with liberty and justice for all

Great Debates
61

I am truly sorry I made the joke about “All are equal in peaceful quest.” making a good slogan because it has rhythm. (Try it; it really does make a good chant.) This board is sorely lacking not only in its understanding, but also in its sense of humor. Maybe if I add more smileys to my posts…

The OP is a distillation, a translation of the DoI. I called it the pledge to liberty (PtL). If you dislike pledges as much as you dislike slogans, you may call it the principles of liberty (PoL). :slight_smile:

You are on the right track. However, the dealer does not get people hooked on The Demon Weed anymore than the bartender gets people hooked on Demon Alcohol. We can either also lock up all bartenders for life; or simply add exceptions to “all”. “…with liberty and justice for all…except non-alcohol drug dealers.”

But then all is no longer “all”, is it? “…with liberty and justice for most!” No, the answer is to regulate peaceful quest that is dangerous for some. Prohibition of peaceful pursuit of happiness only makes peaceful quest dangerous for all.

By definition, we the people that hold these truths self evident do not need an argument to understand the spirit of liberty. I am sorry to hear that you do.

The constitution gives congress the right to regulate commerce; it does not give legislature or the executive the right to prohibit the peaceful pursuit of happiness. Prohibition of peaceful pursuit of happiness is unconstitutional. This has somehow escaped our esteemed justices. They indeed have the authority to strike down these unconstitutional and counterproductive laws. I have suggested that a translation of the principles of liberty should be placed not only in front of our justices, but also in front of our legislatures so they might also take the hint.

It worked for our libertarian cranky founders in 1776. It worked for our libertarian cranky abolitionists in the 1860’s. It worked for our libertarian cranky civil right activists in the 1960’s. I am not a “Libertarian”, but I do honor these particular libertarian cranks.

Franklin and Jefferson very eloquently made the argument for liberty. The PoL is my attempt to show how to put it into practice.

All are equal in peaceful quest.
If a black person wishes to ride in the front of the bus, she has the same right as a white person, no matter the law.

All are innocent until proven guilty of * threat to peaceful quest*.
This is different than proven guilty of breaking the law; as above, it may be that it is the law that unjustly prohibits peaceful pursuit of happiness.

It is the duty of government to secure these rights through regulation and justice.
Please tell me I do not need to explain this also.

Freedom is not accomplished by words; it is accomplished by putting our ideals into practice. I cannot make you understand that following these guidelines is a reasonably good way to do that.

Some people will understand and agree with what Jefferson and Franklin and their “libertarian” successors were trying to accomplish; some will not. Some will take upon themselves to help in this quest. Some will not. Some will attempt to belittle or sidetrack this quest. Words are cheap and some are lies, but the spirit behind the words is eventually revealed.

I appreciate your constructive suggestions and comments. Innocent and guilty are legal findings and are not necessarily dependent on what actually occurred. While technically more accurate, your modifications are not completely necessary and add too many words for my goal.

Peace
r~

62

Cite?

63

You’ve yet to explain why we need a translation, or what you expect your slogan to accomplish.

Well, I think this is where you’re erring.

What worked in 1776 was guns and cannon. What worked in 1861-1865 was more guns and cannon. What worked in the 1960s was mass strikes and civil disobedience. Independence, emancipation and civil rights were not accomplished through words, they were accomplished through, in the first two cases, full scale warfare, and in the last case, mass civil unrest, though to the credit of the folks in the 1960s they kept the violence to a minimum (Martin Luther King Jr.'s face should be on money.)

No, my friend, it is not. To put something into practice means to take physical action. You’re simply talking about rephrasing something that was already well phrased.

No, you don’t need to explain these things, because others have explained them better than you. (That’s not a personal attack; I can’t do better than Locke and Jefferson, either.) What are you accomplishing by rephrasing them?

64

True, but for a ‘slogan’ that will appear and appeal to children, it needs to be explicit and clear. Not couched in legal technical jargon. True that in the legal sence Innocence just means “Assumed innocent” but to a child Innocence means “I didn’t do it!”. The wording suggests that what is important is not what you do, but whether you get caught and punished for it, ie if you can get away with it then you are innocent.

65

Smilies might be a good idea, because I have no idea what “joke” you’re talking about. I mean, your OP was a joke, sure, but I don’t think you intended it to be one.

