Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/Declaration.html ^ | Our Founders

Posted on 07/10/2012 7:57:51 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: theconstitution
Just saying.
1 posted on 07/10/2012 7:57:55 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

How about having a moderator change the title to the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?


2 posted on 07/10/2012 8:00:21 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel (Da Bro' Gotsta Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

Why does the title say “Preamble to the Constitution”? These are quotes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.


3 posted on 07/10/2012 8:01:14 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

yes, You are correct. My Mistake.


4 posted on 07/10/2012 8:05:18 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (If Obama was any more thin skinned, he'd have a receptacle end: Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Thanks.


5 posted on 07/10/2012 8:34:42 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (If Obama was any more thin skinned, he'd have a receptacle end: Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

Well whatever the imperfections of your statement, it seems clear that we are not impelled with the duty to alter or abolish the Federal government of theses united States.

That our freedom and self-determination are under open assault by the same government is beyond question, that we cannot co-exist with those who would make mankind the slaves of the State in their futile effort to build the “prefect societal” is also beyond question.

The Question that remain before us is how and when do we reassert and defend our rights? Is it with this last election that we make a final attempt to hold on to some shreds of limited government, or have we accepted with the recent acts of the traitor John Roberts that there can be no hope for freedom under his despotic scheme of government?


6 posted on 07/10/2012 8:35:08 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel; Dilbert San Diego

I had it corrected. Was going back and forth between the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thank you for correcting my error.


7 posted on 07/10/2012 8:40:38 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (If Obama was any more thin skinned, he'd have a receptacle end: Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Well whatever the imperfections of your statement, it seems clear that we are not impelled with the duty to alter or abolish the Federal government of theses united States.

To answer the first part of your sentence, I did not make a statement. I simply quoted the Preamble.

As to the second part of your sentence we have a right to abolish and or alter our government.

This is done by vote. Not by fiat.

8 posted on 07/10/2012 8:53:51 AM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (If Obama was any more thin skinned, he'd have a receptacle end: Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

We could rename the ‘Affordable Health Care Act’ as the ‘Declaration of Dependence’.

Sort of a fitting introduction to the USSA.


9 posted on 07/10/2012 8:58:03 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

We cannot simply vote yourself respect for our right. The Federal Government is suppose to have the consent for the governed. It has now totally abandoned any pretends of having consent, and you would have us just sit here and let it do to us whatever it want?

No there are rights that go beyond the vote of a distant, ignorant, & all to often hostility majority. Theses are the reserved rights of our civilization, the rights of man, the Declaration speaks of. We have a sacrate duty to do what we can to uphold and defend them rights for our posterity.

Will we vote? yes, but will we lay down before a despotic democracy and simply accept the extremes of is despotism imposed upon us, no.


10 posted on 07/10/2012 9:02:42 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

We don’t need to institute a new government. We need only to change the leaders. I’m confident the upcoming election will turn us back in the right direction.


11 posted on 07/10/2012 9:25:55 AM PDT by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
This is done by vote.

It can also be done by force of arms.

12 posted on 07/10/2012 10:41:50 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

What if.... “the People” become generally corrupt.?...
Then the ever present PollyAnna’s will live on a lie..

That the people generally are good.. when they are Not..
Then the “party” that can see reality will survive..

The communists/socialists/progressives have boasted they will degrade america to become self serving.. balkanized..
And it appears they may have done it..


13 posted on 07/10/2012 11:25:54 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

Preamble to the most Bad-A?$&d document humans ever created or ever will. Politicians should quiver in fear when they start to think of themselves as the Aristocracy who know what is best for the mere People. We see Monarchy over and over in other forms around the world but however the Democrats dream - we will never tolerate a King (or Queen) again and never again trust the good intentions of our “betters”.


14 posted on 07/10/2012 12:00:45 PM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Our Founders thought tyranny under representative government to be an impossible contradiction.

Why and how could the people impose horrible government upon themselves?

15 posted on 07/11/2012 2:38:54 AM PDT by Jacquerie (The American Revolution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“Our Founders thought tyranny under representative government to be an impossible contradiction.
Why and how could the people impose horrible government upon themselves?”

Clearly you never heard of their opinion regarding the subject of democracy. They did not think tyranny was impossible under even Constitutional(republican as they defined it) Government, much less mealy representative government.

John Adams said: “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”

Quite the contrary what we have now is little if any different than a democracy and of course you know how that ends.


16 posted on 07/11/2012 12:26:03 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“Our Founders thought tyranny under representative government to be an impossible contradiction.
Why and how could the people impose horrible government upon themselves?”

Clearly you never heard of their opinion regarding the subject of democracy. They did not think tyranny was impossible under even Constitutional(republican as they defined it) Government, much less mealy representative government.

John Adams said: “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”

Quite the contrary what we have now is little if any different than a democracy and of course you know how that ends.


17 posted on 07/11/2012 12:26:36 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Clearly you are not familiar with the political evolution of the 1776-1787 period.

An excess of power in the people was leading to a new kind of tyranny, not the magisterial kind of Great Britain, not by traditional rulers, but by the people themselves - "what John Adams in 1776 had called a theoretical contradiction, a democratic despotism."

