 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Because the army is against Mubarak, which I think it pretty much is now, does not mean that the army is going to support wonderful, free, open elections in Egypt. It will be nice to think so, but I can't think of an army that's ever actually done that in history, certainly not in Egypt. So I think that these are the questions that are going to come up.
Note: I found 2 apostrophes in that quote and I replaced the cut and pasted symbol with the symbol generated by this forum and tested it, it works, the forums software obviously misreads cut and pasted symbols.
The words in quotes inspire me to comment.
Comment A comes from a literary work produced by someone named Lysander Spooner and the tile of the work is Trial by Jury.
The relevant quote from Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner follows the links.
Trial by Jury
[url=lhttp://www.barefootsworld.net/trial02.html]The History of Magna Carta.[/url]
This "law of the land" seems not to have been regarded at all by many of the kings, except so far as they found it convenient to do so, or were constrained to observe it by the fear of arousing resistance. But as all people are slow in making resistance, oppression and usurpation often reached a great height; and, in the case of John, they had become so intolerable as to enlist the nation almost universally against him; and he was reduced to the necessity of complying with any terms the barons saw fit to dictate to him.
A. Absolute Dictator (King John in this example)
B. The Barons (The Army of that time)
C. The Law of the Land (The People of that time and the measure of their collective power)
The Army of that day dictated to King John demanding Magna Carta, as the official law of the land, including Trial by Jury.
Trial by Jury gave the power of veto to each individual citizen.
Relevant quote 2:
The question here arises, Whether the barons and people intended that those peers (the jury) should be mere puppets in the hands of the king, exercising no opinion of their own as to the intrinsic merits of the accusations they should try, or the justice of the laws they should be called on to enforce? Whether those haughty and victorious barons, when they had their tyrant king at their feet, gave back to him his throne, with full power to enact any tyrannical laws he might please, reserving only to a jury ("the country") the contemptible and servile privilege of ascertaining, (under the dictation of the king, or his judges, as to the laws of evidence), the simple fact whether those laws had been transgressed? Was this the only restraint, which, when they had all power in their hands, they placed upon the tyranny of a king, whose oppressions they had risen in arms to resist? Was it to obtain such a charter as that, that the whole nation had united, as it were, like one man, against their king? Was it on such a charter that they intended to rely, for all future time, for the security of their liberties? No. They were engaged in no such senseless work as that. On the contrary, when they required him to renounce forever the power to punish any freeman, unless by the consent of his peers, they intended those powers should judge of, and try, the whole case on its merits, independently of all arbitrary legislation, or judicial authority, on the part of the king. In this way they took the liberties of each individual - and thus the liberties of the whole people - entirely out of the hands of the king, and out of the power of his laws, and placed them in the keeping of the people themselves. And this it was that made the trial by jury the palladium of their liberties.
There is much more to that work done by that person Lysander Spooner on this subject whereby an Army did, in fact, hand over the power of government to the people instead of handing power back to the King during a revolution; when everyone was against the dictator who was dictating criminal injury of innocent victims.
That is historical reference 1.
That historical reference occurred within the home country of the person who claims not to know of any historical occasion whereby an Army hands power over to the people.
This claim:
Because the army is against Mubarak, which I think it pretty much is now, does not mean that the army is going to support wonderful, free, open elections in Egypt. It will be nice to think so, but I can't think of an army that's ever actually done that in history, certainly not in Egypt. So I think that these are the questions that are going to come up.
That did happen in England, no less.
Historical reference 2a:
Inventing a Nation
Historical reference 2b:
American Revolution's Final Battle
Historical reference 2c:
Epilogue to the American Revolution
Historical reference 2d:
The Other Founders
Historical reference 2e:
1776
Summary:
The revolutionary army handed power over to a republican form of government modeled from the Swiss example then known as The Articles of Confederation, The 13 former Colonies, etc.
Please note that Washington was already employed by a number of people running a congress during the revolutionary war where the British aggressors (for profit) were forced into defeat, the same British whose Trial by Jury was corrupted into a powerless condition as explained in detail by Lysander Spooner, and that the tipping point back into despotism occurred in America, the 13 Former Colonies, under The Articles of Confederation, in 1788 when the Nationalists hiding behind a false front of Republicanism followed through with their plan to Nationalize the republic into one dictatorship known as U.S.A. Inc. LLC.
Anyone wanting to to know the facts concerning the shift of power away from The People (Washington and the congress at the time gave The People the power, including Trial by Jury, to The People once the Army took that power away from the King in England) and back to the new despots, may take my word on it, or the words in those books, it is a documented fact.
Reference 2f:
Patrick Henry speaks in opposition
How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone - not sufficiently secured in criminal-this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands.
The group who will take over in Egypt will either allow The People to gain the power to nullify any law through Trial by Jury or The People will be powerless.
If The People do not gain that Trial by Jury power then they will have fewer options in their future when dealing with legal crime, such as legalized torture, and legalize mass murder, and lesser crimes made legal by the legal criminals running the government that does not include an effective Trial by Jury where any individual person can veto any law in each case tried by an effective Trial by Jury.
Despots since King John know the power given up with Trial by Jury. The People don't, and that is a fair and accurate assessment by way of aggregate measure.
I know.
You can too.
You now have the power, the power is contained within those references. People cannot expect to have power handed to them, power must be earned, given, or stolen. God may give it, I suppose, I didn't wait for that to happen. I've been given the power of reason, that should be enough, yes or no?
Oh, there I go asking a question, within the vacuum, as discussion is against the law.