That is a polite position for dinner table conversation, but I’m not sure where you get such confidence given what free markets actually produce and reward. If there were some perfect platonic system of governing human affairs I’d expect the free market to reject it. Probably not a whole lot of money in it, for one thing. Plus most people are ignorant and not particularly good at cost benefit calculations. It would also probably go against “common sense,” fated to be written off as weird or just obviously wrong. Of course, everyone thinks their cadre of elite intellectuals will do better than the last ones.
Why do you capitalize FEDS, BAR, FORCE and the like? Do you contend that there is a connect between the Federalist Party, other those who supported the ratification of the Constitution, and the Federal Reserve, the central bank that the United States uses?
Why is money backed by gold or silver inherently better than currency backed by the faith and credit of the United States? How does this relate to the government under the Articles of Confederation or natural law?
Suppose our currency was backed by coal. Is that better, worse, or the same as currency backed by gold or silver. What about platinum or aluminum?
I’m partial to cats, so if currency ends up backed by something physical (which I think would be a bad thing), the best we could do would be cats – good kings but a bad thing.
Yes, I accept your offer for value. Is backing our currency with the market value of cats acceptable? Is it better, worse, or equal than gold or silver?
Depends if the cats have fringes or tassels, I think.
Admiralty kittens.
By observing the world around me, I suppose. I’ve seen ideas win in the marketplace of ideas - most recently, the idea of legal equality for homosexual folks. I can’t speak for you, but I didn’t gain any money by changing my opinion on it, and I doubt the vast majority of Americans did either. Yet the change occurred anyway.
Um, did you read the whole thing? “Except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace”. The idea was the prevent legal harassment of Congressmen for political reasons. If you think Congressmen are “protected” from the application of law enforcement, let me introduce you to Robert Menendez, Chaka Fata, and Ricki Renzi - all cases from the last two years. For more, see here. If Congress intended to make themselves above the law, they did an awful job of it.
Calling the Declaration of Independence a “statute” is bad enough…calling a passage that didn’t appear in the Declaration of Independence a “statute” is absurd. By this reasoning, anything Jefferson ever wrote down is a “statute”.
The slave trade (the importation of slaves) is distinct from slavery (the holding of slaves). Slavery continued in the colonies unabated during the embargo. Likewise, slavery in the US continued after the slave trade was abolished in 1807.
Sure, you can’t swing a cat by the tail without hitting a pro-slavery person. That’s just the country we live in.
I find that incredibly hard to believe. Cite?
Where does that say that slavery cases were kept out of court?
Had the nation continued under the Articles, there would have been no chance of ending slavery in the states were in was practiced, or prohibiting new territories from practicing it. Hell, we might have slavery today. It’s a wash, at best.
Says the guy calling me a criminal.
I think we can pretty much wrap this one up. As incomprehensible as Josf is, we can safely dismiss anyone who claims to be defending the “rule of law” yet supports Cliven Bundy.
Those on the opposing side (opposing Rule of Law) offer such ideas as this:
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf
People on the Rule of Law side, on the other hand, understood, and understand, that all people, all races, Jews, Africans, Asians, Indians, Irish, all, meaning all, are members of the whole people and therefore worthy of protection under the law.
Slaves are essential to the prosperity of the Criminal Rule slave owner community? Slave children need those productive slave fathers who are so valuable to the criminal slave owners. Why do the criminals steal the slave fathers from their families and destroy those formerly free communities, and why did those criminals perpetrate that obvious crime under the color of law? Why were slaves encountering a BAR against due process of law which is afforded to all people under Rule of Law? Why was Rule of Law not afforded to each slave who accuses each slave owner of such a heinous, cruel, and evil crime as IS slavery?
The first federal congress did this:
That is a moral application of Rule of Law. End the slave trade. Let it be known, human trafficking is evil, end it now. Those authorities were powerful enough to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression then perpetrating War of Aggression (for profit) on Earth, with that much power those authorities certainly had the power to enforce their order to “discontinue the slave trade,” right there in the official record.
A member of the original federal congress offered this:
That is a clear indictment recorded in the official first draft of the Declaration of Independence concerning the obvious crime “cruel war against human nature itself,” waged against a number of people from Africa.
697,624 People in America in 1790 counted as victims of human trafficking on an official record.
1790 is after a working federation was turned into a Consolidated Nation State and a “Dirty Compromise” made the crime of Slavery “legal” in the former independent states in the former federation.
697,624 People in America in 1790 are owned, traded, consumed, by a small minority of the “families” in America according to the “authorities” who claim:
What kind of “family” owns people?
Here is a clue from Thomas Jefferson concerning why some “families” struck out the indictment against slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence:
The effort to turn a working federation, where slavery was outlawed in Rhode Island, included a deal made between Northeastern slave traders and Southern slave traders, and that deal was called The Dirty Compromise.
George Mason:
http://gaplauche.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/slaverycompromise.pdf?9b9df2
Rhode Island had already (before the Consolidation of a former federation into a Nation State) outlawed the crime of slavery.
