BREAKING: Marine GENERAL- Military Coup Against Obama

[EconChick]

Concluding Remarks: The Declaration in Modern Context

What place does the Declaration of Independence have in modern political discourse? Is it a basis for the formulation of law and public policy? Are its principles still binding? Are its themes preserved in the Constitution? Does it aid in interpreting the religion clauses? What does it contribute to the debate over original intent?

The first thing that can clearly be stated about the Declaration is that it is not law. That is, none of its provisions can be law unless enacted into law. The Declaration is inspiring, but its most inspirational parts today remain in the realm of politics, not law. It mostly represents a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age. The Declaration did not purport to create a new government or to enact any new laws. The bulk of it is exactly what it claimed to be: an announcement to the world of American reasons for renouncing its ties to Great Britain. New governments and new laws were created later-in state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation.

The present Constitution depends on the Declaration's theory that the people are empowered to alter their form of government. The Constitution was not ratified under the procedures for amending the Articles of Confederation but instead by a new and independent act of the American people. The people today could again abandon their Constitution and adopt an entirely new one. They need not use the Constitution's amendment procedures unless they wish to leave the present Constitution in effect."

Constitutional interpretation is aided little by the Declaration. The thirteen years between the adoption of the Declaration and the ratification of the Constitution was a period of intense political change. The Declaration's loose, free-wheeling philosophy of the people's "rights," preserved to a large degree in the Articles of Confederation, gradually gave way to the Constitution's more structured framework that was necessary to support a strong national government. if today we find tensions between the Declaration and the Constitution, it is mostly because new views had come to prevail. Throughout the debates of the Convention, there was virtually no discussion of Nature's God, natural rights, or consent of the governed. As Roger Sherman understood it, the question was "not what rights naturally belong to man, but how they may be most equally and effectually guarded in society." The Declaration cannot change the meaning of the Constitution; at most it can make proposed interpretations seem more or less plausible."

The Declaration might be helpful in construing the Ninth Amendment, which provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Though it is largely ignored in modern constitutional adjudication, this clause writes the Declaration's philosophy of unalienable natural law rights into positive law. The Declaration is too broadly written, however, to be of much help in defining the content of these unenumerated rights.

More: Declaration of Independence Is Not Law

Yes, thank you for showing why those of us that respect the founding principles of this nation despise you revisionist pieces of excrement.

First of all you got the "inspiring" part right. When the system is perceived as broken by so many of its citizens, I suggest it's time to pay attention to what's inspiring people.

As for "a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age," .....yeah, it's passe all right. One way or the other you liberal morons are going to find out how many tens of millions consider that belief on YOUR part as heresy. Throwing our foundations completely out the window. Yep, you have no idea what sleeping giant awaits....

And of course you would interpret it as only dealing with severing ties with Britain.


I don't suppose you realize the extreme liberal bias of that piece of shit article, do you?

Yet you libs act as if these biased pieces are neutral.

Wake up.

 

[Kosh]

Please explain to us exactly how and why Obama's "war in Iraq" is illegal.

Why The U.S. Is Acting To Prevent Atrocities In Iraq, Ignoring Others

Once again using the think progress far left blog site as your "facts"?

Please post the mutual defense treaty that US has with Iraq.

Please post where Obama asked the UN for permission for his illegal war in Iraq.

Please post where the members of congress were notified about the action in Iraq.

. It's not a mutual oact to defend, but We have a legal obligation.
Reagan Signs Bill Ratifying U.N. Genocide Pact - NYTimes.com

And still does not make What Obama is doing legal.

Humanitarian air drops are not illegal, military action is!

The goes for natural disasters outside the borders of the US the president can authorize the military for humanitarian relief.

However the use of military force has to be legalized first by some many factors as the far left claimed in 2003 - 2009.

 

[Peach]

Which would Obama haters like more: A military coup or impeachment?

More far left propaganda to cover the fact that they will support the illegal acts of Obama.

Poor Kosh, 20,000 Yazidis freed, no US deaths. And no "illegal" actvities, best get USED to the USA being #1 AGAIN.

 

[Kosh]

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter gives Obama all the legal authority he needs to launch humanitarian airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.

Why The U.S. Is Acting To Prevent Atrocities In Iraq, Ignoring Others

Wrong again! However the far left will do all they can to justify their backing illegal wars by Obama using their far left blog sites..

 

[Kosh]

Which would Obama haters like more: A military coup or impeachment?

More far left propaganda to cover the fact that they will support the illegal acts of Obama.

Poor Kosh, 20,000 Yazidis freed, no US deaths. And no "illegal" actvities, best get USED to the USA being #1 AGAIN.

Even more far left propaganda to support the illegal acts of Obama.

 

[Lakhota]

Concluding Remarks: The Declaration in Modern Context

What place does the Declaration of Independence have in modern political discourse? Is it a basis for the formulation of law and public policy? Are its principles still binding? Are its themes preserved in the Constitution? Does it aid in interpreting the religion clauses? What does it contribute to the debate over original intent?

The first thing that can clearly be stated about the Declaration is that it is not law. That is, none of its provisions can be law unless enacted into law. The Declaration is inspiring, but its most inspirational parts today remain in the realm of politics, not law. It mostly represents a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age. The Declaration did not purport to create a new government or to enact any new laws. The bulk of it is exactly what it claimed to be: an announcement to the world of American reasons for renouncing its ties to Great Britain. New governments and new laws were created later-in state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation.

The present Constitution depends on the Declaration's theory that the people are empowered to alter their form of government. The Constitution was not ratified under the procedures for amending the Articles of Confederation but instead by a new and independent act of the American people. The people today could again abandon their Constitution and adopt an entirely new one. They need not use the Constitution's amendment procedures unless they wish to leave the present Constitution in effect."

Constitutional interpretation is aided little by the Declaration. The thirteen years between the adoption of the Declaration and the ratification of the Constitution was a period of intense political change. The Declaration's loose, free-wheeling philosophy of the people's "rights," preserved to a large degree in the Articles of Confederation, gradually gave way to the Constitution's more structured framework that was necessary to support a strong national government. if today we find tensions between the Declaration and the Constitution, it is mostly because new views had come to prevail. Throughout the debates of the Convention, there was virtually no discussion of Nature's God, natural rights, or consent of the governed. As Roger Sherman understood it, the question was "not what rights naturally belong to man, but how they may be most equally and effectually guarded in society." The Declaration cannot change the meaning of the Constitution; at most it can make proposed interpretations seem more or less plausible."

The Declaration might be helpful in construing the Ninth Amendment, which provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Though it is largely ignored in modern constitutional adjudication, this clause writes the Declaration's philosophy of unalienable natural law rights into positive law. The Declaration is too broadly written, however, to be of much help in defining the content of these unenumerated rights.

More: Declaration of Independence Is Not Law

Yes, thank you for showing why those of us that respect the founding principles of this nation despise you revisionist pieces of excrement.

First of all you got the "inspiring" part right. When the system is perceived as broken by so many of its citizens, I suggest it's time to pay attention to what's inspiring people.

As for "a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age," .....yeah, it's passe all right. One way or the other you liberal morons are going to find out how many tens of millions consider that belief on YOUR part as heresy. Throwing our foundations completely out the window. Yep, you have no idea what sleeping giant awaits....

And of course you would interpret it as only dealing with severing ties with Britain.


I don't suppose you realize the extreme liberal bias of that piece of shit article, do you?

Yet you libs act as if these biased pieces are neutral.

Wake up.

Stop pissing into the wind and show us just ONE case where the DoI was used to determine the outcome in any court of law.

 

[bodecea]

Raise your hand if you want a military coup!

Yes, please do. DHS is very interested...

There is no law against favoring a military coup against this criminally illegal regime. The Founders said we have a right to abolish it. We the People reign supreme here, not the likes of Obama.

I think you should go for it....a la American Spring.

 

[Kosh]

Concluding Remarks: The Declaration in Modern Context

What place does the Declaration of Independence have in modern political discourse? Is it a basis for the formulation of law and public policy? Are its principles still binding? Are its themes preserved in the Constitution? Does it aid in interpreting the religion clauses? What does it contribute to the debate over original intent?

The first thing that can clearly be stated about the Declaration is that it is not law. That is, none of its provisions can be law unless enacted into law. The Declaration is inspiring, but its most inspirational parts today remain in the realm of politics, not law. It mostly represents a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age. The Declaration did not purport to create a new government or to enact any new laws. The bulk of it is exactly what it claimed to be: an announcement to the world of American reasons for renouncing its ties to Great Britain. New governments and new laws were created later-in state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation.

The present Constitution depends on the Declaration's theory that the people are empowered to alter their form of government. The Constitution was not ratified under the procedures for amending the Articles of Confederation but instead by a new and independent act of the American people. The people today could again abandon their Constitution and adopt an entirely new one. They need not use the Constitution's amendment procedures unless they wish to leave the present Constitution in effect."

Constitutional interpretation is aided little by the Declaration. The thirteen years between the adoption of the Declaration and the ratification of the Constitution was a period of intense political change. The Declaration's loose, free-wheeling philosophy of the people's "rights," preserved to a large degree in the Articles of Confederation, gradually gave way to the Constitution's more structured framework that was necessary to support a strong national government. if today we find tensions between the Declaration and the Constitution, it is mostly because new views had come to prevail. Throughout the debates of the Convention, there was virtually no discussion of Nature's God, natural rights, or consent of the governed. As Roger Sherman understood it, the question was "not what rights naturally belong to man, but how they may be most equally and effectually guarded in society." The Declaration cannot change the meaning of the Constitution; at most it can make proposed interpretations seem more or less plausible."

The Declaration might be helpful in construing the Ninth Amendment, which provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Though it is largely ignored in modern constitutional adjudication, this clause writes the Declaration's philosophy of unalienable natural law rights into positive law. The Declaration is too broadly written, however, to be of much help in defining the content of these unenumerated rights.

More: Declaration of Independence Is Not Law

Yes, thank you for showing why those of us that respect the founding principles of this nation despise you revisionist pieces of excrement.

First of all you got the "inspiring" part right. When the system is perceived as broken by so many of its citizens, I suggest it's time to pay attention to what's inspiring people.

As for "a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age," .....yeah, it's passe all right. One way or the other you liberal morons are going to find out how many tens of millions consider that belief on YOUR part as heresy. Throwing our foundations completely out the window. Yep, you have no idea what sleeping giant awaits....

And of course you would interpret it as only dealing with severing ties with Britain.


I don't suppose you realize the extreme liberal bias of that piece of shit article, do you?

Yet you libs act as if these biased pieces are neutral.

Wake up.

Stop pissing into the wind and show us just ONE case where the DoI was used to determine the outcome in any court of law.

First the far left has to show they understand the Constitution, until then any requests the far left makes on this subject will be moot.

 

[bodecea]

As a former US Marine I can only imagine the unpopularity of Obama inside the rank and file of those warriors who stand up and take the test to become "Marine." If it it came down to my government and the Corps...I can say with all honesty I would die fighting for my Commandant and Corps. I mean that...with all fucking honesty. The only true thing in this world...or should be...is the Corps. Before my family or any other oath besides that to my God...the Corps takes precedent.

Especially when hundreds of THOUSANDS of troops are getting "PINK SLIPS".

This President and his SCDEF (Hagel), are making this nation VULNERABLE...and on fucking PURPOSE.

Obama needs to be reigned in and CALLED OUT for his TREASON.

Skip impeachment. Why can't he be arrested straight out?

That seems to be the latest RW "clutching of the pearls" idea.

 

[bodecea]

It does indeed. Time to take these corrupt sons of bitches OUT. WE ARE DUTY BOUND by the Constitution to do so.

go for it then internet pussy. You've been doing this dance about removing Obama since 08.

its sunday so you should be what? 24 cans in today so far?

OH im SORRY, perhaps I needed TO type LIKE this FOR you TO understand.

Now i think you are a 14 year old girl

So does that mean you are now attracted to them?

Excuse us....what did you say?

 

[Lakhota]

Yes, thank you for showing why those of us that respect the founding principles of this nation despise you revisionist pieces of excrement.

First of all you got the "inspiring" part right. When the system is perceived as broken by so many of its citizens, I suggest it's time to pay attention to what's inspiring people.

As for "a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age," .....yeah, it's passe all right. One way or the other you liberal morons are going to find out how many tens of millions consider that belief on YOUR part as heresy. Throwing our foundations completely out the window. Yep, you have no idea what sleeping giant awaits....

And of course you would interpret it as only dealing with severing ties with Britain.


I don't suppose you realize the extreme liberal bias of that piece of shit article, do you?

Yet you libs act as if these biased pieces are neutral.

