does the Declaration of Independence, a document establishing the reasoning for separating from monarchist rule, somehow trump the actual Constitution, the basis for all rule of law in our country?

For one thing, the Federal Constitution is not “the basis for all rule of law in our country.” A constitution cannot be the basis for rule of law since it is itself a law. Besides, the States and their governments do not obtain their authority from the Federal Constitution.

Putting all that aside, the Declaration doesn’t trump the Constitution or any actual law in a legal context. But the Declaration is the statement of the values that animated the American Revolution and allowed a democratic constitution to exist in the first place. As such it trumps the Constitution morally.

By the way, you are displaying still more extreme obtuseness by requiring these explanations.

Are you familiar with the First Amendment of the Constitution?

Yes. I dare say that I and most GayPatriat fans are far more familiar with Constitution than lefties like yourself.

In fact you show your ignorance of the Constitution by thinking that the Declaration’s statement on the origin of rights and the First Amendment are at all incompatible. Believing in a transcendent origin of rights does not require one to want an established national religion, nor does it preclude on from respecting freedom of religion. Only an asshat would think it did.

Liberals [sic] believe in appropriate government, not more government.

No. Left-liberals believe in more government. For modern liberal Democrats, more government is always, always, always, always the answer that they propose to every problem in public discussion.

Even where left-liberals think they are in favor of “choice” – say, in sexual or reproductive matters – they end up proposing ever more government spending and programs (e.g., federally-funded abortions). Government spending is government interference, or “more government”.

Yes, SoCalRobert, Countervail is being obtuse. (Although whether deliberately or not I cannot tell.)

It is indeed a fascinating display of obtuseness to see Countervail criticize an argument as relying “on a made-up set of facts” and then not realize that 100,000 is 100% larger than 50,000, not 200% larger, or that a person paying 25% income tax on $100,000 keeps more than someone paying 10% on $50,000.

But those are just arithmetic errors. How about these whoppers:

Liberals [sic] believe in appropriate government, not more government.

This explains why from FDR to LBJ the so-called libs (really leftists) gave us increasingly larger and more expensive government.

liberals believe in appropriate taxation, not underfunding the government to ensure it can’t function like conservatives.

Surely Countervail can explain then why deficits have grown with the Democrats in power? Why can’t the Dems manage to tax sufficiently to fund their beloved social programs?

liberals believe in appropriate national defense, not antagonistic pre-emptive bloated government contractor waste on policing the world.

Yes, of course. This is why the left constantly complains about military spending while wanting to send the troops to places like Darfur.

Of course the money not spent on armed forces can always be given to the bloated bureaucracy at Planned Parenthood so abortions can increase worldwide.

Of course then there’s this:

Liberty and freedom does not give individuals the choice to shirk their responsibility to the very structure that affords them those rights. … One does not make a living in a vacuum, nor does an individual in the United States live in a bubble without a responsibility to the society in which they live.

Oh, Countervail! So close and yet so far!

The structure of society does not afford any rights. It can only protect or fail to protect them.

As for the bit about shirking responsibility, that would be a good argument if conservatives were complaining about funding the police. Complaining about being conscripted into a governmental retirement scheme or a socialized medicine plan is an entirely different matter.

But here is the piece de resistance of obtuseness:

Wow, and conservatives believe their rights came “from God?” Which one would [that] be? The Catholic one or the Protestant one? The Jewish one or the Christian one? The Mormon one or the Scientology one? The Muslim one? The Hindu ones? Are there no athiest conservatives?

A perfect example of how lefties do not support the founding principles of the United States. Classic, in fact.

The Founders were in to talking about nature and nature’s God; they did not reference God in the Declaration according to particular theologies. What is there stated is that human rights are a part of nature; they have the same origin as the rest of nature’s laws.

All in all, only a moron or complete leftist ideologue could have written Countervail’s comment. (Not that the two things are much different.)

Where do you think rights are derived from then?

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

But in the end, does any follow-up comment to what I posted somehow establish how this gobbledy-gook of truthiness actually, factually establishes how freedom equals wealth and vice-versa?

Have you EVER read the Declaration of Independence. Our founding principles are based on the idea (revolutionary) that our “inalienable rights” are “bestowed by our Creator” and not by a king or dictator or any government official.

Holy smokes, is the public school system REALLY this bad?

Since you have a record of never answering questions posed to you, I’m not surprised you don’t understand.

the current conservative movement is rabidly homophobic (……) people who think you’re an abomination and actively work against your civil rights.

This is a conclusion, not an argument.

There is nowhere to go with this, except elsewhere.

Hopefully “eshto” has a place of quiet refuge, because conservatives outnumber his crowd by 20000 to 1. (Conservatively.)

However, in my experience with dysfunction, the bearers of the dysfunction are strangely satisfied with the hate that consumes them. They are right and everyone else is nuts.

the current conservative movement is rabidly homophobic (……) people who think you’re an abomination and actively work against your civil rights.

This is a conclusion, not an argument.

There is nowhere to go with this, except elsewhere.

Hopefully “eshto” has a place of quiet refuge, because conservatives outnumber his crowd by 20000 to 1. (Conservatively.)

