The English Bill of Rights 1689
In order to understand the American Revolution, and the American Bill of Rights , it helps to know the Bill of Rights of 1689. The American colonists only wanted their rights as English subjects. Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, these were among the new guarantees:
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
* That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
* That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
* That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
* That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
* That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
* The Avalon Project of Yale Law school provides a rich treasury of original documents.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/...
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
* That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
* That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
* That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
* That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
* That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
* The Avalon Project of Yale Law school provides a rich treasury of original documents.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/...
"That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;"
and
"That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal"
People in The Gulch are probably tired of me saying so, but power belongs to he who is most willing to use it. Barack Obama's "power of suspending" isn't pretended because he's actually using it. At the moment I'd say "the public's power to force its elected representatives to obey the law of the land" is a pretended power, because we are unwilling to use it. Pelosi, Reid, Shulman, Holder, and Obama have all broken numerous Federal statutes. I won't claim Miss Lube Rack knew she was breaking laws because I'm not sure how aware she is, but Reid, Shulman, Holder and Obama all knew they were breaking laws, carefully gauged the public, and decided - naw, they won't do anything. And we don't.
Obama's power isn't pretended, because he's willing to use it. Our power is pretended, because we're not willing to use it.
I know it sounds like might makes right, but be honest; might does make right, always and in all things, whether human events or physics, force prevails. The Western World clings tenaciously to the hope that moral right makes might, a thought that would open third world eyes wide with disbelief, although third worlders wouldn't laugh at the thought, because their daily life and death struggle doesn't leave room for humor. We see almost daily the contradictions to "moral right makes might" around the world, perpetrated by militant Islamists, teapot dictators and the (probably perpetual) ruler of the world's largest nation by land mass and mineral wealth.
So, the fact that pen and ink say Barack Obama may not do these things is meaningless without the power and willingness to use that power to stop him.
"...can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson
I would add to Jefferson's calculation below, another rebellion, the one we call the Civil War. In (now) fifty states, we've suffered two rebellions in over 200 years, far fewer than Jefferson seemed to think probable, or perhaps necessary.
If you mean what I might think you mean the NSA has probably just put another little black mark next to your name. If there's not a law against calling people tyrants yet, there will be and it'll be retroactive. I'll hold your coat when they put you up against the wall.
In the end, tyrants are pretty successful. They run most of the world.
On the matter of revolution, see Ayn Rand on gun control in _Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A" edited by Robert Mayhew.
"Q: What is your opinion of gun control laws?
A: I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it is not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical. [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]"
Look at the discussions we have here on building a real Gulch or a real Atlantis. Unless you have a shield against nuclear weapons, going to war against the United States is not practical. Saddam Hussein had the fifth largest army in the world. His air force was a little smaller. I have never heard a Gulcher say that they have an old F-111 up and running on the weekends... No satellites... Basically, the gun-totin' Gulchers are mini-Saddams with mini-armies of mini-weapons.
See also the discussion on a gold-based federal currency, where Rand cautioned against it as some kind of stop-gap. These changes must come from the ground upwards, from within individuals who are committed to reason. Start there and the rest follows.
Oh, btw, here you are on your own thread (purportedly all about the English Bill of Rights of 1689) and you're discussing gun control, gun registration, nuclear weapons, jet airplanes, and gold-based currency. I'm sorry, but I must have missed those in the embodiment of the original post. Talk about hypocritical.
Kudos also for the observation that the Constitution was the culmination of thousands of years of effort by tens of thousands of men who were both thinkers and doers. It is amazing how often this has to be repeated here and everywhere.
The US has had less servitude than other nations, but it has still had it.
Ms. Rand fled Russia, her home because the might of the Bolsheviks was real, while moral right endowed her with no means of opposing them.
I've read Rand's fiction, songs to man's abilities, but gave up on her philosophical treatises (as have I on all other philosophers) because I found them valueless in the real world. (I'm a mathematician by education. "Cogito ergo sum" doesn't make it in the world of mathematical logic, nor do most philosophical systems.)
Man forced his will on the earth and created irrigation; man forced his will on the earth and created dams; man engaged in bloody conflict and forced his will on the British Army and gave birth to the United States.
