The Life Span of a Republic

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The US Constitution is also a State sovereignty model, as expressed in Federalist #40

Under the Articles of Confederation the states enjoyed considerably more sovereignty than under the Constitution - that was the whole point of the Federalist papers, to convince the citizens of states to ratify the Constitution despite fears of more centralized government.

G. Gordon Liddy astutely observed that the average native resident of Afghanistan is substantially more at liberty than your average modern day American.

Sure, unless he wants to read a bible - or is born female - or does something offensive to the local imam. Afghanistan is quite a font of non-bureaucracy and I think we can all agree that has contributed greatly to its status as the flower of Central Asia... Personally, I find Liddy's comments more disingenuous than astute.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Following around the bend and further away from the topic, who are you to decide what the meaning of the word is?

It is not I who defines it. It's had a definition for thousands of years already. History has defined it. We stand on its shoulders and receive that definition passively, or we pretend it means something else. I suppose you are at liberty to pretend anything you like, but when you attempt to use the force of government to impose your counter-historical definition on a word which has a long established definition, I will oppose you. Words must have meaning. The day they lose their meaning, we have lost something irretrievable.

If someone wants to consider himself married to a housecat and can find an organized body to sanctify it, it's not the government's or anyone else's business.

On this last point, we are agreed. No one should use the power of government to interfere with any same-sex couple wishing to behave as if they are married to one another, i.e., as if they were man and wife. That is not the government's business.

 

[hugh damright]

If someone wants to consider himself married to a housecat and can find an organized body to sanctify it, it's not the government's or anyone else's business.

Marriage is a State institution. In the 1960's the SCOTUS (in Loving v Virginia) "incorporated" marriage under the 14th "Amendment". But I think that Virginia/Virginians have EVERY right to say you cannot marry an animal here.

"The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives." - Ronald Reagan (Executive Order on Federalism)

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

But I think that Virginia/Virginians have EVERY right to say you cannot marry an animal here.

Certainly they do. Especially since the word marriage, in its authentic sense, has no meaning in that context. Any law, therefore, which acknowledged the possibility of a marriage between a man and an animal, or two people of the same sex, would be not only nonsensical, but destructive to the actual institution that word historically (i.e., authentically) refers to.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

My dear departed brother a few years ago saw some film footage from Afghanistan, after which he remarked, "They call us the land of the free, but I can't smoke hash all day and walk down the street with an AK-47."

Marriage is a State institution. In the 1960's the SCOTUS (in Loving v Virginia) "incorporated" marriage under the 14th "Amendment". But I think that Virginia/Virginians have EVERY right to say you cannot marry an animal here.

Any law, therefore, which acknowledged the possibility of a marriage between a man and an animal, or two people of the same sex, would be not only nonsensical, but destructive to the actual institution that word historically (i.e., authentically) refers to.

So, since the government has appropriated what was heretofore a matter of religion, that makes it right? And since when is it the government's job to determine what is and protect the "historical" and "authentic" meaning of any institution?

 

[hugh damright]

So, since the government has appropriated what was heretofore a matter of religion, that makes it right? And since when is it the government's job to determine what is and protect the "historical" and "authentic" meaning of any institution?

A "State institution" is not something imposed upon us by the government. Virginia is a State. Virginians are a people. We have a right ... a natural right, an inherent right, and a constitutional right ... to control our State. And that means we have a right to define our own culture, our own society, and our own institutions, such as marriage.

My view is simply that I think Virginia has a right to be a free State and to define our own institutions such as marriage, so if you want to marry an animal then don't move to Virginia because in our society and culture we define the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

You might try West Virginia.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

So, since the government has appropriated what was heretofore a matter of religion, that makes it right? And since when is it the government's job to determine what is and protect the "historical" and "authentic" meaning of any institution?

You have that kind of backwards. Our government and our laws are reflections of us as a people, or at least ought to be. We are a product of Western civilization, and our traditions, language and basic institutions come from that. Our government and our laws are supposed to use our language, and not try to shape our language by using it's enormous powers to redefine words in some politically correct fashion. If it attempts to use its power to reshape our language in a politically correct fashion, that is a mark of despotism, as words carry meaning, and to change their meaning by force would be an attempt to change the way we think by force. Our language comes to us from the past. Yes, it may evolve naturally on its own, but to use the force of government to impose such a gross alteration regarding such a foundational institution would be wrong in the extreme. We are talking Orwellian Newspeak, here.

 

[CAnnoneer]

I agree the original republic has devolved into the worst kind of democracy - one in which a malignant powerful elite minority manipulates masses of voters who are brainwashed by pseudo-education and the media. I submit to you that there are very few true citizens left and without such, a republic is impossible while a democracy cannot last.

