Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 23, 2014, 05:23:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: morality or law?  (Read 942 times)
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« on: January 09, 2013, 04:12:47 PM »

Lincoln is a popular president in much of this country because he's seen as the driving force to end slavery.  the fact that he broke laws, ignored the constitution, broke the country, and caused the death of 100's of thousands of people, is forgiven because he did the right moral thing in the eyes of most people.

today, Biden is talking about the possibility of executive action on gun control.  this would be the latest in a number of end runs around congress and the constitution.  so far, he has gotten away with all that he's done.  Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."

probably none of us would disagree that there are times when the law must be broken for a moral reason.  there are countless examples of individuals and groups breaking the laws of oppressive governments.  our own country was formed that way. 

i can think of no case where it has been to the advantage of the people for the government to break the law and act without the consent of the people.  there might be the odd case of assassination, or covert op, but no case of the government breaking the laws that govern the general population, comes to mind. 
in fact, it was to guard against this very type of action that the founding fathers thought the population should be armed.  it is also the reason the military takes it oath 1st to the constitution and not to the government leaders. 

this president likes being compared to Lincoln.  by observation of his actions, we know what he most admires about Lincoln.  Lincoln made a moral decision and has been praised for it ever since.  this is the danger of allowing moral decisions in lieu of legal decisions. it is, in fact, why we have laws.  they guard against government by whim.  obamas morality is not mine, and not legal. 

we may have decisions to make in the near future.  as individuals, we have the right and duty to follow our moral code...understanding that if we break the law, we pay the price. we have the duty to make sure that the government CAN NOT follow a moral code of it's own making. 

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
sterling
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896

Location: mt juliet tn


« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2013, 06:33:13 PM »

Biden put that out to prepare people for what Obama plans on doing. So we can get used to the idea of the executive order and we will turn the other check.
And this outfit is not beyond breaking the law.
Logged
AllenF
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8104

Location: Hiram, Georgia


« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2013, 09:02:20 PM »

How can they break laws when they make the laws?

What good was the Roman Senate after the emperors came to full power?  What's the saying about absolute power.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2013, 10:09:35 PM »

Quote
How can they break laws when they make the laws?

they can break the laws that they have made.  consider the drone program.  we have potentially two laws being broken there.  one is the law that says we can not engage in assassinations.  the other is the constitutional guarantee that a citizen has the right to due process and to face their accusers. the government could change these laws.  one by legislation and the other by constitutional amendment.  instead, the ignore the laws and say it is ok because it keeps us safe. 

i think it was stupid to pass a law against assassinations in the first place.   it's unlikely that we have ever really followed it, but at least in the past we didn't publicly ignore the law.  just change the law.  it's easy enough.  as for citizens being assassinated, i have no idea how your justify that no matter how bad they are, but again, if there were no other way and an imminent danger situation existed....at least do it quietly.  don't advertise your disregard for constitutional protection.

having watched this admin not only ignore the laws of the land, but openly discuss how they can ignore more of them, i'd think that even the libs who are not absolute leftists of the communist variety would be having some major doubts.  and yet...how many of them have we heard encourage the president to just do what he feels needs to be done no matter the law.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2013, 02:46:13 AM »

Quote
How can they break laws when they make the laws?

Not to put too much of an emphasis on it but the Lincoln administration is in many ways the same as the current occupant we have in DC.

Both the Lincoln and Obama administrations were or are heavily influenced by refugees from failed bloody European revolutions.  The Revolution of 1848 in Lincoln's case, and the people who put their faith in Communism as the future of mankind in the current President's case. 

Both Obama and Lincoln discovered or will soon discover one overriding truth.  In Obama's case that truth is, "Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to redistribute." In Lincoln's case he would have soon discovered that, "Sooner or later you run out of Native American lands to redistribute."  January 1, 2013 is the 150th anniversary of the first free farm given away under the Homestead Act of 1862.  The Homestead act was so socialistic in conception that in most cases the people who got free farms from the government did not receive the mineral rights to their own (or the Indians') land.  Those rights were retained by "We the People."
Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4120

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2013, 06:08:00 AM »

i'd think that even the libs who are not absolute leftists of the communist variety would be having some major doubts.  and yet...how many of them have we heard encourage the president to just do what he feels needs to be done no matter the law.

Hmmmmm……..I wonder if I’m just considered a “liberal” around here or if I fall into that dreaded “absolute leftists of the communist variety”?  huh huh huh
Logged
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5900

Location: Randleman, NC


« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2013, 08:25:35 AM »

NAH, Bluebee, we just figure you don't know any better. Now and then you make a post that "almost" gets it right.
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
D Semple
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 493

Location: Overland Park, Kansas


« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2013, 09:00:18 AM »


Hmmmmm……..I wonder if I’m just considered a “liberal” around here or if I fall into that dreaded “absolute leftists of the communist variety”?  huh huh huh



There's a difference???     grin
Logged
D Semple
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 493

Location: Overland Park, Kansas


« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2013, 09:05:30 AM »


today, Biden is talking about the possibility of executive action on gun control.  this would be the latest in a number of end runs around congress and the constitution.  so far, he has gotten away with all that he's done.  Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."




Cool, I hope they try it.  grin
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5423


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2013, 08:42:44 PM »

Using executive order to circumvent the Constitution must be stopped!! Precedent is not law.Nor should it be.
These people did not take an oath to uphold "morality". The oath was to defend and adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
Also notice "states" is plural,it is not a united "State". This is a conglomeration of sovereign states giving limted powers to the Federal government. Powers laid out in the Constitution,not by executive order.
They keep trying to make people think that the guns and Second Amendment were a hunting issue. It was not. It was to make sure the people always had the means to repel or overthrow a tyrannical government. Every time i hear someone say you do not need an assault rifle for hunting or any other reason, I think there is a product of modern education. They have no idea of the Revolution before the Constitution was written, and why the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments.I bet they do not even know the process involved to add an Amendment. They most likely think Congress can do it alone or it could be done by executive order.
Dumbing down our children is working.And we are paying for it in so many ways!!
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2013, 09:04:42 PM »

and states can pass whatever restrictive gun laws their people will tolerate.  many have.  CA has made it very hard to own guns.  the only federal roll i see as being legal is in the background check area.  this in the one area i am willing to compromise even though i am somewhat conflicted on the issue.  there does need to be a way to keep the guns out of the hands of the nuts...to the extent that we can.  locking up the nuts would be the ideal solution.

that said, it would not have stopped this last shooting because he stole the guns from his mom. 

fact is, this has nothing to do with safety.  it has to do with 3 factions of society.  1. believes it is a right and even a duty to be armed.  2. believes that guns and gun owners are scary, knuckle daggers, with the intellect just above that of a tree frog.  3. is the leftist elite who are the same in every society throughout history, believing that the government knows best, and in order for them to enforce their benevolent plan, we must be kept from resiting.

if this were about safety, there are many things less safe than the gun and gun owner, that should be addressed first. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13563


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2013, 09:46:35 AM »

>and states can pass whatever restrictive gun laws their people will tolerate.

Not according to the constitution.  It is in the bill of rights that it shall not be infringed upon the same as free speach.  Your state cannot pass a law to restrict your free speech without violating the constitution either.  Nor can your state pass laws that violate illegal search and seizure without violating the constitution.  Not that they haven't done all of that and not been called to account...
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Online Online

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2013, 10:53:04 AM »

it is true that the supreme court has often ruled that states can't restrict things in the constitution, but that was not how it was seen originally.  for instance, the first amendment is an instruction to congress.  for many years, there were states that had state recognized and tax supported churches.  there was no conflict with the constitution.  same with things like prayer in schools.  schools belonged to the states, what was done in them was up to the states, and there was no conflict.  it was not until the separation ruling that the 1st amendment was applied all the way down to the city level.

the founders made clear that they considered all able bodied people to be part of the potential militia, but that the militia was also the responsibility of the states.  lots of reasons for that.  states needed to be able to protect themselves.  they needed to be able to contribute to the common defense.  maybe most important and often mentioned, the states needed to check the power of the fed.    except for a very few things given to the fed, the states were sovereign.   so...as long as they could fulfill the requirements of the fed, there was no reason they could not regulate their own militia.   they could have required more arms, the type of arms, etc.  what they could not do, is disarm the population.  they still can't....yet.  the question, and it's going to depend very much on the makeup of the supreme court over the years, is what constitutes "armed"?  this president may get two supreme court nominations.  we'll have to see how that goes.  he'll be replacing liberals with liberals, but....

it's important not to rewrite the constitution in either direction.  if we observed it as originally written and not as it has since been interpreted, we'd all have more freedom and better states to chose from.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.527 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page July 22, 2014, 10:14:46 PM
anything