Declaration of Independence unconstitutional

[Ramo]

The Constitution is the functioning document of the United States GOVERNMENT. The Declaration of Independence lays out the purpose for the founding of the NATION.

First off, a common definition of "nation" is government. I assumed Lincoln used that definition since that's the way in which the word is most commonly used.

But if you want to use the poli. sci. defintion, a nation being a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language, I'd say that an American nation never existed - it has always been a hodge-podge of various nationalities. But it certainly didn't come into existence due to the Declaration of Independence. The only thing the document did was to justify severing the ties to England.

It is the Declaration that Abraham Lincoln referred to during the Gettysburg address (the second greatest piece of non-religious writing) when he said that 'all men were created equal'.

There's a reason why slavery was abolished in this country 89 years after the Declaration, and even then as a cynical ploy to ward off European intervention in the Civil War. The Declaration had very few long term effects in this country besides justifying independence to Europe.

But what's your point? Lincoln used imagery from the Revolutionary War to support his agenda in a speech. So?

The revered 'Constitution' includes the provisions for slavery and the 3/5 compromise, onerous to a free society.

The founders didn't create a free society. If they weren't feudal aristocrats, they were mercantalists.

This nation was FOUNDED by the Declaration of Independence

If you want to be pedantic, this nation never existed.

God it pisses me off when people don't understand the history of their country.

Me too.

[Lincoln]

Let's see if I understand Boris's reasoning. The farther we get from the founding documents the better the Supreme Court is able to interpret them. The fact is the decision that I quoted from is only part of the point. I used this decision in part because it refers to hundreds of other documents and various decisions by other state supreme courts and affirms what Venger said about the inherent nature of the Declaration of Independence in the laws of this country.

Only by using the tainted "glasses" of a biased atheist can the truth of the nation's history be distorted to prove otherwise. By the way, the Supreme Court will probably review the latest pledge case (which is already suspended) and they will rule as usual that the 9th district court is out to lunch. Even this modern Supreme Court which (as Boris stated) cannot seem to rule without making laws themselves, can read history.

Also, why is there provisions in the constitution for Sunday off and not Saturday? And why does one of America's most distinguished laywers disagree with Boris i.e.:

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. ... The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.

Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

[Lincoln]

From George Washington's farewell address:

George Washington's Farewell Address (Sept. 19, 1796):

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens...

"'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government...

"Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue?"

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

John Jay, first Supreme Court Justice:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Andrew Jackson:

"The Bible is the foundation upon which our republic rests."

Alex de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

"Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions...I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion - for who can search the human heart? - but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ramo
First off, a common definition of "nation" is government.

England has been a nation with many different forms of government, but it was always England. Did China not exist before Mao? Very, very wrongheaded... and incomplete to boot. It is a people united under a common government - but that is a foreign concept in a federalist society, where there are multiple governments. It's simple really - did the United States exist before ratification of the Constitution? Answer the question.

I assumed Lincoln used that definition since that's the way in which the word is most commonly used.

Dear God Lincoln specifically PULLED from the Declaration - here's a hint for you. Take the date of the Gettysburg address, remove four score and seven years, and see what that coincides with...hint: it ain't the Consititutional Convention.

But if you want to use the poli. sci. defintion, a nation being a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language, I'd say that an American nation never existed

Just how deep does your lame take on this topic go? The United States has never been a nation? You've just been disqualified, please pull over to the side....

- it has always been a hodge-podge of various nationalities.

Uh, when you become an American citizen, you are... an American. Don't confuse cultural and ethnic heritage as a descriptor for nation.

But it certainly didn't come into existence due to the Declaration of Independence.

Oh my F'ING GOD. What do you think we celebrate on July 4th you feckless simpleton? The BIRTH OF THE UNITED STATES. You may remember the bicentennial - we celebrated 200 years AS A NATION. Trust me - everyone gets this but you.

The only thing the document did was to justify severing the ties to England.

What it did was throw off it's chains of colonialism and declare 'That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States'. IT ESTABLISHED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The Constitution is ONLY a functioning model for government - preceded by the previous Articles of Confederation. The United States had a Navy, ambassadors, and international status well before the United States constitution...

There's a reason why slavery was abolished in this country 89 years after the Declaration,

Yes, because it was onerous to a free society and anathema to the principles on which the United States was founded (you should read the DoI sometime...).

and even then as a cynical ploy to ward off European intervention in the Civil War.

Are you OUT OF YOUR F'ING MIND again? The British and other European nations LOATHED slavery, and THAT is the reason the South received so little help - the North was already a slavery free zone, not to mention the Europeans wanted no bit of fighting in America. Some feel the EP kept England from actively aiding the South - but they had plenty of time to do that before it, and never would, because the populaces would never stand for it, even if those power were not truly democracies. Additionally, the MOST assistance a European power would have given would be possible naval support (the British have always gotten their asses kicked by American boats - go figure), but no troops were going to land and fight - a European army would have been crushed so far from home - the North had 700,000 troops available - and after Antietam it was pretty damn clear that simple numbers and industrial power were going to win this war.

The Declaration had very few long term effects in this country besides justifying independence to Europe.

Uh, we declaring independence from ENGLAND dude, and it declared the absolute principles on which the nations is founded. The core concepts of Americanism are found in IT, not the Constitution. The Constitution is a brilliant document in it's initial limits of power, and it's federalism is sheer magnificence. However, it is a flawed document, including provisions for slavery, and a far more restricted sense of election of the government. It is a operating manual for the United States government - it is NOT the basis of the American nation. PLEASE do some research on the history of the Consitution and early American government, with special attention to the Articles of Confederation.

But what's your point? Lincoln used imagery from the Revolutionary War to support his agenda in a speech. So?

He used the founding document of the nation to show why the wonderful US Constitution needed to be changed - because the Constitution was out of step with the principles of the nation. All men are created equal - this is not in the Constitution. But you and I both would agree is a fundamental tenet in American society. Or maybe you wouldn't seeing how flabbergastingly wrong you are about the history of this country.

The founders didn't create a free society. If they weren't feudal aristocrats, they were mercantalists.

Oh MY F'ING GOD. One of the largest complaints from the colonies was the competition between colonial productions and self interest and the British mercantile system. Mercantilists? GOD ALMIGHTY? What else do you have up your kiester besides this?

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Only by using the tainted "glasses" of a biased atheist can the truth of the nation's history be distorted to prove otherwise. By the way, the Supreme Court will probably review the latest pledge case (which is already suspended) and they will rule as usual that the 9th district court is out to lunch.

The Supreme Court will never hear this case - it will be remanded to a lower court or decided after the full 11 members of the Circuit Court rule on it. The decision was 2-1 by a 3 judge panel, not the entire membership. And you can bet you aren't gonna get more people to sign their names to this judicial turd...

Venger

[Ramo]

Stop foaming at your mouth and think for a change. The foundation upon which a nation stands is not necessarily the document that established independence. It's the document that dictated the course of the country. That's the Constitution, not the Declaration. It's quite simple.

Just how deep does your lame take on this topic go? The United States has never been a nation? You've just been disqualified, please pull over to the side....

Not my fault if you're ignorant. Read a political "science" text. A nation is a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language. Hence the term "nation-state."

Yes, because it was onerous to a free society and anathema to the principles on which the United States was founded (you should read the DoI sometime...).

The fact that slavery was abolished nearly a century after the Declaration demonstrates that slavery was anathema to the principles on which the US was founded? You need a reality check.

Slavery was abolished because the lack of labor liquidity was hurting Northern industry, combined with the evaporation of free land that could support plantation agriculture, and foreign cotton competition, and the impetus brought by foreign.

Are you OUT OF YOUR F'ING MIND again?

Dude, get some riddilin.

