Posted on 07/04/2016 10:27:49 PM PDT by Nachum
Would you at least go read the article before responding?
You come across so ignorant with these type of responses. The writer is a female btw.
What about lines?
Capped for emphasis or for noun? And why emphasize “that”?
Goofy interpretation that totally ignores the structure of the wording. No, Government is not an inalienable right and the actual declaration that government is instituted to secure these (aforementioned) rights clearly can’t be taken to mean that government is instituted to secure the right of govrnment.
Kind of circular if you follow Danielle’s thinking.
” ‘the New York Times reported...” is all I needed to know that the following text is taurine excrement.
Holy cow she is right, we WERE intended to be a communist dictatorship! Quick, everybody send 90% of everything we own to DC. /s
Utterly meaningless twaddle. The Declaration of Independence established no laws. It was and is the inspirational document of American history but it is the US Constitution that is the framework document.
There is a period in the so-called original. It is above the dash, but it is a period. The so-called later copies probably just put the period where it belongs.
Her thesis really changes nothing, is hair splitting, and no one has ever claimed that Jefferson was against any form of government — he ran for president, after all. He plainly said that government was instituted, (or required) to protect God-given rights.
This woman makes out that the entire sense of a document of that length depends merely on the placement of a period, and that she has seen what millions of people have failed to see.
She will appear on TV shows, and in a relaxed, easy manner, as that tact has become universal with liberals, expose her genius to the world. Matt Lauer will swoon over her.
Indeed - what about all of the federalist and anti-federalist papers, all of the well known writings of the founders?
The intent is quite clear to anyone who cares to be presented with the truth.
...depends on what your interpretation of “is”...is?
Another rabid nut professor.
Yawn.
I have no trust in the scholarship of a black woman with lice cut hair
An affirmative action appointee.
Actions speak louder than words. They went on to create a limited government.
I hate liberals.
In this case it matters not as the Declaration of Independence is not a document recognized as a forming document of our government, as it came prior to the Constitution, which is the enabling document. This is a well known and accepted principle.
***Princeton professor claims rogue period in official transcript DOESN´T appear on original***
Several copies of the Declaration were made and sent to various kings around the world. Ever so often one of these shows up.
” the institution of governments is only for the purpose of securing the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator”
BINGO!
Governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed” toward the end of securing “the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator” - and any government which fails to secure those rights for the people is illegitimate.
Thus, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.
Period, comma or simply a dash, the meaning is unchanged. A legitimate government exists by the consent of the governed, and serves a legitimate purpose only so long as it makes it possible for the people to exercise and enjoy “the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator”.
The “T” in the following word ‘That’ is capitalized. Thus, the period was there when the document was written...or it was implied that ‘Happiness’ was the last word in the previous sentence. There has been no misinterpretation.
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.