Last time I checked, the Declaration of Independence was already in English. And, unlike your translation, it’s in English that is clear, intelligible, and quite pretty. Your translation makes very little sense, badly abuses the rules of grammar, and sounds like crap.

The point isn’t about the legitimacy of the legalization movement, the point is about the coherency of your argument. You don’t need to convince me it should be legal. I’m way ahead of you, there. You need to be able to articulate clearly and logically why you think it should be legal. You haven’t done this. You haven’t done this with anything you’ve posted here.

If they didn’t need an argument to explain the concept, why did they provide one? The question here isn’t wether I understand the principle of liberty, the question is wether you do. Until you can explain your reasoning in plain language, that question is not going to be resolved.

Look, I suspect that, if you could communicate clearly, most of the people in this thread would actually agree with your conclusions. The problem is, the reasoning you use to get there is garbage, the language you use to present them is baffling, and the actions you suggest to achieve these ends are childish and simplistic. If you want to discuss your ideas, you’ve got to put some thought not only into why you believe in them, but in why other people, acting in good faith, are coming to different conclusions. And, most importantly, you’ve got to figure out a way to present these ideas that makes sense to other readers. Because the way you post now, it’s almost impossible to understand what you’re advocating, and why. And that’s not a good way to convince people that you know what you’re talking about.

66

How about Proclamation of State (PoS)?

67

Glutton:
There can be no just authority given to prohibit peaceful pursuit of happiness; not even to or by the constitution.

It is not even necessary for a defendant to demonstrate that government has no right to prohibit peaceful pursuit of happiness: “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. It is the obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant does not have this right.

Please cite your proof that the constitution has and grants the right to prohibit your peaceful pursuit of happiness. I suggest that the best anyone will find is a twisted tangle of legal words saying that the courts have allowed this tyranny in the past.

Rick:
Before the cannon, before the marches, the spirit of liberty was translated into new words and shared with others. Liberty is not obtained by one person doing one thing; it is secured by enough of us (we that hold these truths self-evident) making our individual contribution, however small.

If my words bring hope or inspiration or understanding to any, especially those whose liberty has been unjustly denied, I will take comfort that I have accomplished something. If my words bring encouragement or guidance to any of those on the front lines in the quest for liberty and justice for all, I will feel I have made at least a small contribution.

Even though you and many others might have difficulty understanding my choice of words, I will continue to hope that they speak clearly to others. I believe you underestimate the capabilities of children and supreme court justices. If we translate and explain the spirit of liberty in as many different ways as possible, in as many different languages as possible, even they might someday understand.

I have a dream. I dream that one day the right and obligation to peaceful quest (pursuit of happiness) will be honored throughout the world. Let us seek it for America. Let us seek it starting now.
Peace only through Liberty
r~

68

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

United States Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2. The Constitution trumps any other law, which, in fact, the Declaration of Independence ain’t. Although it continues to be a powerful moral and historical document, the Declaration of Independence no longer has any legal force in and of itself. You can’t appeal to the Supreme Court and cite the pursuit of happiness clause, or the peaceful quest clause, or whatever you choose to call it. It just doesn’t work that way.

69

As people have been trying to get you to see, the Declaration of Independence is not part of the legal structure of the United States. When the Declaration was written and signed, it was statement by a (fairly loose) collection of related colonies that they would no longer be subject to the British Crown. At that point, there was not even a nation recognized as the “United States of America.” When the colonies got around to organizing themselves, they first set up a confederacy. When that loose confederation of states tried to improve the charter (Articles of Confederation) under which they were operating, the delegates ran off and dreamed up an entirely new federal law for the country and talked enough states into ratifying that Constitution under which the country now operates. That Constitution superseded any previous laws of governance and rights (such as the Articles of Confederation). Since the Declaration of Independence preceded the Confederacy which was superseded by the Constitution, it has no bearing on laws or rights within the country. The Declaration sets forth several noble principles to which we might aspire, but its only force of Law is the separation of the thriteen colonies from British rule. It has no force of law regarding the rights or duties of its citizens or the obligations or limits on our government. You cannot go back any further than than the Constitution for those rights, duties, limits, and obligations except in the matters of statutory case law from English Common law (which are not addressed in either the Declaration or the Constitution).

70

As has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no legal right to the pursuit of happiness in the US. It’s not anywhere in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration, which is a very nice sentiment, but the Declaration has no force of law behind it.

