OT: We hold these truths to be self evident,

[SB Shock]

I always thought that a "government of the people" implied a bottom-up democracy. Another possible meaning to the same words would imply a top-down government - rather like an autocracy.

I fear we are now "being governed" rather than we "are governing". It's both parties that are involved. That's just the way our country's political system has evolved.

It is that way because most Americans refuse to get off their butts and actually make their voice heard and vote. Which really points to a bigger problem with this nation - although very technologically advanced we are very ignorant and are incapable of any logical thinking.

[rjl]

Re: Nope

"Has Nobama ever read the Declaration?"

If he has, RDR, I'd be surprised. They're way beyond that in the faculty lounge at Harvard. And if he even knows that Creator is capitalized, which is unlikely, I'm sure he thinks it's just archaic style. It's certainly archaic, after all -- they didn't have anywhere near 57 states back then.

Ah yes, you are so right.

Actually, Obama's words were somewhat different from what is widely quoted.

Actually, he said, ".... 57 with one left to go."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

My grandson, who is six years old, knows better. He can identify all of the commonly known planets as well as many countries in the world.

Maybe he will be the President some day.

I don't know what's worse: you clowns continuously trying to twist all this immaterial nonsense into something meaningful, or you clowns believing that the Declaration of Independence is of any current legal authority.

But what is potentially even more serious is that you clowns will tug each other wherever you think you can get a pat on the back, be it the "afraid to see any thoughts that conflict with mine" shockernet political forum or here in the men's basketball forum. If you cannot follow simple forum instructions, which serve a purpose to direct such banter to their appropriate sections, how would anyone trust that you can actually read and discern meaning from age-old documents?

[Wuzee]

Re: Nope

"Has Nobama ever read the Declaration?"

If he has, RDR, I'd be surprised. They're way beyond that in the faculty lounge at Harvard. And if he even knows that Creator is capitalized, which is unlikely, I'm sure he thinks it's just archaic style. It's certainly archaic, after all -- they didn't have anywhere near 57 states back then.

Ah yes, you are so right.

Actually, Obama's words were somewhat different from what is widely quoted.

Actually, he said, ".... 57 with one left to go."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

My grandson, who is six years old, knows better. He can identify all of the commonly known planets as well as many countries in the world.

Maybe he will be the President some day.

I don't know what's worse: you clowns continuously trying to twist all this immaterial nonsense into something meaningful, or you clowns believing that the Declaration of Independence is of any current legal authority.

But what is potentially even more serious is that you clowns will tug each other wherever you think you can get a pat on the back, be it the "afraid to see any thoughts that conflict with mine" shockernet political forum or here in the men's basketball forum. If you cannot follow simple forum instructions, which serve a purpose to direct such banter to their appropriate sections, how would anyone trust that you can actually read and discern meaning from age-old documents?

+1

Get this thread off the Basketball board and into Off-Topic (the original intent of the thread) or Politics (after some douches highjacked and politicized the thread).

[Ricardo del Rio]

Name calling, standard fare of one of the political parties.

[Maggie]

Re: Nope

"Has Nobama ever read the Declaration?"

If he has, RDR, I'd be surprised. They're way beyond that in the faculty lounge at Harvard. And if he even knows that Creator is capitalized, which is unlikely, I'm sure he thinks it's just archaic style. It's certainly archaic, after all -- they didn't have anywhere near 57 states back then.

Ah yes, you are so right.

Actually, Obama's words were somewhat different from what is widely quoted.

Actually, he said, ".... 57 with one left to go."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

My grandson, who is six years old, knows better. He can identify all of the commonly known planets as well as many countries in the world.

Maybe he will be the President some day.

I don't know what's worse: you clowns continuously trying to twist all this immaterial nonsense into something meaningful, or you clowns believing that the Declaration of Independence is of any current legal authority.

But what is potentially even more serious is that you clowns will tug each other wherever you think you can get a pat on the back, be it the "afraid to see any thoughts that conflict with mine" shockernet political forum or here in the men's basketball forum. If you cannot follow simple forum instructions, which serve a purpose to direct such banter to their appropriate sections, how would anyone trust that you can actually read and discern meaning from age-old documents?

I guess this topic should have been moved – good on you. We agree.

But I know what is worse based on my observations – a self-absorbed hit and run lawyer. Sorry chief.

[MoValley John]

The course of the future being navigated by demagoguery rather than real thought has concerned me for some time. And while it has been done both by the left and the right, right now, the left is driving the demagoguery ship. This scares the crap out of me. Do people not think deeply and for themselves anymore?

