Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
Posted by JeanPaulZodeaux 11 years, 8 months ago to Politics
There has only been one President under the federalism of the United States who did not belong to a political party. That man was George Washington and in his Farewell Address he gave dire warnings to the evils of political parties. Few listened to him then and few are listening now. Indeed, John Adams, second President of the United States and a member of the Federalist Party not only did not heed Washington's Address, as President he pushed forth the odious Alien and Sedition Acts and two weeks before signing that legislation arrested Benjamin Franklin Bache (Ben Franklin's grandson) for making unflattering remarks about Adams calling him a bald toothless fool. Arrested for being mean. Imagine that! John Adams, a man who fought fiercely for liberty and wrote many essays in praise and defense of liberty showed no regard at all for the freedom of the press when it came to insults thrown his way and it looked as if his Federalist Party was vulnerable.
Vulnerable it was and the third President of the U.S. was Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party but at least Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions in reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts declaring unconstitutional legislation null and void. This was a few years before John Marshall would be appointed to the Supreme Court and ultimately find the power of judicial review for that Court. Ironically, Jefferson was incensed at what he thought was a power grab by the Supreme Court.
Every President since belonged or belongs to a political party. There is no Constitutional mandate for political parties. They may not necessarily be unconstitutional but the two-party system that has insinuated itself into the American political landscape, has used tactics that have deprived voters of choice. Recently the Kentucky Supreme Court has struck down a redistricting plan as unconstitutional and it is about time. However, when it comes to Presidential elections particularly, voting is increasingly becoming a useless distraction. A dog and pony show and akin to the bread and circuses Roman emperors would use to keep the population content and stay any possibility of uprising.
Too many people today believe their only option is to vote for the lesser of two evils ignoring the fact that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Worse, people are voting without regard for the rights of humanity.
Vulnerable it was and the third President of the U.S. was Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party but at least Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions in reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts declaring unconstitutional legislation null and void. This was a few years before John Marshall would be appointed to the Supreme Court and ultimately find the power of judicial review for that Court. Ironically, Jefferson was incensed at what he thought was a power grab by the Supreme Court.
Every President since belonged or belongs to a political party. There is no Constitutional mandate for political parties. They may not necessarily be unconstitutional but the two-party system that has insinuated itself into the American political landscape, has used tactics that have deprived voters of choice. Recently the Kentucky Supreme Court has struck down a redistricting plan as unconstitutional and it is about time. However, when it comes to Presidential elections particularly, voting is increasingly becoming a useless distraction. A dog and pony show and akin to the bread and circuses Roman emperors would use to keep the population content and stay any possibility of uprising.
Too many people today believe their only option is to vote for the lesser of two evils ignoring the fact that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Worse, people are voting without regard for the rights of humanity.
While the post is difficult to read, I was able to discern your absurd remarks about All Ready. It is beyond ridiculous that I should have to supply a link to define the damn phrase. One would think if you had doubt about what I stated you would have simply just done some research, but then again, I suppose if you were inclined to do any research I wouldn't have had to point to the Ninth Amendment either. Here is a link defining All Ready:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/All+rea...
Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.
The Founders chose to establish a republic over a democracy in an attempt to prevent the majority from trampling over the rights of the minority. The republic of the United States - what remains of it today - was put in place to stop people from voting their rights away in favor of privilege.
The Bill of Rights uses the word People. People are a part of humanity.
Your discussion of "unalienable rights" references the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. These rights (e.g. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are not the same as those mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
I am curious about your "demonstrations" of unalienable rights: various activities occurred prior to the Bill of Rights, so they are unalienable rights. This is a fragile argument; people had the right to own slaves (even after the Bill of Rights was enacted!), is this an unalienable right?
"What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion."
"Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion."
"The issue is not slavery for a “good” cause versus slavery for a “bad” cause; the issue is not dictatorship by a “good” gang versus dictatorship by a “bad” gang. The issue is freedom versus dictatorship."
"If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism."
~Capitalism the Unknown Ideal~
"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context."
~The Virtue of Selfishness~
"Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute."
~Textbook of Americanism~
I had thought that you might be a worthy interlocutor, but I have been disappointed. I wish you well.
If you are for freedom then be for freedom. Don't hide behind disingenuous questions and pretend you are only attempting to determine what another is saying. Pay attention to what you are saying first. Why would you claim "people had the right to own slaves"? Just what the hell do you think a right is?
You are obviously a passionate person. I am merely trying to understand what you are saying. Perhaps our interaction would be enhanced if you would consider that I have rarely disagreed with what you have said, merely asked for clarification.
Your straw man arguments and logical fallacies don't serve anyone and they certainly don't serve you. I never stated that the Bill of Rights was "based on the existence of activities PRIOR to the Bill of Rights" what I did do was refute your argument that the only unalienable rights were the ones Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence and pointed out that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are unalienable rights and demonstrably so. The point was not that if an action is done that action demonstrates a right. My point was that people were all ready exercising their rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights PRIOR to the creation of those Amendments. You are misrepresenting what I've stated just to convince yourself of your correctness but you are doing this unreasonably and without an rational thought behind it.
This is your very first post in this thread:
"What are the rights of humanity? Don't recall seeing those documented (cf. US Constitution)."
Take note of the assertion that follows the question. Here is another assertion of yours:
"I would argue that it does not apply to "humanity". I am concerned by your phrase "rights of humanity", it smacks of a world-encompassing body of law, which does not exist."
Let me speak directly to this assertion now. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Legislation is not law. At best, legislation is merely evidence of law. At worst, legislation is flat out unlawful. It does not matter where people live, they have the right to life, they have the right to defend that right, they have the right to property, and the right to defend that property, they have the right to worship, to speak, to publish, to peaceably assemble, and to keep and bear arms among many other rights and these rights are as valid on Venus, Jupiter, or the edges of the universe as they are here on this planet. Legislation is merely an legal act but it is no more law than the mathematical equation of gravity is law. Isaac Newton did not grant the universe gravity, he effectively described the law behind it.
Do you believe that all rights (of humanity) were completely addressed by the Bill of Rights, or were some left out? An example might be "right to life". Does this preclude capital punishment?
Of note, the term is "already", not "all ready". Perhaps the command to "pay attention" was directed to the wrong participant.
In terms of capital punishment it is a fatal mistake to allow your government - outside of defense - to kill people. Capital punishment is not a defensive action. The right to life does not mean that one has to surrender their own life so that another may carry out an action of murder. If a police officer, or any other person for that matter, knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that another person is about to kill someone and the only reasonable action is to the kill the would be murder this action is done by right. World War II was killing done by the United States that was done by right. Outside of that very narrow scope killing is not a right. Governments do not have rights that people do not.
In terms of your misguided grammar presumption. All ready means completely prepared. My argument against slavery that you ignored the first time was my complete preparedness addressing your question before you even asked it with the intent to stave that off. Asking the question after I ALL READY answered it was foolish.