The Constitution of the United States is a piece of paper. Wave it in front of a Syrian RPG and you'll find out how powerless it is without the force of arms and willingness to use that force.
I make no pretenses about what I am, try to state my positions clearly, without equivocation or subterfuge. I would call myself a compassionate realist. I would call those who do not believe might makes right naïve and unbloodied.
Modern revision:
"A=A, for various values of 'A'..."
Not to flog a horse happily minding its own business, but I couldn't resist this:
“We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”
Ayn Rand
BTW you are at least as articulate as I am.
I've no idea what Ayn Rand considered reality. As I said, I've read her fiction but gave up on her philosophical works because they, as with most philosophical works, are useless in the real world. When the shooting starts you won't strive to understand the good, the noble or the ideal, you'll strive to press your nose as far into the dirt as you can or you'll strive to kill the people who are striving to kill you.
I do know Ayn Rand lived in the same world as do we, so if she knew reality, she knew the world in which the majority of humans awake each day and take up unseen chains, and she knew they could only be freed by force, as did my favorite black American:
“Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Frederick Douglass
(My own personal theory of relativity...)
"We can evade bathing, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading bathing"?
"...endless wars, bloody conflicts, devoid of any values save survival of the fittest..." This is the world in which I live, and so do you.
You're probably intelligent. You express yourself well. I'll defend you to the best of my ability until you come to your senses or until I can no longer, because when the knives come out and the lead flies you can't save everyone, so you save the ones who understand and are willing to fight.
As an example, let's take an issue much in the news lately, a few hundred Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped, likely into slavery. They likely cannot be saved. It would have been a terrible hardship for them to not be in their home village, but they should not have been there. Most of their men will already have fled the almost institutionalized murder and enslavement.
I spent 6 years in Nigeria. This event is unusual only in that the press is paying attention. I have, in a backlit cabinet, a small collection of old, old gin bottles, dredged up from a Nigerian river, where they were tossed during drunken bacchanals celebrating the sale of boat loads of slaves, celebrating the sale of humans they chased down, killed if they could not be captured, tortured and forced into local slavery before they were sold into the world of international slavery. The folks doing the chasing, killing, capturing, torturing and enslaving were black, Africans, before there was a Nigeria, enslaving other Africans, as they had been doing for centuries, perhaps millenia.
Slavery has a long history in Africa and the rest of the world and, as much as the world wants not to know, that history goes on. Most Africans cannot prosper for the very reasons you quote: the only secure intellectual property is between their ears, the only secure financial property is in their pockets, an improved piece of land will be confiscated by whomever pays the judge the largest bribe to rewrite the deed. I have witnessed massacres of entire villages by other villages envious of a plot of land. There are perhaps as many slaves in Africa now as ever in America, all with black masters. Why, you wonder does the Nigerian government not respond to this event? Why, I wondered, were the people attacking us in Navy boats, firing heavy weapons? African nations have constitutions too, pieces of paper, much like ours.
That is the world in which you live. For the last few hundred years great men and modest, brave and fearful, have manned ships and barricades to protect you from the real world, and you have lived in an island of unreality, floating on a sea of prosperity that paid for those ships and barricades. We are running out of great men, men with the wisdom to understand the world. We are becoming modest and fearful and far less prosperous. The real world will come to meet you. From whence will it come, from without, or within, and will you be ready?
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
May I add something Mr. Adams thought unnecessary: "It is wholly inadequate to the defense of us from any other."
I see by the zero next to your post that someone gave you a thumbs down. I wish they hadn't. Your remark isn't just polite and appropriate, it's important and you shouldn't be shunned for posting it. You deserve that point and more. Thank you for stating the fear others are afraid to face.
We say that the invalid presidential powers are "unconstitutional." The language is different. The inTENTion is the same.
Furthermore, your claim that might makes right is internally inconsistent. If the claim were true, no one would pursue robbers. Rob a bank, walk away, might makes right. But we deny that. In fact, pretty much, most human societies reject that. Even in the USSR the KGB had lawyers. You can get away with might over right it, but do not allow the fallacy of the stolen concept. If might really made right, the word "right" would not be needed.
Texas didn't negotiate the right to secede. Had it, in 1861 it would have reverted to being the Republic of Texas again, rather than remaining in the United States and fighting on the side of the Confederacy.