To become an economic, political, and eventually physical slave, the modern trend is to become a slave in one's mind first. This country is already halfway down that road, somewhere between step 1 and 3.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

A "State institution" is not something imposed upon us by the government. Virginia is a State. Virginians are a people. We have a right ... a natural right, an inherent right, and a constitutional right ... to control our State. And that means we have a right to define our own culture, our own society, and our own institutions, such as marriage.

Are you saying a state doesn't have a government? Virginia once defined their culture, society and institutions to allow black people to be chattel property.

You have that kind of backwards. Our government and our laws are reflections of us as a people, or at least ought to be. We are a product of Western civilization, and our traditions, language and basic institutions come from that. Our government and our laws are supposed to use our language, and not try to shape our language by using it's enormous powers to redefine words in some politically correct fashion.

Who's we, white boy? Are you saying the people can decide any laws they want without restriction (e.g., bill of rights)? Sounds like you're advocating democracy, or as someone put it, "mob rule." I would remind you that a majority of people in this counrty advocate some amount of gun control.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I agree the original republic has devolved into the worst kind of democracy - one in which a malignant powerful elite minority manipulates masses of voters who are brainwashed by pseudo-education and the media. I submit to you that there are very few true citizens left and without such, a republic is impossible while a democracy cannot last.

You mean like a powerful elite minority that limits the decisions of the Republic only to white men who are property owners? That kind of devolution from the original concept?

And what did you mean by manipulation? Something like rolling out big barrels of whiskey with the name of a candidate on them at the local polls? That kind of manipulation of the electorate?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

The only counter to this is to instill liberty and freedom into your youngins. Now. You have to teach them what liberty is. And that it is better to fight and die for liberty than to live as a slave. Then, you have to forge connections to others who feel the same way, not just in America, but all over the world.

That's the most useful post here. There's a lot of great discussion, but I personally would rather fix what we've got than let it fall apart and think that anyone can rebuild it better.

Pre-1861 were the "good old days"?

THESE are the good old days. We just need to make sure our kids learn about freedom, liberty, the Founding Fathers, The Constitution and the concept of State's rights.

The schools sure aren't doing that...but why should we expect the schools to do our job for us?

 

[Ivy Mike]

At what point must the federal government step in to ensure that a right in one state, is excepted as a right in another?

For example, a gay couple can be married and is recognized as such in MA, but that same marriage isn't recognized in TX.

Is that couple married or not?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

"You have that kind of backwards. Our government and our laws are reflections of us as a people, or at least ought to be. We are a product of Western civilization, and our traditions, language and basic institutions come from that. Our government and our laws are supposed to use our language, and not try to shape our language by using it's enormous powers to redefine words in some politically correct fashion."


Who's we, white boy? Are you saying the people can decide any laws they want without restriction (e.g., bill of rights)? Sounds like you're advocating democracy, or as someone put it, "mob rule." I would remind you that a majority of people in this counrty advocate some amount of gun control.

Doesn't matter if you are black or white. I'm talking about our common language as Americans. Do words have meaning, or do they just mean what the government says they mean today? I happen to believe they have meaning apart from government manipulation. You feel differently. You would like to use the power of government to change the received meaning of a word and of the institution it relates to. It's your right to advocate for that. I choose to oppose you, however, and uphold our right to retain, as against government coercion, the meaning of words that have been passed down to us through untold centuries. That is my right.

As for the rest of what you said, it bears little if any relation to anything I've said, so I will not extensively comment on it. For the record, however, I am clearly not an advocate of a national democracy. Being able to vote for one's masters is no great comfort to me. Liberty is my main concern, liberty as against government coercion regarding the meaning of words (and therefore thoughts and ideas) and institutions, for example. But, on this we apparently differ.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

liberty as against government coercion regarding the meaning of words (and therefore thoughts and ideas) and institutions, for example

How do you get from there to allowing the government of the state of Virginia (or any other) to define the meaning of the word marriage?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

How do you get from there to allowing the government of the state of Virginia (or any other) to define the meaning of the word marriage?

Seeing everything from the exact inverse perspective must be very awkward for you. It is you who wishes to use the power of government to impose a new definition of marriage, yes? You advocated, did you not, that a law should be passed altering the definition of marriage to include unions between people and animals, and people of the same sex? Why are you responding in your posts as though it is I who am advocatiing that the government be allowed to define words for us. The government needs to use words according to their received meaning, rather than attampt, as you would have it, to manipulate the meaning of our received language (and thereby manipulate our thoughts) in support of someone's notion of political correctness.

 

[Art Eatman]

I'm no expert on the law in all this marriage deal, but one thing that seems likely:

The state gets involved because of the whole deal about money: Inheritance, for one thing. Also, the rights of a married couple as compared to single folks. Property ownership, taxation and such. Over time, various changes--such as women owning property, for instance--evovled into today's structure.

I don't know how far back you can trace the zig-zag beteen civil union and church union. The equating of the rights of the two types of union has never been uniform.

The historical use of the word "marriage" for the majority of people has involved one man and one woman and the concept of progeny. A sanctioned and codified way of continuation of the species, I guess. Anyway, unions outside this historical usage generate a vast amount of scorn, obviously...

