[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

For example, depriving someone of "life" or "liberty" is not necessarily outlawed by the constitution, otherwise there would be no prisons or executions.

Well, that's skirting a wide path around due process.

But yeah, the DOI isn't legally binding, and there is no constitutional guarantee of the 'pursuit of happiness.' What a legal mess it would be if there was, actually. (Really now. These are rookie constitutional non-arguments. )

But otherwise, this is absolutely correct sentiment among the non-busybody/loser population that isn't obsessively jealous over other people's money:

Who cares? As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" ____ what business is it anyone else?

Answer: none.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But yeah, the DOI isn't legally binding, and there is no constitutional guarantee of the 'pursuit of happiness.'

I'm pretty sure that all the detailed clarifications added into the Constitution pretty much acts as such a guarantee. The entire document's purpose was to outline the things that the government could not do while in your pursuit.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm pretty sure that all the detailed clarifications added into the Constitution pretty much acts as such a guarantee. The entire document's purpose was to outline the things that the government could not do while in your pursuit.

You...don't seem to read what other people are saying to you, huh?

You're not making any sense. It's not a "binding guarantee" in any enforceable sense.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The fix is to slash government spending and cut off career welfare addicts. Entitlements, pork, and an over-stuffed military budget are the main fiscal problems in the USA.

Think that it was in The Economist. If you reduced unemployment benefits/welfare/subsidies/money for having kids etc, then the economic impact for many companies would be enormous. IIRC, the argument was that the receivers of this money spent it, therefore feeding the money back into the economic system of a country and in fact did more good by re-injecting this money back into the system than if the money had never been given in the first place.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

You...don't seem to read what other people are saying to you, huh?

You're not making any sense. It's not a "binding guarantee" in any enforceable sense.

I understand perfectly. People being obtuse and making arguments that really aren't relevant isn't something that any of us should be concerned with though. I've explained my position as even provided links where others have supported this notion as well.

The DOI does not have to be, in and of itself "law" for it to be enforced or "binding", as our founders crafted a second document whose role was to do that. It is our founding document which detailed the values and rationale our founding fathers used to create the country, and later they created another document which clarified how our government could legally comport itself to it's citizens to ensure that the values and goals expressed in our initial founding document where enforced.

The DOI gave thebroad standards and the Constitution clarified to what precise extent and by what procedures these values would be enforced by law.

Again, this isn't just my position, but the position of people like Abraham Lincoln as well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm pretty sure that all the detailed clarifications added into the Constitution pretty much acts as such a guarantee. The entire document's purpose was to outline the things that the government could not do while in your pursuit.

Like I wrote, I agree with your original post entirely, just not the claim of a constitutionally guaranteed 'pursuit of happiness'. Because, indeed, there is no such thing. And really, there doesn't need to be.

The 14th amendment is pretty clear on what was exactly taken from the DOI, and what was clarified:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It seems pretty clear to me that property covers what you were originally talking about. Liberals believe they can steal people's property at will, without due process or equal protection, just because they think it's 'fair'. The Democrats work tirelessly to get around the 14th amendment in doing this all the time.

Property is a pretty clear term. Property includes income that's earned without breaking any laws, as in what you stated.

It's clear the framers recognized that 'pursuit of happiness' was too vague a term to use from the same phrase out of the DOI, and so they didn't.

And it's a good thing they didn't. Statists love abusing the constitution to grab more government power- and just as conservatives take 'pursuit of happiness' to mean more freedom for individuals, statists can take 'pursuit of happiness' to mean "It makes me happy to give my beloved big government more of someone else's property." (And they have done that.)

So personally I don't see the need to make rookie arguments about something that's was purposefully left out of the constitution, in order to make a point that's actually better stated by using the actual wording of the constitution.

[nonhuman]

The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the United States. It is a document separating some British colonies from the British empire. After independence had been won the Articles of Confederation were drawn up creating a new nation out of those newly independent colonies. The DOI established only that certain colonies were declaring themselves to no longer be subject to the king; it established no new country.

This is pretty clearly the case if you actually read the damn thing.

[Big Mac]

The Declaration of Independence is a founding aspirational document of the country. It may not have the force of law, but it's the ideological framework of the country and its reason for being. It isn't merely an historical relic from the colonial period. While I understand the point you're making in a techincal/legal sense, the Declaration represents much more to the country than its technical/legal elements.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Declaration of Independence is a founding aspirational document of the country. It may not have the force of law, but it's the ideological framework of the country and its reason for being. It isn't merely an historical relic from the colonial period.

