This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
When the Law Falls Silent
When the Law Falls Silent
By
Cognitive Dissonance
It was just a little more than a month ago that I posted “The Grand SCOTUS Facade” on Zero Hedge. If I may be so bold as to shamelessly quote myself, ”But if the supremacy of The Empire is threatened by external or internal forces those very same three governmental branches, either separately or in unison, will act to protect The Empire and its special interests………and the Constitution be damned if it gets in the way.”
In the very next paragraph I go on to declare,” For example in decades past the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed slavery in America and then approved by abstention Abraham Lincoln’s blatantly unconstitutional power grab from the states, only to rule against it after the Civil War had ended and the damage had been done. Incredibly they even ratified the corralling of US citizens of Japanese descent during WW2 and the taking of their property without compensation.”
I’ll be the first to admit that I love the warm and fuzzy feeling of having my bias confirmed. From my perspective, that of the so called fringe point of view, my confirming stroke usually comes from reading other like minded people who have reached similar conclusions following different paths. Rarely do I receive affirmation from the mainstream media nor would I expect to. One must read between the lines when perusing the state media for the actual intent and meaning behind the public propaganda.
So I was a bit surprised to discover that none other than U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the latest to provide me with that deliciously naughty feeling I get between my toes when my confirmation bias has just been tickled. Thank you Justice Scalia. I won’t tell my wife if you won’t tell yours.
Its one thing to discuss among friends, neighbors and alternative media the potentially revolutionary idea that The Empire has no legal clothes. It’s another entirely when one of The Empire’s Supreme Court justices says it in his out loud voice. Wow! Clearly Justice Scalia is seated on the SCOTUS for life because no instrument of State who needs to be re-appointed, re-elected or just really interested in staying employed by the State would ever speak such truth to power.
What I find really interesting is the manner in which he delivered the bomb shell personal opinion, that of someone who was confirming what we all already know to be true. Duh……when push comes to shove isn’t it obvious the State has no legal clothes?
Replying to a question from a University of Hawaii law school student regarding the 1944 Korematsu v. United States Supreme Court decision that affirmed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, Justice Scalia is quoted as saying "Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again."
Ummm….actually Justice Scalia, it was the propaganda spouting system itself, personified by all the King’s horses and all the King’s men, who has been kidding me into believing that my “rights’ are supreme and will be held above all other interests because “We the People” hold these truths to be self evident.
Scalia went on to explain "That's what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That's what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It's no justification, but it is the reality."
That’s a relief. Just as long as my constitutionally protected ‘rights’ are unilaterally abridged by The Empire, then the rape upheld by The State’s Supreme Court Justice’s because of deliberate public fear mongering fanned by manufactured State propaganda in order to herd the population into cutting off their noses to spite my face….well, I’m down with that dawg. All good here bro.
The various mainstream press reports, all of which read nearly word for word as if quoting a press release, then go on to mention this little gem. “Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning, "In times of war, the laws fall silent."” Interestingly not one newspaper decided to name the actual Latin phrase, assuming I suppose that their readers would not care to know or that the assembled reporters repeaters didn’t understand the phrase and needed it explained to them by the students in the room. That phrase is “Inter arma enim silent leges”.
Thankfully there was a legal expert in the room (other than Justice Scalia of course) to interpret the words of the Supreme Priest who was clearly off his meds and once again mindlessly ranting in public.
The Associated Press informed us that “Avi Soifer, the law school's dean, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can't be trusted to provide protection.”
Well, if you can’t trust the law who, or what, can you trust? After all aren’t we a nation of laws? Doesn’t the law apply to everyone, rich or poor, educated and ignorant? Am I to assume that this ‘mistake’ by the Supreme Court was comparable to the mistake I made last night when I sprinkled too much red pepper in the spaghetti sauce? Oops, sorry Mrs. Cog, my bad. Here, have some cold water to wash that mistake away.
“Soifer said it's good to hear Scalia say the Korematsu ruling was wrong, noting the justice has been among those who have reined in the power of military commissions regardless of the administration.”
Ok! So am I to assume that Scalia is one of the good guys? Too bad there are eight other Justices who could form a majority to confirm that my death or internment at the hands of The Empire was lawful and righteous at the first sign of public fear and panic in response to a (highly likely) false flag attack or similar State sponsored provocation.
