FEOS wrote:
But the first republic in Europe based itself on the new US model.
Really?
I thought the first major European republic (the Dutch Republic) began almost 200 years before the declaration of independence, which would seem to demolish that argument. The fact that the political writings that were essentially the basis for the US model came almost entirely from European sources doesn't do the argument much good either - John Locke being the most obvious example.
Kmarion wrote:
Our founding fathers were certainly pioneers of freedom but their ancestors had a little European experience when it came to human rights. .. say like the Magna Carta .
Absolutely right. The founding fathers were certainly pioneers, but the ideals they were putting into practice were well established ones predominantly dreamt up by European philosophers and political thinkers. Though that shouldn't detract from the fact that they realised these ideals by establishing a state built upon them. Kudos to them for that.
Kmarion wrote:
We dumped slavery in less than 100 years.. how about you my lord? How long was it that you were ruled by "descendants of god".
No time at all, certainly in post-Christian Europe, though I see what you're getting at. There is a marked difference between claiming to be a descendant of God and claiming to be chosen or appointed by God - which is the situation we had here. You may argue the difference is subtle, but I'm sure many would disagree.
In any case, the point remains, that the US when the US was founded it had a modern and enlightened outlook. It is a shame that from these exceedingly hopeful beginnings, from the perspective of liberty, social equality and justice, the US has not kept pace with developments in Europe - though have exceeded Europe's advances in many other areas. An example is slavery which was abolished in Europe decades before in the US, despite the more enlightened founding principles there.
The argument that:
Kmarion wrote:
The United States has done more for freedom in two hundred years than the rest of the world has done in two thousand.
on a national scale concerning personal liberty, is non-existent.
(On an international scale it could certainly be argued that the role of the US in WWII protected the freedoms of many people wolrdwide, though there are counter arguments to this and it is not something the US can take sole credit for. The Cold War is an even more dubious example, since the US could plausibly be held accountable for starting it, despite the peacemaking efforts of Churchill in his final years as Prime Minister after Atlee's government had transformed Britain. Regardless of that, personal rights and liberties are what freedom is all about.)
Freedom stems from rights and true freedom stems from effectively enforced rights. This may seem to be counter-intuitive, since enforcement of any kind is clearly an infringement upon someones freedoms. Yet overall the freedoms of the masses must outweigh the freedoms of the individual so that all of society is free to more or less the same extent, it is here that the rights of the individual come into play and those rights are protected by laws. Laws are imposed by a governing body, typically a government. However the individual must also have rights that protect them from the governing body and ensure that the laws of the land are enforced in a fair and just fashion. It is these rights and freedoms that must be examined in cases such as these and the essence of US individual rights and liberties have been copied directly from English common law. I refer you to the text of the
Supreme Court ruling in this case regarding the application of Habeus Corpus (also an English instigated personal freedom taken directly from the Magna Carta):
Ruling of the US Supreme Court on BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. wrote:
The common-law writ was codified by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which “stood alongside Magna Charta and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 as a towering common law lighthouse of liberty—a beacon by which framing lawyers in America consciously steered their course.
Much of the Supreme Court ruling references incidents of precedent in England regarding the enforcement of these rights. An example of how seriously this right has impacted on English culture and how seriously it is taken can again be found within the text of the Supreme Court ruling:
Ruling of the US Supreme Court on BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. wrote:
A notable example from this period was Darnel’s Case, 3 How. St. Tr. 1 (K. B. 1627). The events giving rise to the case began when, in a display of the Stuart penchant for authoritarian excess, Charles I demanded that Darnel and at least four others lend him money. Upon their refusal,they were imprisoned. The prisoners sought a writ of habeas corpus; and the King filed a return in the form of a warrant signed by the Attorney General. Ibid. The court held this was a sufficient answer and justified the subjects’ continued imprisonment. Id., at 59.
There was an immediate outcry of protest. The House of Commons promptly passed the Petition of Right, 3 Car. 1,ch. 1 (1627), 5 Statutes of the Realm 23, 24 (reprint 1963),which condemned executive “imprison[ment] without any cause” shown, and declared that “no freeman in any such manner as is before mencioned [shall] be imprisoned or deteined.” Yet a full legislative response was long delayed.
The King soon began to abuse his authority again,and Parliament was dissolved.
These events led to (indirectly, but the dissolution of Parliament over this issue was a key factor - the new Parliament created afterwards so the King could raise money included Oliver Cromwell and drew up the
Petition of Right upon its inception) the English civil war after which Charles I was executed and England became a Republic (The Commonwealth of England) in 1649. We didn't like the Republic much and so reintroduced the Monarchy in 1660. The magnitude of the events surrounding this demonstrates well how important these personal freedoms were taken to be, even more than three centuries ago - the implications of which should bear strongly upon Bush.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-06-14 04:55:24)