The British and other European nations LOATHED slavery and THAT is the reason the South received so little help -

That must be why the European governments were courting the South prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

(And of course the EP gave the abolitionist movement momentum to pass the 13th Amendment.)

Wrong, the South the North was already a slavery free zone,

Never asserted otherwise.

not to mention the Europeans wanted no bit of fighting in America. Some feel the EP kept England from actively aiding the South -
but they had plenty of time to do that before it, and never would, because the populaces would never stand for it, even if those power were not truly democracies.

It wasn't until the EP that the war became about slavery. The Brits or French would have had no problem garnering popular support for a US invasion had the EP not been released.

Additionally, the MOST assistance a European power would have given would be possible naval support (the British have always gotten their asses kicked by American boats - go figure), but no troops were going to land and fight

Complete speculation.

- a European army would have been crushed so far from home - the North had 700,000 troops available -

In comparison, France fielded nearly a million men in the Franco-Prussian War.

http://www.stabi.hs-bremerhaven.de/gbs2/whkmla/military/19cen/francoger.html

and after Antietam it was pretty damn clear that simple numbers and industrial power were going to win this war.

Antietam demonstrated that the North could pull off a draw if it had Confederate battle plans. Besides, after Antietam was too late anyways. A Union victory at Antietam brought about the Emancipation Proclamation, and therefore precluded European intervention in the first place.

Uh, we declaring independence from ENGLAND dude, and it declared the absolute principles on which the nations is founded. The core concepts of Americanism are found in IT, not the Constitution.

Gee, maybe the core concepts around the American government had something to do with the actions of the American government - dictated by the Constitution (and the various "interpretations" of it).

Constitution is a brilliant document in it's initial limits of power, and it's federalism is sheer magnificence. However, it is a flawed document, including provisions for slavery, and a far more restricted sense of election of the government.

I never said it wasn't flawed.

It is a operating manual for the United States government - it is NOT the basis of the American nation.

The basis of the government is the basis of the nation.

PLEASE do some research on the history of the Consitution and early American government, with special attention to the Articles of Confederation.

PLEASE drop your sanctimonious attitude. There's a reason why the Articles were dropped - they were unpalatable to the chief elements of power in the US - unpalatable to the American nation, if you will.

He used the founding document of the nation to show why the wonderful US Constitution needed to be changed - because the Constitution was out of step with the principles of the nation. All men are created equal - this is not in the Constitution.

What's your point?

But you and I both would agree is a fundamental tenet in American society.

Not really.

Or maybe you wouldn't seeing how flabbergastingly wrong you are about the history of this country.

Or maybe you're foaming at the mouth.

Oh MY F'ING GOD. One of the largest complaints from the colonies was the competition between colonial productions and self interest and the British mercantile system.

That doesn't imply Northern industrialists didn't have any problems with trade barriers against the Brits and other countries.

Mercantilists? GOD ALMIGHTY?

Ever hear of the Federalists? They were the party of mercantilism. They supported protective tariffs, the whiskey tax, and the Bank of the US to help subsidize Northern industrialists.

What else do you have up your kiester besides this?

I'd imagine you're mistaken on a wide variety of historical topics.

Like I said, it's not my fault if you're totally ignorant about the country.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ramo

The foundation upon which a nation stands is not necessarily the document that established independence.

Uh, the DoI isn't applicable to nations created from whole cloth, only former colonies. That said, it is how a former colony establishes itself as a sovereign state. Thats what the DoI did, it CREATED the United States, and your constant hoodwinking around it belies that you have nothing in the tank to counter what is readily apparent.

It's the document that dictated the course of the country. That's the Constitution, not the Declaration. It's quite simple.

The Consitution is the functioning document of government - please reread the thread, you've missed this from the get go.

Not my fault if you're ignorant. Read a political "science" text. A nation is a group of people that share common customs, origins, history, and language. Hence the term "nation-state."

Try it next time with the unused matter between your ears - everyone gets this but you. You want to argue on one hand that a nation is defined by it's government, then argue that no, it's a shared cultural history.

'brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty'

Take Abe Lincoln's word for it. I do. They did not have a shared heritage, and did not have a shared government.

The fact that slavery was abolished nearly a century after the Declaration demonstrates that slavery was anathema to the principles on which the US was founded? You need a reality check.

Everyone gets this but you. Slavery is anathema to the founding principles of the nation. Or isn't it. Please spell out your racist notions for us here...

Slavery was abolished because the lack of labor liquidity was hurting Northern industry,

combined with the evaporation of free land that could support plantation agriculture, and foreign cotton competition, and the impetus brought by foreign.

Foreign what? Did you cut and paste this? Get an original idea...

Dude, get some riddilin.

It's Ritalin dude.

That must be why the European governments were courting the South prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

'Courting' them? Please. Evidence? Name a single substantial action taken by Britain or France to aid the South.

(And of course the EP gave the abolitionist movement momentum to pass the 13th Amendment.)

The Battle of Antietam gave them the impetus.

It wasn't until the EP that the war became about slavery.

Slavery was the underunning current of the war - the debate was over states vs. federal rights, and it all boiled back to slavery, and power of slave vs. free states, including new state admission and the Missouri compromise.

The Brits or French would have had no problem garnering popular support for a US invasion had the EP not been released.

More nonsense. The United States was unconquerable by 1850. The French would support an invasion of the U.S.?

In comparison, France fielded nearly a million men in the Franco-Prussian War.

That's great, too bad the United States isn't adjacent to France. If they'd started in 1860, maybe by 1875 could they establish a million man army in North America...

Antietam demonstrated that the North could pull off a draw if it had Confederate battle plans. Besides, after Antietam was too late anyways. A Union victory at Antietam brought about the Emancipation Proclamation, and therefore precluded European intervention in the first place.

Antietam proved that it was only a matter of time. The North was going to outproduce the south 10 to 1 in war material - and that was not going to be overcome. Europe had full well over a year to 'aid' the south. Which they never did.

There's a reason why the Articles were dropped - they were unpalatable to the chief elements of power in the US - unpalatable to the American nation, if you will.

They were dropped for one reason - they didn't work. The 'Constitutional Convention' was called to REWORK the articles, not create a new constitution...

That doesn't imply Northern industrialists didn't have any problems with trade barriers against the Brits and other countries.

The US was hardly mercantile.

Ever hear of the Federalists? They were the party of mercantilism. They supported protective tariffs, the whiskey tax, and the Bank of the US to help subsidize Northern industrialists.

The key to federalism is not mercantilism - this nation is still a federalist nation. Federalism is defined by the striated layers of government power and responsibility. If you read the federalist papers, it is not a discussion of economics, but of federalizing the governing authority of the states.

Like I said, it's not my fault if you're totally ignorant about the country.

Your only fault lies with your utterly feckless notions of American history.

Venger

[Anodyne]

RYUOKAI!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Try it next time with the unused matter between your ears - everyone gets this but you. You want to argue on one hand that a nation is defined by it's government, then argue that no, it's a shared cultural history.

Actually Ramo is right. A nation is a people which shared culture, not a bordered area. That is refered to as a state.

'Courting' them? Please. Evidence? Name a single substantial action taken by Britain or France to aid the South.

Ramo is correct here as well. Britain and France were seriously weighing to come in to aid the South. Cheap cotton is a good impetus. Of course the Emancipation Proclamation is a great piece of PR, because after that, Britain and France realized there was no way in Hell they could get involved.

The key to federalism is not mercantilism - this nation is still a federalist nation. Federalism is defined by the striated layers of government power and responsibility. If you read the federalist papers, it is not a discussion of economics, but of federalizing the governing authority of the states.

The Federalists have little to do with Federalism. The Federalists are the party of Hamilton that wanted strong government and mercantilism. They under the onslaught of the Democratic-Republicans, and were reborn as the Whigs, who were splinted by the slavery discussion and reborn as the Republicans.... who totally shifted position right around the 20s and FDR's time.