"We do need a court that sometimes will say there are individual or group rights that are not being adequately protected by the democratic process," Soifer said.
Is Soifer talking about the Supreme Court that is supposedly immune to public, governmental and corporate pressure and is ultimately tasked with protecting my ‘rights’ above all else? You mean to say that not only the law, but the arbiters of the law, might not actually uphold my rights because of public, governmental or corporate pressure? Say it ain’t so Soifer, say it ain’t so.
Another source provides an additional quote that did not seem to make it into the mainstream media’s ‘repeating’ of Scalia’s soon-to-be-regretted comments. Of note was Scalia’s interpretation of the function of the Supreme Court of the United States.
“"The function of the court is not to keep the other two branches (legislative and executive) in line; that's not what we're for. We're there to stop harm to individuals," Scalia said.”
Interesting observation Justice Scalia, considering you just admitted that your colleagues from 1944 failed to do precisely that when the law fell silent in the face of government warmongering which in turned fanned the flames of public panic and blatant political and racial scapegoating. And I might add, a government which is doing the same thing during today’s “Global War against Terrorism” by condoning Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, extralegal killings/executions, death by drone etc.
I suspect Scalia was following the time honored tradition of politicians, despots and scalawags everywhere and speaking ‘for local consumption’. After all, he was speaking in Hawaii to a group of young adult law students, some of whom likely have family, friends, and possibly even distant relatives who were actually interned or deported during that wonderful experiment in truth and justice for all (except of course for US citizens of Japanese descent) during World War Two.
Let me quote from Josh Blackman’s blog. “Having an independent judiciary that, even in times of war, can check the other branches, is the last line of defense. This is the point Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown conveys. ““With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations. Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up.””
Got that Justice Scalia? Let me repeat that just in case you were busy confirming your own bias. “But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up.”
Of course the above “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.” opinion by the 1952 Supreme Court was speaking about the actions of the President “to avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense” by issuing an Executive Order to seize and operate the steel mills.
By the time the Executive Order was overturned by the SCOTUS, a scant two months later, the intent of the order (to avert a strike) had been accomplished and no personal liberties or ‘rights’ had been completely trampled in the process. So it is safe to say that the SCOTUS ruling was a ‘safe’ decision that could be presented as maintaining the facade of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ without actually encumbering or dissuading The Empire from its relentless pursuit of cronyism and expanded power.
I often say that the true measure of a society is how well it takes care of its weakest citizens. I shall amend that to say that the true measure of a society is how well it adheres to its own laws, which were supposedly put in place to protect its weakest citizens, during times of political stress or war.
The facade that constitutes the ‘belief’ that America adheres to a higher standard in all things American, including “The Law of the Land”, is not just crumbling, but wasn’t real to begin with…..except of course when it was convenient to those who held, and presently hold, the true power in America these days, the financial/military/corporate powerhouses including the mega banks and their idiot savant, the Federal Reserve.
02-15-2014
Cognitive Dissonance
Introducing a portal into the mind of Cognitive Dissonance. www.TwoIceFloes.com
- advertisements -
UP4
here's an article (also comments/discussion) with more links:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/12/05/a-president-who-should-liv...
The research I did on this subject was almost four years ago. I would need to begin again to reconstruct the links.
It is difficult to know what is and what isn't correct these days, what with disinformation agents and agencies everywhere. One needs to work backwards and look at inconsistencies in the official story and then ask why. I found the fact that several aircraft carriers and other more modern support ships had been moved out of Pearl Harbor several days before the attack and were just steaming around in circles several hundred miles east of Pearl during the attack curious. While there was great loss of life and equipment at Pearl, most of the ships that were sunk were older class destroyer and support ships that needed to be replaced anyway if America was going to fight a modern war.
There have been several credible sources that confirmed that the US broke the Japanese military codes several weeks before Pearl Harbor. It is clear that the political leadership of the USA wanted America to intercede in the war in Europe. It was also clear that the American people did not want to be involved in a European war. Thus something was needed to move pubic opinion in favor of war.