The increase from 697,674 Victims of Slavery in 1790 to 3,953,760 Victims of Slavery in 1860 was not the fault of the founders of a true federation, as the federation was a true federation before 1787, the dirty deal known as the dirty compromise was the work of criminal human traffickers who called themselves (falsely) “Federalists.”
The so called “founders” who formed a Consolidated Nation State did so in order to make slavery legal for them to enforce at their pleasure, safe and secure under the color of law.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave02.htm
Those Nation State “founders” are on one side, the “legal” human trafficking side, and that side considers people, actual living, breathing, people, to be their property.
Criminals do not obey moral laws, on the contrary, criminals enforce Criminal Rule, such as human trafficking for the profit of a few.
Had the federation remained a federation the rate of increase from 697,674 Victims of Slavery in 1790 to 3,953,760 Victims of Slavery in 1860 would not have been the ruin of the American soul; it would not have happened, it would have cost too much. Rule of Law makes such crimes unaffordable; as the victims are afforded due process in due time.
Those on the Rule of Law side saw the ruin in clear view and they warned against it.
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/richard-henry-lee/
Any cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon anyone, anywhere, anytime, is a cause for legal action against the aggressor. Why were some people enslaved and prevented from (by a BAR) gaining access to Rule of Law?
Roughly 20 percent of the population, a small minority, were human traffickers for various reasons, and that minority took over a working federation and turned everyone into criminal founders of human trafficking? What about the central banking frauds, did they have a say in the turn from Rule of Law to Criminal Rule too?
Of those human traffickers some of them owned 100 people or more, and what happens when subsidized, corporate, forced labor invades free markets? Independent, non-criminal, non-human trafficking farmers then have to compete with corporate (fascist) government subsidized slave labor camps and those less able to compete are themselves forced into poverty and debt.
Human trafficking is essential to the prosperity of the human trafficking community: Criminal Rule.
Can you show me the part of Articles of Confederation that forbid slavery, or would have allowed the federal government to abolish slavery? We all know that slavery was wrong - but it existed before the Constitution, and would have existed without it.
This is a ridiculous debating tactic and you are once more begging the question. In the future, whenever we debate a topic, if I favor the proposition, I will declare it to be part of the Rule of Law. If I oppose it, I will say it is Criminal Rule. Instant win for me.
Also, I’m not sure that anyone has asked it yet: Why do you capitalize “BAR”?
It is interesting that you provide a supposed quote from that session, but you do not include a link so that we may review it ourselves. What your quote implies is a straightforward declaration by the congress. The reality is that what you have quoted is a mixed bag of extracts and interpolations by some unnamed individual that you promote that we should accept on your word. That is not legitimate or honest. (It might even be considered criminal.
)
Beyond that, the “Common Law” to which they appealed included slavery, which was legal in Britain at the time.
You further damage your claim by implying that this was a declaration by the fully constituted assembly of representatives of the new nation of the United States. In point of fact, it was a declaration of representatives of twelve colonies in September and October, 1774, to demand changes to the behavior of the British Crown and Parliament toward the American colonies. This declaration was passed six months before the outbreak of violence at Lexington and Concord and more than a year and a half prior to the actual Declaration of Independence. As such, it is an interesting review of some of the political thought leading up to the break between Britain and its principal North American colonies, but it has no authority as an act of law.
Further, your claim that it called for the abolition of slavery is unlikely to have any accuracy. First is the problem that, not being a statute or otherwise an act of law, it could not have carried out abolition. Second, the notion that an assembly that included Virginia and the Carolinas would have ever passed a bill condemning slavery is ludicrous. (I suspect that this has a direct bearing on your quoting paraphrased claims while failing to provide a link to the actual documents.) Finally, the claim that the U.S. Constitution forced Rhode Island to go back to being a slave state is nonsense. It did not. (And why focus on Rhode Island? Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania had also passed abolition and emancipation laws prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the entire Northwest Territory was declared free in the same year that the Constitution was written and slavery was not brought into that region after the Constitution was adopted.)
This is a staggering display of ignorance regarding the American War for Independence.
“Those authorities” had no significant power. They were able to barely field an army to hold off the (not very well led in North America) British Army until they were able to persuade the French, Spanish, and Dutch to wage war on Britain. A number of British people, (including many in Parliament), were already sympathetic to the colonies and the forces of the combined allies facing Britain finally persuaded Britain to throw in the towel and say, “OK. Go be independent.”
Their “power” was so fragile that it took two years for them to actually codify the Articles of Confederation and it took four additional years to persuade all the colonies to ratify it. There was never a nationwide, (or congress-wide) movement to end slavery and I would be curious to see the genuine documents upon which your rather absurd claim is based.
The Constitution did not re-instate slavery because it had never been abolished except at the state level. You have a fantasy history that has no bearing on reality.
I think where he is going with this was that Rhode Island was somehow forced to be a “slave state” because of the provision of the Constitution whereby runaway slaves must be returned to their masters. So, if I understand him correctly, and God help me if I do, then the Constitution forced Rhode Island to participate in slavery by requiring it to return runaway slaves to their masters, whereas there was no such obligation under the Articles of Confederation.
