Yoohoo! Thomas Jefferson left a message:

[Are_grits_groceries]

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson

Argue with him and cast aspersions on his character.

[East Coast Pirate]

1. Haters gotta hate.

[michigandem58]

48. "The people" support the NSA surveillance

as well as their representatives.

[East Coast Pirate]

49. Says who?

[baldguy]

2. But John Adams sought to establish "a government of laws and not of men."

Accuse him of being a fascist and call him a dictator

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. I haven't called anyone a fascist or a dictator.

Address the issues and don't stoop to name calling. That doesn't mean people can't be criticized. However, fascist and dictator are vague terms and so are traitor and turncoat.

If you think a person is a dictator or whatever then state how and why you think that. Also look at what you have written and decide if that really is an accurate term to use.

I may not believe someone is X or Y. However, I might point out some actions that could lead to an X or Y.

And Adams didn't call for laws to be made without input from people in some manner.

[baldguy]

4. And nobody here is trying to argue with Thomas Jefferson, either.

Jefferson and Adams were both trying to prevent the possibility of one person taking the law into his own hands & from deciding the fate of an entire nation all by himself.

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. I will just say that that's your opinion.

I am not going to post and rehash every thread ad nauseum.
If you think EVERYBODY here hasn't argued that in some way, then you interpret differently than I do.

[iemitsu]

26. When Adams promoted the idea of a nation of laws he

envisioned a place where all were treated equally under that law. Unfortunately, the law has been subverted to favor the few at the expense of many. The phrase, "its the law" is being used to justify immoral and unconstitutional acts, as if the "law" somehow has to be right and just, because it is the law.
Laws are only as good as those who make and enforce them.

[cui bono]

80. Well said.

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:48 AM - Edit history (1)

And also, there are plenty of laws that have been struck down by SCOTUS, so just because it is a law, doesn't mean it's constitutional.

__________
Edited after response because it made me realize I put POTUS instead of SCOTUS.

[iemitsu]

87. True, as it is true that the Supremes, themselves, are

not above making politically partisan decisions.

[HereSince1628]

5. ISTM both Adams and Jefferson were addressing the same sort of problem...

that leaders left to their impulses and personal biases have a tendency to drift (or march) away from the will of the people.

Both seem to endorse the notion that the governance of the nation should comport to the will of the people expressed through representative government.

Adams comments indicate an interest to bound social (including government) activity of leaders/governors (including magistrates, police, etc), and the people themselves, with legal standards established through representative government.

Jefferson indicates that government must remain in touch and represent the interests of the people or it will become something other than representative government acting with consent of the citizenry.

[baldguy]

11. So, when one man decides by himself that he's not going to follow a properly enacted law?

A law which is supported by the majority of the people & has been upheld by the courts? This man then decides on his own to make it so that law can't be acted upon, and further takes off for a foreign country to escape prosecution - that man would not be considered a patriot or a hero, yes?

[Are_grits_groceries]

12. Red herring

This thread and that quote is not about Snowden specifically. It is about a general stance on governing.
It is about secrecy in government.
The matter you are baiting with is a certain way that this secrecy was addressed someone. That should be in its own thread.

[baldguy]

16. "This thread and that quote is not about Snowden specifically."

Yeah. Right.

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. If I wanted it to be about Snowden,

I would have posted that. If you don't believe that, then that's your problem.

[HereSince1628]

15. I believe Adam's and Jefferson's comments were about leaders and governance

that derives from the will of the people.

The issue isn't really about 'a man' choosing to behave in a manner that is exceptional to the law.

Hero and Patriot are ideological terms used in rhetorical banter and IMO are much like the terms for fantasies such as angels

[baldguy]

22. So, individuals have no responsability to follow their leaders?

And individuals have no responsibility to work within the law when they disagree with their leaders?

Isn't that part of what Jefferson was saying in the quote in the OP? The responsibility for governance doesn't rest solely the people's chosen leaders, but with the people themselves. At the same time, you can't logically use the same argument to criticize the leaders when they're doing their best to follow the will of the people just because you disagree with it.

[malokvale77]

61. So, individuals have no responsability (responsibility) to follow their leaders?

In a word, NO.

I have no responsibility to follow any but mine own self.

[baldguy]

71. Absurd juvenile Objectivist fantasy is not a Democratic Party value.

And never has been.

[malokvale77]

72. Juvenile?

I'm as old as dirt.

I gave up fantasy decades ago. You should try it.

I'm old school, bleeding heart, liberal, far left wing democrat. Not many of us left.

[baldguy]

74. Typical. You advocate for a libertarian utopia and have no clue what Objectivism means.

Your "every man for himself" philosophy has nothing in common with liberalism.

[malokvale77]

75. I never said "every man for himself"

I'm a socialist. You don't get it.

I just don't need a "leader" to follow. I know what I need to do for the sake of my brethren.

[cui bono]

81. That doesn't mean we just follow the leaders. This is supposed to be a representative

govt, so they should be following us, so to speak. The responsibility that is upon the people is to keep the "leaders" in check and push them to do the people's work. Not to just follow the "leaders". The point of this country is that is is the people who are supposed to decide what direction we go by electing people to represent us. If they fail to do so we have no obligation to follow them.

[treestar]

65. OP intended us to be forced to disagree with Jefferson

and is a big FAIL. Exactly.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

8. A government of laws endowed with power granted by the people and serving at their pleasure.

Not the other way around.

[JoeyT]

24. Yeah, it'd be nice to have that too.

But that would mean prosecuting people that are currently above the law instead of just looking forward and pretending like nothing ever happened. We're not really a "government of laws" either. A "government of laws when we can be bothered and the person doesn't have the money or clout to fight back", maybe. A government of laws is off the table, so to speak.

[sabrina 1]

27. So did Jefferson. What's your point?

[baldguy]

29. There DUers who love to criticize Democratic leaders who follow the law honestly & sincerely.

And promote those who oppose Democrats as patriots & heroes.

[sabrina 1]

34. If leaders are not abiding by the Constitution of the US which they swore to defend and protect

people have a duty to speak out, regardless of political. Are you saying that when our party does something wrong we should be silent about it? Because I strongly disagree if that is your opinion.

[baldguy]

36. The Courts, Congress, and ultimately the People decide what is and is not Constitutional.

Not one uninformed 28 yr old college dropout with a chip on his shoulder all by himself.

If you have a problem with a law that has been properly enacted, has been through the courts, and which the majority of people support, then you need to change public opinion, change Congress, and change the law. Not blow up the entire government.

Or is the process of democracy just too difficult a concept for you?

[sabrina 1]

38. Ultimately the people! The people are responsible for the courts and Congress.

The people should not be lied to by their government. They have the responsibility of choosing their government, employees to represent them and if they are lied to, as they certainly have been, they are deprived of the right to make good decisions for their country.

When crimes are committed, those responsible should be prosecuted, we have seen a sad lack of interest in prosecuting War Criminals and Wall St criminals over the past decade. Prosecuting messengers without even investigating the crimes revealed, simply demonstrates that the government is protecting War Criminals and Economic criminals.

Snowden and other Whistle Blowers are aware they are breaking laws. But if what they reveal turns out to be criminal activities on the part of our government, then they did the right thing as citizens.

But here in the US, we have not yet seen a single instance where there was any investigation into what was revealed, which leads people to believe they have something to worry about because they have something to hide.

[baldguy]

43. So, where does it end? Should all govt secrets at every level be exposed to the world?

Then no crimes will ever be able to be investigated & prosecuted. Anywhere. Ever. The war criminals and the corporatocracy that creates them would like that very much, thank you.

You're so intent on taking a legal program that has been declared to be Constitutional by the courts and trying to twist it to be illegal & unconstitutional, that you've lost focus on just who's being responsible and trustworthy to the public (hint: it's not Snowden, Greenwald, Rand Paul & Glenn Beck), and who's being irresponsible and untrustworthy (which is not applicable to Obama & his administration).

If you don't like the laws as they are - fine. Work to change them. But don't go off the deep end with the RW libertarian nutcases who support Snowden and start pretending every govt investigation and every govt program is nothing but the work of totalitarian fascism.