And now I have another great concern, attorneys that really believe that the documents that both formed and guided our country are, in rjl's words, "is of any current legal authority."

While the Declaration of Independence is simply that, our formal document that declared independence from Great Britian, it was the document that bore out certain rights prior to the Constitution. "All men are created equal" is from the D of I, as is "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We also have this nugget in the Constitution, "and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

While the Constitution establishes our form of government, limits powers and defines the law, the D of I is the first document to grant us rights. It also established that our government has the power of war and even gives a little nugget towards the now debated commerce clause. The D of I is and should be looked on as supplimentary to the Constitution and was by our forefathers, who drafted the Constitution with the D of I in mind.

In establishing context and precedent, the courts consider such supplimentaries. Unfortunately, Time Magazine and the Sunday talking heads are attacking the relevence of the Constitution, and now we have an attorney who gives little to zero credence to the D of I.

Sad.

[Maggie]

I largely agree with MVJ; however, a couple points:

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. The ideas articulated therein will not bind a Court, persuasive perhaps, but not binding (the same is true of the Federalist Papers). The Declaration is “merely” a written expression of why the Founders believed it necessary to sever ties with Great Britain. As the Declaration makes clear, the American Revolution was not fought for material gains or ethnic, religious, or tribal loyalties - it was a revolution over an idea.

The Declaration does mention Rights but those Rights are not a dispensation of the Declaration – it does not “grant” anything. What the document does; however, is make very clear where the Founders believed those Rights came from – and it is certainly not government. It also sets forth the proper role of government – “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. This is why many people reflexively frown upon laws created by judicial or regulatory fiat.

[MoValley John]

That is essentially what I meant, maggie. It was late, I was working on a large (much more important) project and I wasn't precise. The fact of the matter is when at the Supreme Court, attorneys will argue constitutionality. While attempting to move the court, those attorneys will quote the D of I to establish intent of the founders. They will argue the D of I over and over again. While not a "Legal Document" the D of I has a gigantic role in swaying the court as to intent of the founding fathers and also the Constitution. Those arguments do become law. It is much more than a relic and an archive.

Funny, even a few progressives use the D of I to establish intent: http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...text|Opinion|s

[Maggie]

That is essentially what I meant, maggie. It was late, I was working on a large (much more important) project and I wasn't precise. The fact of the matter is when at the Supreme Court, attorneys will argue constitutionality. While attempting to move the court, those attorneys will quote the D of I to establish intent of the founders. They will argue the D of I over and over again. While not a "Legal Document" the D of I has a gigantic role in swaying the court as to intent of the founding fathers and also the Constitution. Those arguments do become law. It is much more than a relic and an archive.

Funny, even a few progressives use the D of I to establish intent: http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...text|Opinion|s

I had a sneaky suspicion, based on the totality of what you wrote (which was well written), that you don’t believe “Rights” (which is a slippery word nowadays) are provided to the people by government or piece of parchment. But as you point out, your language in that regard was imprecise. I only pointed it out because the distinction is fundamental – maybe the most important distinction one can make.

The Declaration of Independence is not irrelevant and God help us if it becomes so. But it is persuasive, all altogether proper to cite in a court of law. What, in my judgment, the Declaration (at least in part) does is establish a baseline for the creation of a republic. And it was very much on the minds of those representatives who signed the Constitution, It is famously recalled, that when Benjamin Franklin emerged from the convention which ultimately approved the Constitution he was asked by a lady on the street: “What form of government did you give us?” His reply: “A republic, if you can keep it”.

BTW - Do I have to read Dionne? I do from time to time but the thought of it, in this context just makes me sad.

[MoValley John]

I also understand rjl's intent. He was attempting to show how smart he was (and by contrast, how stupid others were) by pointing out that the D of I is not a legal document. He wast technically right, but in doing so, totally undermined the importance of the document and how much credence the court gives the D of I when deciding Constitutional issues and intent. It demonstrates just how little he regards the document, which coming from an attorney, is troubling.

As I believe I said in my orginal post, the D of I is not a "legal document" it is a document declaring our independence from Great Britain. But using rjl's vernacular, he questioned the "Legal Authority" of the document. The document, though not "Legal" must have significant "Authority" as it is used constantly when bringing cases before the US Supreme Court. If of no authority, why is it even mentioned during cases? Generally, attoreys bring forward experts to bolster their cases. It seems that when attorneys argue the Constitution before the US Supreme Court, the D of I is brought along as one of the attorney's foremost "experts."

