What a coincidence, considering recent comments here. BBC article is here:
In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.
On Tuesday night, while Republican candidates in Nevada were debating such American issues as nuclear waste disposal and the immigration status of Mitt Romney's gardener, American and British lawyers in Philadelphia were taking on a far more fundamental topic.
Namely, just what did Thomas Jefferson think he was doing?
Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.
It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.
At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall.
American experiment
The event, presented by the Temple American Inn of Court in conjunction with Gray's Inn, London, pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession.
For American lawyers, the answer is simple: "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified," they say in their summary.
To the British, however, secession isn't the legal or proper tool by which to settle internal disputes. "What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union? Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right," they argue in their brief.
=======
They still disagree. :)
Thursday 20 October 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union? Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right,"
No, he couldnt have been more WRONG.
And his being wrong is one of your favourite hobby horses. Yes, I know.
You know that little thing you and your chums in Troof and Holocaust denial like to trot out about how the winners make the rules and write the history?
How come that little thing doesn't apply to the American revolution?
That's "different", I suspect.
But you probably it's true about Lincoln?
And WW2, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust...?
The point being, that simply declaring Independence - whether justified by "god-given rights" or not is really just an assertion of power over the existing status quo. Of course it's an offence in any state to deprive it of part of its territory or possessions. right or wrong.
You, and the American revolution, appeal to some other jurisdiction....."god-given rights". Or even 'natural rights'. Hmmm.
Dream on.
"How come that little thing doesn't apply to the American revolution?
That's "different", I suspect."
Yeah, it IS different, because the losers in the Revolution were the Brits and there's only one fact about that whole thing that anyone really needs to know: We fought for independence and got it and King George signed peace treaties with the 13 individual states. That's basically all that matters in the whole story. Everything else is just details.
What on the losing side is worth hearing?? That a tyrant was defeated?
Post a Comment