[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

[E. Wayne Johnson]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Sadly the Declaration has no -- zero -- standing in US law.  And of 
> course it is
> a deeply conflicted document -- e.g., in its treatment of indigenes. 
I suppose you are referring to this statement, perhaps indelicately 
expressed but
quite likely accurate and indisputable at the time.

/He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,
and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers,
the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare,
is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

/Some where in Jefferson's writings I recall him addressing the 
endeavours made to
work with or assimilate the "natives" into the society, in which he 
said, iirc, essentially
that the chiefs did not wish to associate with them since their status 
as chiefs would be reduced
if they joined the American society.  It might be the 2nd inaugural address?

> Its partially assimilated Enlightenment principles can be a guide 
> towards a just
> polity, but it is in no sense an organic law.
some of the state constitutions did indeed  incorporate the Natural 
Rights provision of the DofI,
notably Massachusetts, and on the basis of that* "Article I. All men are 
born free and equal,
and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which 
may be reckoned the
right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of 
acquiring, possessing,
and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their 
safety and happiness*.",
A Negro slave known as Mum Bett won her freedom in the Massachusetts 
court in 1781 on this provision,
collected back pay as damages and changed her name to Elizabeth Freeman.

Of course Lincoln did much to strengthen the status of the Declaration 
through his remarks at Gettysburg.

I am not sure who it was that said that the Declaration is the Charter 
and the Constitution and Amendments the ByLaws.
It wasnt original with me, and I am sure it wasnt any Libertarian I 
heard it from either.

There ought to be higher Natural Laws from which any constitution and 
rule of law is established.

/Even when pressed by the *demands of _inner truth_*, men do not easily 
assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in 
time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the 
apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the 
surrounding world

/There has got to be an inner truth, something against which there is no 
law.  It's clear that the Apostle Paul didn't live in /*Urbana*/.

> The 1787 Constitution, on the other hand, is a purposely retrograde 
> document,
> designed to establish mechanisms to put down the drive to democracy 
> (e.g.,
> Shays' Rebellion), especially economic democracy.  (And the drafting 
> of the
> document was treasonous, because the authors had sworn allegiance to the
> Articles of Confederation.)  The leading author of the Constitution, 
> James
> Madison -- whose diary is the principal source for the secret 
> deliberations --
> understood that well: he wrote that the goal was “to protect the 
> minority of the
> opulent from the majority.” --CGE
Their times were certainly interesting also.




>
>
> E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> The Declaration of Independence is the Charter document for these 
>> United States.  If you invalidate that the whole thing falls apart, 
>> because it is the foundation. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are 
>> the By-laws.
>>
>> Your "America" does not appear to be the same as mine.