[Maggie]

I also understand rjl's intent. He was attempting to show how smart he was (and by contrast, how stupid others were) by pointing out that the D of I is not a legal document. He wast technically right, but in doing so, totally undermined the importance of the document and how much credence the court gives the D of I when deciding Constitutional issues and intent. It demonstrates just how little he regards the document (emphasis added), which coming from an attorney, is troubling.

As I believe I said in my orginal post, the D of I is not a "legal document" it is a document declaring our independence from Great Britain. But using rjl's vernacular, he questioned the "Legal Authority" of the document. The document, though not "Legal" must have significant "Authority" as it is used constantly when bringing cases before the US Supreme Court. If of no authority, why is it even mentioned during cases? Generally, attoreys bring forward experts to bolster their cases. It seems that when attorneys argue the Constitution before the US Supreme Court, the D of I is brought along as one of the attorney's foremost "experts."

Yup, spot on – there is no respect, there is disdain. Not to try rjl in absentia (even though he asks for it), you can only take your argument so far. I am, like rjl, a lawyer – I am splitting hairs but while I recognize that the Declaration is relied upon, from time to time, by lawyers arguing constitutional questions before an appellate panel or the Supreme Court – it is not, and never will be, definitive. I have been a witness to such appeals to the Founder’s intent in both Courts. But that is okay. It should be persuasive, not doctrinaire; it should inform (and give pause).

You find rjl’s “perspective” troubling? What do you think law students are, by and large, being taught? I only recognized the one-sided discussion, via the Socratic Method, during class – after I graduated (and I was called on by the Dean of my law school, on my first day of class, to discuss Marbury vs. Madison). I had misplaced intellectual respect for my Dean at the time. Misplaced because he didn’t earn that respect or justify it – I just gave it to him. During my time in law school – I just wanted to please my professors.

[MoValley John]

Maggie, I will spare you the task of reading Dionne. In a nushell, Dione opines and argues that the Tea Party has it wrong regarding limited government. He argues, based on the D of I, that the founders intend the government to have a large role in people's lives. He stated that based on the D of I, the federal government should be passing more laws, not less, that taxes are low and that high taxes weren't at all an issue with the colonists, just the lack of representation.

He goes on to attack the 10th ammendment of The Constitution by citing, of all things, The Declaration of Independence.

Thank God, in this instance, The Declaration of Independence is of no legal authority.[/quote]

[Maggie]

Maggie, I will spare you the task of reading . In a nushell, Dione opines and argues that the Tea Party has it wrong regarding limited government. He argues, based on the D of I, that the founders intend the government to have a large role in people's lives. He stated that based on the D of I, the federal government should be passing more laws, not less, that taxes are low and that high taxes weren't at all an issue with the colonists, just the lack of representation.

He goes on to attack the 10th ammendment of The Constitution by citing, of all things, The Declaration of Independence.

Thank God, in this instance, The Declaration of Independence is of no legal authority.

Thank you. I don't mind reading (but have become increasingly intolerant to aggravation), and I read and discuss these issues with people that may disagree. I think that is healthy. But call me a cynic; Dionne's missives have become more and more predictable. Of course he (Dionne) makes that “argument” (does the sun rise, do bears *&^% in the woods?, I am exposed that that "argument" every day)– please know I am using that word, argument, simply to be polite (sometimes I think I shouldn’t do so, but that is the Kansan in me – my wife would have no trouble, with me or her, ripping him to pieces). I have only read your summary of his article, but the intellectual incoherence you describe – it is hard to know where to start the deconstruction.

[Ricardo del Rio]

I am pleased that my miniscule ***** provoked an extensive exchange of informed discourse, which also offers the advantage of enlightment to folks like me.

Thanks, Mo John and Mags.

In my business career, I have worked with many fine lawyers. I have always been fascinated by the legal profession.

While many hold lawyers with the same high regard as they do for used car dealers, I never held that view. I greatly admire lawyers and the legal profession.

An aside:

RDR: Three hundred dollars per hour of instruction? That is almost as much as my attorney charges.

Poker Instructor: I did not realize that my rate is too low. I will have to increase it.

(So help me, the aside is true.)

[Maggie]

In my business career, I have worked with many fine lawyers. I have always been fascinated by the legal profession. You shouldn't be - not by the legal profession (which includes all those who pass a bar exam).

An aside:

RDR: Three hundred dollars per hour of instruction? That is almost as much as my attorney charges.

Poker Instructor: I did not realize that my rate is too low. I will have to increase it.

(So help me, the aside is true.)

$300 an hour? I'll take a pay cut and teach you poker. ;-)