Positive vs. Negative Liberty

[Sapiens]

Positive vs. Negative Liberty

In a nut shell:

Under Positive liberty a Man may only do anything that is “allowed” or permitted by the Government.

Under Negative liberty a Man may do anything as long as it does not injure or harm others or their property.

Pretty much the whole world operates under Positive liberty.

The Unites States of America operated under Negative liberty after gaining its independence from the English.

The Usurers want the United States of America turned into a completely Positive liberty country to turn it back like it was before its Independence.

It’s your choice, fight back or the Government will be able to destroy you with impunity.

In this case Positive liberty is not a positive thing!

[vinoveri]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

It’s your choice, fight back or the Government will be able to destroy you with impunity.

HOW?

A rallying cry can be a great thing, but we need leadership.

The serfs are both relatively ignorant of their predicament, and too busy "tending the fields" of the feudal masters to pay attention (in the best case); the worse case is that the the majority are happy with their gilded cages.

[don]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

Negative to Positive.

Expect Current to Flow.

[Finster]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

Positive vs. Negative Liberty

In a nut shell:

Under Positive liberty a Man may only do anything that is “allowed” or permitted by the Government.

Under Negative liberty a Man may do anything as long as it does not injure or harm others or their property.

Pretty much the whole world operates under Positive liberty.

The Unites States of America operated under Negative liberty after gaining its independence from the English.

The Usurers want the United States of America turned into a completely Positive liberty country to turn it back like it was before its Independence.

It’s your choice, fight back or the Government will be able to destroy you with impunity.

In this case Positive liberty is not a positive thing!

We have a "negative liberty" Constitution ... all we have to do is follow it!

[WDCRob]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

Had we followed the 'negative liberty' constitution in the first place -- and prevented the powerful from harming others and their property -- we might still have it.

[vinoveri]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

Natural Law defines natural rights (e.g., founding fathers ideal of liberty)
An "inalienable right" is one that cannot be taken away from an individual by any other including governments such as monarchies or democracies, and thus Natural rights are the only absolute defense against the tyrrany of the state.

The existence of Natural Law is predicated on a Law Giver, i.e. God.

The 1st amendment, written to protect the free practive of religion and worship of God, has been usurped, misconstrued and exploited to remove God from the public square. Remove the basis of the Natural Law from the political debate, and the Law can be questioned, and Positive law (read tyranny), i.e., whatever the current generation wants to do, creeps in under the guise of "the greater good" and utilitarian ethics.

The Constitution was established, inter alia, to insure and preserve these Natural Rights, and would if enforced against the state.

How many schools teach this? How many law schools?

[Sapiens]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

Natural Law defines natural rights (e.g., founding fathers ideal of liberty)
An "inalienable right" is one that cannot be taken away from an individual by any other including governments such as monarchies or democracies, and thus Natural rights are the only absolute defense against the tyrrany of the state.

The existence of Natural Law is predicated on a Law Giver, i.e. God.

The 1st amendment, written to protect the free practive of religion and worship of God, has been usurped, misconstrued and exploited to remove God from the public square. Remove the basis of the Natural Law from the political debate, and the Law can be questioned, and Positive law (read tyranny), i.e., whatever the current generation wants to do, creeps in under the guise of "the greater good" and utilitarian ethics.

The Constitution was established, inter alia, to insure and preserve these Natural Rights, and would if enforced against the state.

How many schools teach this? How many law schools?

"unalienable right"



http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/1...s-inalienable/

[vinoveri]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

"unalienable right"


http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/1...s-inalienable/

i am your humble servant

[Diarmuid]

Positive rights vs negatve rights a matter of socialism?

Positive vs. Negative Liberty

In a nut shell:

Under Positive liberty a Man may only do anything that is “allowed” or permitted by the Government.

Under Negative liberty a Man may do anything as long as it does not injure or harm others or their property.

Pretty much the whole world operates under Positive liberty.

The Unites States of America operated under Negative liberty after gaining its independence from the English.

The Usurers want the United States of America turned into a completely Positive liberty country to turn it back like it was before its Independence.

It’s your choice, fight back or the Government will be able to destroy you with impunity.

In this case Positive liberty is not a positive thing!

In a similar vien

Positive rights vs negatve rights a matter of socialism?

there are no rights without responsibilities, acceptance of responsibilities / duties confers the right not the other way around. There are two types of responsibilities negative and positive - for instance your right to life is tied with your responsibility not to kill. The right to property is tied to the responsibility not to steal, the right is only derived from your acceptance of the responsibility / duty. These types of responsibilities are negative, your responsibility is not to do something, when you accept these responsibilities the rights are then confered / born, as you are now in a position to expect the same from others.

