Okay but we do need leaders and folk who step up to the plate even if we do not need masters. Quotes like this feed the obtuse thinking of those who believe that they are and island unto themselves.

Our nation started out well with the Declaration and The Articles but the framers faultered a little bit when they allowed slaves to be counted towards representation in Congress even though they were property and could not vote. And giving States the right to appoint Senators was an anathema to "all men are created equal". Perchance they did the best they could and gave us the Amendment Process and through it and a Civil War we got on the right track. I would change Montesquie's statement to say "all governments fail that do not progress towards better and better government".

The reason the Constitution was written to create a government, a more perfect Union. As a protection to future actions of that government checks and balances were placed between the three branches of that government and guarantees of private individual rights were enacted. Ayn is wrong that it is not a charter for government power. In "order to form a more perfect union" could be paraphrased as to give the colonies greater cohesion we right this constitution to give power to a central government of the states to empower a greater degree of Justice, Security, General Welfare etcetera. And usual Ayn went off of the deep end.

NO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT EVER REOGNIZED THE CONFEDERACY. THAT IS A PERIOD! I don't deny that they were asked to or that they may have sent emissaries to find out what was going on here. In Mexico and most of the European influenced world slavery was illegal. Texas fought for independence from Mexico so that they could practice slavery, why would Mexico then recognize its former runaway province. Think Mike think, I know it is difficult, but the exercise would really be good for you.

I know I am doing well when you call me names and use invective against me.

I liked Barry personally and voted for him when I was 18. He spoke clearly. I liked his crew cut. I really admired when he stood up and supported Bill Clinton years later and was virtually dumped by the Republican Party. I had trouble with the "conscience of a conservative" thing, I did not know and still am not sure they have one. Why are not conservatives interested in conserving, like the environment. I agree with Jack that conservatives always seem to be an anti, always a negative party, rather than a positive force. I give it two cause I liked Barry and his embrace of Bill Clinton.

Nice words but I get stopped for not wearing my motorcycle helmet in Alabama just like anywhere else so that seems to beg the question what does the statement mean in concrete terms. When was the staement written and what effect did it have during segregation. Talk like this is certainly cheap enough!

Tell this to the French, Iraq'is, Afghans, and American slaves during the Civil War, all of whom were liberated by government soldiers. Don't tell it to me who was born in an America liberated by The Continental Congress and its rag tag government army led by Geo Washington. The world is full of images of cheering throngs who welcomed relief from the government against tyranny. Woodrow is being a little shallow here and non-thinking. I understand the other point of view that government is always the problem but that is a shallow and unthinking point of view. PS: Tell it to the Southern black children who were able to go to school in freedom and liberty thanks to the government.

Anon you have made statements about "I don't own you" etc. what do you mean by that. Does the fact that you stop at stop signs or red lights when you would personally just like to speed across town mean that someone owns you. Years ago it seems Mike of Norwalk scoffed at the idea of driving on the right side of the road, like why could he not drive on the left side if he desired too. Is it these seemignly petty or not so petty everyday facts of life that is bothering you making you feel that others are telling or making you do things and making you feel owned by others. I agree with you 100% that we are controlled or restricted in many ways. We can not drive or ride horseback across town through private property. You and Mike talk as poets. You know how many poems have you read that are seemingly meaninless but have some vague essence of bitching about something but you just cannot figure our what it is. I don't remember stating anythin about the collective owning the individual. I don't use the word collective as a rule. I do believe we live and move in a society from which we get benefits and rewards from mastering its' ways. When we leave "our society" and go to Rome for example we must change and "do as the Romans do". Does that mean in your world that on that occasion the Romans would own you! I am enjoying trying to understand you Anon. I have given up on Mike but do appreciate you repartee.

I report back to you and especially to you Mike "No foreign government recognized the existence of The Confederate States of America". This can be researched in the archives of the State Departmetn and elsewhere. The South assumed that the North and Europe would let them have their way because every one wanted their cotton. The south offered to give up slavery for recognition, their were no takers. So get some history Mike. Again it can be argued that the Vatican corresponded with Jefferson Davis and thus this was de facto recognition. Most Catholics in America lived along the gulf coast of the South at that time which may have been the Pope's motivation.

These are old posts from a year or so ago. But I reread Mikes and his blatant errors or lack of knowing the truth of history must be answered now. No nation to my knowledge recognized the Confederate States of America as a nation. The Pope at the time had written a letter to Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, such an act in diplomatic circles is considered recognition, so I guess it may be said that the Vatican recongized the Southern Confederacy. Now I like to check my facts and statements so I will now google to make sure that I am correct and will report back, please stay tuned.

Due process simply means to me that everyone is treated the same way, according to some SOP. When we know what that SOP is the system can not jerk us around. Now we may not like the SOP or due process and it may be contrary to what Mike calls Natural Law (I still don't know what he means by it) but due process is the same for everyone.

