Really? I've yet to see him address the Constitution. With the first post of this thread he seems to confuse it with the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration is unamendable and therefore preferable to the Constitution for discussing unalienable rights. The Constitution notwithstanding, an unlawful Legal System has supplanted the genuine Law of the Land. In defence of the July 4, 1776 Promise made by Congress, it is necessary to call on the Promise itself. Susan B. Anthony did and so did Martin Luther King. tgsam
Thank you Tiger10. I've encountered Forum tag-teams before and I've always prevailed. Truth is patient. tgsam
Except that the DoI does not, and never has, carried the weight of law, which is what you seemed to be implying at the top of the thread. It is one of civilization's most clear and undisputable expressions of unalienable rights; I think everyone on this board would agree on that. If you're going to make a case that Congress, in your opinion, is usurping its authority, that's fine. A number of people on this forum are probably ready to agree with you; I might be one of them. But you've got to compare apples to apples; show us where Congress is in violation of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.
<Except that the DoI does not, and never has, carried the weight of law *snip*> The Declaration of Independence along with its Bill of Charges against the Crown carries the weight of Conscience. It the People - who are the lawful defenders of the Congressional Promise recorded July 4, 1776 - are to spare themselves and their progeny the norrors of tyranny, they must rely heavily on Conscience. tgsam
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of big government nor this current administration, I just don't think your going to get many to join your cause by the way you are going about it and the angle you are taking with the DoI. I understand the Declaration is not amendable. That point has been established and I don't think anyone is refuting that. It still doesn't change the fact, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Declaration of Independence. Fine, you want to discuss unalienable rights, thats great. The Constitution was put in place to protect those. If you feel the laws in place now don't, then fight (discuss) it on the grounds that they are unconstituional, not that they don't line up with what is written in the DoI. Like I said, the DoI is great for history, and is great for philisophical discussions, but if you want to make headway in this country (or this forum for that matter) you're going to have start talking Constitution, not DoI.
tinsley only knows how to quote, amigo. We've tried without success to get him to engage someone in an actual discussion.
How do you define "prevailed?" If you mean ignoring questions and oblivious contempt for discussion, you are certainly the champion. Ignorance is even more so.
I don't suppose you would mention how you propose to use conscience to spare us and our progeny the "norrors" of tyranny? Revolution? Anarchy? Coup?