However if on the other hand you accept the right to social security (dole) you must now accept the responsibility associated with this right, the cost of this right is decided by government or court in the form of taxes etc. and the price / cost is often opaque and the responsibility, positive i.e. you must do some thing.

There are no rights without responsibilities or duties - it seems to me we have forgotten this somewhere along the road.

Right to a job, right to social security, right to health care etc, the responsibilities associated with each are not spelled out, and very often it may mean sacrificing some of your derived rights associated with the negative responsibilities. the two types of responsibilities / rights often conflict and I think the courts and government very often give precedence to positive responsibilities over rights associated with negative responsibilities, like the right to privacy, property, travel etc.. is often trumped by the responsibility to apply, register, pay for your acceptance of the right to housing, a job, social benefits etc.

I personally will gladly accept my negative responibilities and waiver the positive "benefits".

[KGW]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

I suggest a thorough reading of Patrick Henry's speeches to the Virginia Ratifying Convention for those who worship the Constitution. . .They are in the so-called "Anti-Federalist Papers."

Here is one I found online:

http://www.unc.edu/~gvanberg/Courses/Henry%20June%205.htm

Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788

…Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American; but suspicions have gone forth — suspicions of my integrity — publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country. I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my professions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded to the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
I am answered by gentlemen that, though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none of the dangers I apprehended. I conceive this new government to be one of those dangers: it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses: and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. Take longer time in reckoning things; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome — instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned by the honorable gentleman, who presides, against faction and turbulence. I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge, also, the new form of government may effectually prevent it: yet there is another thing it will as effectually do — it will oppress and ruin the people.
There are sufficient guards placed against sedition and licentiousness; for, when power is given to this government to suppress these, or for any other purpose, the language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal; but when this Constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, sir, a fatal ambiguity — an ambiguity which is very astonishing…
I shall be told I am continually afraid: but, sir, I have strong cause of apprehension. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered; in other parts, absolutely taken away. How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone — not sufficiently secured in criminal — this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.
It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength — an army, and the militia of the states. This is an idea extremely ridiculous: gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? The honorable gentleman said that great danger would ensue if the Convention rose without adopting this system. I ask, Where is that danger? I see none. Other gentlemen have told us, within these walls, that the union is gone, or that the union will be gone. Is not this trifling with the judgment of their fellow-citizens? Till they tell us the grounds of their fears, I will consider them as imaginary. I rose to make inquiry where those dangers were; they could make no answer: I believe I never shall have that answer. Is there a disposition in the people of this country to revolt against the dominion of laws? Has there been a single tumult in Virginia? Have not the people of Virginia, when laboring under the severest pressure of accumulated distresses, manifested the most cordial acquiescence in the execution of the laws? What could be more awful than their unanimous acquiescence under general distresses? Is there any revolution in Virginia? Whither is the spirit of America gone? Whither is the genius of America fled? It was but yesterday, when our enemies marched in triumph through our country. Yet the people of this country could not be appalled by their pompous armaments: they stopped their career, and victoriously captured them. Where is the peril, now, compared to that? Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms. Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe; that country is engaged in more arduous business: from that quarter there is no cause of fear: you may sleep in safety forever for them.
Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties: to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
To encourage us to adopt it, they tell us that there is a plain, easy way of getting amendments. When I come to contemplate this part, I suppose that I am mad, or that my countrymen are so. The way to amendment is, in my conception, shut. Let us consider this plain, easy way. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by the Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the 1st and 4th clauses in the 9th section of the 1st article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Hence it appears that three fourths of the states must ultimately agree to any amendments that may be necessary. Let us consider the consequence of this. However uncharitable it may appear, yet I must tell my opinion — that the most unworthy characters may get into power, and prevent the introduction of amendments. Let us suppose — for the case is supposable, possible, and probable — that you happen to deal those powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments? Two thirds of the Congress, or of the state legislatures, are necessary even to propose amendments. If one third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but what is destructive and mischievous, is, that three fourths of the state legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed! In such numerous bodies, there must necessarily be some designing, bad men. To suppose that so large a number as three fourths of the states will concur, is to suppose that they will possess genius, intelligence, and integrity, approaching to miraculous. It would indeed be miraculous that they should concur in the same amendments, or even in such as would bear some likeness to one another; for four of the smallest states, that do not collectively contain one tenth part of the population of the United States, may obstruct the most salutary and necessary amendments. Nay, in these four states, six tenths of the people may reject these amendments; and suppose that amendments shall be opposed to amendments, which is highly probable, — is it possible that three fourths can ever agree to the same amendments? A bare majority in these four small states may hinder the adoption of amendments; so that we may fairly and justly conclude that one twentieth part of the American people may prevent the removal of the most grievous inconveniences and oppression, by refusing to accede to amendments. A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism?
What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause: — that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever…

