princes. Nor is one to be treated as a tyrant who, having already started on the road to tyranny, nevertheless does not obstinately and insanely persist on it.[3] For the wicked life of a magistrate does not invalidate his royal authority, just as a marriage is not dissolved by every misdeed committed by one mate against another — unless it is the misdeed of adultery, because this is directly contrary to the nature of marriage. So not every misdeed of a magistrate deprives him of his sceptre, but only that in which he, having accepted and then neglected the just rule of administration, acts contrary to the fundamentals and essence of human association, and destroys civil and social life....[4] How he says they should be resisted by the others in the government: Having become acquainted with the nature of tyranny, we are now to look for the remedy by which it may be opportunely removed. This consists in resistance to and deposition of the tyrant, which remedy has been entrusted to the optimates alone.[7] This resistance is the process by which the ephors impede the tyranny of the supreme magistrate by word and deed. And when he is incurable, or the rights (jura) of the associated body cannot otherwise be kept sound, well-protected, and in good condition, or the commonwealth free from evil, they depose him and cast him out of their midst.... In order that the ephors may rightly exercise this right of resistance to a tyrant, it is necessary that they pay attention to the following matters: (1) what optimates or ephors can resist a tyrant and are responsible for doing so, (2) when, (3) in what manner, and (4) how long and how far? Concerning the first matter, the optimates of the realm[9] both collectively and individually can and should resist tyranny to the best of their ability. For since they have the right of creating the magistrate by the consent and command of the people, they also receive the power of judging and deposing him....[10] Subjects and citizens who love their country and resist a tyrant, and want the commonwealth and its rights to be safe and sound, should join themselves to a resisting ephor or optimate. Those who refuse to help the resisting ephor with their strength, money, and counsel are considered enemies and deserters. Therefore, each and all ought to move quickly against a tyrant as against a common fire, and eagerly carry water, scale the walls, and confine the flame so that the entire commonwealth does not burn. Above all they ought to do this when a tyrant is engaged in the actual act of tyranny.[11] Special ephors are obligated to defend only that part of the realm whose care and safety have been entrusted to them. But they certainly ought not to abandon the subjects and region over which they preside, unless they first have attempted all legitimate courses of action, and have given them up as hopeless.... Note that even with our few remaning tatters of federalism, there are many to stand in the gap yet. ETA: the constitutional context? Federalism. Althusis is one of the earlier roots of it in the western stream. |
|
|
[#37]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: This should be every man on this board. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/425212/Screenshot_20240428_155546_Samsung_Inter-3200527.jpg View Quote No doubt. This has been a great thread, and perhaps not coincidentally, I'm reading the tale of Jason to my son right now. Tonight, we read the portion where Jason is told by the king that the race of heroes is dead, but Jason disagreed and packed up the Argo with his buddies in order to set sail for certain danger. There are heroes still among us. The fact that we're the heroes is the best part. |
|
|
[#38]
Originally Posted By killingmachine123: No doubt. This has been a great thread, and perhaps not coincidentally, I'm reading the tale of Jason to my son right now. Tonight, we read the portion where Jason is told by the king that the race of heroes is dead, but Jason disagreed and packed up the Argo with his buddies in order to set sail for certain danger. There are heroes still among us. The fact that we're the heroes is the best part. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By killingmachine123: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: This should be every man on this board. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/425212/Screenshot_20240428_155546_Samsung_Inter-3200527.jpg No doubt. This has been a great thread, and perhaps not coincidentally, I'm reading the tale of Jason to my son right now. Tonight, we read the portion where Jason is told by the king that the race of heroes is dead, but Jason disagreed and packed up the Argo with his buddies in order to set sail for certain danger. There are heroes still among us. The fact that we're the heroes is the best part. And it doesn't need to be the false stuff you're taught in school. This king, this president, this senator, this general. Of course some of those guys are cool. Of course. But really what makes a society work are the little things. How many dudes in battle sacrificed themselves for their brothers you don't know about? How many fathers have stood up to people or governments AND LOST on principle? How many men have refused to recant their beliefs in the face of danger? How many men have chosen adventure over what they know and are comfortable with? How many men asked to push the envelope on what is possible? The world is out there gents, we're just talking about the wrong things. We have 100 page threads on wars in other countries, but we don't have 100 page threads about human imagination. We will win, we just need to start ignoring the conversations centralized government wants us to have and focus on the conversations that will improve our everyday life or our children's. If we're really lucky, we can start listening to outlandish ideas men think are impossible and just watch one dude go crazy. You don't have to support him, just watch. Because with every failure we get better. It is pointless to congratulate ourselves on knowing communism and centralized authority is trash. We need to rise above it and achieve greater things. We should leave such ideas in the dust as we continue to improve the world. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#39]
@FlashMan-7k
I saw that post and made a mental note to go back and go through all of the links but, forgot what thread it was in and who posted it. Remembered that I saw this thread title and searched for it just now. Glad to see it was you making a thread out of your post. Thanks. |
|
To those who have gone before us. May we earn what they have given.
"We didn't even get the good communism with gulags and death squads. We got the gay communism with trannys and women's basketball." - Agilt |
[#40]
OST
|
|
Did you just assume my anatomy? - Cowbell
No Tyrant has ever found itself guilty of tyranny in its own court. - ohland Weapons of war are our birthright - Dark_zero_x The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed - Lube |
[Last Edit: FlashMan-7k]
[#41]
Originally Posted By LineOfDeparture: @FlashMan-7k I saw that post and made a mental note to go back and go through all of the links but, forgot what thread it was in and who posted it. Remembered that I saw this thread title and searched for it just now. Glad to see it was you making a thread out of your post. Thanks. View Quote YW man, hope it's useful for you. |
|
|
[#42]
This time, it's from what is reportedly the first written constituion in the western tradition:
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, from 1639. https://constitution.org/2-Authors/bcp/fo_1639.htm The Fundamental Orders In the spring of 1638 three Connecticut towns, Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, chose representatives and held a general court at Hartford. At its opening session the Reverend Thomas Hooker preached a powerful sermon on the text that "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people." On January 14 following, by the Julian calendar in use at the time, which would January 24, 1639, by today's Gregorian calendar, the constitution given here was adopted by the freemen of the three towns assembled at Hartford, and is usually named The Fundamental Orders. Nowhere in this great document is there a reference to "our dread Sovereign" or "our gracious Lord the King," — nor to any government or power outside of Connecticut itself. It did not even limit the vote to members of Puritan congregations. This appears to be the first written constitution in the Western tradition which created a government, and it is easily seen to be the prototype of our Federal Constitution, adopted exactly one hundred and fifty years later. However, see also the Iroquois Constitution and the Mayflower Compact of earlier times. Note that the year recorded in the document is 1638, because the British calendar in use at the time began the new year on March 25 instead of January 1 as does the Gregorian calendar we use today. Britain did not convert to the Gregorian calendar until 1751, when 11 days had to be added to their dates to get the Gregorian dates. In 1639 they were 10 days behind the Gregorian calendar. For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth: 1. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that there shall be yearly two General Assemblies or Courts, the one the second Thursday in April, the other the second Thursday in September following; the first shall be called the Court of Election, wherein shall be yearly chosen from time to time, so many Magistrates and other public Officers as shall be found requisite: Whereof one to be chosen Governor for the year ensuing and until another be chosen, and no other Magistrate to be chosen for more than one year: provided always there be six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; which choice shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and have taken the Oath of Fidelity, and do cohabit within this Jurisdiction having been admitted Inhabitants by the major part of the Town wherein they live or the major part of such as shall be then present. 2. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the election of the aforesaid Magistrates shall be in this manner: every person present and qualified for choice shall bring in (to the person deputed to receive them) one single paper with the name of him written in it whom he desires to have Governor, and he that hath the greatest number of papers shall be Governor for that year. And the rest of the Magistrates or public officers to be chosen in this manner: the Secretary for the time being shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choice and then shall severally nominate them distinctly, and every one that would have the person nominated to be chosen shall bring in one single paper written upon, and he that would not have him chosen shall bring in a blank; and every one that hath more written papers than blanks shall be a Magistrate for that year; which papers shall be received and told by one or more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworn to be faithful therein; but in case there should not be six chosen as aforesaid, besides the Governor, out of those which are nominated, than he or they which have the most writen papers shall be a Magistrate or Magistrates for the ensuing year, to make up the aforesaid number. 3. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any person, nor shall any person be chosen newly into the Magistracy which was not propounded in some General Court before, to be nominated the next election; and to that end it shall be lawful for each of the Towns aforesaid by their deputies to nominate any two whom they conceive fit to be put to election; and the Court may add so many more as they judge requisite. 4. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that no person be chosen Governor above once in two years, and that the Governor be always a member of some approved Congregation, and formerly of the Magistracy within this Jurisdiction; and that all the Magistrates, Freemen of this Commonwealth; and that no Magistrate or other public officer shall execute any part of his or their office before they are severally sworn, which shall be done in the face of the court if they be present, and in case of absence by some deputed for that purpose. 5. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that to the aforesaid Court of Election the several Towns shall send their deputies, and when the Elections are ended they may proceed in any public service as at other Courts. Also the other General Court in September shall be for making of laws, and any other public occasion, which concerns the good of the Commonwealth. 6. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the Governor shall, either by himself or by the Secretary, send out summons to the Constables of every Town for the calling of these two standing Courts one month at least before their several times: And also if the Governor and the greatest part of the Magistrates see cause upon any special occasion to call a General Court, they may give order to the Secretary so to do within fourteen days warning: And if urgent necessity so require, upon a shorter notice, giving sufficient grounds for it to the deputies when they meet, or else be questioned for the same; And if the Governor and major part of Magistrates shall either neglect or refuse to call the two General standing Courts or either of them, as also at other times when the occasions of the Commonwealth require, the Freemen thereof, or the major part of them, shall petition to them so to do; if then it be either denied or neglected, the said Freemen, or the major part of them, shall have the power to give order to the Constables of the several Towns to do the same, and so may meet together, and choose to themselves a Moderator, and may proceed to do any act of power which any other General Courts may. 7. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that after there are warrants given out for any of the said General Courts, the Constable or Constables of each Town, shall forthwith give notice distinctly to the inhabitants of the same, in some public assembly or by going or sending from house to house, that at a place and time by him or them limited and set, they meet and assemble themselves together to elect and choose certain deputies to be at the General Court then following to agitate the affairs of the Commonwealth; which said deputies shall be chosen by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the several Towns and have taken the oath of fidelity; provided that none be chosen a Deputy for any General Court which is not a Freeman of this Commonwealth. The aforesaid deputies shall be chosen in manner following: every person that is present and qualified as before expressed, shall bring the names of such, written in several papers, as they desire to have chosen for that employment, and these three or four, more or less, being the number agreed on to be chosen for that time, that have the greatest number of papers written for them shall be deputies for that Court; whose names shall be endorsed on the back side of the warrant and returned into the Court, with the Constable or Constables' hand unto the same. 8. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield shall have power, each Town, to send four of their Freemen as their deputies to every General Court; and Whatsoever other Town shall be hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many deputies as the Court shall judge meet, a reasonable proportion to the number of Freemen that are in the said Towns being to be attended therein; which deputies shall have the power of the whole Town to give their votes and allowance to all such laws and orders as may be for the public good, and unto which the said Towns are to be bound. 9. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the deputies thus chosen shall have power and liberty to appoint a time and a place of meeting together before any General Court, to advise and consult of all such things as may concern the good of the public, as also to examine their own Elections, whether according to the order, and if they or the greatest part of them find any election to be illegal they may seclude such for present from their meeting, and return the same and their reasons to the Court; and if it be proved true, the Court may fine the party or parties so intruding, and the Town, if they see cause, and give out a warrant to go to a new election in a legal way, either in part or in whole. Also the said deputies shall have power to fine any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for not coming in due time or place according to appointment; and they may return the said fines into the Court if it be refused to be paid, and the Treasurer to take notice of it, and to escheat or levy the same as he does other fines. 10. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that every General Court, except such as through neglect of the Governor and the greatest part of the Magistrates the Freemen themselves do call, shall consist of the Governor, or some one chosen to moderate the Court, and four other Magistrates at least, with the major part of the deputies of the several Towns legally chosen; and in case the Freemen, or major part of them, through neglect or refusal of the Governor and major part of the Magistrates, shall call a Court, it shall consist of the major part of Freemen that are present or their deputies, with a Moderator chosen by them: In which said General Courts shall consist the supreme power of the Commonwealth, and they only shall have power to make laws or repeal them, to grant levies, to admit of Freemen, dispose of lands undisposed of, to several Towns or persons, and also shall have power to call either Court or Magistrate or any other person whatsoever into question for any misdemeanor, and may for just causes displace or deal otherwise according to the nature of the offense; and also may deal in any other matter that concerns the good of this Commonwealth, except the election of Magistrates, which shall be done by the whole body of Freemen. In which Court the Governor or Moderator shall have power to order the Court, to give liberty of speech, and silence unseasonable and disorderly speakings, to put all things to vote, and in case the vote be equal to have the casting voice. But none of these Courts shall be adjourned or dissolved without the consent of the major part of the Court. 11. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that when any General Court upon the occasions of the Commonwealth have agreed upon any sum, or sums of money to be levied upon the several Towns within this Jurisdiction, that a committee be chosen to set out and appoint what shall be the proportion of every Town to pay of the said levy, provided the committee be made up of an equal number out of each Town. 14th January, 1638, the 11 Orders above said are voted. View Quote ... They set about the establishing of courts. They were not shy at all about basing their laws on the bible. They specifically made sure to not allow inexperienced nominees to be magistrates. Rules that when a court is called the local constables must give public notice of it. They set up things such that when a levee was taxed on the towns, the towns should all have equal representation. etc. You can already see a kernel of federalism and how the towns and powers setup would be in some sort of power sharing balance. |
|
|
[#43]
|
|
|
[#44]
https://constitution.org/2-Authors/sr/lexrex.htm
Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince; https://constitution.org/2-Authors/sr/q26.htm Click To View Spoiler Question XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or No. We may consider the question of the law's supremacy over the king, either in the supremacy of constitution of the king, or or direction, or of limitation, or of co-action and punishing. Those who maintain this, "The king is not subject to the law," if their meaning be, "The king as king is not subject to the law's direction," they say nothing; for the king, as the king, is a living law; then they say, "The law is not subject to the law's direction:" a very improper speech; or, the king, as king, is not subject to the co-action of the law: that is true; for he who is a living law, as such, cannot punish himself, as the law saith. Assert. 1. — The law hath a supremacy of constitution above the king: — 1. Because the king by nature is not king, as is proved; therefore, he must be king by a politic constitution and law; and so the law, in that consideration, is above the king, because it is from a civil law that there is a king rather than any other kind of governor. 2. It is by law, that amongst many hundred men, this man is king, not that man; and because, by the which a thing is constituted, by the same thing it is, or may be dissolved; therefore, 3. As a community, finding such and such qualifications as the law requireth to be in a king, in this man, not in that man, — therefore upon law-ground they make him a king, and, upon law-grounds and just demerit, they may unmake him again; for what men voluntary do upon condition, the condition being removed, they may undo again. Assert. 2. — It is denied by none but the king is under the directive power of the law, though many liberate the king from the co-active power of a civil law. But I see not what direction a civil law can give to the king if he be above all obedience, or disobedience, to a law, seeing all law-direction is in ordine ad obedientiam, in order to obey, except thus far, that the light that is in the civil law is a moral or natural guide to conduct a king in his walking; but this is the morality of the law which enlighteneth and informeth, not any obligation that aweth the king; and so the king is under God's and nature's law. This is nothing to the purpose. Assert. 3. — The king is under the law, in regard of some coercive limitation; because, 1. There is no absolute power given to him to do what he listeth, as a man. And because, 2. God, in making Saul a king, doth not by any royal stamp give him a power to sin, or to play the tyrant; for which cause I expone these of the law, omnia sunt possibilia regi, imperator omnia potest. Baldus in sect. F. de no. for. fidel. in F. et in prima constitut. C. col. 2. Chassanæus in catalog, glories mundi. par. 5. considerat. 24. et tanta est ejus celsitudo, ut non posset et imponi lex in regno suo. Curt. in consol. 65. col. 6. ad. F. Petrus Rebuff. Notab. 3. repet. l. unscæ. C. de sentent. quæ pro eo quod n. 17, p. 363. All these go no otherwise but thus, The king can do all things which by a law he can do, and that holdeth him, id vossumus quod jure possumus; and, therefore, the king cannot be above the covenant and law made betwixt him and his people at his coronation-oath; for then the covenant and oath should bind him only by a natural obligation, as he is a man, not by a civil or politic obligation, as he is a king. So then, 1. It were sufficient that the king should swear that oath in his cabinet-chamber, and it is but a mocking of an oath that he swear it to the peopled 2. That oath given by the representative-kingdom should also oblige the subjects naturally, in foro Dei, not politically, in foro humano, upon the same reason. 3. He may be resisted as a man. Assert. 4. — The fourth case is, if the king be under the obliging politic co-action of civil laws, for that he, in foro Dei, be under the morality of civil laws, so as he cannot contravene any law in that notion but he must sin against God, is granted on all hands. (Deut. xvii. 20; Josh. i. 3; 1 Sam. xii. 15.) That the king bind himself to the same law that he doth bind others, is decent, and obligeth the king as he is a man; because, 1. (Matt. vii. 12,) It is said to be the law and the prophets, " All things whatsoever ye would men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." 2, It is the law, imperator l. 4. digna vox. C. de lege et tit. Quod quisque juris in alium statuit, eodem et ipse utatur. Julius Cæsar commanded the youth who had deflowered the emperor's daughter to be scourged above that which the law allowed. The youth said to the emperor, Dixisti legem Cæsar, — "You appointed the law, Cæsar." The emperor was so offended with himself that he had failed against the law, that for the whole day he refused to taste meat.[1] Assert. 5. — The king cannot but be subject to the co-active power of fundamental laws. Because, 1. This is a fundamental law that the free estates lay upon the king, that all the power that they give to the king, as king, is for the good and safety of the people; and so what he doth to the hurt of his subjects, he doth it not as king. 2. The law saith, Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam et jus adimendi, l. nemo. 37. l. 21. de reg. jure. Those who have power to make have power to unmake kings. 3. Whatever the king doth as king, that he doth by a power borrowed from (or by a fiduciary power which is his by trust) the estates, who made him king. He must then be nothing but an eminent servant of the state, in the punishing of others. If, therefore, he be unpunishable, it is not so much because his royal power is above all law co-action, as because one and the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished; and this is a physical incongruity rather than a moral absurdity. So the law of God layeth a duty on the inferior magistrate to use the sword against the murderer, and that by virtue of his office; but I much doubt, if for that he is to use the sword against himself in the case of murder, for this is a truth I purpose to make good, That suffering, as suffering, according to the substance and essence of passion, is not commanded by any law of God or nature to the sufferer, but only the manner of suffering. I doubt if it be not, by the law of nature, lawful even to the ill-doer, who hath deserved death by God's law, to fly from the sword of the lawful magistrate; only the manner of suffering with patience is commanded of God. I know the law saith here, That the magistrate is both judge and the executor of the sentence against himself, in his own cause, for the excellency of his office.[2] Therefore these are to be distinguished, whether the king, ratione demeriti et jure, by law be punishable, or if the king can actually be punished corporally by a law of man, he remaining king; and since he must be a punisher himself, and that by virtue of his office. In matters of goods, the king may be both judge and punisher of himself, as our law provideth that any subject may plead his own heritage from the king before the inferior judges, and if the king be a violent possessor, and in mala fide for many years, by law he is obliged, upon a decree of the lords, to execute the sentence against himself, ex officio, and to restore the lands, and repay the damage to the just owner; and this the king is to do against himself, ex officio. I grant here the king, as king, punisheth himself as an unjust man, but because bodily suffering is mere violence to nature, I doubt if the king, ex officio, is to do or inflict any bodily punishment on himself. Nemo potest a scipso cogi. l. ille a quo, sect. 13. Assert. 6. — There be some laws made in favour of the king, as king, as to pay tribute. The king must be above this law as king. True, but if a nobleman of a great rent be elected king, I know not if he can be free from paying to himself, as king, tribute, seeing this is not allowed to the king by a divine law, (Rom. siii. 6,) as a reward of his work; and Christ expressly maketh tribute a thing due to Cæsar as a king. (Matt. xxii. 21.) There be some solemnities of the law from which the king may be free; Prickman (D. c. 3, n. 78) relateth what they are; they are not laws, but some circumstances belonging to laws, and he answereth to many places alleged out of the lawyers, to prove the king to be above the law. Malderus (in 12. Art. 4, 5, 9, 96,) will have the prince under that law, which concerneth all the commonwealth equally in regard of the matter, and that by the law of nature; but he will not have him subject to these laws which concerneth the subjects as subjects, as to pay tribute. He citeth, Francisc. a Vict. Covarruvias, and Turrecremata. He also will have the prince under positive laws, such as not to transport victuals; not because the law bindeth him as a law, but because the making of the law bindeth him, tanquam conditio sine qua non, even "as he who teacheth another that he should not steal, he should not steal himself," (Rom. ii.) But the truth is, this is but a branch of the law of nature, that I should not commit adultery, and theft, and sacrilege, and such sins as nature condemneth, if I shall condemn them in others, and doth not prove that the king is under the co-active power of civil laws. Ulpianus (L 31. F. de regibus) saith, "The prince is loosed from laws." Bodine (de Repub. l. 7, c. 8). — "Nemo imperat sibi," no man commandeth himself. Tholosanus saith, (de Rep. l. 7, c. 20,) "Ipsius est dare, non accipere leges," the prince giveth laws, but receiveth none. Donellus (Lib. 1, Comment, c. 17) distinguisheth betwixt a law and a royal law proper to the king. Trentierus (vol. i. 79, 80) saith, "The prince is freed from laws;" and that he obeyeth laws, de honestate, non de necessitate, upon honesty, not of necessity. Thomas P. (1. q. 96, art. 6,) and with him Soto Gregorius de Valentia, and other schoolmen, subject the king to the directive power of the law, and liberate him of the co-active power of the law. Assert. 7. — If a king turn a parricide, a lion, and a waster and destroyer of the people, as a man he is subject to the co-active power of the laws of the land. If any law should hinder that a tyrant should not be punished by law, it must be because he hath not a superior but God, for royalists build all upon this; but this ground is false: — Arg. 1. — Because the estates of the kingdom, who gave him the crown, are above him, and they may take away what they gave him; as the law of nature and God saith, If they had known he would turn tyrant, they would never have given him the sword; and so, how much ignorance is in the contract they made with the king, as little of will is in it; and so it is not every way willing, but, being conditional, is supposed to be against their will. They gave the power to him only for their good, and that they may make the king, is clear. (2 Chron. xxiii. 