Go Russia Go: Russia, Venezuela to hold naval war games

DriftingByTheStorm

MrSmith wrote:

if the founders meant for secession to be a right they would have put it in the constitution and bill of rights. but they knew that it would have made for a hopelessly weak and disjointed state and would have been easily crushed. they learned that lesson with the articles.

The founders were very clear to itterate that man is the retainer of ALL rights not specificaly granted to the Federal Government, and that simply because a right was not enumerated, did NOT mean that it was not granted BY GOD.

The constitution does NOT grant rights, it ENUMERATES them.

There was a HUGE argument over that concept, because some of the founders were afraid that (and apparently rightly so, since you seem to be misguided here about such) the enumeration of CERTAIN rights would lead eventualy to the assumption that ONLY those listed rights were retained by man, when the only intention was to list out the most important and immediately identifiable rights of man.

And as for your argument that a majority, or all of a country or colony or whathaveyou should agree with a sentiment before it is "legal" or what not ....

just remember that only around 40% of colonists, and at an absolute MAXIMUM 50%, supported the revolution and independence from England, and only a mere 10-20% were actively involved in the rebellion in the beginning.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The founders were very clear to itterate that man is the retainer of ALL rights not specificaly granted to the Federal Government, and that simply because a right was not enumerated, did NOT mean that it was not granted BY GOD.

The constitution does NOT grant rights, it ENUMERATES them.

There was a HUGE argument over that concept, because some of the founders were afraid that (and apparently rightly so, since you seem to be misguided here about such) the enumeration of CERTAIN rights would lead eventualy to the assumption that ONLY those listed rights were retained by man, when the only intention was to list out the most important and immediately identifiable rights of man.

And as for your argument that a majority, or all of a country or colony or whathaveyou should agree with a sentiment before it is "legal" or what not ....

just remember that only around 40% of colonists, and at an absolute MAXIMUM 50%, supported the revolution and independence from England, and only a mere 10-20% were actively involved in the rebellion in the beginning.

so any time a small percentage of people decide they dont like the government they should be allowed to abolish it? what about everyone else's rights? is there absolutely no concern for the greater good? if there were no concern for a concrete union we'd all eventually be living in small city-states until we got swallowed up by a real country.

whats funny is our politics arent that different but you're such a fundamentalist i almost never agree with you. heheh

Strangest Tribe

Doesn't the US own the oceans???

Don't they need permission?