It negotiated the right to split into 5 smaller states with unspecified borders. I've talked with Texans about that option, will still obtains; 10 senators instead of 2, 32+ congressmen instead of 32, but the result might not go the way one thinks. South Texas is basically Mexico del Norte, Houston is basically a big New Orleans with more money and less music. You might end up with 6 conservative senators and 4 wildly liberal ones, with a similar result from the congressional division.
Texas is an interesting place. Spend time there and you understand George W. Bush's speech patterns and mannerisms aren't psychologically meaningful strutting or a sign of intellectual defect, they're culturally Texan. Texas has a proud history and Texans are proud of it. Texas has a strong economy and the people wear a can-do attitude, and Texans are good listeners, but don't talk much. It's not just the Bushes, it's the whole state. I like and respect them. You could do much worse than have a Texan in your trench.
After living in NJ for 9 years as a teenager, now I talk more than I listen, speak quickly, and have turned that nasty personality disorder of talking too much into a fairly productive job as a professor.
If we type fast enough maybe we can get him to revert to childhood and stutter on the keyboardddddddd...
What you have here are a bunch of high school debaters who like the same extremely poorly scripted and produced film versions of their favorite author's most famous novel.
What you don't have here is anything for me.
Goodbye.
Allow me to make an observation, (try stopping me) when I post statements skeptical of anthropogenic global warming I get lots of points, but Ayn Rand died before AGW became a big deal (in fact, Ayn Rand would have died thinking Earth was cooling, which it was at that time), so what's the big deal about AGW with the Randians? Why do they approve so much of those statements but react with such hostility to my statements regarding power, force, and the use thereof? My statements regarding AGW are science-based, but the future isn't provable and I can't deny the chance that the AGW crowd might be on to something, while my statements regarding social power, force and the use of force have been proved by all of human history and are obvious to anyone willing to look.
You're safe to answer, because I think I've run out of readers.
As I've said before, I'm no student of Objectivism, as what I did learn seemed to be contrary to fundamental human nature, and so if it violates that, I didn't deem it worth much more effort to learn (although I can always be persuaded - but it takes more and more evidence to do so as time goes by, guess I'm getting set in my ways).
As Wanderer correctly points out, all through human history we see one human looking to dominate other humans, generally through the use of force. Occasionally we see people subject themselves to servitude willingly (Jonestown comes to mind), but generally it comes at the use of force or the threat of force. That is reality.
Objectivism is based on some notion that 1) I own myself, 2) because I own myself and others own themselves I should treat them with the same respect and autonomy as I would expect them to treat me as persons who own themselves, and 3) (the failing in my view) Others must also see that this is the only rational way for all of us to live together. If that were true, then the anarcho-capitalists might be on to something, as we would have little need for government. But, this is not in keeping with human nature, and thus, if it is not true, then the rest of Objectivism is built on a dream.
If we accept that the nature of humanity is that one man will seek to subjugate his fellow man, then we have a basis for the need of government at the very least - but governments are made of men and men are corruptible and are subject to the same desire to subjugate their fellow man, so even government is not sufficient.
If the Constitution put into place had been based on natural rights(it wasn't) and the people agreed protecting natural rights were important to the future of their nation, people would begin to focus on building lives and investing in property instead of fighting against one another or fighting against other nations under their insane religion of jihad. The guns are there regardless, but chaos is there the minute the gun is put down. The ideas must come first and the guns are the means of self defense. The resulting prosperity is a powerful motivator to focus on property and away from death and destruction of property
But, to ignore that force is used, is foolish, naïve, and dangerous.
No, the Am Rev did not begin because we had a bigger army. Nor was it won because we had better ideas. It was a combination of both.
What we all must do, if we are hoping to expect that we can live in a society larger than the Gulch, is realize that there are those who agree with Wanderer and Robbie on "I'm not sure that what Wanderer has been saying is that the use of power is "right," merely that there are those who will do so. That is reality. That is also my point about human nature and why the fundamental basis for Objectivism, in my humble opinion, is fallacious." They are both right on this point. They view themselves as being non-contradictory but do not accept the non-aggression principle (premise) as being "the only rational way for all of us to live together."