Jim K I thought I was offending you every time I make a post. So who is it that is into political correctness you or I.

Good answers you all. Free speech has existed and does exist in many places. I think the British and their American "cousins" perfected it to an art form in the parlamentary or Loyal Opposition sense. In the states however or at least some of the states I have recently read that their were laws which dictated what a slave could think.

If the Constitution with its' support of slavery, counting slaves as being worthy of having representative but not being able to vote. having The Governments that is THE SATES appoint Senators is Natural Law then the Declarations statements of "all men are created equal" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not Natural Law. Which is folk. Roberty is right who is going to dictate what is Nautal Law.

Anon I have asked you before what do you mean about this ownership thing or making each other do something. Is a requirement that you stop at red lights or a stop sign a sigh in your mind that others own you? What is it that you are saying, I don't get it, please explain?

Mike if the founding of this country was on the principle that "all men are creatred equal" when it served the Continental Congress' purpose in its war against the English Crown and then 11 years later writing a Constitution that counted slaves (property that is) as 3/5 of a person for calculating the number of reprsentatives to Congress but and but I repeat not allowing those slaves or that property to vote, and further giving THE STATE (that most abhorent of things as you always state) the right to appoint people to The Senate of the United States, is not hypocrisy I don't know what is. When it served the colonies purpose to excite the common man with words like "all men are created equal" and the right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" those men gather in Philadelphia used them, when it served their purpose to take control of their fellow men and stop the ideas of freedom and liberty they wrote a Constitution that was deficient, devious and deceitful giving power to THE STATE, and to property owners (that is slave holders) rather than to the people. On the other hand maybe that was all they could do in order to have blessed union and thus compormise. They did have enough sense to include The Amendment Process. But how could the forces of liberty and democracy ever amend the thing if the slave holding states kept increading their numbers in the Congress simply by importing and increasing the slave population and with their lock on the Senate via THE STATE control rather than poeple control. We made it through those dark 73 years from 1787 until 1861 and a war and some amendments especially those in 1913 settled the rest. Mike you Sir have no idea what hypocrisy is!

I state Archer that The Declaration was a democratic document declaring that "all men are created equal", I further state that the Constitution departed from this standare. I further state that the Civil War , the end of slavery, the election of Senators (rather than their appointment by The State) restored us toward the ideal as expressed in The Declaration. I further say let us continue our advance towards human freedom and decency and not go backwards to the dark ages that existed in the early part of our history.

Anon does rock solid Natural Law say that property (rather than people) have representation in Congress. That is what the original framers of the Constitution put into the thing. Slaves which were property were also counted as people for the purpose of determining the number of reprsentatives in Congress. Does State power trump the power of the individual, most people abhor state power but that is what the framers put into the Constitution allowing the State(s) to appoint Senators to the Senate. These abhorrent things have been changed of course after a Civil War and Constitutional amendments. What exactly do you mean when you say "return to the original constitution". The framers may have done the best they could with the cards they were dealt. It takes time to get things right. Faith in people and fatih in democracy is the answer to our problems. Not reliance on what someone may call "natural law". If what the framers did in the original document is Natural Law then I am against Natural Law. As you know some states acted no better than Nazis in denying individual freedoms, human rights etcetera. Is it any wonder that Native Americans, African Americans and others relied upon the Federal Government to secure to them basic human rights and decency. Again what exactly do you mean by Natural Law.

Tom Paine is always right. And the fact that our government is and always has been us makes me wonder why so many castigate themselves all of the time. We are the government and the government is us. Once we stop thinking about it as something that is outside of ourselves the sooner we will become responsible about it.

Not exactly right Jim. The Constitution was primarily designed "to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare. and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States of America" So from where did you get your information. Above I let the Constitution speak for itself, you should try it sometime. It would appear that the framers were looking for Union, Justice,Tranquility, Defense, Welfare and Liberty.

Without an emergency I can get out of bed in the morning.

Carlton is America a free country or is it not. Is this site about liberty or is it not. Since you are apparently against freedom of speech and expression I think it is you who are f*** up!

You have a little bit of a point Carlton. Like the founders had a good thing going but the framers of the Constitution really screwed it up. They gave representation to property rights in slaves and they gave The State the right to appoint representatives to the Senate. The people, the individuals of this great country slower took the government back to the principles of the Declaration and the founders. It took a Civil War and a bunch of Amendments to straighten out what the framers did view evil compromises. Maybe it was all they could do in 1787. That some want to go back to a government based on property and STATE power rather then "all men are created equal" is beyond me.

Jim Jefferson said we should rewrite the constitution or revolt every generation. I mean what are some of the guys on this site trying to do except revolt.