A Great Inheritance: The Rule of Law

[lgm270]

If a complete stranger to whom  you were unrelated  died and left you a great gift,  would you leave flowers on his grave or would you urinate on his grave?

The founding fathers of this country left as a gift to us a great inheritance....the Rule of Law, as embodied in constitutional government, the separation of powers, a popularly elected House of Representatives, and independent judiciary, and habeas corpus, not to mention the Bill of Rights including free speech, religion, right to keep and bear arms, a jury trial, etc. 

The rule of law is our shield against tyranny.  Rich and powerful people, like many of the founders, do not themselves need the protection of the rule of law because they have the protection of their wealth and power.   It is the common people who need the protection of the rule of law, not the powerful who have the protection of their power.   

It is the common people for whom the rule of law is a great shield against the swords of tyrants.

The rule of law is the founders'  gift to us.  We did nothing to create it any more than the lucky heir of a wealthy or even a modest person did anything to create his inheritance.

I have thought long and hard about why we should  regard the founders with gratitude and respect  any more than we should admire the cultures in the rest of the world.  It comes down to something very simple:  Our founders left me  the gift of a great inheritance and the people of other cultures did not. 

For the same reason that I think a person would owe an obligation of gratitude and respect to someone who left him  even a modest inheritance, I think we owe an obligation of gratitude and respect to the founders who left us the great gift of the Rule of Law.  I think the attitudes of people toward the American founders and the inheritance they left  is a very useful test to distinguish conservatives from liberals.   Conservatives are the people who leave flowers on the graves  of  people who gave them a great gift.  Liberals are the people who urinate on those graves instead.

[BUGEYE]

we do indeed owe them a debt of gratitude.
however the current liberal prez stated that the Constitution was a flawed document.
as a lame duck prez, he will do all he can to destroy this country.

I'm sure that the founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

[lgm270]

Who is more likely to urinate on the grave of someone who gave him a gift?  A liberal or a conservative?

[BUGEYE]

Who is more likely to urinate on the grave of someone who gave him a gift?  A liberal or a conservative?

the liberals are urinating on the Constitution, so they would urinate on the graves of the founding fathers.

[Swampman]

Both liberals and conservatives seem to have little concern for the rule of law.  They only support the laws they like and the laws they stand to gain from.  They are more than willing to trample any law that disagrees with their theology or pocket book.

[NWBear]

In the 18th century the founders would be considered Liberals, Progressives, even "Radicals".
The "Conservatives" were the ones who wanted to remain loyal to the Crown (of England).
Perhaps another questions is who is looking out for the "common man" and who is looking out for the
Wealthy and Powerful?
The founders cared about the average man (to a large degree) as well as the "landed".
I am not sure the same could be said today of either the Demo's or Republicans.

[BUGEYE]

the liberals want to take the money from the rich.  I want the rich to provide jobs.
if the patriots were liberals, then we should change to a more descriptive name for the left.
how about "EVIL"

[ironglow]

 What was "liberal" in 1775 bears no resemblance to today's liberals. Shucks!  What was liberal in 1955 bears no resemblance to today's liberals..  JFK was the last vestige of liberals with any common sense, and then, only a vestige..
  Let's look at the "Liberals" of 1775..our nation's founders. 
 
     Can we see ?....
 
  1) Patrick Henry.. loafing on welfare ?
 
 2) Gen Daniel Morgan..trying to recruit queers into "Morgan's Rifles" ?
 
 3) James Madison ...trying to keep the Bible out of congress ?
 
 4) Benjamin Franklin.. Telling a seated president to circumvent the constitution with "executive orders" ?
 
 5) John Adams..Joining ACLU in removing flags & crosses from public grounds ?
 
 6) Alexander Hamilton....Telling a seated president to "spend his way to prosperity" ?
 
 7) Gen Ethan Allen.. Telling his troops they must allow the enemy to shoot first ? (new rules of engagement)
 
  Gen Francis Marion...  telling his troops to be "sensitive" to the needs of Tarleton ?
 
 9) Gen Anthony Wayne..courts-marshalling his troops as being "sexist" for whistling at the girls ?
 
 10) Chief Justice John Marshall..ruling the 10 commandments be removed from all government facilities ?
 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  Can we picture ?...
 
 A) Instead of punishing the Barbary pirates, Thos Jefferson chooses to 'kiss the hand' of the Imam of Tripoli !
 B) Roger Williams...Not allowing prayer in Rhode Island schools !
 C) Abigail Rice and Christina Hech (RevWar nurses) teaching sex-ed to 5th graders with a cucumber.
 D) Pastor Muhlenberg..Instead of rising to encourage enlistment in the continental Army; rises to embrace abortion !
 E) Paul Revere..rides to announce a new food stamp program !
 F) George Washington..saying that keeping and bearing arms..is no right !
 G) Betsy Ross...at a demonstration..BURNING A FLAG !
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  So, are the founding fathers closer to liberals or conservatives ?  Where were the counterparts of today's liberals ?
 
   In hell, perhaps ?

[SwampThing762]

Who is more likely to urinate on the grave of someone who gave him a gift?  A liberal or a conservative?

the liberals are urinating on the Constitution, so they would urinate on the graves of the founding fathers.

BO does not urinate on graves of the Founders, he takes a massive dump on the grave, just like his OWS buddy defecated on a police car.  Man.....talk about respect!!