The Creation of the American Republic, Gordon Wood 1969.

18 posted on 07/11/2012 2:18:46 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court can save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“Clearly you are not familiar with the political evolution of the 1776-1787 period.
An excess of power in the people was leading to a new kind of tyranny, not the magisterial kind of Great Britain, not by traditional rulers, but by the people themselves - “what John Adams in 1776 had called a theoretical contradiction, a democratic despotism.”

The Creation of the American Republic, Gordon Wood 1969.”

I’m afraid I am at a loss to explain to suppose democracy that was said to exist in theses united States before 1787 and after 1783.

I do know that the contental was having trouble funding the army “obligations”(Thanks to Hamilton & elk who sabotaged the solutions that were made.). Confederate bureaucratic were having trouble getting respect from foreign leaders, and State officials were not fully complying with the treaty made by congress and congress was having trouble figuring out how to compel compliance.

But there was no democracy in any State anywhere. All the States had their own Republican Constitutions of civil government, and were following them in combination with their own people’s interest. Certant “federalist” like Hamlition were simply unhappy with the situation and the measures they had to take to carry out their jobs.

So they maneuvered and schemed for more power as politicians frequently do, what they got was the Constitutional convention & Federal Constitution of 1787.


19 posted on 07/11/2012 3:50:47 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Little is written and less is known of the 1776 -1787 era at FR because it was complicated and chaotic.

Your last three paragraphs reflect what passes for urban knowledge of the times at FR. I assure you that as it applies to this period, it is wrong.

I suggest you read a respectable text before spouting off about that which you do not know. Gordon Wood wrote one. Forrest McDonald wrote a couple.


20 posted on 07/11/2012 4:23:21 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court can save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
I'm with Monorprise completely.

This USA has mutated into a democracy. Once we allowed USG to start social progroms, it was over; soon those eating from the hand of _New_Deal_ grew to a majority. The rest is history, up to present. We're writing the next chapter right now.

Restore USC in accordance with our Declaration of Independence. USC cannot be understood w/o the later.

21 posted on 07/19/2012 1:53:15 PM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise; Jacquerie; All
The distinctions being discussed here may be mostly semantic distinctions. Jacquerie's suggest of Wood and McDonald are good for background, however.

There is another source which is even more powerful, for it comes from a man who lived through the period 1776-1787, as well as the years between then and 1839.

I am excerpting a portion of his work here, but a reading of the entire Address would be useful in any discussion of America's first 50 years under her Constitution and the years preceding it.

John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand.

In 1839, he was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:

"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.

"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-

"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.

"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.

"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.

"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.

"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.

"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.

"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.

"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.

"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.

"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.

"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.

"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."

In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained."

22 posted on 09/14/2012 1:02:41 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

John Quincy Adam’s seems to have a politically altered memory, there was never “one people” of these united States but rather many.

They didn’t even become united in any legal form until 1781. Even then as John Quincy himself admired they had vast and complicated differences & interests that invariably set them at odds against each other. Certantly not the definition of “one people”

Yet he insist upon carrying on and emphasing that point no matter how ridiculousness it might be when compared to acknowledged reality. This of course is the symptoms of someone trying to reconcile with political beer goggles. Someone who must insist upon something being the case even thou it is quite obviously not the case.

We did not become independent as 1 sovereign state, but 13. John Quince’s inability to acknowledged that fact along with obvious fact that we are NOT one people, is probably due to the stress his presidency placed upon the limits of that union. Limits he and his federalist kinsmen found most frustrating to their ambitions.


23 posted on 09/17/2012 3:22:57 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota; 444Flyer; F15Eagle
We could rename the ‘Affordable Health Care Act’ as the ‘Declaration of Dependence’. Sort of a fitting introduction to the USSA.

Drafting of the Declaration of Independence - The Committee of Five presented their work to the Congress on June 28, 1776:

Drafting of the Declaration of Dependence - The Majority of Five presented their work to the American People on June 28, 2012.

Deu 25.17. Remember what Amalek did to you by the way, when you came forth out of Egypt: 18. How he met you by the way, and struck at your rear, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God:

Might as well rename Obamacare, Amalekcare.

24 posted on 09/17/2012 3:43:57 PM PDT by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
In addition to our "despotic government", we have the passive attack from the press by their selective reporting. Additionally, the press is actively attacking by promoting so openly an agenda. Our freedoms are absolutely under "open assault."

A word of advice: Hang on to your guns and Bibles, People.

25 posted on 10/29/2012 3:43:22 PM PDT by Calpublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Calpublican

Press or Obama campaign? The least we might do is expose to their viewers the true nature of their baldfaced lie of impartiality. Let the viewers know that what they watch is not the truth but an extension of the Obama campaign. Not the world as it is, but the world as Obama would like to have you believe it.

We cannot attack an agency of perceptual campaign without first identifying and labeling it as such to all those who might fall victim before it.(including most pointedly ourselves)


26 posted on 11/04/2012 1:50:46 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson