[quote]pushharder wrote:
Already addressed this.[/quote]
Where? I haven’t seen you explain where a king’s authority - specifically the list of kings you provided - emanates from.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re trying to argue that a democracy, and/or a constitutional republic is THE only legitimate government that has ever existed since the dawn of civilization. That is crazy. Plumb crazy.[/quote]
But you’re getting hung up on what I mean by “legitimate” - I am not basing “legitimacy” on the the right to exist or whether it has a traditional basis for existing, etc. - I am using “legitimacy” in the context of whether people have had the right to invoke the right of revolution to disconnect from a monarch based on the lack of the consent of the governed.
I don’t mean “illegitimate” to mean “we cannot recognize its right to exist”, because we can, even if we don’t recognize their royalty - people may actually want a king, and if so, that is their business. But - should they decide otherwise, they are justified in revolting, and the king - though he might fight back to prevent them from revolting - is not justified in doing so. That is what I mean by “illegitimate” - a king, in any era, does not have a legitimate argument to say that a people revolting against him is wrong.
[quote]Two of the principal founders recognized the fact that not all people are entitled to a democratic form of government.
Sorry, my friend, other forms of government can be legitimate even if not palatable to the likes of you and me.[/quote]
But you’re misunderstanding - as long as these governments have the consent of the governed, that is basically fine (it won’t last long, but its fine as far as it goes, on paper). If a people want to erect a monarchy with their sovereign power, that is their business. The point is that kings - who claim divine or otherwise privileged right to rule a people, which covers just about 99.9% of monarchs, historical and modern - have no legitimate basis to deny a people’s right to revolution, if they invoke it against him along the lines of the violation of natural law.
But, I remain curious - kings throughout history, including the ones you named, have claimed that they have a right to rule based on divine right, and that trumps any desire of the people to have it a different way.
You appear to support the right of kings to rule - what is the basis for their authority, then?
TB and Push,
I want to thank you both for this spirited debate. I would love to have contributed but I know when I am outmatched in a subject. With every post I feel that I am being pulled to the other side.
I do seem to have an affinity for Push’s side of the argument. I cannot help but think that TB’s argument relies a tad more on semantics, which leaves me uncomfortable with the end conclusion.
Either way, I have enjoyed the preceding and look for more to come.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So Parliament extending “an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us” is NOT an abuse? It’s legit? If so, you are now arguing against yourself.[/quote]
Oops, just saw this. C’mon, man. This is pedantic. The Declaration was a bill of particulars and grievances directed toward the king.
I mean, I see what you are trying to do here. You want to use the Declaration to claim that a people can revolt when a legislature engages in one of these abuses so you can claim that you can revolt even against a legislature’s bad acts so you can get past the consent of the governed problem. If you can make a case that Jefferson, et al, were actually revolting against a legislature, too, then you’ve cleared the hurdle I keep throwing out and you can claim a “right” to revolt against our modern Congress and the direction it has taken re: the federal government.
Problem is, that just isn’t so, and that wasn’t what the Declaration addressed. The Declaration was a bill against the king and his denial of the colonies’ right to a government of their consent.
In any event, the colonies didn’t have direct representation in Parliament, so it’s a moot point. But most importantly, this idea that a state (or any other political entity) can revolt against Congress, even though states get their say in Congress and have since the constitution was ratified, doesn’t find support in the Declaration. You’ll have to look elsewhere.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The semantics of “legitimate” and “illegitimate” play a huge part here. We are probably arguing without agreeing on a definitive basis of the words.[/quote]
I think we can clear it up this way: do a people, being subjects of a king, have the right to revolt against a king’s rule on the basis that the king does not provide the people with a right to a government of their consent?
If yes, did a people prior to 1776 have this right with respect to other kings? Whether they exercised it or not is irrelevant - did they have it?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Will try and respond to your other posts ASAP but in the meantime wanted to state that I think you’re trying to say the Founders were extremely careful in very narrowly defining the right of the people to revolt - that the people were figuratively in chains and shackles with only one available key - that they absolutely, positively had to vote their way out of every single mess they might ever find themselves in.[/quote]
Well, that’s not true - the Founders didn’t think that, and they didn’t vote their way out of every single mess for the simple reason that they didn’t have a vote to get out of the mess of the abuses of the king - that is the entire point.
Moreover, the Founders didn’t “define” the right to revolt. But they did recognize it.
[quote]As to having to “look elsewhere” I could go and gather all kind of quotes by the Founders themselves that support the right of the people to revolt and we would not find massive amounts of contingencies that always confine the people to the voting booth. I think you know which quotes I’m speaking of.
One of many:
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.” TJ
- This quote was uttered AFTER, well after, the Revolution - 1787. Jefferson could hardly be excluding the very republic he had and was in the process of still forming - yes, Jefferson, the author of the very document you claim provides no further support for revolt.[/quote]
C’mon, man. Get up to speed on your civics. The Declaration was penned by Jefferson, but worked on with Adams and Franklin, and executed by a host of Founding Fathers. Jefferson’s quote you cite isn’t the thinking of the Founding Fathers like the Declaration is - it is Jefferson’s alone, and does not support any claim that the Founding Fathers believed there was some easy right to revolt every so often without justification.
How do we know? These “little rebellions” were one of the driving forces to strengthen the federal government with the Constitution. See Shays’ Rebellion, and the comments of John Jay and George Washington for starters. If you’re right, then these eminent Founding Fathers were wrong.
Go further, look at the Whiskey Rebellion. This was a tax revolt during Washington’s presidency, an armed insurrection - angry farmers invoked the American Revolution as part of their rebellion and refusal to cooperate with laws they deemed unjust…in other words, they did exactly what you say they have the right to do. President Washington put it down, with force. If you’re right, and Jefferson’s “rebellion” qoute was right, then President Washington was wrong, because he completely disagreed. What is the answer, Push? Was Washington - quite obviously, a Founding Father - wrong?
No, it isn’t. It was attempted in the Civil War by counties in east Tennessee who favored the Union and wanted to secede from the Confederate state of Tennessee.
And Texas - famoulsy in the news for all this secession mess - is a perfect example. If the state of Texas “voted” to secede (and there was such a thing), does anyone on earth think that the cities of Austin, San Antonio and Houston would abide and go along? Hell no. They’d “secede” from Texas to rejoin the US before the ink dried on the secession declaration.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If Texas did succeed it would be a matter of days before they were over run by Mexico.[/quote]
Best Post…but I seriously doubt it would take DAYS.[/quote]
It’s not really a good idea to agree with ol’ Pittski that often.
Oh and speaking to your point…
Utilities- Texas is the only state with its own power grid. Developed over the course of the last 100 years, the Texas grid covers the majority of the state and is fully state controlled. Translation: Texans could rest assured that the federal government doesn’t have the power literally to turn off their lights.
Defense- While no match for Uncle Sam’s firepower, Texas does have a significant defense presence, namely in the Texas State Guard (which answers only to the governor), the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the legendary Texas Rangers. Texas is also home to two of the nation’s largest military bases at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss and being able to control those two installations is nothing to sniff at. But let’s not forget the firepower of the citizenry itself. There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.
I’m guessing that Mexico would try and establish relations before unleashing their army (which can’t even control the cartels)
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.[/quote]
Not true. The crime rate in Texas is higher than the national average.
Rural Texas might try to secede but urban Texas would not. At least that’s my guess.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.[/quote]
Not true. The crime rate in Texas is higher than the national average.
Rural Texas might try to secede but urban Texas would not. At least that’s my guess.
james[/quote]
Referring to the extremely high rate of gun ownership really, and the states laws allowing one to defend ones self.
People would leave Texas and many would move there…I was more referring to the fact that Mexico would have an extraordinarily hard time invading Texan with an army that when fully deployed cannot even defend it’s own country from within.
And that Texas has a fairly well developed independent infrastructure.
Yeah, Mexico isn’t going to invade anyone. Even if they wanted to they simply don’t have the ability to project any power outside (or inside) their borders.
james
I’m pretty sure Texas by itself has the resources to devastate Mexico though I doubt it could occupy it for any extended period of time.
Mexico would take over with out even firing a shot
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m pretty sure Texas by itself has the resources to devastate Mexico though I doubt it could occupy it for any extended period of time. [/quote]
Yeah, Texas would make short order of Mexico if they were actually stupid enough to invade.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Mexico would take over with out even firing a shot [/quote]
You assume a human flood no?
What happens if Texas is no longer bound by the federal inept immigration rules? aggressively defends their boarders with firepower?
I swear Pitt, you don’t even think before you write anything.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Yeah, Mexico isn’t going to invade anyone. Even if they wanted to they simply don’t have the ability to project any power outside (or inside) their borders.
james[/quote]
LOL…I wasn’t exactly referring to a “military invasion”…but without the support of the rest of the country, Spanish would be the dominant language in 15 years.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Yeah, Mexico isn’t going to invade anyone. Even if they wanted to they simply don’t have the ability to project any power outside (or inside) their borders.
james[/quote]
LOL…I wasn’t exactly referring to a “military invasion”…but without the support of the rest of the country, Spanish would be the dominant language in 15 years.[/quote]
IMO this will happen any how , South Phoenix is inundated with streets full of sign written in Spanish only. I know areas of LA are as well
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Yeah, Mexico isn’t going to invade anyone. Even if they wanted to they simply don’t have the ability to project any power outside (or inside) their borders.
james[/quote]
LOL…I wasn’t exactly referring to a “military invasion”…but without the support of the rest of the country, Spanish would be the dominant language in 15 years.[/quote]
IMO this will happen any how , South Phoenix is inundated with streets full of sign written in Spanish only. I know areas of LA are as well
[/quote]
LOL!!
You don’t have to tell me. I live in Houston. I’ve been speaking Spanish at work all day.
It has me dying laughing that anyone thinks they could stop this if Texas separated. It has already fucking happened!