Wake up.

Stop pissing into the wind and show us just ONE case where the DoI was used to determine the outcome in any court of law.

First the far left has to show they understand the Constitution, until then any requests the far left makes on this subject will be moot.

In other words, you can't cite any such cases.

 

[Kosh]

Stop pissing into the wind and show us just ONE case where the DoI was used to determine the outcome in any court of law.

First the far left has to show they understand the Constitution, until then any requests the far left makes on this subject will be moot.

In other words, you can't cite any such cases.

You would have to understand the Constitution first before an examples could be displayed.

So can you provide any proof that the far left understands the Constitution?

 

[EconChick]

The criminal in Mexico? Who tried to escape? We'll see him again, in ten years or so...

Really you pathetic piece of shit?

Show me one military or former military member that finds that post funny you mother fucker.

I am a retired military member and I cannot help but puzzle over you thinking we are somehow above the law in other countries.

Above the law? Are you THAT ignorant about the facts of the case? I've been following the facts of the case for 2 months....you know....that creed you liberals have backward about leaving no man behind.

Everyone that's been watching this case closely says they have no case.

The Mexican government is the one that's been breaking their OWN laws.

You don't know that a fellow Vet has been tortured and illegally detained in a rat hole for months? Great, we have another Kool aid drinker that only reads what libs tell you to read.

Wake up darlin.

 

[bodecea]

Declaration of Independence 7/4/1776

".....That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness......"

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Ahem, sparky, the Declaration of Independence is a FOUNDING document - but NOT a GOVERNING document. In other words - it ain't law.

Declaration of Independence Is Not Law

So you're saying we might as well wipe our asses with the Declaration of Independence since it's so worthless in your mind?

Just what does it mean to you?

The Declaration of Independence is just that...a Declaration...an Announcement. It is not a governing document, nor has an intelligent person ever thought it was.

 

[Lakhota]

First the far left has to show they understand the Constitution, until then any requests the far left makes on this subject will be moot.

In other words, you can't cite any such cases.

You would have to understand the Constitution first before an examples could be displayed.

So can you provide any proof that the far left understands the Constitution?

Are you a parrot - or just a retarded human?

 

[bodecea]

It's not law per se but you act as if it's devoid of any meaning.

Are you saying it is devoid of any meaning?

If you think it has meaning, tell us what it is?

Think of the DoI as filing for divorce from England. It carries no legal weight - like the Bible.

Bad analogy with the same debunked far left propaganda and talking points from the racist far left Obama drone.

A committee of five had already drafted the formal declaration, to be ready when Congress voted on independence. The term "Declaration of Independence" is not used in the document itself.

However it is a Congressional Document.

Wow, you're stupid.

Apparently you are not aware that that "congressional" means the colonial Congressional Congress.......the Congress as we know it, the governing Congress as we know it didn't even exist for over another 10 years.

 

[EconChick]

First the far left has to show they understand the Constitution, until then any requests the far left makes on this subject will be moot.

In other words, you can't cite any such cases.

You would have to understand the Constitution first before an examples could be displayed.

So can you provide any proof that the far left understands the Constitution?

No they don't.

This is the most uninformed group of liberals I've ever seen in my life. Heck, I was one in my youth and I look back and think how stupid MY liberal friends and I were then, but at least we tried to think critically. This current crew doesn't even attempt critical thinking.

They just slurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp it up. No thinking.

 

[Lakhota]

Gee, Lindsey Graham wants Obama on offense - and he's a Republican U.S. Senator and JAG lawyer.

Lindsey Graham: If Obama Doesn't Go On Offense, Terrorists Are 'Coming Here'

 

[bodecea]

I think presidents should be popular and adored by the military or they should resign. If Obama gave all military promotions, raises and reduced their work-load it would be to Obama's or any president's benefit. It could be a new era in our nation, take care of the military and they will take care of you.

Sounds like many a military junta to me.....and it sounds like what some RWrs here want.

 

[bodecea]

Which would Obama haters like more: A military coup or impeachment?

More far left propaganda to cover the fact that they will support the illegal acts of Obama.

Poor Kosh, 20,000 Yazidis freed, no US deaths. And no "illegal" actvities, best get USED to the USA being #1 AGAIN.

These are the same people who moaned and groaned and complained when OBL was finally taken down.