I have suspected the same thing for quite a while. Regardless, his “logic” is poor, his presentation of history is worse, and his citations, (with their unrevealed sources), are useless.
Subjective opinion couched as fact:
The viewpoint concerning what you think is my intended implication is your viewpoint: your subjective opinion. As far as I can tell you miss the point: therefore your subjective opinion of what I intended to imply is wrong. How does your viewpoint turn into a fact? If you are offering your subjective opinion as to what you think may be implied by someone else, then why choose words that declare otherwise, why claim that your subjective opinion is a fact?
The topic concerns Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
The quote was previously linked when the quote was previously quoted, the quote is taken out of Elliot’s Debates Volume I during the first actions set in motion by the newly formed voluntary federation.
This quote:
This link:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
Those who are voluntarily federated for their mutual defense (Americans) were divided from those who initiated hostilities (British). The cause for defensive action (defensive actions including the formation of independent state governments and the formation of a federal union of independent state governments) was the perpetration of Aggressive War by the formerly federally associated British.
While the federation of people in America defend themselves in a federal manner there were further Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule, such as trial by jury according to the common law on the Rule of Law side, as exemplified in two example court cases already offered, and in opposition to Rule of Law were those few who were profiting from the crime known as slavery. Those who were perpetrating the crime of slavery were not offering the slaves their day in court as victims of the crime of slavery; an obvious division.
So that is the context of the information offered for Debate by me, the actual information offered for Debate by me, and that is not inference, and that is not implication.
The facts are linked well enough during this ongoing Debate.
-
John Adams defines the meaning of Federal association before the newly formed American federation offers a Declaration of Independence as Statute #1 published by The United States of America in Congress Assembled. He does so as a member of The United States of America in Congress Assembled. He does so before the Declaration of Independence was edited (clauses such as the slavery clause was struck out) and published.
-
The crime of slavery is spelled out by Thomas Jefferson in the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence.
-
Jefferson explains who (which criminal slave trading groups) were on the side of maintaining their criminal slave trading business as those groups, by their representatives, struck out the slave trading clause in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence. Those criminals wanted to keep their profitable slave trading business going.
-
The criminal slave trading business was “legalized” by the Nationalist Party members who were claiming that they were the “Federalist Party,” they did with a deal called the dirty compromise. That was spelled out by George Mason, a member of the fraudulent consolidation effort that became known as a Con Con, as George Mason refused to sign the dirty deal.
-
The slave trade, once subsidized by fraudulent government powers, boomed as many more victims of slavery were thereby captured and sold in America because that crime of slavery was, in that way (subsidized), a very profitable business. That was one of the warnings offered by the people on the Rule of Law side, along with the warnings concerning the dangers of Civil War as a result of the Consolidation of the former federation into an all powerful Nation State.
Those are not inferences, and those are not implications, those are well reported, well known, understood, linked, quoted, and understandable facts.
Divisions from a federal association were divided in two cases:
Case 1: American Colonies versus British Aggressive War profiteers, and slave traders.
American people divided from British people once British people initiated criminal violence upon American people.
Case 2: American defenders of federation in Liberty versus American defenders of their criminal, but profitable, slave trading business.
Among the American defenders defending themselves from the violence initiated by the criminal British there were criminal slave traders in America initiating violence upon African people.
In both cases the criminals claimed that their crimes were legal.
British claiming that their war of aggression was legal, and Americans claiming that their “war upon nature itself” was legal once the false “Federalists” perpetrated the fraud that worked to give them power to perpetrate crimes such as slavery under the color of law.
There is no implication. Those are well established facts known by anyone who cares to know. The debate has yet to move into the fraudulent central bank crimes also perpetrated by the false Federalist Party members in earnest.
Argument by repetition. Unless and until you’re willing to actually debate, I’m out.
Agreed. Josf, you don’t win a debate by simply repeating your assertions. You refuse to answer why you capitalize “BAR.” Will you do that for us?
Pretty muich as everything you have posted, (while, unlike you, I have not misused and redefined words in the English language)
If you are going to re-quote it in a lengthy thread, you would do well to re-post the link, as well.
Now that you have posted the link, I note that I was exactly right: the quote is not from original documents, but is pieced together from partial quotes, paraphrases, and interpolations. Following which, you have spun your own interpretation that does not appear to actually coincide with the intentions of the author of the piece you quoted.
The anti-slavery piece is mentioned, briefly, as a clause dropped into one of the texts. What does “discontinue the slave trade” actually mean? There is no reference to abolition or emancipation. The phrase provided could easily mean that the assembly wanted the cross-Atlantic trade stopped so that “home grown” slaves would be more valuable to breeders in Virginia. Rather than your interpretation, (which is extremely unlikely), where is the text of the actual declaration and who voted for it and signed it? Nothing in the linked text indicates whether that was actually in any address passed by the assembly, something interpreted or interpolated by Elliot onto the minutes of the assembly, or something interpreted or interpolated by Lloyd onto Elliot’s commentary on the assembly. Further, nothing the assembly did carries the force of law. It was a bunch of guys with complaints, taking those complaints to the government.