Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: US v. The People of the United States

  1. #1
    The Anti-Terrorist Abukai08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,662
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default US v. The People of the United States

    Good Article from the boys over at Ranger Up

    US v. The People of the United States

    Sounds like a Supreme Court case, doesn’t it?

    Well, though US v People of the United States could very well end up in a battle at our courts’ highest level, the simple fact is that this case was already decided over 200 years ago.

    Back in the later parts of the 18th century, a significant number of Americans (and even some Europeans, as well) developed a line of thinking that held to an ideology of basic, inherent rights of individuals. These rights were not granted by any earthly authority, nor were they voted on by majorities—they pre-existed.

    This notion would of course bear itself out in a violent manner in what we have come to know as the American Revolution. The event that cost the lives of over 25,000 Americans was the culmination of the conflict between the rule of men by men and the idea that men could—and should—govern themselves. The idea of self-government was a philosophy built on the concept that certain aspects of life were not privileges or gifts based on some type of merit system, but rather that they were already part of man from birth.

    Interestingly enough, though these men who worked diligently on this ideology (and were prepared to sacrifice everything for it) were by no means divine or perfect, it is in fact their flaws and misgivings that would bear out some of the most fascinating aspects of this great experiment known as America. They didn’t, for example, get it all exactly right to begin with. Yet they had the foreknowledge to understand that disagreements would arise and that a system of government that could accommodate those conflicts was needed.

    However, through all of the arguments that would form the American government (and there were many—some of which still exist today), an underlying theme endured amidst the turmoil. Namely, that the American government was not one that existed to grant people certain rights or privileges, but rather the opposite—that it was to exist for the purpose of ensuring the people didn’t have those rights taken away from them. This methodology differed greatly from that of a monarchy in that it wasn’t a king (or his agents) granting his subjects privileges to act within his kingdom—it was the people who allowed the king (or his agents) to sit in a position that existed solely for the reasons of protecting their rights.

    Some would argue that the king or his court would then not be needed because, if it only existed to prevent rights from being taken, wouldn’t the people be better off without him? It was here that those in America’s foundation knew that human nature is, unfortunately, flawed. We tend to take each other’s things—tools, cars, wives, etc.—and, without some kind of objective arbiter, the physically strongest of any given group would inevitably end up with all the cool stuff.

    That objective arbiter would, naturally, need to remain objective. How to accomplish that, given the aforementioned flawed human nature? By crafting a document that outlines what the arbiter can and cannot do that cannot be changed by said arbiter. The document would be the basis for all of the decisions made for conflict between ideologies of the people.

    But—and this is a big but and of the utmost importance—the entire underlying intent for this document was not for the purpose of outlining what people could and could not do, but rather what the government could and could not do.

    This document is known of course as the United States Constitution; the writers of which painstakingly crafted it to reflect the idea that it was government—not man—who needed limitations. This is, though a seemingly basic concept for many reading this, a notion that is altogether lost on a great many people who not only should know better, but have sworn oaths stating that they do.

    There are a great many political arguments in this country that seem to be only making the chasm between groups wider and harder to overcome. Many of these discussions have individuals on both sides who are highly educated and very knowledgeable on the subject they are arguing for or against. Yet at the core of each fight—of nearly every single clash of political ideologies—lays a misunderstanding of what “rights” are and what the Constitution represents. There is a growing abundance of individuals who firmly believe that it is the government in control and deciding what we can and cannot do rather than the other way around.

    “The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government, not the American people.”

    These words represent more than a catchy campaign slogan or political rhetoric. They embody the difference between a rule of people who change their minds with the direction of the wind and the concept of rights being born with men—not granted to them.

    Everyone who holds a political office or joins the military swears an oath to something. It’s not to a king, a president, or any elected official—it’s to the Constitution of the United States of America. Consider that oath wisely and what it represents the next time you view a politician or, in case you are in one of those positions, your own job description. Who—or what—people define as the arbiter of rights defines a great deal of the fights we now face in our country that may get worse before they get better

    US v The People of the United States | Rhino Den | Military Stories, MMA News, Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy

    Couldn't have said this better myself.
    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" -Thomas Jefferson-


    "Our rights come from our humanity and may not be legislated away -- not by a vote of Congress, not by the consensus of our neighbors, not even by agreement of all Americans but one." Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

  2. #2
    GuncoHolic 2ndAmendican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Taylors, S.C.
    Posts
    4,700
    Feedback Score
    34 (100%)

    Default

    Very well stated!!!! This should be must reading for those on the Left, who want BIG government to intrude on every facet of our lives.
    Enforcement, NOT Amnesty!!!!!!

    "If they’re going to come here illegally, apply for & receive assistance through a corrupted Government agency encouraging this lawless behavior, work under the table & send billions of dollars each year back to their families in Mexico, while bleeding local economies dry, protest in our streets waving their Mexican flags DEMANDING rights, while I have to press ’1′ for English, then they need to be shipped back to where they came from!" -Chad Miller

  3. #3
    White Cracker 4thIDvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Swamp Florida
    Posts
    12,315
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Default

    GROWING LIST OF SHERIFFS SAYING ?NO? TO OBAMA GUN CONTROL- No Sheriff Arpaio yet?

    Utah Sheriffs' Stand Against Obama Gun Grab Gathers Steam


    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Utah Sheriffs' Stand Against Obama Gun Grab Gathers Steam
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

    Good read Abukia, thank you.. Google it.. More and more states, Police and Sheriff's associations are writing letters too Nappy man boy homo and crew.
    "You have to go through us, if you want our constituents guns."
    That is not only a threat, these Men and Women are putting their jobs and possibly their lives on the line for us.
    Even California L.O.s are saying "You want em, you go get em, we aint."
    Thank you Officers...
    "Man needs but two things to survive alone in the woods. A blow up female doll and his trusty old AK-47" - Thomas Jefferson 1781


  4. #4
    Gunco Addicted for life j427x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,349
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default

    in the immortal words of nancy regan "just say NO!"

  5. #5
    Gunco Regular jfreakofkorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    816
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    The Constitution ( and not forgetting the Bill Of Rights ) was writing it for the People to Govern the Government, and the Other Way Around. It was was a Reason at Why it was written by OUR Four Fathers. Its stand for having a Voice and Opinion with all the Rights behind it. And also the Right to Protect and to Bear Arms ....

  6. #6
    jrs
    jrs is offline
    B.U.F. (Bald, Ugly, Fat) jrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    PRK
    Posts
    1,491
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfreakofkorn View Post
    The Constitution (and Bill Of Rights) was written for the people to govern the government, not the other way around. There was a reason why it was written by OUR fore fathers.
    I fixed it for you.
    jrs
    --
    "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.", Will Durant

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.", Edmund Burke

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •