Just LOOK what the Declaration of Independence says about bush....

[mopaul]

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/independence/doi.htm

apparently we have the right to overthrow our corrupt government!!!!

-----------He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

---of course the 'he' they refer to is King George.....

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. I'll warm up the truck, you grab grannie and

the pitchforks. We're going to Washington! Yeehaa!

:evilgrin:

[mrcheerful]

2. You better look at that again

Nixon made it illegal in 1970 to over throw the government. The best we can do now is get congress to impeach the pres.

[lonestarnot]

3. So the Boston Tea Party, was it illegal?

[radfringe]

5. yes

we were under English rule at that time

[lonestarnot]

7. Case closed!

[electropop]

10. It's _always_ illegal to overthrow the gov't.

I can't imagine any gov't "allowing" it to happen legally. However, we do have impeachment, a likely prospect IMHO.

[mopaul]

11. read this here declaration of independence, it only takes a minute

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/independence/doi.htm

[electropop]

13. That's not US Law.

It's the record of the illegal act that our founding fathers committed.

[rman]

16. Right, it's merely the foundation of US law.

Or better yet: the foundaton of the US, period

[rman]

17. Does that mean Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not Rights?

If so then what's the freakin' point of the Declaration?

I gather the act that the founding fathers committed is illegal primarily according to the British throne, and probably also according the Bank Of England.

[electropop]

18. Not explicitly in the Constitution,

but these ideas could be taken to be implied as the sum total of many of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. There is no use of the word "happiness," but 2 uses of the other words:

"Amendment V.
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ..."

"Amendment XIV.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ..."

Also, there's this:

"Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Searchable Constitution:
http://www.law.emory.edu/erd/docs/usconser.html

You are correct that the Declaration (and war) were illegal under British law.

[rman]

20. 5th, 14th and legality

Doesn't the 5th pretty much cover what the 14th is supposed to cover; namely the same Rights for freed slaves as for other US persons? Would it not have made more sense to simply extend the 5th to freed slaves, instead of creating a new amendment that does practically the same thing (and which was subsequently abused by corporations to obtain the same rights as persons - but that's another story).

And just how legal is it for one nation to force its laws onto another nation (even if it's a Nation in the making)? I guess at that level the only 'right' that counts is the right of the strongest; "Might Makes Right".


I see parallels between the latter and the current issue of legal powers of Free Trade Tribunals, which do in fact have the power to fine Nations for prohibiting corporations to make the profits they seek due such things as laws on environmental protection. See NAFTA "chapter 11", NAFTA court/tribunal, in particular the case of Metalclad vs Mexico.
It doesn't look like there's any place where the legality of such proceedings can be questioned and those decisions overturned, which implies that indeed corporations are now more powerful then Nation-States. Needless to say i think that's quite worrysome.

[electropop]

21. Freepers don't realize that the World Gov't they fear has been created by

their side. It's here, it's real, and it's coming for their jobs.

As for changing the 5th Amendment, that in itself is an Amendment, and it's the 14th. That's just how it works. There are a number of Amendments that modify or rescind others, but the changed ones remain part of the text: you can append (and even supercede), but never actually delete.

And as for the legality of forcing laws onto another nation, the day before the Declaration, this continent (well the East coast) was the same nation as Britain. Just the same way the Confederacy was just the South, the day before they split off.

I'm not saying that legality is the only criterion for morality. Just saying that the moral nature of an act like rebellion is totally dependent on what the goals are. Promulgation of slavery? Not so good. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Better.

In the case of the U.S., it seems to me our Founding Fathers actually wanted a bit of both.

[rman]

22. thanks for the clarification. nt

[KarenS]

4. "some" might say, it not just a right but an obligation

:)

[stlsaxman]

6. How about bringing a case appealing Bush v. Gore?

If that can be overturned, Gore will serve the remainder of the term.

okay, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[lonestarnot]

8. Deadline way gone.

[bigbrother05]

9. I would sacrifice Florida

by spilling oil, somewhat like the Boston Tea Party.

[lonestarnot]

14. To the gallows with ye!

[The2ndWheel]

12. Legal right and ability

are two different things. When we all get a few tanks, some missle launchers, a few bombs, a fighter plane or 20, our own GPS system, some chemical weapons to not use against the people that didn't give the order to use them, a couple secret prisons that don't exist, a few naval ships, and a nuclear weapon for show, then maybe we can take Washington.

[lonestarnot]

15. Ok who has a tank? I have a boom boom stick!

[EFerrari]

19. We took Washington in 1974. We can take it again.

There has to be the appearance of consent or their whole game is lost.

[blarbushie]

23. We don't have to overthrow him.

When we win back Congress we'll impeach the bum!