11; 1 Sam. x. 17, 24; Deut. xvii. 14-17; 2 Kings xi. 12; 1 Kings xvi. 21; 2 Kings x. 5; Judg. ix. 8.) Fourscore valiant men of the priests withstood Uzziah with corporal violence, and thrust him out, and cut him off from the house of the Lord. (2 Chron. xxvi. 18.) Arg. 2. — If the prince's place do not put him above the laws of church discipline, (Matt. xviii.. for Christ excepteth none, and how can men except?) and if the rod of Christ's "lips smite the earth, and slay the wicked," (Isa. xi. 4.) and the prophets Elias, Nathan, Jeremiah, Isaiah, &c., and John Baptist, Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, have used this rod of censure and rebuke, as servants under God, against kings, this is a sort of spiritual co-action of laws put in execution by men; and by due proportion corporal co-action being the same ordinance of God, though of another nature, must have the like power over all, whom the law of God hath not excepted; but God's law excepteth none at all. Arg. 3. — It is presumed that God hath not provided better for the safety of the part than of the whole, especially when he maketh the part a mean for the safety of the whole. But if God have provided that the king, who is a part of the commonwealth, shall be free of all punishment, though he be a habitual destroyer of the whole kingdom, seeing God hath given him to be a father, tutor, saviour, defender thereof, and destined him as a mean for their safety, then must God have worse, not better, provided for the safety of the whole than of the part. The proposition, is dear, in that God (Rom. xiii. 4; 1 Tim. ii. 2) hath ordained the ruler, and given to him the sword to defend the whole kingdom and city; but we read nowhere that the Lord hath given the sword to the whole kingdom, to defend one man, a king, though a ruler, going on in a tyrannical way of destroying all his subjects. The assumption is evident: for then the king, turning tyrant, might set an army of Turks, Jews, or cruel Papists to destroy the church of God, without all fear of law or punishment. Yea, this is contrary to the doctrine of royalists: for Winzetus (adversus Buchananum, p. 275) saith of Nero, that he, seeking to destroy the senate and people of Rome, and seeking to make new laws for himself, excidit jure regni) lost right to the kingdom. And Barclaius (Monarch. l. 3, c. ult. p. 213,) saith, a tyrant, such as Caligula, spoliare se jure regni, spoileth himself of the right to the crown. And in that same place, regem, si regnum suum alienæ ditioni manciparit, regno cadere, if the king sell his kingdom, he loseth the title to the crown. Grotius, (de jure belli et pacis, l. i. c. 4, n. 7,) Si rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur, amittit regnum, if he turn enemy to the kingdom, for their destruction, he loseth his kingdom, because (saith he) voluntas imperandi, et voluntas perdendi, simul consistere non possunt, a will or mind to govern and to destroy cannot consist together in one. Now, if this be true, that a king, turning tyrant, loseth title to the crown, this is either a falling from his royal title only in God's court, or it is a losing of it before men, and in the court of his subjects. If the former be said, 1. He is no king, having before God lost his royal title; and yet the people is to obey him as "the minister of God," and a power from God, when as he is no such thing. 2. In vain do these authors provide remedies to save the people from a tyrannous waster of the people, if they speak of a tyrant who is no king in God's court only, and yet remaineth a king to the people in regard of the law: for the places speak of remedies that God hath provided against tyrants cum titulo, such as are lawful kings, but turn tyrants. Now by this they provide no remedy at all, if only in God's court, and not in man's court also, a tyrant lose his title. As for tyrants sine titulo, such as usurp the throne, and have no just claim to it, Barclaius (adver. Monarch, l. iv. c. 10. p. 268) saith, "Any private man may kill him as a public enemy of the state:" but if he lose his title to the crown in the court of men, then is there a court on earth to judge the king, and so he is under the co-active power of a law; — then a king may be resisted, and yet those who resist him do not incur damnation; the contrary whereof royalists endeavour to prove from Rom. xiii.; — then the people may unking one who was a king. But I would know who taketh that qei~on ti from him, whereby he is a king, that beam of divine majesty? Not the people; because royalists say, they neither can give nor take away royal dignity, and so they cannot unking him. Arg. 4. — The more will be in the consent, (saith Ferd. Vasquez, l. i. c. 41,) the obligation is the stricter. So doubled words (saith the law, l. 1, sect. 13, n. 13) oblige more strictly. And all laws of kings, who are rational fathers, and so lead us by laws, as by rational means to peace and external happiness, are contracts of king and people. Omnis lex sponsio et contractus Reip. sect. 1, Inst. de ver. relig. Now the king, at his coronation-covenant with the people, giveth a most intense consent, an oath, to be a keeper and preserver of all good laws: and so hardly he can be freed from the strictest obligation that law can impose. And if he keep laws by office, he is a mean to preserve laws; and no mean can be superior and above the end, but inferior thereunto. Arg. 5. — Bodine proveth, (de Rep. l. 2, c. 5, p. 221,) that emperors at first were but princes of the commonwealth, and that sovereignty remained still in the senate and people. Marius Salomonius, a learned Roman civilian, wrote six books do principatu. to refute the supremacy of emperors above the state. Ferd. Vasq. (illust. quest. part. 1. l. 1, n. 21) proveth, that the prince, by royal dignity, leaveth not off to be a citizen, a member of the politic body, and not a king, but a keeper of laws. Arg. 6. — Hence, the prince remaineth, even being a prince, a social creature, a man as well as a king; one who must buy, sell. promise, contract, dispose: therefore, he is not regula regulans, but under rule of law; for it is impossible, if the king can, in a political way, live as a member of a society, and do and perform acts of policy, and so perform them, as he may, by his office, buy and not pay; promise, and vow, and swear to men, and not perform, nor be obliged to men to render a reckoning of his oath, and kill and destroy, — and yet in curia politicæ societatis, in the court of human policy, be free: and that he may give inheritances, as just rewards of virtue and well-doing, and take them away again. Yea, seeing, these sins that are not punishable before men, are not sins before men, if all the sins and oppressions of a prince be so above the punishment that men can inflict, they are not sins before men; by which means the king is loosed from all guiltiness of the sins against the second table: for the ratio formalis, the formal reason, why the judge, by warrant from God, condemneth, in the court of men, the guilty man, is, that he hath sinned against human society through the scandal of blasphemy, or chat through some other heinous sin he hath defiled the land. Now this is incident to the king as well as to some other sinful man. To these, and the like, hear what the axcommunicated Prelate hath to say, (c. 15, p. 146, 147,) "They say (he meaneth the Jesuits) every society of men is a perfect republic, and so must have within itself a power to preserve itself from ruin, and by that to punish a tyrant." He answereth, "A society without a head, is a disorderly rout, not a politic body; and so cannot have this power. Ans. 1. — The Pope giveth to every society politic power to make away a tyrant, or heretical king, and to unking him, by his brethren, the Jesuits', way. And observe how papists (of which number I could easily prove the P. Prelate to be, by the popish doctrine that he delivered, while the iniquity of time, and dominion of prelates in Scotland, advanced him, against all worth of true learning and holiness, to be a preacher in Edinburgh) and Jesuits agree, as the builders of Babylon. It is the purpose of God to destroy Babylon. 2. This answer shall infer, that the aristocratical governors of any free state, and that the Duke of Venice, and the senate there, is above all law, and cannot be resisted, because without their heads they are a disorderly rout. 3. A political society, as by nature's instinct they may appoint a head, or heads, to themselves, so also if their head, or heads, become ravenous wolves, the God of nature hath not left a perfect society remediless; but they may both resist, and punish the head, or heads, to whom they gave all the power that they have, for their good, not for their destruction. 4. They are as orderly a body politic, to unmake a tyrannous commander, as they were to make a just governor. The Prelate saith, "It is alike to conceive a politic body without a governor, as to conceive the natural body without a head." He meaneth, none of them can be conceivable. I am not of his mind. When Saul was dead, Israel was a perfect politic body; and the Prelate, if he be not very obtuse in his head, (as this hungry piece, stolen from others, showeth him to be,) may conceive a visible political society performing a political action, (2 Sam. v. 1-3,) making David king at a visible and conceivable place, at Hebron, and making a covenant with him. And that they wanted not all governors, is nothing to make them chimeras inconceivable. For when so many families, before Nimrod, were governed only by fathers of families, and they agreed to make either a king, or other governors, a head, or heads, over themselves, though the several families had government, yet these associated families had no government; and yet so conceivable a politic body, as if Maxwell would have appeared amongst them, and called them a disorderly rout, or an unconceivable chimera, they should have made the Prelate know that chimeras can knock down prelates. Neither is a king the life of a politic body, as the soul is of the natural body. The body createth not the soul; but Israel created Saul king, and when he was dead, they made David king, and so, under God, many kings, as they succeeded, till the Messiah came. No natural body can make souls to itself by succession; nor can sees create new prelates always. P. Prelate. — Jesuits and puritans differ infinitely: we are hopeful God shall cast down this Babel. The Jesuits, for ought I know, seat the superintendent power in the community. Some sectaries follow them, and warrant any individual person to make away a king in case of defects, and the work is to be rewarded as when one killeth a ravenous wolf. Some will have it in a collective body; but how? Not met together by warrant, or writ of sovereign authority, but when fancy of reforming church and state calleth them. Some will have the power in the nobles and peers; some in the three estates assembled by the king's writ; some in the inferior judges. I know not where this power to curb sovereignty is, but in Almighty God. Ans. 1. Jesuits and puritans differ infinitely; true. Jesuits deny the Pope to be antichrist, hold all Arminian doctrine, Christ's local descension to hell, — all which the Prelate did preach. We deny all this. 2. We hope also the Lord shall destroy the Jesuits' Babel; the suburbs whereof, and more, are the popish prelates in Scotland and England. 3. The Jesuits, for ought he knoweth, place all superintendent power in the community. The Prelate knoweth not all his brethren, the Jesuits', ways; but it is ignorance, not want of good-will. For Bellarmine, Beucanus, Suarez, Gregor. de Valentia, and others, his dear fellows, say, that all superintendent power of policy, in ordine ad spiritualia is in the man, whose foot Maxwell would kiss for a cardinal's hat. 4. If these be all the differences, it is not much. The community is the remote and last subject, the representative body the nearest subject, the nobles a partial subject; the judges, as judges sent by the king, are so in the game, that when an arbitrary prince at his pleasure setteth them up, and at command that they judge for men, and not for the Lord, and accordingly obey, they are by this power to be punished, and others put in their place. 5. A true cause of convening parliaments the Prelate maketh a fancy at this time: it is as if the thieves and robbers should say a justice-court were a fancy; but if the Prelate might compear before the parliament of Scotland, (to which he is an outlaw like his father, 2 Thess. ii. 4,) such a fancy, I conceive, should hang him, and that deservedly. P. Prelate (p. 147, 148). — The subject of this superintending power must be secured from error in judgment and practice, and the community and states then should be infallible. Ans. — The consequence is nought. No more than the king, the absolute independent, is infallible. It is sure the people are in less hazard of tyranny and self-destruction than the king is to subvert laws and make himself absolute; and for that cause there must be a superintendent power above the king, and God Almighty also must be above all. P. Prelate. — The parliament may err, then God hath left the state remediless, except the king remedy it. Ans. — There is no consequence here, except the king be impeccable. Posterior parliaments may correct the former. A state is not remediless, because God's remedies, in sinful men's hands, may miscarry. But the question is now, Whether God hath given power to one man to destroy men, subvert laws and religion, without any power above him to coerce, restrain, or punish? P. Prelate (c. 15, p. 148). — If, when the parliament erreth, the remedy is left to the wisdom of God, why not when the king erreth? Ans. — Neither is antecedent true, nor the consequence valid, for the sounder part may resist; and it is easier to one to destroy many, having a power absolute, which God never gave mm, than for many to destroy themselves. Then, if the king Uzziah intrude himself and sacrifice, the priests do sin in remedying thereof. P. Prelate. — Why might not the people of Israel, peers or sanhedrim, have convened before them, judged and punished David for his adultery and murder? Romanists and new statists acknowledge no case lawful, but heresy, apostacy, or tyranny; and tyranny, they say, must be universal, manifest as the sun, and with obstinacy, and invincible by prayers, as is recorded of Nero, whose wish was rather a transported passion, than a fixed resolution. This cannot fall in the attempts of any but a madman. Now this cannot be proved our king; but though we grant in the foresaid case, that the community may resume their power, and rectify what is amiss, which we cannot grant; but this will follow by their doctrine, in every case of male administration.[3] Ans. — The Prelate draweth me to speak of the case of the king's unjust murder, confessed (Psal. li.); to which I answer: He taketh it for confessed, that it had been treason in the sanhedrim or states of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his adultery and his murder; but he giveth no reason for this, nor any word of God; and truly, though I will not presume to go before others in this, God's law (Gen. ix. 6, compared with Num. xxxv. 30, 31) seemeth to say against them. 6. Nor can I think that God's law, or his deputy the judges, are to accept the persons of the great, because they are great; (Deut. i. 17; 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7;) and we say, we cannot distinguish where the law distinguisheth not. The Lord speaketh to under judges (Lev. xix. 15,) "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty," or of the prince, for we know what these names lwOdgF and )b@frF meaneth. I grant it is not God's meaning that the king should draw the sword against himself, but yet it followeth not, that if we speak of the demerit of blood, that the law of God accepteth any judge, great or small; and if the estates be above the king, as I conceive they are, though it be a human politic constitution, that the king be free of all co-action of law, because it conduceth for the peace of the commonwealth; yet if we make a matter of conscience, for my part I see no exception that God maketh it; if men make, I crave leave to say, a facto ad jus non sequitur; and I easily yield that in every case the estates may coerce the king, if we make it a case of conscience. And for the place, (Ps. li. 4,) "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned," yti)+fxf K1d@:bal; K1l; flatterers allege it to be a place proving that the king is above all earthly tribunals, and all laws, and that there was not on earth any who might punish king David; and so they cite Clemens Alexandrin. (Strom. l. 4.) Arnobi., Psal. 1., Dydimus, Hieronim.; but Calvin on the place, giveth the meaning that most of the fathers give, — Domine, etiam si me totus mundus absolvat, mihi tamen plusquum satis est, quod te solum judicem sentio. It is true, Beda, Euthymius, Ambrosius, (Apol. David, c. 4 and c. 10,) do all acknowledge from the place, de facto, there was none above David to judge him, and so doth Augustine, Basilius Theodoret, say, and Chrysostomus, and Cyrillus, and Hieronimus, (Epist. 22.) Ambrose (Sermon 16, in Psal. cxviii.) Gregorius, and Augustine (Joan 8,) saith, he meaneth no man durst judge or punish him, but God only. Lorinus, the Jesuit, observeth eleven interpretations of the fathers all to this sense: "Since (Lyra saith) he sinned only against God, because God only could pardon him;" Hugo Cardinalis, "Because God only could wash him," which he asketh in the text. And Lorinus, "Solo Deo conscio peccavi." But the simple meaning is, 1. Against thee only have I sinned, as my eye-witness and immediate beholder; and, therefore, he addeth — and have done this evil in thy sight. 2. Against thee only, as my judge, that thou mayest be justified when thou judged, as clear from all unrighteousness, when thou shalt send the sword on my house. 3. Against thee, O Lord only, who canst wash me, and pardon me (ver. 1, 2). And if this "thee only" exclude altogether Uriah, Bathsheba, and the law of the judges, as if he had sinned against none of these in their kind, then is the king, because a king, free, not only from a punishing law of man, but from the duties of the second table simply, and so a king cannot be under the best and largest half of the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. He shall not need to say, Forgive us our sins, as we forgive them that sin against us; for there is no reason, from the nature of sin, and the nature of the law of God, why we can say more the subjects and sons sin against the king and father, than to say the father and king sin against the sons and subjects. By this, the king killing his father Jesse, should sin against God, but not break the fifth command, nor sin against his father. God should in vain forbid fathers to provoke their children to wrath. 1. And kings to do injustice to their subjects, because by this the superior cannot sin against the inferior, forasmuch as kings can sin against none but those who have power to judge and punish them; but God only, and no inferiors, and no subjects, have power to punish the kings; therefore kings can sin against none of their subjects; and where there is no sin, how can there be a law? Neither major or minor can be denied by royalists. 2. We acknowledge tyranny must only unking a prince. The Prelate denieth it, but he is a green statist. Barclay, Grotius, Winzetus, as I have proved, granteth it. 3. He will excuse Nero, as of infirmity, wishing all Rome to have one neck, that he may cut it off. And is that charitable of kings, that they will not be so mad as to destroy their own kingdom? But when histories teach us there have been more tyrants than kings, the kings are more obliged to him for flattery than for state-wit, except we say that all kings who eat the people of God, as they do bread, owe him little for making them all mad and frantic. 4. But let them be Neroes, and mad, and worse, there is no coercing of them, but all must give their necks to the sword, if the poor Prelate be heard; and yet kings cannot be so mad as to destroy their subjects. Mary of England was that mad. The Romish princes who have given (Rev. xvii. 13) their power and strength to the beast, and do make war with the Lamb; and kings inspired with the spirit of the beast, and, drunk with the wine of the cup of Babel's fornications, are so mad; and the ten emperors are so mad, who wasted their faithlulest subjects. P. Prelate. — If there be such a power in the peers, resumable in the exigent of necessity, as the last necessary remedy for safety of church and state, God and nature not being deficient in things necessary, it must be proved out of the Scripture, and not taken on trust, for affirmanti incumbit probatio. Ans. — Mr Bishop, what better is your affirmanti incumbit, &c., than mine? for you are the affirmer. 1. I can prove a power in the king, limited only to feed, govern, and save the people; and you affirm that God hath given to the king, not only a power official and royal to save, but also to destroy and cut off, so as no man may say, Why doest thou this? Shall we take this upon the word of an excommunicated prelate? Profer tabulas, John P. P., I believe you not, royal power is, Deut. xvii. 18; Rom. iii. 14. I am sure there is there a power given to the king to do good, and that from God. Let John P. P. prove a power to do ill, given of God to the king. 2. We shall quickly prove that the states may repress this power, and punish the tyrant — not the king, when he shall prove that a tyrannous power is an ordinance of God, and so may not be resisted; for the law of nature teacheth, — if I give my sword to my fellow to defend me from the murderer, if he shall fall to and murder me with my own sword, I may (if I have strength) take my sword from him. P. Prelate. — 1. It is infidelity to think that God cannot help us, and impatience that we will not wait on God. When a king oppresseth us, it is against God's wisdom that he hath not provided another mean for our safety than intrusion on God's right. 2. It is against God's power, — 3. His holiness, — 4. Christian religion, that we necessitate God to so weak a mean as to make use of sin, and we cast the aspersion of treason on religion, and deter kings to profess reformed catholic religion; — 6. We are not to jostle God out of his right. Ans. 1. — I see nothing but what Dr Ferne, Grotius, Barclay, Blackwood, have said before, with some colour of proving the consequence. The P. Prolate giveth us other men's arguments, but without bones. All were good, if the state's coercing and curbing a power which God never gave to the king were a sin and an act of impatience and unbelief; and if it were proper to God only, by his immediate hand, to coerce tyranny. 2. He calleth it not protestant religion, either here or elsewhere, but cunningly giveth a name that will agree to the Roman catholic religion. For the Dominicans, Franciscans, and the Parisian doctors and schoolmen, following Occham, Gerson, Almain, and other papists, call themselves reformed catholics. He layeth this for a ground, in three or four pages, — where these same arguments are again and again repeated in terminus, as his second reason, (p. 149,) was handled ad nauseam (p. 148); his third reason is repeated in his sixth reason, (p. 151.) He layeth down, I say, this ground, which is the begged conclusion, and maketh. the conclusion the assumption, in eight raw and often-repeated arguments, — to wit, That the parliament's coercing and restraining of arbitrary power is rebellion, and resisting the ordinance of God. But he dare not look the place, Rom. xiii., on the face. Other royalists have done it with bad success. This I desire to be weighed, and I retort the Prelate's argument. But it is indeed the trivial argument of all royalists, especially of Barclay, — obvious in his third book. If arbitrary and tyrannical power, above any law that the lawful magistrate commandeth under the pain of death, — Thou shalt not murder one man, Thou shalt not take away the vineyard of one Naboth violently — be lawful and warrantable by God's word, then an arbitrary power, above all divine laws, is given to the keeping of the civil magistrate. And it is no less lawful arbitrary, or rather tyrannical power, for David to kill all his subjects, and to plunder all Jerusalem, (as I believe prelates and malignants and papists would serve the three kingdoms, if the king should command them,) than to kill one Uriah, or for Ahab to spoil one Naboth. The essence of sin must agree alike to all, though the degrees vary. Of God's remedy against arbitrary power hereafter, in the question of resistance; but the confused engine of the Prelate bringeth it in here, where there is no place for it. 7. His seventh argument is: — Before God would authorise rebellion, and give a bad precedent thereof for ever, he would rather work extraordinary and wonderful miracles; and therefore would not authorise the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh, but made Moses a prince, to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched-out arm. Nor did the Lord deliver his people by the wisdom of Moses, or strength of the people, or any act that way of theirs, but by his own immediate hand and power. Ans. — I reduce the Prelate's confused words to a few: for I speak not of his popish term of St. Steven, and others the like; because all that he hath said in a book of 149 pages might have been said in three sheets of paper. But, I pray you, what is this argument to the question in hand, which is, whether the king be so above all laws, as people and peers, in the case of arbitrary power, may resume their power and punish a tyrant? The P. Prelate draweth in the question of resistance by the hair. Israel's not rising in arms against king Pharaoh proveth nothing against the power of a free kingdom against a tyrant. 1. Moses, who wrought miracles destructive to Pharaoh, might pray for vengeance against Pharaoh, God having revealed to Moses that Pharaoh was a reprobate; but may ministers and nobles pray so against king Charles? God forbid. 2. Pharaoh had not his crown from Israel. 3. Pharaoh had not sworn to defend Israel, nor became he their king upon condition he should maintain and profess the religion of the God of Israel; therefore Israel could not, as free estates, challenge him in their supreme court of parliament of breach of oath; and upon no terms could they unking Pharaoh: he held not his crown of them. 4. Pharaoh was never circumcised, nor within the covenant of the God of Israel in profession. 5. Israel had their lands by the more gift of the king. I hope the king of Britain standeth to Scotland and England in a fourfold contrary relation. All divines know that Pharaoh, his princes, and the Egyptians, were his peers and people, and that Israel were not his native subjects, but a number of strangers, who, by the laws of the king and princes, by the means of Joseph, had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling, and liberty to serve the God of Abraham, to whom they prayed in their bondage, (Exod. ii. 23, 24,) and they were not to serve the gods of Egypt, nor were they of the king's religion. And therefore, his argument is thus: A number of poor exiled strangers under king Pharaoh, who were not Pharaoh's princes and peers, could not restrain the tyranny of king Pharaoh; therefore, the three estates in a free kingdom may not restrain the arbitrary power of a king. 1. The Prelate must prove that God gave a royal and kingly power to king Pharaoh, due to him by virtue of his kingly calling, (according as royalists explain 1 Sam. viii. 9, 11,) to kill all the male children of Israel, to make slaves of themselves, and compel them to work in brick and clay, while their lives were a burden to them; and that if a Roman catholic, Mary of England, should kill all the male children of protestants, by the hands of papists, at the queen's commandment, and make bondslaves of all the peers, judges, and three estates, who made her a free princess; yet, notwithstanding that Mary had sworn to maintain the protestant religion, they were to suffer and not to defend themselves. But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel, so as they could not control it, then God giveth to a king a royal power by office to sin, only the royalist saveth God from being the author of sin in this, that God gave the power to sin; but yet with this limitation, that the subjects should not resist this power. 2. He must prove that Israel was to give their male children to Pharaoh's butchers, — for to hide them was to resist a royal power; and to disobey a royal power given of God, is to disobey God. 3. The subjects may not resist the king's butchers coming to kill them and their male children; for to resist the servant of the king in that wherein he is a servant, is to resist the king. (1 Sam. viii. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 14; Rom. xiii. 1.) 4. He must prove, that upon the supposition that Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people; that without God's special commandment, (they then wanting the written word,) they should have fought with Pharaoh; and that we now, for all wars, must have a word from heaven, as if we had not God's perfect will in his word, as at that tune Israel behoved to have in all wars, Judg. xviii. 5; 1 Sam. xiv. 37; Isa. xxx. 2; Jer. xxxviii. 37; 1 Kings xxii. 5; 1 Sam. xxx. 5; Judg. xx. 27; 1 Sam. xxiii. 2; 2 Sam. xvi 23; 1 Chron. x. 14. But because God gave not them an answer to fight against Pharaoh, therefore we have no warrant now to fight against a foreign nation invading us; the consequence is null, and therefore this is a vain argument. The prophets never reprove the people for not performing the duty of defensive wars against tyrannous kings; therefore, there is no such duty enjoined by any law of God to us. For the prophets never rebuke the people for non-performing the duty of offensive wars against their enemies, but where God gave a special command and response from his own oracle, that they should fight. And if God was pleased never to command the people to rise against a tyrannous king, they did not sin where they had no commandment of God; but I hope we have now a more sure word of prophecy to inform us. 5. The Prelate conjectureth Moses' miracles, and the deliverance of the people by dividing the Red Sea, was to forbid and condemn defensive wars of people against their king; but he hath neither Scripture nor reasons to do it. The end of these miracles was to seal to Pharaoh the truth of God's calling of Moses and Aaron to deliver the people, as is clear, Exod. iv. 1-4, compared with vii. 3-10. And that the Lord might get to himself a name on all the earth, Rom. ix. 17; Exod. ix. 16; xiii. 13, 14. But of the Prelate's conjectural end, the Scripture is silent, and we cannot take an excommunicated man's word. What I said of Pharaoh, who had not his crown from Israel, that I say of Nebuchadnezzar and the kings of Persia, keeping the people of God captive. P. Prelate (p. 153). — So in the book of Judges, when the people were delivered over to the hand of their enemies, because of their sins, he never warranted the ordinary judges or community to be their own deliverers; but when they repented, God raised up a judge. The people had no hand in their own deliverance out of Babylon; God effected it by Cyrus, immediately and totally. Is not this a real proof God will not have inferior judges to rectify what is amiss; but we must wait in patience till God provide lawful means, some sovereign power immediately sent by himself, in which course of his ordinary providence, he will not be deficient. Ans. 1. — All this is beside the question, and proveth nothing less than that peers and community may not resume their power to curb an arbitrary power. For, in the first case, their is neither arbitrary nor lawful supreme judge. 2. If the first prove any thing, it proveth that it was rebellion in the inferior judges and community of Israel to fight against foreign kings, not set over them by God; and that offensive wars against any kings whatsoever, because they are kings, though strangers, are unlawful. Let Socinians and anabaptists consider if the P. Prelate help not them in this, and may prove all wars to be unlawful. 3. He is so malignant to all inferior judges, as if they were not powers sent of God, and to all governors that are not kings, and so upholders of prelates, and of himself as he conceiveth, that by his arguing he will have all deliverance of kings only, the only lawful means in ordinary providence; and so aristocracy and democracy, except in God's extraordinary providence, and by some divine dispensation, must be extraordinary and ordinarily unlawful. 