[Diarmuid]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

I suggest a thorough reading of Patrick Henry's speeches to the Virginia Ratifying Convention for those who worship the Constitution. . .They are in the so-called "Anti-Federalist Papers."

For all of Henry's intelectual prowess and well reasoned arguments - he was living in a time nor could probably not envision a time where the science of manufactured consent and hence tyranny of the majority has been refined to such a degree, while the US constitution is a flawed document as it has seemingly failed to protect that which it was written to protect, it is imo the best attempt to date.

[KGW]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

I think you are mistaken, Diarmuid. More Patrick Henry:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=964

In this scheme of energetic government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers , the state and the federal sheriffs. This, it seems to me, will produce such dreadful oppression as the people cannot possibly bear. The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers {58} have, under the watchful eye of our legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people; a repeated succession of laws has been made to suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws: in the struggle they have generally triumphed over the legislature.
It is a fact that lands have been sold for five shillings, which were worth one hundred pounds: if sheriffs, thus immediately under the eye of our state legislature and judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York? If they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your person or property, you cannot get redress on this side of Philadelphia or New York; and how can you get it there? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go thither, there you must appeal to judges sworn to support this Constitution, in opposition to that of any state, and who may also be inclined to favor their own officers. When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may search, at any time, your houses, and most secret recesses, will the people bear it? If you think so, you differ from me. Where I thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand; and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually happen. I may be told that it is safe to err on that side, because such regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and because laws are made by our representatives, and judged by righteous judges: but, sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and many reasons there are to induce a belief that they will not. I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death.
This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?
Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, {59} although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.
If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely ,and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion , have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your {60} President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