Art

 

[CAnnoneer]

You mean like a powerful elite minority that limits the decisions of the Republic only to white men who are property owners? That kind of devolution from the original concept?

Come on now, the revolutionary war was not won solely or even mainly by squires like GW. A lot of common citizens picked up a musket to end a tyrany. And the founding fathers knew that if they pulled any crap, they'd be next.

Do we have even remotely the same checks and balances in our current system? And can we even compare the bloated, ignorant, whiny, TV-addicted, debt-ridden modern average "citizen" to those who drove the redcoats out at the point of bayonet?

And what did you mean by manipulation? Something like rolling out big barrels of whiskey with the name of a candidate on them at the local polls? That kind of manipulation of the electorate?

I think that most would agree the modern manipulation is far more widespread, more insidious, more malignant, and more damaging.

 

[Kodiaz]

+1 Cannoneer

 

[hugh damright]

Are you saying a state doesn't have a government? Virginia once defined their culture, society and institutions to allow black people to be chattel property.

I have been aware for some time now that Virginia has a government and that Virginia used to have slavery. If there is some point to your post, I don't get it.

The state gets involved because of the whole deal about money: Inheritance, for one thing. Also, the rights of a married couple as compared to single folks. Property ownership, taxation and such. Over time, various changes--such as women owning property, for instance--evovled into today's structure.

I think y'all are talking about the "State" like in a Rand novel, where the "State" is the Government. I think the traditional American use of the word is that "State" means "People". The party to the United States Constitution is not the Virginia Government, it is the Virginia people, the collective, the political body. And as a sovereign people, a sovereign State, Virginians have to define our institutions. Who exactly do y'all think should define the institution of marriage in Virginia? I am saying that it is our own internal affair, a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment, and we have to make rules, for instance to say that you have to be some certain age to be married, or to say that you cannot marry an immediate family member. It is complete utter nonsense to say that the State of Virginia has no right to define marriage to exclude matrimony between a man and an animal.

 

[1wildbill]

QUOTE: Doesn't matter if you are black or white. I'm talking about our common language as Americans. Do words have meaning, or do they just mean what the government says they mean today?

This might consternate you, it did me. Do you know what the "Official Language" of the United States is? There is not one.

 

[Harve Curry]

The official language of aviation is english, but no one calls pilots or ATC's racists because of it. Speaking a common language was and is important to saftey and communication.
The English Only proponents were always attacked as being racists or fanatics, their opposition won 15- 20 years ago.
My Grandmother was born 100 years ago this summer. She had to learn english because her parents knew that was how to be succesful in the United States. Her Dad moved them to a area that didn't speak their native language so his children would be forced to speak english. When they went to school students were paired with other kids who needed help learning english. That is the only way it should be.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Seeing everything from the exact inverse perspective must be very awkward for you. It is you who wishes to use the power of government to impose a new definition of marriage, yes? You advocated, did you not, that a law should be passed altering the definition of marriage to include unions between people and animals, and people of the same sex? Why are you responding in your posts as though it is I who am advocatiing that the government be allowed to define words for us. The government needs to use words according to their received meaning, rather than attampt, as you would have it, to manipulate the meaning of our received language (and thereby manipulate our thoughts) in support of someone's notion of political correctness.

OK, now you're misrepresenting what I said. I guess if your argument has no merit, that's the way to go. Please point out to me where I advocated letting the government define marriage. My exact quote if you can't be bothered to turn back a page or 2:

If someone wants to consider himself married to a housecat and can find an organized body to sanctify it, it's not the government's or anyone else's business.

It is you who is advocating using the power of the government to enforce a "received" meaning of certain words in a language. To support your "notion of political correctness", I might add. Until all of this fundamentalist uproar over the actions of a few localities, I don't think there was a definition in most state's laws defining the exact meaning of marriage.

Art has it right. The state's interest is economic.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It is you who is advocating using the power of the government to enforce a "received" meaning of certain words in a language.

So let me get this straight. You do not wish to alter the definition of marriage by way of the passage of a law? If that's the case, then I guess we are on the same side. I could have sworn, however, that you wished to have laws passed altering, with the power of government, the definition of marriage to include unions of people with animals, and people of the same sex. If I am wrong in this, I owe you an apology. Then we are agreed that the government should not attempt to alter the meaning of marriage to include unions between two people of the same sex or people with animals. Excellent. Always good to find that the person you thought was on the other side is actually on your side. Then we both want government to use our language according to its received meaning, rather than attempt to manipulate its meaning in accordance with someone's notion of political correctness.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Who's we, white boy?

I'm not a moderator, obviously, but could we keep it a little civil in this thread? I, for one, am offended by this comment. I don't suppose you would like me throwing out racist comments at you if I disagreed with you.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Yes, I would also like to know what is wrong with being a white boy.