This entire thread illustrates why Objectivism can never be expected to work in a large, open borders society. It could well work for a country the size of Liechtenstein. The closest anyone will ever come to an acceptable society for Objectivism happened already in this country from the Revolutionary War to 1900. Given the mobility of humanity now, it could never once again be re-established on a large scale.
1. Rand would never have advocated for the non-aggression principle.
2.When Locke was formulating his philosophy based on natural rights, his country was a monarchy. When the Constitution of The United States was drawn up, it was based in no small part on natural rights. I am sure the rest of the world was certain our new nation would fail under a system of capitalism. More important than where a nation's borders are is the idea that men agree on a system based in logic and reason. Rand argued that capitalism was that system-if kept pure. The cooperation will necessarily follow. BUt the foundations of the system rest in man's right to himself and the products(property) of his mind.
Often, you'll hear someone say about the state of constant wars and fuedalism in African nations-people are starving-that's why there's so much chaos. We have to feed people first, then figure out their governments. In the History of the World, the ideas have always come first to pull people out of a Malthusian Trap. This is why we are seeing the disaster of an Egypt, Lebanon, Afganistan, Iraq, etc. Our own nation did not set up governments based on our system of Capitalism and natural rights.-which are nothing more than ideas, concepts put into action- no matter how large the physical landscape. This is not an argument of point of a gun vs. non-aggression. Under a natural rights system of capitalism people will voluntarily cooperate-value for value. But those rights are protected and enforced and we agree to that. When the government goes beyond their instituted purpose-we are right back to the drawing board on ideas. If we don't agree on certain foundations we will rule and be ruled as thugs.
As for the reasons why so much of the world starves, I couldn't agree with you more. The ideas come first.
There has only been one significant and prolonged counter to force and subjugation, and even that has had its significant failings.
Look at even the smallest form of community, the family. Whose family isn't ruled by some level of force and subjugation? If you say that yours isn't, then I think you are fooling yourself.
I have suggested before that the skilled interrogator allows the subject to speak about "other" people knowing that it is projection from within. I expect that your family of origin was ruled by force. You accept that as a premise.
John Galt and Dagny Taggart, whose names you invoke, had a different view because Ayn Rand wrote them into life.
As khalling has pointed out, the success of capitalism, enterprise, and invention - ultimately, of America - depended on reason and agreement. It was not perfect. It was never complete, either socially or even (largely) within any one individual. However, overall, generally, it was individuals who accepted the primacy of existence and who applied reason to their perceptions who came to offer value for value to others.
Not only is it moral, it works. It must work because it is moral. A is A.
In fact, that is why the English Bill of Rights was created, to provide a moral basis for that government.
You seem to think that this board is a playground for those who only think exactly as do you. I admire much of what AR had to say in describing how the downfall comes about, but not necessarily in how she felt that there would be a solution. Why do you seek to deny me the ability to value what I choose and reject what I choose? That seems to be a subtle form of power/control on your part.
I find your statement disingenuous. No sane, intelligent person could find in any of my statements a moral endorsement of violence. I am simply telling you, as I have tried telling hundreds of sheltered Americans, the world is ruled by violence. You can philosophize and moralize all you want but, violence rules the human and animal worlds. If Ayn Rand contradicts that statement then, I'm sorry, but she was a fool. The US Constitution was birthed in blood and has been saved through innumerable acts of violence. Most Americans are insulated, as I've said, by two oceans and the Gulf, the nation's former wealth, her strong military, and their chosen cultural isolation. Spend some time in the third world and violence will swat you in the face and those most masterful in the violent arts will be in control. The nonviolence of Europe's last 50 years have been an anomaly that is coming to an end. Soon European events will again be controlled by those most willing and able to use violence.
Telling the truth is not an indication of advocacy. If you've taken up arms to defend the helpless I'll listen. If not shut the fuck up and listen to someone who has.
I've been condemned roundly by friends and family for saying these same things. I guess my question is: Why am I immoral for telling Americans that other people live with violence, slavery and depredations on a daily basis, and that these things are coming to visit them?
Please tell me Ayn Rand never said the world can be ruled with polite discussion. If so, she's an OK novelist, but a terrible historian and philosopher.