Since the slavery example didn’t get through to you, how about Prohibition? It was a dumb idea, to be sure, but it was still in the Constitution, and was 100% legal while it was in there.

Don’t hold your breath.

I’m not sure where you get this idea that judges don’t “understand” liberty. They understand it just fine. They just happen to have a different understanding of what liberty means than you do. If you want to change that, sticking slogans on courthouse walls is not going to do the trick. You need to understand why they have that understanding of liberty, and then you need to show them how your understanding is better. And that’s going to require a hell of a lot of effort, because I can guarantee you that any argument you can think up, they’ll have heard before and have a rebuttal ready.

And what, precisely, are you doing to “seek it,” besides posting gibberish on the internet?

71

My officemates have queried as to the reason I interrupt their peaceful questing with my loud braying laughter. I have indicted you to them as a disturber of the quest. Your contrition is hereby requested by all and sundry.

72

That is an asservation, not an argument. Bear in mind that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are mutually irrelevant, and the latter has no force of law. The Constitution is a grant of government powers generally, which are in some circumstances specifically enumerated, with some limitations on them specified; but it does not embody any general limitation on government action that “prohibits peaceful quest.” Any particular government power might in some circumstances be exercised in derogation of “peaceful quest,” and there is no provision that says that is unconstitutional. You might make an argument that it is illegitimate, but that would not be a constitutional or legal argument; it would have to rely on Libertarian political theory for its sole supporting authority.

73

.06.04.02

dear uncle antonin:

I understand that the Declaration of Independence is not law. I understand the difference between justice and legality. I also understand that our nation is founded first on liberty and justice, then by law. The truth is that our nation arises with the casting off of unjust laws.

What I do not understand is why so many would so easily give up so much liberty to such flimsy words and arguments. Words are cheap and prone to lie. It is in the spirit of liberty and justice I trust.

It was common knowledge in the eighteenth century that blacks and women did not have the capacity for the enlightened concept of self-evident truth. Current understanding is that this capacity not only transcends race and gender, it is also clear that even some landed educated white males will lack it.

An unjust law is still unjust, no matter its legality. The truth is that unjust laws bear and nurture strife and not even a thousand well honed legal words will ever change the truth.

I freely admit that words to give supreme court judges the right and obligation to weigh law against justice are not necessarily found in the constitution. Neither are the words that gave justice the right and obligation to weigh law against constitution.

The constitution is clearly an attempt to write and rewrite the laws of government to better secure liberty and justice for all. Your arguments do not prove even close to a reasonable doubt that this is not so.

Some of us understand that the spirit of liberty and justice transcends any and all words; even if that truth is not self-evident to children or supreme court judges.
PtL
Peace through Liberty
r~

74

And yet, you earlier posted

which is a clear indication that you have confused the separate concepts of law and justice.

Laws arise to regulate the behavior of people with the intent to secure justice. It appears to be a tenet of libertarian belief that the laws generally work against justice. Declaring that is so does not make it true. If you wish to persuade others of that position, you need to engage in actual analysis regarding how laws would be enacted and enforced in a way to ensure liberty without giving jurists the power to inflict injustice in the name of justice. Laws are a fallible method to control both citizens and the enforcers of law. Declaring that jurists should ignore law in order to pursue justice would result in the ability of any jurist to ignore law AND liberty to impose their own rulings, since their appeal to liberty–even if false–would override any appeal to law.

There have been discussions on this board that addressed that issue and proposed a resolution. (Regardless whether those proposals were practical or better or worse than the current situation, at least the attempt was made to address it. Your proposals rely on either rhetoric (for which I recommend a good reading of 1984 and It Can’t Happen Here) or on abandoning law to the whims of jurists bounded only by slogans.)

75

t&d:
If you had more closely considered my line of reasoning,

you might have realized that I still understand the DoI as a governing precedent. For some of us, it provides a clear understanding of liberty and justice and the role of government.

According to the DoI, any law that denies equal right of peaceful quest is unjust. If you accept the obvious truth that our constitution rests firmly on the concept of justice, any law that is unjust is also unconstitutional.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I will settle for reasonable doubt that this is not true.

Justices bear the right and obligation to weigh law against justice. Otherwise we would call them judges lest their name be a lie. If we but require justices to live up to their name, there will be no problem with judges.
PtL
r~