“If everything was done in secret, then why do we have records of it? Why do we know about the debates during the conventions, the objections and what was decided by the majority?” – because you only hear the arguments of the winners. Ask yourself why they had to seal the windows and lock the doors?

you way want to look at this;. You might be surprised upon what you don’t know.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibi…

“You keep saying God, but whose God, which God? That is my point. ” – the god who is the creator of man. But men often speak as if they have authority from God over other men; for example the false profit (muslim faith). In reality, God leave people to free will and choice and to the results of their actions; good or bad. It i a question of using force over others for a perceived “common good” which cannot exist.

“There are many sources that explain the failure of the Articles of Confederation to hold together the union and partnership of the States. ” – and how does any one of these things you cite exhibit failure. All they do is state accepted roles and powers. It is your perception of failure which does not exist. Where is the anger, discontent, and conflict? WHat is the link to the accepted powers that you cite and that giver rise to the need of a new government? WHere is the demand coming from?

“There are many sources that explain the failure of the Articles of Confederation to hold together the union and partnership of the States. The central government established by the Articles didn’t have the power to enforce the rules of the Articles that the States agreed to follow.” _ all of which is conjecture. Again, if this was so bad why did states refuse to attend? And why where the windows sealed and doors looked in mid july heat? Again, your premiss is flawed. Or , can you cite a specific example?

“My argument is with people who say that the existence of God is truth and fact, when it is actually a belief. ” – your argument is simply a twist of words in your own head as even for an atheist, rights coming from the creator of men with natural rights, is different than rights coming from the the creators of governments; other men. You don’t see the forest through the trees.

But if there were no God, then why the fuss about rights anyway. All one would need to do is to cozy up to the right person and enjoy the hedonistic offerings of this world. All one need to do is to become very, very selfish

My research is that it didn’t establish a strong enough central government and they felt the need to create a stronger one. So that the Union of sovereign States was more perfect. ” – And who decided this. And why did nome colonies not even send delegates to the convention. Not even Washington was planning to attend. ANd if it was so well know that it needed to be replaced, then why was it done in secrete. Sometimes you have to use the grey matter between your ears.

“The DoI states that men are created equal with unalienable Rights endowed by their Creator.” – ANd yet again, this was replaced by the constitution. The constitution made it obsolete, which is not a matter of opinion but fact. There was a new government.

“The Bill of Rights was added because some states were worried about the new government going beyond their enumerated powers. := _ the anti federalist knew that the sole purpose of the coup was to create a central government. This bill did nothing but attempted to restrict the federal governments powers. But even then, most know that it really would not mattered, as madison agreed. And instead of some states maybe you should realize that many states initially refused to sign the constitution for good reason.

NAutal law is only defined by those whom wish to define it. One who has the power may simple decide what it means, which is why you do not want men making such decisions. It is the root of the fallacy of the common good which cannot exist. The only way to define it is through the law of God.

Bad people in the world thrive because of the idea of what a common good means. It is again another reason why you want GOd, not man to create rights. Even natural rights have to have a creator otherwise such laws are opened to interpretation. And then it is who whom interprets that rule over others.

And how does having a large central government eqwuate to more rights anyway? If anythinbg it means less. It also means lots and lots of smaller governments. It is like you are in a loop that seems to think the larger the better when it is just the opposite. The larger the worst people become. Smaller government, base upon property rights is what is needed. And if men are created in the image of God, then they are sovereign over government, which means that governments cannot destroy nor take their property, unlike now. Most people forget that thou shall not streal which only allows for legalized theft.

“We have a Right to choose our own beliefs and not be forced to follow someone else’s belief.” – which again makes my point as that is what i am advocating. But throughout the law of man, other men decide their version of a common good which is inflicted upon others.

I am not believe but truths, that is the difference. Your beleives may not agree with truth but your argument is with god, not me as it is he that has created a reality that difference from your perceived view.

response to lakeside227

I think that i hit the nail right on the head, which is really why you feel insulted. Who was to saythat the articles of confederation was not working? What was the problem? Notice there is little mention about this. And if so, would there not be support for a central government, but instead it was done in secret. Washington wasn’t even going to attend.

If the states were to go to tyranny, how could the federal governemtn stop them. After all agaiin, the federal government had no say over the affairs of the states. IT was only a limitation on federal power, not states.

And yet the point go right over yoiur head. The question is who was the creator of these rights? God as was mentioned prior or men who was mentioned in the new consitution. And where the rights come from means everything as if they are from men, then no republic can stand. Every law would end of being perverted by the ego of men.

If is nothing about belief but of who defines law. God, as a creator of man, or man as the creator of the government run by men.

Government protecting private property rights would protect peoples liberties and those from harm. The governments of today to little of this and are mostly political. Just look at detroit and see how well it operates. No, what you need is government limited to the protection of private property right. But the basis of this must be whether it is men or God who create law. If it is men, then such suffering is justified as a public good as soo often seen in history. If is is of God, then it is rights for everyone. What is so hard not to understand. You don’t need to be religious to understand this point.

ANd yes i do not know you but I do read what you wrie and hear your meaning. which does shoe such ignorance in these matters. ANd instead of trying to insult me as a messenger, your beef should be with God who has created a reality that differs from your view of things. But I do suspect what really angers you is that instantly, you know that I am right. But you falsely assume that I make a religious argument rather than and argument for liberty. Such thoughts were common prior to the constitution. SO, why not pick up a history book so you can be better informed and as such can actually have an impact for the coming future.

response to lakeside 227

If anything, you are making false but common miss assumptions. Btw, before the constitution there was the articles of confederation. But,then there was the coup. You may call such things assumptions, but this is history not of my making.

But answer me this. How does the constitution ensure the blessings of liberty? At the time of its acceptance, Who could it go after for civil rights violations? It wasn’t the residents in the states? Perhaps it was the making treaties with the indians.

But my argument about God is not one of belief or faith, but one of liberty. Because if rights come from men, then it is the preference of men that rule and their vices. This means that men define what the common good is, which is often to the demise of political opposition

if rights are defined by God, then men are free to make choices as long as they don’t impede upon other man liberty. After all each man is accountable to god and not other men except for property right violations.

This is not an assumption but one of logic and of reality. Even an atheist should agree with this but sadly public education is so poor that not even fools could understand this means more liberty, not less.

But of course its not really about liberty is it. Its really about ego and how the government does not reflect your values.

This is why so called conservatives are doomed. This is why they keep losing to leaders who throw them scraps from time to time but then abandoned them. They truly do not have an understanding of the constitution, nor economics, nor history. The conservative movement is nothing but a fading fad as such people are doomed. They have no history and soon no future. But nether do the liberals for that matter as those fools have no idea of what is going to happen to them. they will be worst off.

But don’t worry, at some point the government will default. And this will be good for liberty, but not those dependent upon the state. But it will also end your government subsidy and perverted view of what government should do.