[Anodyne]

RYUOKAI, I tell you! RYUOKAI!

[Ramo]

Imran responded to the important points, so here are the other points:

Slavery is anathema to the founding principles of the nation.

Seeing as how a huge portion of our founders were slave owners, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe.

Please spell out your racist notions for us here...

**** off, dumbass.

If you want to accuse of racism (no doubt because you're an idiot who has no argument), you certainly aren't worth debating with.

Thats what the DoI did, it CREATED the United States, and your constant hoodwinking around it belies that you have nothing in the tank to counter what is readily apparent.

I never said otherwise. I simply wouldn't say that just because the Declaration severed ties to England and justified it to Europe, it is the "foundation upon which the nation stands."

Foreign what?

Foreign opposition to slavery.

Did you cut and paste this? Get an original idea...

I didn't think of a good idea of how to succintly write what I had in mind so I skipped it and forget to get back to it.

Just because you're brain-dead doesn't imply everyone else is.

Slavery was the underunning current of the war - the debate was over states vs. federal rights, and it all boiled back to slavery, and power of slave vs. free states, including new state admission and the Missouri compromise.

Wrong again, the protective tariff was the undercurrent of the war. It was the principal reason why the South seceded from the Union and why the North fought to preserve the Union. The same thing almost happened not even 3 decades years earlier.

More nonsense. The United States was unconquerable by 1850. The French would support an invasion of the U.S.?

The US didn't have to be conquered. England and France only had to protect the Confederacy's independence. That's a huge difference.

Take Abe Lincoln's word for it.

You're basing this whole thing on a propaganda piece by Lincoln.

They were dropped for one reason - they didn't work.

They were dropped because the Articles didn't allow give the central government enough power to crush Massachusett's peasant rabble.

The 'Constitutional Convention' was called to REWORK the articles, not create a new constitution...

Your point is..?

Antietam proved that it was only a matter of time.

No, again, Antietam proved that the Union could bring a battle to a draw if they had Confederate battle plans.

'Courting' them? Please. Evidence? Name a single substantial action taken by Britain or France to aid the South.

I never said that they aided the South. I said that they were thinking of aiding the South. Gladstone and Russel strongly advocated it. The British PM, Palmerstone, said he would do so if the CSA had a major victory on US soil - which possibly could've happened at Antietam - to prove that they were viable.

The Consitution is the functioning document of government - please reread the thread, you've missed this from the get go.

What's your point? I haven't missed anything.

That's great, too bad the United States isn't adjacent to France. If they'd started in 1860, maybe by 1875 could they establish a million man army in North America...

If Britain went along with it, they would've had the Royal Navy at their side. Nonetheless, I didn't say that there would be a million man army in North America. I am saying that they, combined with Britain, would have a huge, well-equpped force to nullify the North's advantage in manpower and industrial might.

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

Based on the recent ruling of the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776, is Unconstitutional, even though it is the very foundation document on which the United States exists. You see, the Declaration of Independence refers to God in the most respectful terms, without doubt declaring this new nation to have emerged under the authority and entitlement of none other than God. I quote various sections of the document.

The ruling did not say we cannot refer to God in respectful terms, it said we cannot compel or coerce other people's children to pledge allegiance to something they may not believe in, something the Nazis and Communists would have done. The author is an idiot.

No right-thinking American should tolerate the inclusion of these words on public display, and in no case should they ever be allowed to be uttered in any public forum or government subsidized school.

No right-thinking American would try to compel the children of Christians to pledge allegiance to Satan, yet the author would try to compel the children of non-Christians to pledge allegiance to "God"? The author is an idiot.

Every day that facsimilies of this document are allowed to be displayed or read in state institutions increases the chances that someone may be offended.

It's not about being offended, it's about the use of coercion by the state to compel children to affirm a belief in God. The author is an idiot.