[treestar]

66. Nicely put

It's as if they want anarchy, a place in which the 1% rich corporate banksters could really run roughshod over them. No elected leader is to be trusted, but a random like Ed is.

[cui bono]

82. Are you talking about the NSA spying when you say

"a legal program that has been declared to be Constitutional by the courts"?

Has it gone to the courts? I thought it was one of those catch 22s where you can't bring it to the courts because you don't have the authority to get the information you need so that you can bring it to the courts. But maybe I'm thinking of something else. Do you have links to these court decisions?

[sibelian]

84. Could you explain that please?

I'm not sure how you got from "all govt secrets at every level be exposed to the world?" to "no crimes will ever be able to be investigated & prosecuted"

Nice simple words for my nice simple brain would be appreciated.

[BlueStreak]

58. Which of the following do you think Adams would be in favor of:

A) Government agencies that operate without any real scrutiny?

B) Hundreds of billions of expenses a year that are secret -- even to 95% of the Congress?

C) Secret courts?

D) Secret laws?

E) All of the above?

F) None of the above?

Please mark your answer with a #3 pencil.

[malokvale77]

62. To be legitimate...

It must be a #2 pencil.

[treestar]

68. Adams was practical

In the nuclear age, he'd realize the need for national security technology. The Founders would never want to see the US destroyed.

[cui bono]

83. And so the Founders would never want to see this unconstitutional spying then. n/t

[treestar]

85. I don't think they'd agree with you on this

They would have been first concerned with the safety of the republic's existence.

They would not have considered spying on enemies or potential enemies prohibited by the Constitution.

[cui bono]

86. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, sounds like you and they agree with me then?

[HiPointDem]

76. that can be interpreted in two ways, ya know. the government has already broken the

country's first law by spying on its people.

[thesquanderer]

7. re: "Argue with him and cast aspersions on his character."

Slavery, anyone?

Jefferson was not perfect... and that should have no bearing on how you feel about the quote at hand.

Ad hominem attacks try to discredit an idea by discrediting the person. But it is equally flawed to employ ad hominem praise, assigning virtue to an idea because of who said it.

[Progressive dog]

9. Jefferson is dead, so arguing with him would be tough

so what we have here is a two sentence quote from a prolific writer, chosen by someone other than Jefferson to condense his philosophy into sound bites.

[sabrina 1]

28. Do you disagree with the FFs that a government should be 'by the people, of the people and for the

people', or do you think we should 'rulers'? We are not arguing with men, we are discussing the ideals this country claims to have been founded on and to still adhere to. We adapted those ideals as a guide as to how this country would develop. Do you think we should discard those ideals now? Our elected officials still take an oath to defend and protect the laws written by those dead men. That is the only requirement made of them, 'to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America'. Should we change that to 'defend and protect the Corporations' because that seems to be what is happening. Which means something has gone wrong, or else, the people have chosen to toss out those dead men's laws and ideals.

[Progressive dog]

39. Wow, the Founding Fathers agree with you too

because they put this in the Constitution "Our elected officials still take an oath to defend and protect the laws written by those dead men. That is the only requirement made of them, 'to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America'." , but I'm missing the part about Snowden and spying. I don't get how that defends a post of two sentences to claim authority from Thomas Jefferson.
Perhaps you could explain how two sentences from an FF define his political views.

[Zorra]

10. IMO, he didn't take it quite far enough. Every government degenerates

when the people have rulers.

Yeh, let the aspersions fly. Conservatives have been trying to tear Jefferson down for years because his understanding of democracy makes their poor little authoritarian minds squirm.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Yep. Don't trust the government for anything. Roads, services, whatever.

Leave it to the corporations.

[Are_grits_groceries]

20. That was not what was said.

It specifically states that governmental secrecy is the issue.
Nice try.

[Buzz Clik]

21. It most certainly does not. How can you even infer that?

The context of the quote was educating the people, and the final sentence (conveniently excluded): "And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

Nothing at all to do with secrets.

[Are_grits_groceries]

23. Ok

My bad. It specifically takes issue with trusting only those in charge. Secrecy can be and is an offshoot.

It says nothing about not trusting them with anything or trusting them if there is more openness.

[iemitsu]

45. "And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.", suggests

an open and honest exchange of ideas and information. The problem here is secrecy. The consent of the governed cannot be had without the governed knowing what is going on. It is clear that our current government does not consider consent when determining what actions it will take in our names. This makes the government illegitimate according to our own founding documents.

[Buzz Clik]

46. This isn't Six Degrees of Separation. The context of Jefferson's comments was education, not secrecy

Not doubt Jefferson had some comments somewhere about transparency in the government, but the quote in the OP has nothing to do with it.

[iemitsu]

47. Except that education and secrecy are the polar opposites,

so that when one extolls education he/she also condemns secrecy. You can't have them both is a functioning system.

[sabrina 1]

30. The people built those roads, the people provide the services. Our system of government

gives the people the right to elect REPRESENTATIVES, not RULERS, to provide for the common good. Those REPS of the PEOPLE did what the people wanted, they provided tax dollars, provided by the PEOPLE to build roads, to provide services and when they fail to do what the people want, the people throw them out.

Politicians are merely employees of the people. Any of them who have forgotten their place in the system under which we claim to still live, need to be fired, and many have been throughout our history. We are going through a period now where far too many of them HAVE forgotten who they work for, so it is our job to work even harder to remind them of their oaths of office and that even if they do not take them seriously, we do.

It will be a fight, we've been derelict in our duty, allowing ourselves to be distracted. But that happens from time to time in a democracy and generally, if the democracy is to survive, the people tend to intervene when they realize it.

[Buzz Clik]

40. A lot of people want the government to protect them from unknown, sneaky, evil things.

The elected Democratic REPRESENTATIVES were in control of Congress when Shrub put this bullshit into place. We found out who these REPRESENTATIVES were and re-elected them.

You need to explain to me how this typifies a government out of control, not doing the people's will.

[Union Scribe]

69. Actually they are leaving surveillance to corporations.

That's one of the problems.

[hootinholler]

14. Jefferson loved asparagus!

Especially when cast in his direction.

[cantbeserious]

17. When People Fear The Government, Tyranny Prevails - When Government Fears The People, Liberty Prevails

Thomas Jefferson

[alc]

18. the founding fathers disagreed with each other like people now

And none of them had philosophies that can be summed up in a single quote or were consistent with all of their actions.

Hamilton thought the general welfare clause gave the government the authority to do ANYTHING the "rulers" thought best. He stayed away from the "state's rights" sections of the federalist papers. he didn't publicly argue against the enumerated powers. He knew those arguments would kill the chances of ratification. But he did think the general welfare clause trumped the enumerated powers and 10th amendment and argued that way for his banking bills (which congress passed based on those arguments and which likely saved the government)

Adams was ok with the alien and sedition acts (since they only targeted his political foes)

Jefferson was ok with the embargo acts (suspension of the 4th amendment) and with trying Burr for treason without the constitutionally necessary facts (which Jay went along with).

Jefferson and Adams were ok with personally funding the major newspaper editors and using tricks and government resources to get "their" paper delivered (e.g. ordering government postal riders to deliver the presidents newspapers and bribing those riders to throw them away and deliver the other newspaper) Free press was a nice theory but not a good practice if you want to remain or become president.

Washington went against congress's orders and picked DC for the capital (near his land) rather than one of the locations congress told him to pick. Then played some legislative tricks (threatening vetos) to get congress to approve in a way that looked like he didn't do that.

You don't see many quotes from these leaders that mesh with some of the actions they thought were necessary once they got power.

[sabrina 1]

31. Yet the all came together in the end and wrote the Constitution which every elected official

swears to defend and protect when sworn into office. They came together one other time, and that was to establish their own government, which would be run by the people, for the people, and of the people. They differed on some issues, thankfully. They discussed and argued their individual points but were able to agree on the most important points, that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and to be free from Government oppression.

[LWolf]

25. A DUer today

reversed Ben Franklin, saying that those who would sacrifice safety for freedom...

I'm sure there are some here that will happily dive in to cast aspersions on Jefferson.