However, in my experience with dysfunction, the bearers of the dysfunction are strangely satisfied with the hate that consumes them. They are right and everyone else is nuts.

Class dismissed.

Does God have a Bill of Rights? God makes a child in a war-torn, impoverished country and God makes a child in Beverly Hills.
What “rights’ does God give each of them…i don’t understand.

I do have a question for you:

If rights don’t come from “god” then who, exactly, grants us our rights? Are they bestowed and withdrawn by a (hopefully) benevolent government to suit it “needs”?

The logic of his presentation relies on a made-up set of facts, and amazingly oversimplifies even those. I understand his supposition, that when you have the ability to use less than 100% of the income that should be available to you, you have less choices. However, I don’t see how that is an equivalent to freedom, nor do I see him discussing the implication of want versus need.

For example, if someone makes $50,000 per year, and someone makes $100,000 per year, is the latter 200% more free than the former because he has more purchasing power than the former? Is the former 50% less free than the latter? Or if one person makes $100,000 and pays 25% in taxes and another makes $50,000 and only pays 10% in taxes, is the latter more free because he keeps more of his income?

In regard to want versus need, in this made up scenario he presents, if someone were able to support 100% of their needs with the barest of income, while someone making $1,000,000 can’t maintain the lifestyle they aspire to going further and further into debt, is the latter still more free than the former because he has more income?

The presenter says that only “two people can take money away from you. A criminal, with a gun, or the government, with a gun.” WHOA! First of all, what’s with the violent imagery? That’s ridiculous. A savvy nonviolent con game can persuade you to part with your “freedom money” as easily as the supposed violent criminal. And when does the government, acting as the will of the majority of people suddenly become a violent overlord to take away money you supposedly “earned.” Is the implication that the ideal is a society of anarchy with everyone having a lot of money and guns instead? Liberty and freedom does not give individuals the choice to shirk their responsibility to the very structure that affords them those rights. We come together as a nation for a reason, and it’s not so that individuals can rape the larger whole for as much material wealth as possible. One does not make a living in a vacuum, nor does an individual in the United States live in a bubble without a responsibility to the society in which they live.

I don’t remember the phrase being “give me life, liberty, and a government structure to ensure my prosperity without me having to pay for it.”

The speaker also says that the United States is the most wealthy country in the world, because it’s the most free. Why does a 2009 report from the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street journal rank it #8 then? It’s even behind those damn socialists in Canada. The speaker says “the greater the freedom, the greater the wealth.” Not true according to this report. He also says “the greater the government, the greater the poverty.” Again not true according to this and other reports.

He cites Detroit as an example of a government that “supported change” in leading to their economic demise, instead of the reliance on a single product manufacturing economy maintained by unrealistic lack of competition through government intervention.

And where the hell is “Tagoosagaba!?!”

And who the hell says “I studied economics” and then says everything he learned was “blah, blah, blah?”

He states that South Korea has the 10th largest GDP in the world. Wrong, as it’s 15th. But more important he cites North and South Korea as an example of freedom being clearly linked to wealth. How does this explain China as the third largest GDP in the world, or Iran being well ahead of other countries ranked more economically or socially free.

He also misrepresents a liberal viewpoint. Liberals believe in appropriate government, not more government. Turn around what he says and one could surmise that conservative believe in anarchy, rather than the couched phrase of “less government.” As well liberals believe in appropriate taxation, not underfunding the government to ensure it can’t function like conservatives. Finally liberals believe in appropriate national defense, not antagonistic pre-emptive bloated government contractor waste on policing the world.

Wow, and conservatives believe their rights came “from God?” Which one would the be? The Catholic one or the Protestant one? The Jewish one or the Christian one? The Mormon one or the Scientology one? The Muslim one? The Hindu ones? Are there no athiest conservatives?

And as he says, for Democrats not knowing how to do anything, they still seemed to know how to get majorities elected to both houses of Congress and as the POTUS. One could say that when Republicans control both houses and the POTUS, you get war-mongering debt and corruption, not “freedom.”

Finally, the bull about capital gains tax is just that, bull. A comparison between economic freedom and capital gains tax finds no correlation to support a notion that less capital gains equals greater wealth.

I’ve never seen such a fact-free, snake-oil, faith-healer presentation in my life. As Joe Biden so succinctly put it lately, you’re entitled to your opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Glad to see that unquestioned belief, rather than straightforward information continues to be the rule here in GayPatriot world.

Eshto – Since you likely won’t answer Dan’s question nor take GP’s advice (perhaps you already did – a long time ago)… the point is this:

Liberty does not mean that you will be accepted and loved by everyone (not even your beloved gummint can make that happen), It doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with what YOU think or I think. It doesn’t mean that you won’t get your feelings hurt from time to time and it doesn’t mean that life is fair.

It means that you are your own master – free to make what you can from life (provided you do not impede the freedom of others to do the same). It means that you own your own labor and are free to enjoy the rewards thereof. It means that citizens are governed with their consent, not that we live with the government’s consent.

Liberty also means that people are free to be worthless cretins. It does NOT mean that worthless cretins are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor.

American conservatism, warts and all, is the best way to achieve liberty and justice. You have to be willfully blind to the goings on in the rest of the world to not see this.

I’m done answering to your ignorance.