The history of Switzerland clearly proves that we might be in amicable alliance with those states without adopting this Constitution. Switzerland is a confederacy, consisting of dissimilar governments. This is an example which proves that governments of dissimilar structures may be confederated. That confederate republic has stood upwards of four hundred years; and, although several of the individual republics are democratic, and the rest aristocratic, no evil has resulted from this dissimilarity; for they have braved all the power of France and Germany during that long period. The Swiss spirit, sir, has kept them together; they have encountered and overcome immense difficulties with patience and fortitude. In the vicinity of powerful and ambitious monarchs, they have retained their independence, republican simplicity, and valor. [Here he makes a comparison of the people of that country and those of France, and makes a quotation from Addison illustrating the subject.] Look at the peasants of that country and of France; and mark the difference. You will find the condition of the former far more desirable and comfortable. No matter whether the people be great, splendid, and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish Grand Signior, alongside of our President, would put us to disgrace; but we should be as abundantly consoled for this disgrace, when our citizens have been put in contrast with the Turkish slave. The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege. Show me the reason why the American Union is to be dissolved. Who are those eight adopting states? Are they averse to give us a little time to consider, before we {63} conclude? Would such a disposition render a junction with them eligible; or is it the genius of that kind of government to precipitate people hastily into measures of the utmost importance, and grant no indulgence? If it be, sir, is it for us to accede to such a government? We have a right to have time to consider; we shall therefore insist upon it. Unless the government be amended, we can never accept it. The adopting states will doubtless accept our money and our regiments; and what is to be the consequence, if we are disunited? I believe it is yet doubtful, whether it is not proper to stand by a while, and see the effect of its adoption in other states. In forming a government, the utmost care should be taken to prevent its becoming oppressive; and this government is of such an intricate and complicated nature, that no man on this earth can know its real operation. The other states have no reason to think, from the antecedent conduct of Virginia, that she has any intention of seceding from the Union, or of being less active to support the general welfare. Would they not, therefore, acquiesce in our taking time to deliberate , deliberate whether the measure be not perilous, not only for us, but the adopting states?
Permit me, sir, to say, that a great majority of the people, even in the adopting states, are averse to this government. I believe I would be right to say, that they have been egregiously misled. Pennsylvania has, perhaps, been tricked into it. If the other states who have adopted it have not been tricked, still they were too much hurried into its adoption. There were very respectable minorities in several of them; and if reports be true, a clear majority of the people are averse to it. If we also accede, and it should prove grievous, the peace and prosperity of our country, which we all love, will be destroyed. This government has not the affection of the people at present. Should it be oppressive, their affections will be totally estranged from it; and, sir, you know that a government, without their affections, can neither be durable nor happy. I speak as one poor individual; but when I speak, I speak the language of thousands. But, sir, I mean not to breathe the spirit, nor utter the language, of secession.
I have trespassed so long on your patience, I am really concerned that I have something yet to say. The honorable {64} member has said, we shall be properly represented. Remember, sir, that the number of our representatives is but ten, whereof six is a majority. Will those men be possessed of sufficient information? A particular knowledge of particular districts will not suffice. They must be well acquainted with agriculture, commerce, and a great variety of other matters throughout the continent; they must know not only the actual state of nations in Europe and America, the situations of their farmers, cottagers, and mechanics, but also the relative situations and intercourse of those nations. Virginia is as large as England. Our proportion of representatives is but ten men. In England they have five hundred and fifty-eight. The House of Commons, in England, numerous as they are, we are told, are bribed, and have bartered away the rights of their constituents: what, then, shall become of us? Will these few protect our rights? Will they be incorruptible? You say they will be better men than the English commoners. I say they will be infinitely worse men, because they are to be chosen blindfolded: their election (the term, as applied to their appointment, is inaccurate) will be an involuntary nomination, and not a choice.
I have, I fear, fatigued the committee; yet I have not said the one hundred thousandth part of what I have on my mind, and wish to impart. On this occasion, I conceived myself bound to attend strictly to the interest of the state, and I thought her dearest rights at stake. Having lived so long , been so much honored , my efforts, though small, are due to my country. I have found my mind hurried on, from subject to subject, on this very great occasion. We have been all out of order, from the gentleman who opened to-day to myself. I did not come prepared to speak, on so multifarious a subject, in so general a manner. I trust you will indulge me another time. Before you abandon the present system, I hope you will consider not only its defects, most maturely, but likewise those of that which you are to substitute for it. May you be fully apprized of the dangers of the latter, not by fatal experience, but by some abler advocate than I!

[Diarmuid]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

I think you are mistaken, Diarmuid. More Patrick Henry:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=964

Thanks for posting KGW, enlightening peice, although I am not sure he was warning about manufactured consent here, Henry seems to have been prophetic in much of what he said.

I think the peice here is warning on his concerns regarding centralisation of power, especially with his references to Switzerland, I will certainly be interested in folowing in more detail on his veiws and opinions concerning the aspects of the constitution where he states

"This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy;"

in fact there is a very similar discussion going on in my neck of the woods today in regard to the EU and the Lisbon treaty. Switzerland is still cited sometimes in these debates.

It seems to me at least Europeans are determined to repeat the same follies as the US in this regard but with even less checks and balances in the form of a constitution or seperation of powers.

[Finster]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

For all of Henry's intelectual prowess and well reasoned arguments - he was living in a time nor could probably not envision a time where the science of manufactured consent and hence tyranny of the majority has been refined to such a degree, while the US constitution is a flawed document as it has seemingly failed to protect that which it was written to protect, it is imo the best attempt to date.

It takes more than a document alone; there must also be the determination to follow it. It's become fashionable to view the Constitution as a "living" document that must be "interpreted" in light of evolving standards. But those who advocate such a view never address a key flaw in it: that the Constitution itself provides the means by which it may be amended. So if we think some modern development merits a change in the meaning of the Constitution, the Congress or the States should call a Constutional Convention. Doing an end run around this process by merely having judges change it to our (or their) liking is itself unconstitutional.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Positive vs. Negative Liberty

It takes more than a document alone; there must also be the determination to follow it. It's become fashionable to view the Constitution as a "living" document that must be "interpreted" in light of evolving standards. But those who advocate such a view never address a key flaw in it: that the Constitution itself provides the means by which it may be amended. So if we think some modern development merits a change in the meaning of the Constitution, the Congress or the States should call a Constutional Convention. Doing an end run around this process by merely having judges change it to our (or their) liking is itself unconstitutional.

If the constitution needs no interpretation, what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?