To alert the Japanese that we had broken their codes by preparing Pearl for attack would have surrendered a major military advantage.......if we were going to be fighting them in a war. However, it would have been harder to rally America to go to war if we prevented the Pearl attack. Considering that the leadership wanted the Japanese attack to happen because that would drag us into the European war, which is what they wanted, it is easy to see how this went down. Of course it conflicts with the official story and the official story must be maintained at all costs even today because similar stories are used today to justify today's actions. One must always maintain credibility today by maintaining the credibility of prior actions.
If you dive into this you will find everything you need to prove to yourself that the official story is garbage. Several books have been written on this topic that are well researched with credible supporting documentation. The link below is one example of good questions being asked and answered. Never accept just one source for your answers and be careful other sources are not all drawing their info from one source.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
i have ansel adams book Manzanar which goes into these issues, and is full of great photos, adams was primarily a landscape photographer, and commentary by john hersey. evidently the immigration situation for the japanese americans was much like it is now for mexicans, many of them were here for decades but the system blocked the path to citizenship, so they were the green card residents of that period, which made it much easier to intern them, for their own protection.. and like now being a citizen offered no rights either, we drone kill u.s. citizens, probably inside the borders, but dead men tell no tales. those who had land usually lost it, and the farming industry on the west coast went into decline. there was a way out, you could join the military, and they sent you to the european theatre of course. of course the same problem when applied to the german immigrants was much different. they did arrest a number of german americans, or germans in this country, and interned them in camps in north dakota. at one time the ethnic majority in america was german, hence america did not want to get into the war (fewer americans were in favor of america going to war at that time, than wanted the war in iraq which george bush created) the pacifist movement was strong. at one point the poet Robinson Jeffers put in one of his long narrative poems, a line in which he called FDR a cripple (it was a figurative use) and before random would publish it the poet had to be summoned to NY and that line removed. he agreed, but the tone of his work (isolationist and anti government) should still ring true to many today. we like to think that this time we would be fair and rational under the circumstances, but gw bush built a number of internment camps which sit empty at the moment, just waiting. and since our current potus stands for everything gwb did, we can only guess he would use whatever methods have been decided for him, in the event of civil strife. (but cheer up, you might be inside the wire, but you get to keep your doctor)
Here's a starter:
The Pearl Harbor Deception
There's a link to the author's book on the subject at the end of the article. btw, the status quo establishment types have pronounced this as 'conspiracy theory'.
PH attack in 1941 was always sold as an attack on America, but Hawaii did not achieve statehood until 1959. That in itself is a whole nuther subject...
from that link:
So...in effect the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on an illegally(or unlawfully?) annexed(by the USA) territory, where the US had established an outpost for it's blue water Navy.
But that doesn't sell a war so well, does it?
The Robert's opinion on the ACA is far more egregious than Korematsu. It's a sophistry that blows the doors off an abuse that's been popping up for some time. Namely the government compelling behavior by taxation.
Lawyers are our modern day Sophists, and worship at the altar of equivocation.
That is why the Supine Court has inexplicable rulings; their robes should be grey.
Well said.
If they can compel behavior by calling it a tax, there really is no limit to what they can, and eventually will do.
The only recent event which rivals this, is the complete lack of interest in voter fraud, which kept the Dictator in power.
Ends do justify means under extreme conditions. It's called frame of reference. You start with a critique of a legal decision then cite facts not in evidence. SCOTUS decision wasn't based on inside knowledge of political machinations.
You're starting a whole new argument.
Back to the original question. Let's see the Battle of Britain was in the middle of 1940. I wonder if you had taken a poll of Londoners on the reasonableness of internment what would have been the result? Or the French or the Norwegians or the Koreans or the Chinese? But the Supremes are supposed to be more objective and high minded than the common herd. Or are they? It's not so clear when there's blood in the streets. And no WWII isn't analogous to the WTC attack.
Japanese internment a practice run for FEMA camps to quell any resistance to the Kleptoligarchy.
The fact that a supposedly "conservative" justice can spout such nonsense is proof we have crossed the Rubicon.
Reference the loss of property rights in KELO vs. City of New London, deeming Corporations as Individuals, and John Roberts calling Obamacare mandates a tax and you know all you need to know about the death of the Republic and individual rights dating back to the Magna Carta.
Slave Nation, Slave Planet.
Pretty damn sad.
I have no problem with corporations being treated as people, so long as they get the down side as well as the up side.
If, through criminal or negligent actions, a corportion causes a single death, it's either murder or manslaughter.
Corporate charter goes bye-bye for murder and is suspended for 10 - 15 years for manslaughter.
I think that would fix a lot of problems.
Given a corporation can't make a decision, only the people in it, the decision makers are the responsible parties and that's where laws should be applied, not fines aginst the companies.
Just a thought.
+1
For...
An interesting thought. Limited liability should not apply to decision-makers.
It doesn't for small companies anyhows.
Quite common for the officers to be sued for
the companies actions.Don't make big enough
'donations'.
Arrest Scalia for treason.
And, Renquist. That sucker was the only person more stoned on placidyl than myself.
And don't forget Bork's nightly visits to the adult video stores.
And Clarence Thomas the pervert.
And so on.
Replace the government with open source software before it is too late.
Bad,bad example for the points you're attempting to make. Individual rights aren't absolute. Determining if and to what degree they should be abridged must be a judgement call. Judgement of the severity of the threat and the reasonableness of measures taken to counter.
The military successes of the Axis completely overturned the conventional wisdom and worldview. Authorities were aware of the success of Nazi fifth column operations. The number and influence of Nazi sympathizers in the US and Britain was subsequently suppressed.
As the facts unfolded and it became obvious that the Japanese community had little sympathy for their country of origin, the measures appear absurd. Before the fact?
Applying a modicum of imagination, I think we can classify it as a mistake.
So, 60 years later, the real reason for the internment of the Japanese comes out. We had intercepted and decrypted secret cables that identified specific Japanese spies, living among us. We couldn't take any action against them in particular without tacitly disclosing that we could break the Japanese diplomatic secret cables in real-time. Which would have caused the Japanese to change their codes or even their entire cryptographic strategy. So we basically imprisoned all of them, being sure to include the few (dozens?) of individuals who were actually spies. Doesn't make it right, but it's more nuanced than the standard "we didn't trust any of them."
So the ends justifies the means? If so then no one is safe from a government bent on full spectrum dominance. Which is exactly my point. When governments feel empowered to manufacture war in order to circumvent a citizen's rights, how safe is anyone from their government if they disagree? Many people think WW2 was the last morally pure war. What few will acknowledge is that the American people were hoodwinked into WW2. The administration knew Pearl Harbor was coming several days in advance. They allowed it to happen in order to compel people to clamber for revenge. The American citizens were played to the hilt.
well...we can't deny the holocaust...although intersting this type of authority is granted for people that do.
of course Studs Terkel's "The Good War" is a must read for it was anything but. but no one doubts whatever paranoia America may have been acting out back then the "legal goal" is not for the US to become the Nazi's.
I mean at least the Nazi paranoia was justified. You could argue as they "spread their wings" they really were discovering the plotting and scheming of their demise. It's not like Boshelivism was an "abstraction."
Looking from the lens of today should we now argue that "the Third Reich was something that just got out of hand"?
THE holocaust?
There's been a lot more than one.
Take a look at The Great Holocaust of Bengal.
The Brits made Hitler look like a learner when it comes to this.
Remember, the victor always writes the history books.
CD, thank you for pointing out the fact about the administration knowing about the attack in advance. I assumed it was common knowledge, yet I am always surprised by the number of people that are not aware of this. But, historians tend to whitewash their heroes and then we have the trusty hollywood propaganda machine to subtly rewrite history when truth does get out.
A bit like knowing about 9/11 in advance??
History books are written, mostly, by TPTB and these are the only ones you'll see in the 'education' system.
...Memory erased, burned and scarred
Trade in ya history for a VCR...
I wonder how well he, and all the rest, are with Article 3, Section 3?!
I can't wait to see the rabbit they pull out of their asses in the first case that affirms "executive orders."
"My guillotine loves treason."
this is dick cheney's duck hunting buddy? i like you cog but you're wasting your time nailing this jello to the wall. he's not worth it, unless of course your ox is gored. i think if everyone saw these people as the fat slobs they really are, there would be a lot less trouble in the world. we have an inclination to elevate their presence based on what? i listened to their arguments over the election in 2000. abolish the court, sorry FFD, no one here measures up to the job you envisaged.
The Americans learned a lot from the Germans in WWII. Don't expect costly embarrassing camps. A bulldozed ditch will do just fine.
No, it won't. Bulldozed ditches poison the water supply.
Therefore requiring fewer bulldozed ditches?
As Mousie Tongue once said, "all power flows from the barrel of a gun". That is true. Scalia understands this, and that is why he said that the Supreme Court cannot keep the other branches in line. The Supreme Court has no guns. Only the Executive Branch does.
I understand that the Supreme Court cannot force the other two branches of government to obey the law. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court should enable the other two branches and particularly the President/Executive.
You are getting closer Cog, but the rabbit hole goes deeper.
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/what-happend-constitution
The real purpose for my two articles on the SCOTUS is to show how corrupt the institution is. Many people still 'believe' in the legal system, which enables them to believe in the system itself. Only when average Jane and Joe lose their conditioned false hope in the system will the system crumble and die.
I would argue that, for day to day things, the system can still work for those who know how to make it work for them and force it to work for them. At least, in my neck of the woods, it is still possible to get a fair shake if arrested for violations of state law. But, you have to be prepared for whatever you are going to encounter and have a lot more knowledge and balls than the average person. In other words, for those who know how to take it, there can be justice, but for everybody else, they have to roll the dice and possibly get steam rolled.
the "belief/faith" is based on many subsets of "reality" imposed by an underlying class manipulating law for their gain
whilst the true law/intent is skirted til the new reality bits us all in the ars. some call it fascism...
fight/flight and violence/relocate - only two outcomes, well a third is possible, which leads to one of the two(for me), third(passifist state) being living dead as servant to the state...
liberty will reup itself as blood for freedom.
wash/spill/outcome cycle repeat 240 year cycle is here(with much turbulence between).
John Adams
While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Ahem...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......"
And it's not "our" Constitution. That stuff about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is basic Natural Law. It doesn't need Providence to grant or guide it: it is SELF-EVIDENT.
As such, the US Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, is a Universal Declaration that cannot be owned by any state, nation, or religion.
As for oaths, I'll neither give nor take them. My word is my bond, and you can judge me by my acts, as I'll judge you by yours.
http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12a.htm
THE LINK TO ENGLISH COMMON LAW
The supremacy of God's law was generally recognized in the English common law. Sir William Blackstone, the preeminent English legal authority widely followed by the American founders, recognized the binding legal nature of the law of God as understood in its basic principles. Blackstone maintained that English law (and therefore, American law) had its roots in the laws of God.
Blackstone recognized that "law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action." He identified the essential legal relationship that exists between God and his creation by observing, "Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being."20 God was acknowledged as the lawgiver and therefore the one who laid down certain immutable rules of action, that is, of right and wrong conduct.
Recognizing the relevance of the creation and the Bible, Blackstone noted that "[u]pon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."21 In other words, the law of God whether written in God's creation (nature) or in the Bible (revelation), spoke with a unified voice. Moreover, this law is absolute: any law of man to the contrary is of no effect.
Various individuals, peoples, and governments have interpreted God's laws differently at different times.22 The framers of the American system of government, however, were in one accord in "presuppos[ing] the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government."23 In other words, the framers recognized that God laid down rules that governed the universe and nations and that these laws could be sufficiently understood because they are communicated by a God who wants people to know them.24 They presupposed a God who is not silent.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration."25
THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD
The Declaration of Independence is a document with its roots in the law of God. Perhaps the best place to begin understanding how the Declaration serves in this capacity is to discern how the framers understood and applied its principles to the creation and formation of civil government. If we can understand how they took the Declaration's principles and applied them to the formation of constitutions, then we too should be able to apply those same principles to any other legal difficulties that our constitutional governments may face.
The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence sets the stage for the American revolution and its indispensable reliance on the laws of God, the Creator.26 It declares:
By invoking the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow. The theory of freedom adopted was simply that God's law was supreme and gave freedom. The phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" referred to the laws that God in his capacity as the Creator of the universe had established for the governance of people, nations and nature. These laws are variously described as the laws of Creation, God's Creation laws or as the framers elected to refer to them, as the laws of nature and of nature's God. This body of law, whatever it is called, can be ascertained by people through an examination of God's creation, the text of the Bible, and to a certain degree, instinct or reason.
The decision to expressly rely upon God's law of creation was not a superficial one, but ably debated for many years before and after the Declaration was drafted.27 Thomas Jefferson, for instance, reflecting on the Declaration of Independence, wrote in 1825 that its essential point was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject."28 For the common sense of the subject, the framers turned to the laws of creation. They gave the principles of that law expression in the Declaration. The American Revolution was the context in which the Declaration's principles were discerned and expressed for all the world to hear and consider anew
@ebear - So, can a constitution be made for moral OR religious people? Or in other words, can morality and religion be mutually exclusive? Personally, I'm a little skeptical of anything that starts "We the people..." which allowed a few dozen white men to enslave hundreds of millions by way of some silly "social contract." The constitution is collectivist drivel. Do a word count on the document and you would find that 95% of the words are devoted to what government can, shall and must do. A scant 5% is devoted to the rights of the individual and those are highly conditioned.
I am in agreement with Lysander Spooner who said: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
The same error in logic that attibuted Natural Law to "God's Creation" was behind the assumption that only white men are entitled to its benefits. Such was the order of the day, making it impossible for anyone to pen such a document whose moral philosophy wasn't rooted in Christian belief. The same holds true today in the sense that no politician can get elected without professing a belief in god.
The Constitution is a flawed document in that sense, but the basic principles it asserts (Bill of Rights) are no less valid on that account. As such, like the Magna Carta before it, it represents a milestone in the evolution of human consciousness, proof of that evolution being that today, no one in their right mind would assert that it applies only to white American males. Moreover, no religious interpretation is needed to arrive at that conclusion, only an observation of nature itself.
What possible moral philosophy could evolve from random time and chance molecules resulting in ebear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_systems_theory
Fails to explain origens of life or answer my question. "Instead of examining phenomena by attempting to break things down into components, a general living systems theory explores phenomena in terms of dynamic patterns of the relationships of organisms with their environment."
Oh I see. I have to explain the origin of life now?
OK. 4400 years ago, God created the earth in 6 days.
We're done here.
"Moreover, no religious interpretation is needed to arrive at that conclusion, only an observation of nature itself."
The same nature where a lion hunts down and kills it's prey with no remorse whatsoever? The constitution was written ostensibly to protect life, liberty and property. However, in order to exist it must first threaten life, liberty and property. A little schizophrenic don't you think?
Life feeds on itself. All have to eat to survive. But the will to survive also includes strategies for NOT being eaten. Put those two facts together, and in a billion years or so you'll have an intelligent species capable of reflecting on that process, and eventually realizing it for what it is: the foundation of their existence.
The question then becomes, how do we arrange things such that we avoid being eaten by predators within our own species?
There's your starting point for a moral philosophy. No deity needed, just the plain facts on the ground.
Being "a moral and religious people" in no way interferes, abridges or breaches the US Constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. I suspect it is a knee-jerk reaction to "religion" and "religious", which even in historical context is too narrow a definition, meaning, it infers a Deity. The language itself, along with the historical context, infers an relative (symbiotic?) association between morality and religion. Clearly, this is not the case, especially in light of what passes for doing "God's work" here of late.
It is "our" constitution in that "We The People" attempted to use it as the foundation to govern our relative free association as a society. This has failed for a number of reasons, none the least of which is the disintegration of the moral fabric that holds a society together. While morality is a cornerstone of western religious thought, morality is more an end to a religious means. That is, morality, or more generally, honoring an obligation, is a positive attribute to be fostered in an individual and in a society as a whole.
*******************
Constitution in breach?
We Must Impeach!
*******************
Listen and learn.
Part 1
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/radio/14-01-28%20Dr.%20Jim%...
Part 2
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/radio/14-02-04%20Dr.%20Jim%...
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/radio-interviews
Excellent.
I'm guessing they learned some lessons from the Japanese internment camp fiasco. If they let people out of the FEMA camps they may need to pay reparations some day so...
Aquarius:
Maybe it should be called Zionist Law that the 'hill hiding modern Mafia of armed gangs and barbarian knuckle dragging invaders' now follow!
Worse, noahide law, now in force in the ussa.
@DavidPierre
Please explain your manipulation of my words?
tks