On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:02:47 -0700 (PDT), solon fox
<solonfox@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, Tom <thomaskolter_k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I would like to start a fundamental issue discussion on this question:
>> Is there a point where we no longer have a moral duty to the Federal
>> and to a lesser extent the State governments as a citizen of the
>> United States?
"Moral duty to Government" is a non-issue. The issue is rule
by law. All citizens have a duty compelled by law to obey
the law. If the law is bad, change it.
>> I will place as my point of this end of duty a simple one. Its no
>> longer a viable and legal government when the Federal authority
>> violates the core authority limits in the Constitution and is
>> therefore acting against the limits of the highest law of the land. I
>> would place it here because no authority can be above the highest laws
>> of the land, no president and no member of the Congress can violate
>> that and no judge do so not without losing their credibility.
True enough except that the highest law of the land is the
will of the majority of the populace. Gentry and sycophants
dislike that idea and do what you are doing, i.e. trying to
figure out a law system that benefits yourself instead of
others.
>> In my estimation the current government under this standard is no
>> longer meeting the moral and legal authority to demand I be loyal to
>> the Federal Government and is a de facto illegal government. Just the
>> fact it ignores limits afforded to it and it has far exceeded the
>> powers confined to the Constitution proves that enough such as the
>> illegal and long term standing Army as just one example and the
>> destruction of States Rights at fundamental levels. I for one feel
>> more loyalty to my State and local governments over the Federal one
>> and that is sad for me personally to love my country but not the
>> government that leads it but for me they have gone to far to give them
>> my allegiance.
True enough. But self serving and self seeking I suspect.
(That is the way we got what we have.)
Bernard Curry
>There is no need to go as far as constitutional interpretations.
>Allegiance is given by the individual, not coerced. You have no
>obligation to be loyal to the government beyond that point which your
>own moral judgement causes you to give allegiance.
>I do however expect you to obey the laws and to face the judgement of
>the courts regardless of your loyality. So, the real question becomes
>are you ready to face justice in our courts for your beliefs? If so,
>go right ahead. If you (the hypothetical, general 'you') are right,
>then perhaps a jury will absolve you. If you are wrong, then you may
>face imprisonment. How much do you believe that you are right?
>Perhaps, if you are right, then others will follow in your civil
>disobedience.
>
>BTW I don't agree with you at all on the issues, but I will not
>compell you to sup****t a government in which you do not believe.
>
>-solon fox
Ditto
BC
|