Exactly.

We're free to take inspiration from the DOI as much as we want. But it is not binding and carries no force of law.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Like I wrote, I agree with your original post entirely, just not the claim of a constitutionally guaranteed 'pursuit of happiness'. Because, indeed, there is no such thing. And really, there doesn't need to be.

The 14th amendment is pretty clear on what was exactly taken from the DOI, and what was clarified:

Conservatives hate the 14th amendment.

Cause it guarantees due process and equal protection. It guarantees basic civil rights to all citizens born in the US. Meaning that it protects 'anchor babies' that conservatives hate and 'gay marriages' that conservatives hate. Prop 8 banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment.


It has nothing to do with protecting citizens from being taxed.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your problem isn't the "mega rich," it's your inability at processing rational thought. The "mega rich" do nothing to stop people from putting food on the table. Most do it with no problem. Typically those who don't have problems not because the mega rich are doing something to stop them, but rather due to extremely poor choices in life or never developing valuable skills that they can market. Even before governments existed, there has always been huge gaps in the rewards between skilled high achievers and those who simply are not equals in their value to others. Also, having a society that sits around and looks for scapegoats to explain their failures, attribute to low standards of living every bit as much as some other guy getting more.

That's your problem. You don't have the ability to process rational thought and understand the realities of the real world. You don't think the mega-rich have any influences in politics and the laws being passed?

You don't think the Koch brothers or the Walton family have any influence on how millions of Americans are able to earn a living? What happens if the Koch brothers got their way and eliminated minimum wage laws? Would that affect millions of Americans and their ability to put food on the table?

Just look at the Republican primaries and look at how much influence the mega rich has. Most of the funding in the Super PACs comes mostly from the mega-rich. The mega rich is using their influence to increase their own wealth at the expense of millions of honest Americans who are trying to make a decent living.

Most of Mitt Romney's supporters are making more than $200,000/yr and are largely responsible for Mitt Romney's wins.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Well, that's skirting a wide path around due process.

My intention was to include due process. We deprive life or liberty (only) through due process, and how is the same not true of property/taxation? If the status quo of taxation isn't "processy" enough, what would be? A full audit for every taxpayer? I would think that would be more burdensome for the taxpayer, not less. There are problems with taxation in general and our implementation of it in particular, but I don't see how a shortcoming of "due process" is one of them.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm hardly selfish, I donate large sums to charity. See, the problem is, the people who control the "public purse" are incompetent dipshits, and I see no reason to give more of my money to idiots who can't even balance a checkbook.

To be clear, selfish isn't a word that I would necessarily use at all so please don't infer that from what I posted. The fact that you donate to charity is honourable and does make a difference as far as the optics of your particular standpoint but my perspective is obviously just coming from a different angle. I admitedly am not familiar enough with US domestic spending policy to say whether or not I would agree with your aversion to paying into the govermnet coffers; I can only say that here in Canada, despite my disagreement with many of our policies, particularily some of the newer ones, I'm still confident that public money is disperssed in a reasonably effective way.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you don't have to worry about income to survive, then you can afford to stop working when you realize taxes are being taken advantage of for punitive childish games. Then nobody wins. Is the government better off with 35% of a large amount or 0% of an even larger amount that never was?

I guess I wan't clear enough as to what I meant by not having to worry. What I was referring to was people who don' t have to stress about not having enough money coming in on paycheques to cover their necessities along with a reasonable savings kitty. Essentially, people who aren't living paycheque-to-paycheque.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I understand perfectly. People being obtuse and making arguments that really aren't relevant isn't something that any of us should be concerned with though.

this thread is almost as great as the one where you refused to see that Alaskan oil rebates were socialism. Again you keep making sweeping statements that apply more to you than to the person you're talking to

The DOI does not have to be, in and of itself "law" for it to be enforced or "binding", as our founders crafted a second document whose role was to do that.

Fixed!

Again, this isn't just my position, but the position of people like Abraham Lincoln as well.

I was going to say exactly what nonhuman said to Big Mac. The DOI is an inspirational document. It inspired the colonists to fight a war to win their independence, it didn't grant them their independence. It inspired Lincoln in his arguments against slavery, and it inspired those Americans that supported him in that effort, but it wasn't what granted the slaves their freedom, constitutional amendments did, and those amendments were hard fought by people inspired (in part) by the DOI. The DOI continues to inspire people today, but it has never "bound" anyone to do anything by virtue of its own authority, and it never will, therefore to call it "binding" is patently false.

[hyteckit]

Republicans say they support property rights.

So how come Republicans are fighting so hard for the Keystone XL project, which will allow wealthy businessmen and corporations to use eminent domain to take away property from the land owners?

Protect property rights by saying NO to the Keystone XL project.

[hyteckit]

Mega Rich Donald Trump uses eminent domain to take away personal property.

So he can build a golf course and parking lots.

Yeah, who cares if someone is mega-rich. They have no effect on us working Americans. Um... Right.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

We're free to take inspiration from the DOI as much as we want. But it is not binding and carries no force of law.

Well, shit, NOTHING is binding or carries the force of law these days.

Not the Constitution, not bankruptcy law, not laws against insider trading etc.
The US has completely lost the Rule of Law. So all this is a moot point.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Who cares? As long as someone isn't breaking the law and is engaging in their own "pursuit of happiness" as is guaranteed by our Constitution, what business is it anyone else?

What about when they have the laws changed to make them richer, and the wealth they acquired is what allows them the ability to buy the government and change the laws to be favorable for them. How can a law be broken if the laws can be bought.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My intention was to include due process. We deprive life or liberty (only) through due process, and how is the same not true of property/taxation? If the status quo of taxation isn't "processy" enough, what would be? A full audit for every taxpayer?

The irony here is due process requires government to provide just compensation for the value for property it seizes from citizens for public use.

So the rich would make out like bandits if they actually got compensated for the taxes they actually pay in the form of government services, vs. all the whiney morons (mostly class-envy obsessed leftists) who pay practically nothing in taxes in comparison to those they're always whining at.

Think anyone would really want to go down that road, where the government is actually held to the requirement that it serve citizens in proportion to what they actually contribute?

Now, I know all the whiney morons have convinced themselves of the exact opposite of reality; that everyone who makes more than them doesn't pay their 'fair share' (which presumes they must think they do) but of course we all know that even a cursory glance at actual IRS numbers reveals these folks as the morons most of them are.

An even further irony is that the big huge cash-starved government the left champions does and will end up priority serving its wealthiest citizens (benefactors) and shunning its poorest (liabilities), because that's what cash-starved entities naturally do.

I don't think it'd be the left that really wants to start getting into the actual definition of 'due process of law' as defined by the constitution when it comes to taxation-as-property. They lose. That's yet another thing best left skirted/ skipped past /ignored/living-breathed out of existence when you're a class-envy driven tax and spender.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by gradient 

I can only say that here in Canada, despite my disagreement with many of our policies, particularily some of the newer ones, I'm still confident that public money is disperssed in a reasonably effective way.

That isn't the case here. At all.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The irony here is due process requires government to provide just compensation for the value for property it seizes from citizens for public use.

So the rich would make out like bandits if they actually got compensated for the taxes they actually pay in the form of government services, vs. all the whiney morons (mostly class-envy obsessed leftists) who pay practically nothing in taxes in comparison to those they're always whining at.

Think anyone would really want to go down that road, where the government is actually held to the requirement that it serve citizens in proportion to what they actually contribute?

Now, I know all the whiney morons have convinced themselves of the exact opposite of reality; that everyone who makes more than them doesn't pay their 'fair share' (which presumes they must think they do) but of course we all know that even a cursory glance at actual IRS numbers reveals these folks as the morons most of them are.

An even further irony is that the big huge cash-starved government the left champions does and will end up priority serving its wealthiest citizens (benefactors) and shunning its poorest (liabilities), because that's what cash-starved entities naturally do.

I don't think it'd be the left that really wants to start getting into the actual definition of 'due process of law' as defined by the constitution when it comes to taxation-as-property. They lose. That's yet another thing best left skirted/ skipped past /ignored/living-breathed out of existence when you're a class-envy driven tax and spender.

You have a weird and perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Your concerns about income taxes are addressed by the 16th Amendment.

There's no debate on whether income taxes are unconstitutional except in the minds of some anti-Tax nuts.

[Big Mac]

Since the Conservatives in Canada took control of the purse in the late 1990s, delivering true spending cuts to get to a sustainable budget, Canadian government has been quite responsible. Canadians are still highly taxed for inferior Socialist health care (but they still love and will defend it to death!) and other dispensable social welfare bloat, but at least their government budgets and spends pretty responsibly relative to their tax base and values.

Our US federal government's spending is, in contrast, outlandishly out of control. We got thrown off first by the Progressives starting at the turn of the last century, but especially by the fraudulent New Deal. We got thrown even further away from our Constitution and founding ideals by the LBJ Sham Society and Medicare. Nixon made things a bit worse still. Carter gave us huge inflation but was a moderate spender. Clinton had a decent record because he fell into a robust economy and overseas threats largely just off the horizon Then we got Bush, who got the ball rolling with truly out of control spending-although his tax cuts also helped produce such robust economic growth that revenue to the federal government was never higher for much of Bush's term. Then Obama came to spend us absolutely into oblivion (and get very measely growth at best in return), in the years that we should have been trimming expenses as a cushion for the coming tsunami of Baby Boomer retirement.

Our federal government is beyond embarrassingly irresponsible when it comes to spending. Immensely bloated bureaucracies just burning through immense sums of money in high salaries and benefits along with absolute job security (bureaucracies definitely bloated by Bush and then doubled down in bloat by Obama). Bankrupting Socialist Entitlements. Tons of duplicative, unnecessary social expenditures. Worst of all, there's the revolting mindset among many leftist politicians that we have an endless supply of dollars to spend on everything and anything they want. They believe in and perpetuate this devastating falsehood because the money they spend further empowers them and because they feel no consequence for their fiscal recklessness. That's thanks in large part to the ultra-loose money of the Fed. To his credit, however, Bernanke has been clear on the point that the federal fiscal policy picture is unsustainable.

The only thing that has saved us up to this point is that the dollar is the world's reserve currency and we have the most mature, deepest liquidity financial markets. But that's not going to sustain us forever. The $15+ Trillion national debt (soon to be $16 Trillion) will come around to haunt us unless our dear Comrade Obama is shown the door in November. There's a good chance he will be reelected. I'll be prepared to act with the funds I manage either way. Those of us who have moderate to extravagant finances should be able to deal with the fall-out, but I fear for my community, my idiotic state (whose Progressive Elite is running into the ground as a microcosm of the federal mess) and my countrymen. I fear for our family, friends and allies around the world. If we don't take the right steps now, it's not going to be pretty, boys and girls.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Since the Conservatives in Canada took control of the purse in the late 1990s, delivering true spending cuts to get to a sustainable budget, Canadian government has been quite responsible. Canadians are still highly taxed for inferior Socialist health care (but they still love and will defend it to death!) and other dispensable social welfare bloat, but at least their government budgets and spends pretty responsibly relative to their tax base

As well they should defend their health care system because in many ways it is superior to what Americans have, and Canadians almost universally like it. It works for them.

What authority do you have to claim otherwise anyway? You are a right wing ideologue living in California, making you probably about the least informed about it as they come.

[besson3c]

As you've told me in the past, perhaps you should stick to what you know big Mac?

[Big Mac]

Hahaha. I knew I'd instantly get a smug, self-righteous, political ignoramus Canadian rushing in to defend their Socialist health care. Never mind the fact that I complimented his home government more than I knocked it.

You're oh so predictable besson. Hilarious. As Hank said, "Damn Canadians." I'm a huge fan of Prime Minister Harper though! Maybe he'll bring so much reform to your country that Canada will be the exact mirror opposite of the Obamanation.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Never mind the fact that I complimented his home government more than I knocked it.

Not that I cared much about your comment, but the opposite is quite true. Considering that most Canadians oppose Harper and consider our health care system to be superior, as opposed to inferior, it was a fairly back-handed compliment on your part.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm a huge fan of Prime Minister Harper though! Maybe he'll bring so much reform to your country that Canada will be the exact mirror opposite of the Obamanation.

What makes you such a huge fan of him? On the US political spectrum, he'd likely fall left-of-center.

(also, kudos for a name-mashup that can be read as either Obama Nation or Abomination ... though I still don't understand the apparent conservative need to try to demote those you don't like through name-calling).

[Shaddim]

Yeah, that was pretty good Mac, can't even compliment those people without their panties getting twisted.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Since the Conservatives in Canada took control of the purse in the late 1990s, delivering true spending cuts to get to a sustainable budget, Canadian government has been quite responsible. Canadians are still highly taxed for inferior Socialist health care (but they still love and will defend it to death!) and other dispensable social welfare bloat, but at least their government budgets and spends pretty responsibly relative to their tax base and values.

You probably should never, ever use Canada's success as a barometer for your political ideology...when you clearly don't know anything - anything - about Canadian politics.

...for example, I imagine it would change your argument somewhat were anyone to point out that the Liberal Party of Canada was in power from about '94 to 2006, during the time that Canada went from being in the worst financial shape of G7/whatever countries to amongst the best?

...or that this Liberal Party slashed and burned the size of government (to mid-1900s levels) and reduced or froze spending at many levels under the auspices of a wealthy, conservative-minded businessman who simulaneously increased the revenues and payments of our Canada Pension Plan?

...or that the Liberal Party's reign was bookended by Conservative parties who ran very large deficits, in part because of their commitment to low taxes?

When you make uninformed arguments, you just look stupid. Don't.

[lpkmckenna]

Big Mac knows little, and brags about it.

Canada doesn't have "socialist health care." We have government health insurance. Every practicing doctor in Canada is a private businessman.

But I kinda like Stepher Harper too, he's a real conservative, unlike the theocratic reactionaries running the Republican party. I keep telling you guys to look north for a sensible strategy, but instead you endorse Santorum the self-sainted and the angry philandering troll.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As well they should defend their health care system because in many ways it is superior to what Americans have, and Canadians almost universally like it. It works for them.

Does it matter that the overwhelming majority of Americans like their health care? It works for them.

[besson3c]

If you like I could cite my source, could you?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you like I could cite my source, could you?

It's a deal.

[besson3c]

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[9] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[10][11] The same article mentioned that when asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent). Respondents then rated quality of service as excellent (36% Canada, 40% US), and being very satisfied with health care services (42% Canada, 53% US). When asked "overall the Canadian health care system was performing very well, fairly well, not very well or not at all?" 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either "well" or "very well".[citation needed] A 2003 Gallup poll found only 25% of Americans are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation", versus 50% of those in the UK and 57% of Canadians. Those "very dissatisfied" made up 44% of Americans, 25% of respondents of Britons, and 17% of Canadians. The same report portrays a different story in terms of quality. When asked about the quality of medical care in their respective nations, 17% were strongly satisfied in the U.S. compared to 13% in Canada and 11% in Britain.[12]

Please don't make the argument with regards to the "prefer over the American system" that Canadians are oblivious to what the American system is about. Sure there is some misinformation, but I'd say that far more Canadians personally know Americans (and have heard anecdotal stories from Americans) than Americans know Canadians, and far more Canadians follow American news than Americans follow Canadian news, so overall I'd say that Canadians are overall better informed as to what America's system entails as opposed to what your average American thinks Canada has. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked ignorant questions about what health care is like in Canada, FWIW.

Moreover, the information that a lot of Americans get come from either polarizing right wing sources interested in preserving America's system, or polarizing left wing sources like Michael Moore's Sicko, so there seems to be very little sober analysis coming at this without a predefined conclusion or desired outcome.

Also, 59% of Americans want US government provided healthcare:

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I did find this poll though which shows that 57% of Americans are satisfied with the costs of their care (no ****ing clue why anybody would think this, but):

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/ma...ealthcare.aspx

So, the results of these two polls seem to carry a different narrative, but in any case, there isn't the same overwhelming support of what we have as there is in Canada, I think that is pretty safe to say. We can't get 80%+ of Americans to agree on anything.

[besson3c]

It's actually kind of depressing that the campaigns of spreading misinformation have been so successful to convince 57% of Americans that their health care costs are anything approaching optimal and satisfactory. I guess many of these people are recipients of employer health care coverage and are only commenting on their copays, but I would guarantee you if you asked small business owners or employers we'd be lucky if more than 10% were happy with their costs.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the United States.

Most everyone else seems to disagree. When does the nation's birth (it's founding) take place again? Why is that date significant?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Conservatives hate the 14th amendment.

Huh?

Cause it guarantees due process and equal protection. It guarantees basic civil rights to all citizens born in the US.

Sounds great to me.

Meaning that it protects 'anchor babies' that conservatives hate and 'gay marriages' that conservatives hate.

Doesn't do any such thing, nor was it intended to.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think it's a retcon, but a successful one. Kind of like the evolutionary separation of humans from neanderthals was nothing special at the moment it happened, and it's only in hindsight that it is possible to identify that as a significant turning point in the timeline.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You don't think the Koch brothers or the Walton family have any influence on how millions of Americans are able to earn a living? What happens if the Koch brothers got their way and eliminated minimum wage laws?