ST762

[NWBear]

Please remember that the "Rule of Law" came from a group who BROKE THE LAW OF THE LAND, and mounted an armed insurrection against the ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT.  Rule of law can sometimes be perverted to unjust ends and then the "Law" must be challenged by "unlawful" defiance.
I am always amused by references to the founders (whom I admire greatly), but also remember the following was true:
One founder had so many mistresses he is sometimes referred to as "the real Father of our Country"
One early VP killed his political rival (a Constitutional author) in a duel
Another fathered children with his slave
Another was blackmailed for adultery
Fine men but human just the same

[Swampman]

Another fathered children with his slave

An oft repeated myth.

[lgm270]

Please remember that the "Rule of Law" came from a group who BROKE THE LAW OF THE LAND, and mounted an armed insurrection against the ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT.  Rule of law can sometimes be perverted to unjust ends and then the "Law" must be challenged by "unlawful" defiance.
I am always amused by references to the founders (whom I admire greatly), but also remember the following was true:
One founder had so many mistresses he is sometimes referred to as "the real Father of our Country"
One early VP killed his political rival (a Constitutional author) in a duel
Another fathered children with his slave
Another was blackmailed for adultery
Fine men but human just the same

To which country do you plan to migrate after you've finished urinating on the graves of the people who created our country:  Cuba or North Korea?

[BUGEYE]

Please remember that the "Rule of Law" came from a group who BROKE THE LAW OF THE LAND, and mounted an armed insurrection against the ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT.  Rule of law can sometimes be perverted to unjust ends and then the "Law" must be challenged by "unlawful" defiance.
I am always amused by references to the founders (whom I admire greatly), but also remember the following was true:
One founder had so many mistresses he is sometimes referred to as "the real Father of our Country"
One early VP killed his political rival (a Constitutional author) in a duel
Another fathered children with his slave
Another was blackmailed for adultery
Fine men but human just the same

To which country do you plan to migrate after you've finished urinating on the graves of the people who created our country:  Cuba or North Korea?

[NWBear]

Please remember that the "Rule of Law" came from a group who BROKE THE LAW OF THE LAND, and mounted an armed insurrection against the ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT.  Rule of law can sometimes be perverted to unjust ends and then the "Law" must be challenged by "unlawful" defiance.
I am always amused by references to the founders (whom I admire greatly), but also remember the following was true:
One founder had so many mistresses he is sometimes referred to as "the real Father of our Country"
One early VP killed his political rival (a Constitutional author) in a duel
Another fathered children with his slave
Another was blackmailed for adultery
Fine men but human just the same

To which country do you plan to migrate after you've finished urinating on the graves of the people who created our country:  Cuba or North Korea?

Wow, to recite the truth is now disrespectful.  That would have made for a hard time in the days of the creation of this country - our Founders revered dissent and discussion.  They would be honored that I have bothered to research their contributions.  I also did not disparage their actions, I commented that they were fine men, but also human.  If denial of the truth is the goal here, so be it, but I will continue to coment as I see fit and useful. 
 
To ignore the reality of the founding of this country will not do us well in the future.  the Second amendment was designed to protect the right of the people to "take back" the country from tyranny, by force if necessary.  Blindly following laws just because they are "laws" reminds me of post WW2 Germany, "We were just following orders..."
 
It is more useful if you counter what I have to say with facts or differing opinions rather than saying I am pissing on someones memory.  I do not necessarily disagree or condem the actions I referenced, do you???  If you do disagree that is fine but at least be consistant; if you are against adultery, fine, but don't say I am pissing on someone by saying they were adulterers. 
 
Thanks
NWBear

[ironglow]

  One has to strain what he reads these days, may or may not be true..  The "history revisionists" are often quite degenerate people, trying to pull great men down to their level...makes themselves feel better.    History revisers are not necessarily folks with an overwhelming motive to be conscientious .  I expect the founders suffered from the same sins many of us labor under, but if a writer makes an accusation, it behooves him/her to have ironclad, incontrovertible proof !..These great men are not here to defend their honor !
 
Aaron Burr did kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel...a common practice in that day, considered a brave & honorable act.
The one with the many mistresses..name & ironclad proof please ?  I know there was 'gossip' about B Franklin and perhaps others, but no solid proof, and I refuse to deal in gossip today.  Biographers disagree..so it is an open question; not enough to accuse the deceased. (IMO)
 Fathering childern with a slave, T Jefferson accused; current DNA can only produce proof of the "Jefferson family". T.J. had a nephew who visited regularly and other family members who did occasionally.  I'm not saying he didn't do it, but if you're going to accuse a dead man..the bar is raised..
  The Reynolds/hamilton blackmail affair is fairly well documented, but at their worst, it seems they weren't near as bad as today's liberals.

[NWBear]

Ironglow
Again I am not impuning the actions of the founders, just saying they were human.  "Ironclad proof" is a rare commodity, especially when talking about history.  Proponderance of evidence is what the courts call it I believe.  If you have a diffent opinion you are of course entitled to it.  All of the things I talked about were common then and common today - except dueling, now we have drive by shooting; one of the most dishonorable of ALL COWARDLY acts.   My original points were that the founders were, and I stand by this, Liberals, Progressives and even Radicals compared to the accepted order of then current law.  They did "Break the LAW" and revolted.  That is not a judgement just a fact.  MY JUDGEMENT IS, breaking the "Law" is sometimes justified - as in the case of the American Revolution.  Liberal and Conservative changes meaning as society evolves.  To me, Liberal is one who stands for evolving and changing, Conservative is one who is satisfied with the status quo.  As our country has grown our "staus quo" has changed.  Therefore Liberals and Conservatives are identified by the historical period as well as their positions on issues.  My second "judgement" is that "Rule of law" must be tempered with justice - that is an opinion and can be countered as you see fit.
NWBear