[quote]pushharder wrote:
So King George was an illegitimate king?[/quote]
Um, yes - if he was legitimate, then that would mean we were rightly his subjects, and we’d have no complaint that he violated our natural rights.
No, that isn’t what I am arguing, and that isn’t the point - you mentioned in a previous point that you could have just as easily argued that Parliament “duly passed” laws.
Did the colonies have direct representation in Parliament? Yes or no?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
C’mon, by the standards of those times he the legitimate king. So yes, we were his subjects. You know this so what is it your trying to pull here?
Why did you not answer my subsequent questions?[/quote]
Oh, I thought my answer answered the rest. No, they weren’t legitimate kings. The question is not whether we were his subjects - we were. The question is were we legitimately so - and we either were, or we weren’t.
How could they be? On what basis is their authority legitimate? Did any of these kinds have their authority confirmed by the people in some kind of a vote?
Well, not exactly, considering the Western world had known democracy since the ancient Greeks. But that is neither here nor there.
The point is the abuse that the Declaration were railing against was the fact that England was not recognizing the colonies’ right to be governed by their consent, and as a result were defying their natural rights - [i]Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury, and all that.
Our government - even the overreaching federal government you don’t like - has our consent. It is a product of the constitutional means of providing government, as established by the Founders. The government over the colonies did not have the colonies’ consent. There is your difference, and it is laid out in the Declaration.
No, it wasn’t, not if you believe the words Jefferson wrote in the Declaration. That English government did have the consent of the governed - and that is why the colonies were within their right to revolt.
Right, and they were within their rights to choose that different path because the rule by the English violated the “consent of the governed” requirement. If it had been otherwise, there would have been no justfication for revolt.
No, it couldn’t, because our government is based on our consent. You couldn’t vote out British kings every four years. In our government, the people have their say (the House) and the states have their say (Senate), and they are appended with and checked by a Supreme Court.
I mean, I get it - for years, neo-secessionists have tried to equate the American Revolution with a desire to secede based on a dislike of the size and scope of the federal government, that the same principles apply. They don’t. As I’ve said over and over, in one arrangement, you have the consent of the governed, in the other, you didn’t. That difference can’t be washed away. It is the distinction the Founders recognized.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”[/quote]
You can’t just leave out the parts that don’t help you:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â?? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, [u]deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â?? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government[/u].
That’s right. Governments don’t have authority unless they have the consent of the governed. When they fail that task, the people have a right to alter or abolish it.
[quote]“Any Form of Government” would include one that is operating (ostensibly) within its constitutional limits.
Any form.
That includes a constitutional republic.
Even a modern day constitutional republic.
Any Form of Government.[/quote]
…that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, yes. And if a constitutional republic is being governed without the consent of the governed, then the people have a right to revolt. Sure, no dispute on that, and there never has been.
But our modern day constitutional republic doesn’t fall into that category, it has the consent of the governed. The colonials did not their right to be governed by their consent respected by England. So, it’s a moot issue for the issue of the applicablity of revolution to our modern government.
I have to admit, I find this argument weird. Why would they? By what test is the king legitimate, if you believe in the idea of natural law, etc.?
Loyalists thought the king legitimate, and his legitimacy was based in his divine right to lord over his subjects, which trumped and overruled democratic niceties.
Well, no I didn’t forget so much as the litany of abuses was directed at “He”, i.e., the king. Which they are.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So Queen Elizabeth II is NOT a legitimate queen? Right now in Buckingham Palace resides an illegitimate monarch? REALLY?
King David was not legitimate?
You gotta be kidding me, my friend?
Stop this. You’re working yourself into a ludicrous box canyon.[/quote]
Let’s try it this way. Tell me, Push - what exactly is the basis for the legitimacy of each of these monarchs’ authority?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The point being is that the Founders essentially created the “consent of the governed (yes, I know, Locke et al, preached the sermons for quite a few decades prior)” and then like I said earlier illegitimized the legitimate government of Britain.
[/quote]
Well, no they didn’t - the Greeks and Romans did. But again - that is neither here nor there.
You seem to take the position that pre-American Revolution, the British monarchy was a legitimate form of government, and that the colonists sort of “discovered” natural rights, implemented a plan, and the English crown went from being a legitimate form of government to an illegitimate form of government in that window of “discovery”.
Is this right?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, “our government.”
“Our government” was not in place in 1776.[/quote]
So? The issue is whether the current government - our government - is based on consent. It is. Case closed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So Puerto Rico, Guam, the Mariannas, etc., DO have the right to revolt?
BTW, I do see your point but I don’t see “Any Form of Government” being totally exclusionary.
I mean I get it. You see, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” with “these ends” being the consent or non-consent of the governed
AND I see, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” with “these ends” being “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So your cutoff is when the consent of the governed contract is breached and mine is when the government becomes destructive of our unalienable rights.
You would argue that we still have the consent of the governed and you would be right.
I would argue our unalienable rights are being violated and REGARDLESS of the fact that the nominal consent of the governed is still in place, “Any Form of Government” can be replaced.
Got it?[/quote]
I get it, but you’re on an island in thinking that way, because your argument is based on arbitrariness, and it isn’t and was never the view of the Founders. You (the proverbial “you”) can always argue your “rights are being violated” any time you are a loser in a democratic forum. Don’t want higher taxes, but the majority votes for higher taxes anyway? “Violation of rights!”. And so forth.
But there is no rational justification for claiming your “rights were violated” if the subject matter was rightfully put to the democratic process and you lost. That is why the consent of the governed is the turnkey for the right of revolution, and not just a simple, unilateral claim that your rights were violated.
If what you say is true, the “right” of revolution extends to any state (or county or municipality) that suddenly decides its “unalienable rights have been violated” when it doesn’t get some policy outcome it doesn’t want. As such, “rights” get conflated with “interests”, and that has never been the case. Of course not. That’s not the rule of law, that’s anarchy.
Oh, and one other point. You qualify your statement about the consent of the governed by noting it is “nominal” consent. Again, arbitrary. What is nominal? Were laws passed outside of the constitutional mechanism? I know what “nominal” means, as a practical matter - it means “I don’t like the outcome”. That’s impossible in a nation built on the rule of law.
The right of revolution isn’t a blank check to revolt anytime someone conveniently discovers their “unalienable rights have been violated”.