1. The acts of a state, when a king is dead and they choose another, shall be an anticipating of God's providence. 2. If the king be a child, a captive, or distracted, and the kingdom oppressed with malignants, they are to wait, while God immediately from heaven create a king to them, as he did Saul long ago. But have we now kings immediately sent as Saul was? How is the spirit of prophecy and government infused in them, as in king Saul? or are they by prophetical inspiration, anointed as David was? I conceive their calling to the throne on God's part differs as much from the calling of Saul and David, in some respect, as the calling of ordinary pastors, who must be gifted by industry and learning and called by the church, and the calling of apostles. 3. God would deliver his people from Babylon by moving the heart of Cyrus immediately, the people having no hand in it, not so much as supplicating Cyrus; therefore, the people and peers who made the king cannot curb his tyrannical power, if he make captives and slaves of them, as the kings of Chaldea made slaves of the people of Israel. What! Because God useth another mean, therefore, this mean is not lawful. It followeth in no sort. If we must use no means but what the captive people did under Cyrus, we may not lawfully fly, nor supplicate, for the people did neither. P. Prelate. — You read of no covenant in Scripture made without the king. (Exod. xxxiv.) Moses king of Jeshurun: neither tables nor parliament framed it. Joshua another, (Josh, xxiv.) and Asa, (2 Chron. xv.; 2 Chron. xxxiv.; Ezra x.) The covenant of Jehoiada in the nonage of Joash, was the high priest's act, as the king's governor. There is a covenant with hell, made without the king, and a false covenant. (Hos. x. 3, 4.) Ans. — We argue this negatively. 1. This is neither commanded, nor practised, nor warranted by promise; therefore, it is not lawful. But this is not practised in Scripture; therefore, it is not lawful. It followeth it. Show me in Scripture the killing of a goring ox who killed a man; the not making battlements on a house; the putting to death of a man lying with a beast; the killing of seducing prophets, who tempted the people to go a whoring, and serve another God than Jehovah: I mean, a god made by the hand of the baker, such a one as the excommunicated Prelate is known to be, who hath preached this idolatry in three kingdoms. (Deut. xiii.) This is written, and all the former laws are divine precepts. Shall the precept make them all unlawful, because they are not practised by some in Scripture? By this? I ask, Where read ye that the people entered in a covenant with God, not to worship the golden image, and the king; and those who pretended they are the priests of Jehovah, the churchmen and prelates, refused to enter in covenant with God? By this argument, the king and prelates, in non-practising with us, wanting the precedent of a like practised in Scripture, are in the fault. 2. This is nothing to prove the conclusion in question. 3. All these places prove it is the king's duty, when the people under him, and their fathers, have corrupted the worship of God, to renew a covenant with God, and to cause the people to do the like, as Moses, Asa, and Jehoshaphat did. 4. If the king refuse to do his duty, where is it written that the people ought also to omit their duty, and to love to have it so, because the rulers corrupt their ways? (Jer. v. 31.) To renew a covenant with God is a point of service due to God that the people are obliged unto, whether the king command it or no. What if the king command not his people to serve God; or, what if he forbid Daniel to pray to God? Shall the people in that case serve the King of kings, only at the nod and royal command of an earthly king? Clear this from Scripture. 5. Ezra (ch. v.) had no commandment in particular from Artaxerxes, king of Persia, or from Darius, but a general. (Ezra vii. 23.) "Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven." But the tables in Scotland, and the two parliaments of England and Scotland, who renewed the covenant, and entered in covenant not against the king, (as the P. P. saith,) but to restore religion to its ancient purity, have this express law both from king James and king Charles, in many acts of parliament, that religion be kept pure. Now, as Artaxerxes knew nothing of the covenant, and was unwilling to subscribe it, and yet gave to Ezra and the princes a warrant, in general, to do all that the God of heaven required to be done, for the religion and house of the God of heaven, and so a general warrant for a covenant, without the king; and yet Ezra and the people, in swearing that covenant, failed in no duty against their king, to whom, by the fifth commandment, they were no less subject than we are to our king: just so we are, and so have not failed. But they say, the king hath committed to no lieutenant and deputy under him, to do what they please in religion, without his royal consent in particular, and the direction of his clergy, seeing he is of that same religion with his people; whereas Artaxerxes was of another religion than were the Jews and their governor. — Ans. Nor can our king take on himself to do what he pleaseth, and what the prelates (amongst whom those who ruled all are known, before the world and the sun, to be of another religion than we are) pleaseth, in particular. But see what religion and worship the Lord our God, and the law of the land (which is the king's revealed will) alloweth to us, that we may swear, though the king should not swear it; otherwise, we are to be of no religion but of the king's, and to swear no covenant but the king's, which is to join with papists against protestants, 6. The strangers of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon fell out of Israel in abundance to Asa, when they saw that the Lord his God was with him, (2 Chron. xv. 9, 10,) and aware that covenant without their own king's consent, their own king being against it. If a people swear a religious covenant, without their king, who is averse thereunto, far more may the nobles, peers, and estates of parliament do it without their king; and here is an example of a practice, which the P. Prelate requireth. 7. That Jehoiada was governor and viceroy during the nonage of Joash, and that by this royal authority the covenant was sworn, is a dream, to the end he may make the Pope, and the archprelate, now viceroys and kings, when the throne varieth. The nobles were authors of the making of that covenant, no less than Jehoiada was; yea, and the people of the land, when the king was but a child, went unto the house of Baal, and brake down his images, &c. Here is a reformation, made without the king, by the people. 8. Grave expositors say, that the covenant with death and hell (Isa. xxviii.) was the king's covenant with Egypt. 9. And the covenant (Hos. x.) is by none exponed of a covenant made without the king. I have heard said, this Prelate, preaching on this text before the king, exponed it so; but he spake words (as the text is) falsely. The P. Prelate, to the end of the chapter, giveth instance of the ill success of popular reformation, because the people caused Aaron to make a golden calf, and they revolted from Rehoboam to Jeroboam, and made two golden calves, and they conspired with Absalom against David. — Ans. If the first example make good any thing, neither the high priest, as was Aaron, nor the P. Prelate, who claimeth to be descended of Aaron's house, should have any hand in reformation at all; for Aaron erred in that. And to argue from the people's sins to deny their power, is no better than to prove Ahab, Jeroboam, and many kings in Israel and Judah, committed idolatry, therefore they had no royal power at all. In the rest of the chapter, for a whole page, he singeth over again his matins in a circle, and giveth us the same arguments we heard before; of which you have these three notes: — 1. They are stolen, and not his own. 2. Repeated again and again to fill the field. 3. All hang on a false supposition, and a begging of the question. That the people, without the king, have no power at all. Assert. 1. — The law hath a supremacy of constitution above the king: — 1. Because the king by nature is not king, as is proved; therefore, he must be king by a politic constitution and law; and so the law, in that consideration, is above the king, because it is from a civil law that there is a king rather than any other kind of governor. 2. It is by law, that amongst many hundred men, this man is king, not that man; and because, by the which a thing is constituted, by the same thing it is, or may be dissolved; therefore, 3. As a community, finding such and such qualifications as the law requireth to be in a king, in this man, not in that man, — therefore upon law-ground they make him a king, and, upon law-grounds and just demerit, they may unmake him again; for what men voluntary do upon condition, the condition being removed, they may undo again. Assert. 4. — The fourth case is, if the king be under the obliging politic co-action of civil laws, for that he, in foro Dei, be under the morality of civil laws, so as he cannot contravene any law in that notion but he must sin against God, is granted on all hands. (Deut. xvii. 20; Josh. i. 3; 1 Sam. xii. 15.) That the king bind himself to the same law that he doth bind others, is decent, and obligeth the king as he is a man; because, 1. (Matt. vii. 12,) It is said to be the law and the prophets, " All things whatsoever ye would men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." 2, It is the law, imperator l. 4. digna vox. C. de lege et tit. Quod quisque juris in alium statuit, eodem et ipse utatur. Julius Cæsar commanded the youth who had deflowered the emperor's daughter to be scourged above that which the law allowed. The youth said to the emperor, Dixisti legem Cæsar, — "You appointed the law, Cæsar." The emperor was so offended with himself that he had failed against the law, that for the whole day he refused to taste meat.[1] https://constitution.org/2-Authors/sr/q27.htm Question XXVII. Whether or no the king be the sole, supreme and final interpreter of the law. Assert. 1. — The king is not the sole and final interpreter of the law. 1. Because then inferior judges should not be interpreters of the law; but inferior judges are no less essentially judges than the king, (Deut. i. 17; 2 Chron. xix. 6; 1 Pet. li. 14; Rom. xiii. 1, 2,) and so by office must interpret the law, else they cannot give sentence according to their conscience and equity. 