>>
>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>
>>> Wayne,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please read your history and other documents like the Federalist 
>>> Papers. The debate that went on at the Constitutional Convention was 
>>> not merely about how Senators were to be apportioned; it had to do a 
>>> compromise in which Senators and the Senate would represent the 
>>> states as sovereign entities in a federal form of government while 
>>> the House of Representatives
>>>  and the Representatives would represent the citizenry (i.e., the 
>>> people
>>> who were citizens and eligible to vote under the Constitution which 
>>> was not
>>>  everyone but mainly the landed white male gentry and propertied 
>>> white middle class males).  As part of the compromise, to avoid 
>>> disparities in geographic and population sizes between the 
>>> individual states, it was decided that each state would have two 
>>> Senators to represent the state.  It
>>>  was only much later with the expansion of the franchise and 
>>> suffrage and move away from political party conventions as the 
>>> determiners of who would run as a candidate for Senator that the 
>>> Senators began to represent the people of a state; but even then 
>>> they legally had as their constituent district the whole state at 
>>> large and not specific districts within a state.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am afraid that what  see as their duty (e.g., “…their duty to be 
>>> of the people by the people for the people”) is at best a misplaced 
>>> slogan. First,
>>> it comes from the Declaration of Independence, which does not 
>>> address the
>>> architecture of the form of government to be used, and not the 
>>> Constitution, which does address the architectural form of 
>>> government and its operation.  Secondly, nowhere in the constitution 
>>> - or for that matter the Declaration of Independence – does it 
>>> specify or state that a Senator’s
>>>  duty is to be of the people by the people or for the people.  This 
>>> was a function of government in general according to the Declaration 
>>> of Independence.  Thirdly, it is an open question if the founding 
>>> fathers were
>>>  using “people” in a figurative or a literal sense, what they actually
>>> meant by “ the people,” and who they saw as being “the people.”  It 
>>> is also
>>>  questionable if the founding fathers meant by this phrasing virtual 
>>> representation (someone who was selected by whatever means to act in 
>>> what they viewed as the best interest of the community at large)or 
>>> actual representation (someone who was selected by whatever means to 
>>> carry out the
>>>  will of the voting majority in accordance with some polling 
>>> survey).  The mere fact that they warned of “tyranny of the 
>>> majority” and  instituted all
>>>  kind of checks and balances to protect against tyranny of the 
>>> majority (i.e., “mobocracy” or mob rule) suggests that they viewed 
>>> representation as
>>>  being more of a virtual sort than an actual  “bean counting” sort.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It appears that you and many others have given a over-simplified and 
>>> popularized interpretation to the notions of “the People” and 
>>> “representation.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] *Sent:* Wednesday, 
>>> January 07, 2009 5:24 PM *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON *Cc:* 
>>> jencart13 at yahoo.com; 'peace discuss'; 'C. G. Estabrook' *Subject:* 
>>> Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Laurie, please note that the senators also represent the people.  It 
>>> is only the apportionment of them that is different from 
>>> Representatives. The method of allocation of the numbers of senators 
>>> or representatives doesnt change the charge of their duty to be of 
>>> the people by the people for the people.
>>>
>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>
>>> Get real!  The system never paid any attention to The People; it 
>>> paid attention to an elite segment of some of the people.  Who are 
>>> these unnamed
>>>  “They”?  If the masses allow themselves to be persuaded and sold a 
>>> bill of
>>>  goods which they believe and then act on by casting their votes for
>>> someone or some policy position no matter who or what it is, who the 
>>> hell
>>> are you to say that this is not representative democracy, is not how 
>>> the
>>> system of representative democracy works or should work, and not a
>>> representation of the people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You happen to be wrong.  U.S. Senators are suppose to be 
>>> representatives of
>>>  the individual states and not the people, which is why each state 
>>> gets two
>>>  senators no matter what their geographic or population sizes.  It 
>>> is the House of Representatives that is supposed to represent the 
>>> people, which is
>>>  why Representatives are apportioned according to population and not 
>>> geography.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
>>> <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net> 
>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *E. 
>>> Wayne Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:28 PM *To:* 
>>> jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com> *Cc:* peace 
>>> discuss; C. G.
>>>  Estabrook *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The system is broken and it doesn't pay any attention to the people.
>>>
>>> They gave you 2 worthless choices
>>>
>>> - McCain  (Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) - O-bomb-a (Yes We Can 
>>> - Bomb
>>>  Iran.)
>>>
>>> They don't care which of those 2 you elect, because both of them are 
>>> almost
>>>  exactly same thing, and somehow they get the masses to believe that 
>>> some how one or the other is significantly different.
>>>
>>> And regardless of how IL residents (and others) feel about the 
>>> situation,
>>> Burris needs to get his paperwork sorted and then he needs to be 
>>> seated.
>>>
>>> The Senator is supposed to be a representative of the people and 
>>> Blagojevich is a out-of-control Nero, a Joker mocking the hapless 
>>> people of
>>>  Illinois.
>>>
>>> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>>
>>> The "problem" is that we have this Innocent-until-proven-guilty 
>>> thing that (supposedly) applies to everyone -- our enemies as well 
>>> as our friends. Blago hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and may 
>>> never be -- other than
>>>  bragging and swagger (which seem to be  required for politicians), 
>>> unless somebody can prove he actually made/accepted a specific 
>>> offer. And regardless of how IL residents (and others) feel about 
>>> the  situation, Burris needs to get his paperwork sorted and then he 
>>> needs to be seated. (And at some point, Blago needs to resign To 
>>> Spend More Time With His Family.)
>>>
>>> --Jenifer
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090108/2e25f21d/attachment-0001.htm