Wages for the most productive workers would go up, while those who really weren't interested in working or couldn't offer any skills would probably go down.

In other words, competition for higher paying jobs would increase.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The DOI is an inspirational document.

It founded the United States. I'd say that was more than "inspirational." It wasn't something that was just offered by a colonial motivational speaker that had no bearing on the the official status of our union as it's own sovereign nation. As much as some of you try to devalue the DOI, it's simply not something that can be done and taken seriously.

The DOI continues to inspire people today, but it has never "bound" anyone to do anything by virtue of its own authority, and it never will, therefore to call it "binding" is patently false.

Again, tell it to the British, and every other nation who henceforth treated the US as a sovereign country whose creation was based on a set of founding principles, and those founding principles later served to form the basis of the legal framework our country later adopted. GOOD LUCK!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It founded the United States.
...
Again, tell it to the British, and every other nation who henceforth treated the US as a sovereign country

Yeah right, as soon as the DOI was signed into law (oops! I mean signed into "founding"), the British immediately respected us as a sovereign nation, bowing down before our mighty declaration. The following years of vicious bloodshed weren't necessary to found our country, they were just... punctuation. The REAL victory was won on July 4, 1776. Cute story

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah right, as soon as the DOI was signed into law (oops! I mean signed into "founding"), the British immediately respected us as a sovereign nation...

What about the French? And, how did the British fare in regards to assuming that the DOI was not "binding?"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What about the French?

You think that the French fought the English to uphold the DOI, and if not for the DOI the French wouldn't have supported the enemy of their enemy?

And, how did the British fare in regards to assuming that the DOI was not "binding?"

That's silly, you might as well say that the star spangled banner is binding. It's correlation, not causation. Combat in the revolutionary war was necessary and sufficient for us to succeed from Britain. The Declaration was neither. If we had the war without the document, we would be just as independent today, as evidenced by the hundreds of uprisings née "revolutions" the world has seen, absent declarations of independence.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You think that the French fought the English to uphold the DOI, and if not for the DOI the French wouldn't have supported the enemy of their enemy?

Not the question. Post DOI, did other nations recognize the US as a sovereign state? If so, it most certainly had some sort of "binding" power above and beyond the vague "inspirational" status that some have erroneously given it here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah right, as soon as the DOI was signed into law (oops! I mean signed into "founding"), the British immediately respected us as a sovereign nation, bowing down before our mighty declaration.

No, but did other nations, and did those that didn't post DOI eventually have to do so?

If so, then you can't rationally say that the DOI had no power above and beyond to just be "inspirational."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The REAL victory was won on July 4, 1776

The day that the DOI was ratified officially by Congress, and the United States became a nation.

Yeah, I know.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The day that the DOI was ratified officially by Congress, and the United States became a nation.

Yeah, I know.

The United States didn't become a sovereign country until the Maryland became the final state to ratify the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781. The Declaration of Independence did not create a united sovereign power. It created 13 linked sovereign states that assembled first as a loose, ineffective confederation under the Articles of Confederation and then as a union of states under the Constitution.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The United States didn't become a sovereign country until the Maryland became the final state to ratify the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781.

According to who?

When is it again that we celebrate the US's birth, and why?

The Declaration of Independence did not create a united sovereign power.

Who was it that ratified it on 7/4/76?

You're really reaching here. Pretty much every other source I can find disagrees with this view:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_...vereign_nation
http://www.chacha.com/question/when-...me-independent
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_what_ye...endent_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._Independence:
"The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The Independence Day of the United States of America is celebrated on July 4, the day Congress approved the wording of the Declaration."

It's REALLY hard to argue that a country that declares it's independence (sovereignty) and celebrates it's birth as a new nation at the same time that this declaration is ratified by representatives of it's population, isn't a country of it's own and that this document was not designed to lay the framework as to the principles of how this new country would work. But, I see even sillier attempts at debate her all the time!

[Big Mac]

Then we just should have kept a Continental Congress. That should have been sufficient if we were a sovereign country merely through the DOI. But if you look at the history you'll see that was insufficient. The DOI says it is the united declaration of the 13 united States of America, and it says in the last paragraph they ought to be free and independent States. The DOI created 13 individual sovereign powers who were united in their declaration of independence, not a single sovereign assemblage of the United States.

It comes down to a difference of opinion regarding sovereignty. But I don't want to argue with a friend. I have enough foes to argue with.