2. If the Lord say not to the king only, but also to other inferior judges, "Be wise, understand, and the cause that you know not, search out," then the king is not the only interpreter of the law. But the Lord saith not to the king only, but to other judges also, Be wise, understand, and the cause that you know not, search out; therefore the king is not the sole law-giver. The major is clear from Psal. ii. 10, "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings, be instructed, ye judges of the earth." So are commands and rebukes for unjust judgment given to others than to kings. (Ps. lxxxii. 1-5; lviii. 1, 2; Isa. i. 17, 23, 25, 26; iii. 14; Job xxix. 12-15; xxxi. 21, 22.) 3. The king is either the sole interpreter of law, in respect he is to follow the law as his rule, and so he is a ministerial interpreter of the law, or he is an interpreter of the law according to that super-dominion of absolute power that he hath above the law. If the former be holden, then it is clear that the king is not the only interpreter, for all judges, as they are judges, have a ministerial power to expone the law by the law: but the second is the sense of royalists. Assert. 2. — Hence our second assertion is, That the king's power of exponing the law is a mere ministerial power, and he hath no dominion of any absolute royal power to expone the law as he will, and to put such a sense and meaning of the Law as he pleaseth. ... 2. The king's absolute pleasure can no more be the genuine sense of a just law than his absolute pleasure can be a law; because the genuine sense of the law is the Law itself, as the formal essence of a thing differeth not really, but in respect of reason, from the thing itself. The Pope and Romish church cannot put on the Scripture, ex plenitudine potentatis, whatever meaning they will, no more than they can, out of absolute power, make canonic scripture. Now so it is, that the king, by his absolute power, cannot make law no law. 1. Because he is king by, or according to, law, but he is not king of law. Rex est rex secundum legem, sed non est dominus et rex legis. 2. Because, although it have a good meaning, which Ulpian saith, "Quod principi placet legis vigorem habet" — the will of the prince is the law; yet the meaning is not that anything is a just law, because it is the prince's will, for its rule formally; for it must be good and just before the prince can will it, — and then, he finding it so, he putteth the stamp of a human law on it. 3. This is the difference between God's will and the will of the king, or any mortal creature. Things are just and good, because God willeth them, — especially things positively good, (though I conceive it hold in all things,) and God doth not will things, because they are good and just; but the creature, be he king or any never so eminent, do will things, because they are good and just, and the king's wiling of a thing maketh it not good and just; for only God's will — not the creature's — can be the cause why things are good and just. If, therefore, it be so, it must undeniably hence follow, that the king's will maketh not a just law to have an unjust and bloody sense; and he cannot, as king, by any absolute super-dominion over the law, put a just sense on a bloody and unjust law. |
|
|
[#45]
https://lonang.com/library/reference/1798-knt/
Click To View Spoiler The Kentucky Resolutions November 10, 1798 [The following resolutions were adopted by the Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798, as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. They were authored by Thomas Jefferson, but he did not make public the fact until years later.] 1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. 2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, as also the act passed by them on the day of June, 1798, intituled An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States, (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory. 3. Resolved, The it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force. 4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the day of July, 1798, intituled An Act concerning aliens, which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force. 5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808 that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void. 6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled An Act concerning aliens is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law; and that another having provided that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense; the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers. 7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress. 8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories. 9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly. 1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. Rather blunt, isn't it? 7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress. So much for the falsely so called "elastic" clauses. |
|
|
[#46]
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/
I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#47]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: I hope Americans will actually read Virginian political thought, not because it started the country, but rather because the ideas have held true for hundreds of years. Guys like Hamilton deserved to die in a dual View Quote Hamilton was the original architect of the Deep State and of unelected bureaucracies in our Federal Government. He doomed us from the outset. That's why the leftists celebrate him. |
|
Obedience is not patriotism. Patriotism is love of your country, not of your government.
|
[#48]
Originally Posted By BikerNut: Hamilton was the original architect of the Deep State and of unelected bureaucracies in our Federal Government. He doomed us from the outset. That's why the leftists celebrate him. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By BikerNut: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: I hope Americans will actually read Virginian political thought, not because it started the country, but rather because the ideas have held true for hundreds of years. Guys like Hamilton deserved to die in a dual Hamilton was the original architect of the Deep State and of unelected bureaucracies in our Federal Government. He doomed us from the outset. That's why the leftists celebrate him. Versus the Chad Jefferson who legit became a world expert at anything he found interesting. Oh, you're curious about Virginia's wildlife? Do not worry I will become the world expert in biology. Oh,I built my own home. Oh, my archeology dig recommendations are still used to this day. Oh, my entire political idea is timeless. Etc etc |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
[#49]
Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Versus the Chad Jefferson who legit became a world expert at anything he found interesting. Oh, you're curious about Virginia's wildlife? Do not worry I will become the world expert in biology. Oh,I built my own home. Oh, my archeology dig recommendations are still used to this day. Oh, my entire political idea is timeless. Etc etc View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By BikerNut: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: I hope Americans will actually read Virginian political thought, not because it started the country, but rather because the ideas have held true for hundreds of years. Guys like Hamilton deserved to die in a dual Hamilton was the original architect of the Deep State and of unelected bureaucracies in our Federal Government. He doomed us from the outset. That's why the leftists celebrate him. Versus the Chad Jefferson who legit became a world expert at anything he found interesting. Oh, you're curious about Virginia's wildlife? Do not worry I will become the world expert in biology. Oh,I built my own home. Oh, my archeology dig recommendations are still used to this day. Oh, my entire political idea is timeless. Etc etc Jefferson was human and flawed though. I forget exactly what it was, but he violated the snot out of cotus to favor his section via trade controls and the like. I'll have to go look it up. In the main, he was right, and we would be better off if we had kept to the stream he was in. |
|
|
[#50]
Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Jefferson was human and flawed though. I forget exactly what it was, but he violated the snot out of cotus to favor his section via trade controls and the like. I'll have to go look it up. In the main, he was right, and we would be better off if we had kept to the stream he was in. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By FlashMan-7k: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: Originally Posted By BikerNut: Originally Posted By WhiskersTheCat: I hope Americans will actually read Virginian political thought, not because it started the country, but rather because the ideas have held true for hundreds of years. Guys like Hamilton deserved to die in a dual Hamilton was the original architect of the Deep State and of unelected bureaucracies in our Federal Government. He doomed us from the outset. That's why the leftists celebrate him. Versus the Chad Jefferson who legit became a world expert at anything he found interesting. Oh, you're curious about Virginia's wildlife? Do not worry I will become the world expert in biology. Oh,I built my own home. Oh, my archeology dig recommendations are still used to this day. Oh, my entire political idea is timeless. Etc etc Jefferson was human and flawed though. I forget exactly what it was, but he violated the snot out of cotus to favor his section via trade controls and the like. I'll have to go look it up. In the main, he was right, and we would be better off if we had kept to the stream he was in. I am not saying the guy was perfect, George Washington made sure Mt Vernon got some of the first roads. Jefferson also just kinda threw his ideology out the window with the Barbary Pirates and Lousiana Purchase. But he had a lot of fantastic ideas for how Government should serve and also he was smart as hell |
|
Originally Posted By p3590:
You cannot feed the Virginians an entire case of malort at once. A pint to sip in the parking garage outside the VA Supreme Court is safe. With a case, they're going to pull up the 1609 map |
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.