Rand's solution was to offer a culture of reason. The culture of reason begins with individuals who accept the primacy of existence. It may not sound as thrilling as bugle calls and barricade, but it the only thing that will actually work to bring about a better future.
You are not being practical, you are being anti-conceptual.
"My mother says that violence never settles anything."
"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you? "
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"
"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." "
- Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers"
I repeat, it makes no difference to me if I have to fight Iranian terrorists or American soldiers; my liberty is not for sale, not for prosperity, not for comfort and not for convenience... and not to pay a phantasmic "debt". And the American soldier who thinks to make of himself a Praetorian best think twice, because there's a lot of rednecks like me out there. And we know how to shoot.
(for clarity; I specify "American soldier" because I'm American).
Understand this very, very carefully. I don't need you or any <expletive> soldier. My freedom is not a currency to be traded between tyrants, whether they wear Mullah's robes or olive drab uniforms.
If I have to <expletive> fight you instead of fighting Islamic terrorists or communist dictators, I've gained nothing. In point of fact, I've lost ground because the terrorists and dictators start out overseas, not in my neighborhood.
If you donned the uniform, you did so voluntarily. You were *paid* for whatever you did, both in coin and in whatever squishy orgasmic feelings you got from being military.
I am not helpless, and if the price of defense is surrendering khalling's 1st Amendment rights... bring it, <expletive>. A Navy Seal with a hundred years service and 12 C.M.H.s is no different to me than an Iranian mullah, if either demands surrendering of fundamental liberties, either out of religious subjugation or indebtedness.
I happen to agree with your premise, but will violently oppose anyone who attempts to diminish my liberty by imposing a debt that does not exist; because while you were out there defending the helpless instead of enforcing your nation's will (on our dime), you were also defending your *own* rights. I'm willing to offer respect in appreciation for your efforts, but you get nothing more.
The nonviolence of Europe's last 50 years was a result of American hegemony. The violence in the 3rd world is a result, ironically, of American beneficence, and European political correctness on steroids. After the marine barracks bombing under Reagan's watch, it should have become a death-penalty offense for any middle-eastern moslem to look sideways at an American, but we didn't do that. Had the Europeans not surrendered their colonies in the name of a flawed-but-noble-sounding political system (democracy), it's extremely unlikely much of the violence in the former colonies would have taken place, from the Rawandan slaughters to the Nigerian kidnappings.
I'll conclude my tirade in another message.
True, Shay's, Whiskey, the Indian Wars only if you consider the Indians to have been citizens (I'll buy it, as a moral issue, but I'm not sure of their legal status at the time.). Texas was not part of the United States. It rebelled against Mexico, so that one doesn't count. Athens Tennessee should. I'd forgotten about it. Small but important. Still, far fewer than Jefferson seemed to think likely or necessary.
No. Jefferson's point was about rebellions within the United States, as he made clear in talking about the 13 colonies. If we were to expand and consider rebellions in other countries we'd have to start another website.
Beyond that, in 1836 people who resided in Texas were Mexican citizens, about half of whom were born Mexicans, the other half being immigrants about equally from the US and Europe, who took advantage of Mexico's land offer. The Alamo's defenders were a reflection of that population.
The Mexican rebellion started in 1835. (Texas was not the first or only Mexican province to rebel, just the only one that managed to free itself from Santa Anna, something I have trouble explaining to Europeans, who learned their US history from leftist profs, who told them the US "stole" Texas from Mexico.) The Texians won battles at Gonzales, Goliad, Lipantitlan, Conception, and Bexar, but lost at the Alamo, San Patricio, Aqua Dulce, Refugio and Coleto, after which Santa Anna executed 300 prisoners, as he had executed the survivors of the Alamo.
It was after these massacres that the Texians defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto. (Not as the movies show, in an old fashioned frontal assault at noon, but sneaking up on them in the morning and killing them before they could react. And it was after this that Sam Houston let the captured Santa Anna go, to return to Mexico and ruthlessly crush the rest of the rebellion. If there's anything Mexicans can justly hold against us, it's that act, allowing a dictator to resume his repressive reign over them.)
The victorious former Mexican citizens proudly formed the independent Republic of Texas, and remained their own country for 9 years, until they negotiated entry into the United States, on their terms, refusing to relinquish any land in Texas to the US Federal Government. Go Texas!
So, nope, the only rebellion that counts in Texas is the Civil War, although sooner or later, if we don't close the border, there's going to be another one.
Out of Camelot came Arthur's
not "might makes right"
but "might for right"
Harry M
In order to understand the American Revolution, you must know about the Glorious Revolution.
The clause
"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;"
appears in The Articles of Confederation as
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."
and in the Constitution as
"They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
Mike:
It will do everyone well to review the AMERICAN contribution to the founding of our American Civilization in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
It will do everyone well to review William Penn's Constitution in the founding of his Colony in the early 1680s. including most of those Freedoms/Rights. See Wikipedia's article abut him.
After that, read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" (Jan, 1776) which was printed a few blocks away from Independence Hall. Diagonally, behind Independence Hall is Washington Square. The site of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution. Washington stands guard over thousands of those Soldiers buried underneath the square. I sit with the spirits of all those who have made the same sacrifice since then, and wonder where we are, and are going. I pass by Independence Hall several times a week.
In the 1960s, Ayn Rand and N Branden came to Phila., Pa and gave lectures, which I attended.
from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Harry M
You might start here: The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19 1643. The American experience took root and flourished over about five generations before the present Constitution.
No constitutional provision allowed a state to leave the union. It would have taken a kind of reverse convention. How would anyone know what was a valid process? It is easy to argue that the southern states were seized by coteries, cabals, cliques, and juntos who declared themselves the true governments, which they were not. In truth, I accept the historical record: most (white) people in south wanted to leave the union (maybe). That being as it may, it was not clear that war was the only way out. They never tried anything else. And they fired the first shot.
Certainly at the time, and arguably today, Texas had (has?) the right to secede. Wanderer and I just got into an interesting discussion of that.
No Constitutional provision, or other provision of English law, allowed the colonies to secede from the crown, either.
But in the DoI, the Founding Fathers make it clear that people DO have a right to separate from a body politic which is inimical to their well-being... as they, and they alone, judge it.
I further point to both the 9th and 10th Amendments to refute your assertion. Each State is not a province of a central government, but a sovereign republic unto itself; in fact, a State cannot join the Union until it has provided its people with a republican form of government.
A State is not a province.
While most (white) people in the South wanted to leave the Union, the opinion of most (black) people was irrelevant, they not being citizens either of their States (the path through which most U.S. citizens get their U.S. citizenship), or of the Union.
While it might not have been clear that war was the only way out, the U.S. didn't try anything else, either. They sent forces to seize a military post on foreign soil, a key post. The U.S. interest in keeping Southern States in the Union wasn't some kind of paternalism, but greed for the monies generated by Southern trade.
Another name which it also is never referred to would be "the Confederate War for Independence" It was called this in a book called Memoirs of the Confederate War for Independence by Heros von Borcke . After all the Civil war was not a civil war. In a civil war one side is trying to conquer the other side, the south, was not trying to conquer the north, merely get free of it.
From Wikipedia about Gen. Joseph Johnston of the Confederacy:
After the surrender, Sherman issued ten days' rations to the hungry Confederate soldiers, as well as horses and mules for them to "insure a crop." He also ordered distribution of corn, meal, and flour to civilians throughout the South. This was an act of generosity that Johnston would never forget; he wrote to Sherman that his attitude "reconciles me to what I have previously regarded as the misfortune of my life, that of having you to encounter in the field."[33]
If the Confederate generals had been a bit less "honorable", and more despicable like their Union counterparts, they might have won their independence. Why they put Old Granny in charge I will *never* understand.
In that one group of us decided no group may have an exit? In that narrow interpretation I think you are right. Since it appears there is no exit, it's up to us, as much as we can, to relieve ourselves of this subjugation and along with us, relieve from their self imposed moral prison those of our fellows who strive to enslave us.
Nice words, right? But I've been so many places and came back thinking this country is our last, best hope. The world is small. There is no country, no island so remote that a slave crazed America could not and would not consume and subjugate it. It's as though we are locked in a cage with a terrible beast, we cannot escape the beast and at most one of us can survive.