[sabrina 1]

32. Well, the President said in his statement after the leaks, that we 'can't have 100% security without

sacrificing some freedoms'. Maybe it's just me, but that shocked me frankly.

[magellan]

35. WUT?

I had to check that quote to see if he actually said it because I couldn't believe he'd say something so stupid. Sure enough he did.

“I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 per cent security and also then have 100 per cent privacy and zero inconvenience.”

There is NO SUCH THING as "100% security", Mr. President!! I'll take the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, thank you. Privacy isn't 100%, and there's always inconvenience, but they belong to US. And I sure as hell am not interested in letting you or anyone else bargain them away for an unachievable goal!

[sabrina 1]

37. Yes, I thought that was a pretty shocking statement to be made by Democratic president.

No one can ever have 100% security. And those willing to give up some of those rights 'deserve neither safety or rights' or something like that. That has always been my understanding.

[LWolf]

51. Yes.

Shocked and disgusted me.

[malokvale77]

67. I'm too old to be shocked anymore...

I guess I'll never be too old to be disgusted.

[winter is coming]

54. We're never gonna have 100% security.

"100% security" is the talking point of a fool or a charlatan.

[treestar]

70. That's what we do when we have a government

We give up the freedom to run red lights. In the name of safety.

It is not a simple black and white thing like that.

[sabrina 1]

73. Laws are intended to protect people.

The 4th Amendment is one of those laws. It is meant to protect people from the dangers of oppressive governments.

I don't get your point at all. We agreed to have laws that protect people from harm. That is not giving up freedom, it is the free choice of the people to ensure 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

Running a red light can and has resulted in DEATH. We have agreed that people have a right to LIFE. The law is to protect the innocent from harm caused by those with no regard for the lives of others.

Governments spying on their people result in a loss of LIBERTY. So we have a law that makes it illegal to take away any of our LIBERTIES without probable cause of wrong-doing.

Freedom, Liberty, doesn't mean NO laws. Where did you get that idea from?

[Progressive dog]

44. And Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, reversing Ben

I guess he didn't realize that he had to go with random quotes from an FF trumping his understanding of the oath he had taken.

[LWolf]

52. FF. nt

[Progressive dog]

56. Well for FF #1, a man named Thomas Jefferson

violated his own understanding of the Constitution. He felt that the constitution did not allow him to buy the Louisiana Purchase, but he decided to buy it anyway.
So I didn't miss what it said, unless by FF you mean the authors of the Constitution.
Apparently you did miss the point which is that you can't encapsulate a lifetime nto two sentences and claim authority from it.

[LWolf]

60. I was just making sure that your FF

meant "founding fathers;" I wasn't sure because of the grammar issue.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers knew what they meant when they wrote the Constitution. Not that they all agreed, by any means. Not that it can't be re-interpreted to fit the modern world, either. For example, in the modern world we recognize rights for a broader population than landed white men.

Any re-interpretation of the Constitution to make it more authoritarian, to provide less liberty, though, is, in my opinion, blasphemy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

Thomas Paine

[Progressive dog]

41. He said some cool things about religion too

That and another quote will prove what?

[liberal_at_heart]

53. oh, I like that one.

[DirkGently]

42. Well clearly Jefferson was a pole-dancer dating racist. n/t

[Sheldon Cooper]

50. Oh Jefferson, Schmefferson!

That kitty cat in your sig is so damned funny!

[malokvale77]

63. Gotta admit...

I giggle every time i see it.

[BlueStreak]

55. James Madison called and wants us to return his Bill of Rights if we aren't going to use it.

[liberal_at_heart]

57. good one.

[BOG PERSON]

59. "Remember, today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday." - V for Vendetta

[treestar]

64. He meant having a representative body

This was the 18th century. Some thought their rights came from the King.

[lunasun]

77. cast aspersions on his character.... side note but...

this is an article that does,...... fascinating read though
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Little-Known-Dark-Side-of-Thomas-Jefferson-169780996.html

[Hissyspit]

78. There are

Little kittens in a cream-attacking frenzy all over my iPhone screen.

[Recursion]

79. 1. Thomas Jefferson opposed the Constitution's passage

2. If we want to make this about Jefferson's character, that isn't that difficult