• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My compromise.

jdog21 said:
Heres the link to Sam Adams
The Rights of the Colonists: Samuel Adams, 1772

Yes and from the Declaration of Independence forward the people living in America ceased to be British, but from that date backwards they were.
Click to expand...


Lack of consent is clear in the comments by Adams.

from your link

First, "The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society."

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.

"The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent judges"; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people. "There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough."

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.
Click to expand...
 
RF667799 said:
...Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

... the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

...that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown...

That they declare themselves separate strongly suggests that they considered themselves part prior to their grievances.

So did they withdraw their consent by issuing the Declaration or by taking up arms prior to that?
Click to expand...

How can you withdraw that which you have not given?
 
jdog21 said:
Consent to what? Being born in a geographical location you are born into a governments control, you don't consent to it cause its happening whether or not you consent to it. When you assert that you are no longer to be controlled by a government you are declaring your allegiance to someone else or declaring your independence.
Click to expand...

Consent for a foreign nation to rule the Americans as colonists.
 
haymarket said:
How can you withdraw that which you have not given?
Click to expand...

How do you absolve yourself from allegiance if the allegiance wasn't there prior?

How do you alter your former system of government if you didn't have a former system of government?

How do you change a long established government if there was no established government?

Note that the Declaration uses possessive pronouns in referring to this former, established government.
 
Rich2018 said:
But it is


When, in a democracy, have guns ever changed a regime?



Freedom is overrated
Click to expand...

No Rich. We're discussing the American Revolution where- with the help of guns- the founders told the King and Parliament to go piss up a rope.
 
RF667799 said:
No Rich. We're discussing the American Revolution where- with the help of guns- the founders told the King and Parliament to go piss up a rope.
Click to expand...

And that happened over 200 years ago and you think it's still relevant ?

What's more relevant is that a citizenry armed with guns have never restored democracy.


Indeed in modern times only one democracy has ever failed and that was due to special circumstances: The Wiemar Republic in 1930's Germany.
 
Rich2018 said:
And that happened over 200 years ago and you think it's still relevant ?

What's more relevant is that a citizenry armed with guns have never restored democracy.


Indeed in modern times only one democracy has ever failed and that was due to special circumstances: The Wiemar Republic in 1930's Germany.
Click to expand...

It's relevant to the discussion we've been having.
 
Rich2018 said:
No it's not.

What happened over 200 years ago, is not relevant now.



Freedom is overrated.
Click to expand...

It is when that's what has been being discussed.
 
RF667799 said:
How do you absolve yourself from allegiance if the allegiance wasn't there prior?

How do you alter your former system of government if you didn't have a former system of government?

How do you change a long established government if there was no established government?

Note that the Declaration uses possessive pronouns in referring to this former, established government.
Click to expand...

I imagine you would not.

Who has said there was no government?
 
haymarket said:
Lack of consent is clear in the comments by Adams.

from your link
Click to expand...

Nope try again
Its his perspective of how the government should be ran, cause the king was routinely meddling in the local governments affairs
 
haymarket said:
Consent for a foreign nation to rule the Americans as colonists.
Click to expand...

No consent was needed the colonists were all from Britain and immigrated to the colonies under consent to the British crown. Every child born was born into that same agreement. Up until the colonies decided to break away from the king.
 
jdog21 said:
Nope try again
Its his perspective of how the government should be ran, cause the king was routinely meddling in the local governments affairs
Click to expand...

The phrase consent of the governed is right in the Declaration.
 
jdog21 said:
No consent was needed the colonists were all from Britain and immigrated to the colonies under consent to the British crown. Every child born was born into that same agreement. Up until the colonies decided to break away from the king.
Click to expand...

So you were against the American Revolution by that reasoning?
 
haymarket said:
So you were against the American Revolution by that reasoning?
Click to expand...
Not against it at all, just noting that it was a revolution, an overthrow of the previous people that governed them.
 
jdog21 said:
Not against it at all, just noting that it was a revolution, an overthrow of the previous people that governed them.
Click to expand...

Without their consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom