The Declaration of Independence was not intended to define when human life begins, and all science does is let us describe what we see and predict how it reacts to certain changes.  We decide what the ethical implications are. We decide which rules, if enforced, lead to a desireable society.  I agree with you, but I don't have to.

No no.  Which rules WE DECIDE?  That's actually in stark opposition to the basic concept of inalienable natural rights and constitutional republicanism.  

When did we stop teaching basic civics.

It is? Was our Constitution written by a god or gods, or was it written by people like us? 
Let's take a closer look at some of the text.  Now this was just a pre-amble, and was only a precept to, not the message of, the document, but it was written:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
Did you notice the first word there? I think you understand the second clause and the third clause correctly.  But I think you skipped over the first word.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No no.  Which rules WE DECIDE?  That's actually in stark opposition to the basic concept of inalienable natural rights and constitutional republicanism.  

When did we stop teaching basic civics.

It is? Was our Constitution written by a god or gods, or was it written by people like us? 
Let's take a closer look at some of the text.  Now this was just a pre-amble, and was only a precept to, not the message of, the document, but it was written:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
Did you notice the first word there? I think you understand the second clause and the third clause correctly.  But I think you skipped over the first word.

1. Not the Constitution.

2. The statement is "We don't need to tell you these obvious things that the Creator did but we will anyway just to make our point."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I would encourage mikesez to study the history of the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the amount of work that was put into them.  To learn who influenced them and collaborated to create them, and the historical societies and works they studied, and the books they wrote along the way... all the things that were combined to create the greatest nation.  They went way back to the works of Plato and others.  It's a fascinating history.

They applied "best practices" before the concept even existed.

They were much wiser and more focused than any politician or philosopher you could find today.  It could never be written today.  Today's politicians no longer know how to represent.  Only how to get elected.  That's the game it's become.  Yes, the founders warned us of that, too.  They were that good, and we've become that bad.  Today's politician has lost sight of what they're meant to be, and are slave to the game because one man can't beat it alone.

That's why it's refreshing to have an outsider in office shaking up the establishment.  We need so much more of that to get our federal government back on track to what it's supposed to be.  Lean and working in our best interest by leaving the majority of governing power to the states.  We need more independent thinking, solutions-based problem solvers and not outrage artists out to buy votes with emotions and legislate token feels in response.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I would encourage mikesez to study the history of the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the amount of work that was put into them.  To learn who influenced them and collaborated to create them, and the historical societies and works they studied, and the books they wrote along the way... all the things that were combined to create the greatest nation.  They went way back to the works of Plato and others.  It's a fascinating history.

They applied "best practices" before the concept even existed.

They were much wiser and more focused than any politician or philosopher you could find today.  It could never be written today.  Today's politicians no longer know how to represent.  Only how to get elected.  That's the game it's become.  Yes, the founders warned us of that, too.  They were that good, and we've become that bad.  Today's politician has lost sight of what they're meant to be, and are slave to the game because one man can't beat it alone.

That's why it's refreshing to have an outsider in office shaking up the establishment.  We need so much more of that to get our federal government back on track to what it's supposed to be.  Lean and working in our best interest by leaving the majority of governing power to the states.  We need more independent thinking, solutions-based problem solvers and not outrage artists out to buy votes with emotions and legislate token feels in response.

You apparently stopped your reading way too soon. They weren't the saints you have portrayed them to be. They could be as partisan and self-interested as any of today's politicians. Try reading about the election of 1800. And the Federalist Papers were written because there were more sides to each argument. It was in no way cut and dried.

And you really shouldn't try to typecast "today's politician", since you know nothing about 99% of them. My guess is that most of them are hardworking and think they represent their constituents. And if they don't, whose fault is that? I know it's an American tradition to badmouth politicians, it's been going on since before 1776. But watch out what you wish for. We could end up with a New York real estate developer who is in way over his head. 

We are a constitutional republic - i.e., politicians run the show. As they should. Would you prefer it to be something else? You want the generals calling the shots? I don't think that advocating "an outsider" who has no clue how a constitutional republic works is really a good idea. On the job training can lead to real harm to our country.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

It is? Was our Constitution written by a god or gods, or was it written by people like us? 
Let's take a closer look at some of the text.  Now this was just a pre-amble, and was only a precept to, not the message of, the document, but it was written:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
Did you notice the first word there? I think you understand the second clause and the third clause correctly.  But I think you skipped over the first word.

1. Not the Constitution.

2. The statement is "We don't need to tell you these obvious things that the Creator did but we will anyway just to make our point."

1.  I know that quote is not in the Constitution, but I also wasn't the first one in this thread to cite "inalienable rights".  So we were discussing both documents.
2.  Notice you still use the first person plural pronoun - not once, but three times.

WE notice certain things about how the world and other humans work
WE find that a single creator of the world and all humans is the simplest explanation
WE find that equal and inalienable rights exist for each human in light of these findings.. but which rights are on and off the list could be a never ending conversation.

It's not that these decisions are wrong.  These are great decisions to make! Our ancestors made them, and we should as well.  But they are not inevitable, and many societies have been organized around different ideas.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1. Not the Constitution.

2. The statement is "We don't need to tell you these obvious things that the Creator did but we will anyway just to make our point."

1.  I know that quote is not in the Constitution, but I also wasn't the first one in this thread to cite "inalienable rights".  So we were discussing both documents.
2.  Notice you still use the first person plural pronoun - not once, but three times.

WE notice certain things about how the world and other humans work
WE find that a single creator of the world and all humans is the simplest explanation
WE find that equal and inalienable rights exist for each human in light of these findings.. but which rights are on and off the list could be a never ending conversation.

It's not that these decisions are wrong.  These are great decisions to make! Our ancestors made them, and we should as well.  But they are not inevitable, and many societies have been organized around different ideas.

I understand you know the difference, just pointing out that you should be clearer in your writing. You spend so much time babbling that your points become lost in the word vomit. 

Self-evident. Need no explanation or justification. No, we don't make those decisions, they are inexorable; and the intention of the actual Constitution is to forbid the government from encroaching on our freedoms any more than the absolute minimum necessary to have a functioning society. And many lesser societies have been organized around lesser ideals with lesser results, that's why we have to protect and defend our values and liberties whenever and wherever they are threatened.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1.  I know that quote is not in the Constitution, but I also wasn't the first one in this thread to cite "inalienable rights".  So we were discussing both documents.
2.  Notice you still use the first person plural pronoun - not once, but three times.

WE notice certain things about how the world and other humans work
WE find that a single creator of the world and all humans is the simplest explanation
WE find that equal and inalienable rights exist for each human in light of these findings.. but which rights are on and off the list could be a never ending conversation.

It's not that these decisions are wrong.  These are great decisions to make! Our ancestors made them, and we should as well.  But they are not inevitable, and many societies have been organized around different ideas.

I understand you know the difference, just pointing out that you should be clearer in your writing. You spend so much time babbling that your points become lost in the word vomit. 

Self-evident. Need no explanation or justification. No, we don't make those decisions, they are inexorable; and the intention of the actual Constitution is to forbid the government from encroaching on our freedoms any more than the absolute minimum necessary to have a functioning society. And many lesser societies have been organized around lesser ideals with lesser results, that's why we have to protect and defend our values and liberties whenever and wherever they are threatened.

The intent of the US Constitution was to create a stronger federal government than what came before, but still finite in its power. The framers were limiting what the federal government could do, but not necessarily intending those limits to also apply to state and local governments.  So state and local governments often could do the things listed in Article I Section 9.  They could deprive citizens of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, both slave and free, black and white.  Some states had established religions.  Some states had religious tests for office holders.  Some states did not guarantee the right to own a gun.  Some states did not guarantee native born children of immigrants the right to vote.  These are just examples.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Interesting that there seems to be denial that our founders knew what they were doing. Their work resulted in a nation that has risen to the top on a global scale, and has stayed there as long as any in modern times.

Those same deniers also sound eager to see her fall from the top. Again, the Founders warned us of those folks, too.

No one said they were perfect, but what they came up with (the result of their collective efforts) was a process and form of government that is, to date, second to none - and it's not even close.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I understand you know the difference, just pointing out that you should be clearer in your writing. You spend so much time babbling that your points become lost in the word vomit. 

Self-evident. Need no explanation or justification. No, we don't make those decisions, they are inexorable; and the intention of the actual Constitution is to forbid the government from encroaching on our freedoms any more than the absolute minimum necessary to have a functioning society. And many lesser societies have been organized around lesser ideals with lesser results, that's why we have to protect and defend our values and liberties whenever and wherever they are threatened.

The intent of the US Constitution was to create a stronger federal government than what came before, but still finite in its power. The framers were limiting what the federal government could do, but not necessarily intending those limits to also apply to state and local governments.  So state and local governments often could do the things listed in Article I Section 9.  They could deprive citizens of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, both slave and free, black and white.  Some states had established religions.  Some states had religious tests for office holders.  Some states did not guarantee the right to own a gun.  Some states did not guarantee native born children of immigrants the right to vote.  These are just examples.

And all of those examples fell short of the original intent, the protection of inalienable rights.  Our failures or shortcomings do not erase the stand are, they illustrate the continued need for intentionality and vigilance to defend that standard.

---

The FIRST thing the Constitution lays out is the right of the individual. This comes before all else.

The SECOND thing it does is define limits on federal power.

The Constitution's purpose was certainly NOT to strengthen it. It was made to be the Supreme Law of the Land, while at the same time explicitly expressing ONLY those rights granted to the federal government. It established heirarchy over states, yet severely limited it's scope by explicitly LIMITING federal powers as stated in the document.

It wasn't until the Raw Deal that the Federal government became the bloated, fiscally unsustainable form it is today.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Interesting that there seems to be denial that our founders knew what they were doing.  Their work resulted in a nation that has risen to the top on a global scale, and has stayed there as long as any in modern times.

Those same deniers also sound eager to see her fall from the top.  Again, the Founders warned us of those folks, too.

No one said they were perfect, but what they came up with (the result of their collective efforts) was a process and form of government that is, to date, second to none - and it's not even close.

I don't deny for a second that the founders knew what they were doing. 
I do think that each of them would be surprised in their own ways and different reasons to see what we've done with it. And I think you would agree but perhaps not for the same reasons.
As far as your idea that our government is second to none I only offer the evidence that the British form of government has performed continuously for about a hundred and fifty years longer than ours. That doesn't mean it's better, but hey it might be better.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Oh mike.... Britain? Compulsory euthanasia in the land of Churchill?

---

The FIRST thing the Constitution lays out is the right of the individual.  This comes before all else.

The SECOND thing it does is define limits on federal power.

The Constitution's purpose was certainly NOT to strengthen it.  It was made to be the Supreme Law of the Land, while at the same time explicitly expressing ONLY those rights granted to the federal government.  It established heirarchy over states, yet severely limited it's scope by explicitly LIMITING federal powers as stated in the document.

It wasn't until the Raw Deal that the Federal government became the bloated, fiscally unsustainable form it is today.

The first thing the Constitution lays out is that people are writing it. 
"We the people,"
Then it says why they are writing it.  
"in order to form a more perfect union..." Etc.
You don't get to individual rights until Amendment 9, adopted a couple of years later.  You might have thought Amendment 1, but that's not correct.  Amendment 1 says that the feds won't interfer with those specific, enumerated rights.  It wasn't until Amendment 14 passed in 1868 that it was established that state and local governments also couldn't step on our enumerated rights. 
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.  Under the Articles, the federal government was much weaker.  The Constitution gave a stronger federal government compared to what came before.

In spite of these big errors you make, your third point is correct.  There were finite, enumerated powers, and those powers didn't get "elastically expanded" until the New Deal (I think that's what you mean by Raw Deal?).

---

Oh mike....  Britain?   Compulsory euthanasia in the land of Churchill?

if you're going to judge a system of government by its ability to consistently stand up for individual rights, especially the right of old people to access medical care if they want it, yes the British government has come up short lately. 
but considering that it's been nearly 400 years since it was last threatened with any kind of violent overthrow or Civil War, and considering that this euthanasia issue is only a couple decades-old at most, perhaps a longer view of things is called for.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The FIRST thing the Constitution lays out is the right of the individual.  This comes before all else.

The SECOND thing it does is define limits on federal power.

The Constitution's purpose was certainly NOT to strengthen it.  It was made to be the Supreme Law of the Land, while at the same time explicitly expressing ONLY those rights granted to the federal government.  It established heirarchy over states, yet severely limited it's scope by explicitly LIMITING federal powers as stated in the document.

It wasn't until the Raw Deal that the Federal government became the bloated, fiscally unsustainable form it is today.

The first thing the Constitution lays out is that people are writing it. 
"We the people,"
Then it says why they are writing it.  
"in order to form a more perfect union..." Etc.
You don't get to individual rights until Amendment 9, adopted a couple of years later.  You might have thought Amendment 1, but that's not correct.  Amendment 1 says that the feds won't interfer with those specific, enumerated rights.  It wasn't until Amendment 14 passed in 1868 that it was established that state and local governments also couldn't step on our enumerated rights. 
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.  Under the Articles, the federal government was much weaker.  The Constitution gave a stronger federal government compared to what came before.

In spite of these big errors you make, your third point is correct.  There were finite, enumerated powers, and those powers didn't get "elastically expanded" until the New Deal (I think that's what you mean by Raw Deal?).

---

Oh mike....  Britain?   Compulsory euthanasia in the land of Churchill?

if you're going to judge a system of government by its ability to consistently stand up for individual rights, especially the right of old people to access medical care if they want it, yes the British government has come up short lately. 
but considering that it's been nearly 400 years since it was last threatened with any kind of violent overthrow or Civil War, and considering that this euthanasia issue is only a couple decades-old at most, perhaps a longer view of things is called for.

Never heard of The Troubles 'ave ye?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The first thing the Constitution lays out is that people are writing it. 
"We the people,"
Then it says why they are writing it.  
"in order to form a more perfect union..." Etc.
You don't get to individual rights until Amendment 9, adopted a couple of years later.  You might have thought Amendment 1, but that's not correct.  Amendment 1 says that the feds won't interfer with those specific, enumerated rights.  It wasn't until Amendment 14 passed in 1868 that it was established that state and local governments also couldn't step on our enumerated rights. 
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.  Under the Articles, the federal government was much weaker.  The Constitution gave a stronger federal government compared to what came before.

In spite of these big errors you make, your third point is correct.  There were finite, enumerated powers, and those powers didn't get "elastically expanded" until the New Deal (I think that's what you mean by Raw Deal?).

---

if you're going to judge a system of government by its ability to consistently stand up for individual rights, especially the right of old people to access medical care if they want it, yes the British government has come up short lately. 
but considering that it's been nearly 400 years since it was last threatened with any kind of violent overthrow or Civil War, and considering that this euthanasia issue is only a couple decades-old at most, perhaps a longer view of things is called for.

Never heard of The Troubles 'ave ye?

I 'ave.
"British" is kind of an ambiguous word.  It could include or exclude Ireland.  If we include Ireland, then yes, they had a civil war and a LOT of other problems in 400 years.

But none of these things had a measurable impact on the question of if the English government represented and stood up for English people.  It did, and has, for nearly 400 years, at least as well as ours did at each time, but perhaps this is changing now that euthanasia may become a big threat in the UK

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You don't get to individual rights until Amendment 9, adopted a couple of years later. 

I'm not sure where you were educated (it was a strikingly poor education,) but the first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights.  (Not just 9.)
They certainly weren't outlining the rights of government.  They outlined the rights of the individual, which is why they're the first 10.
It's not "we the federal government."  It's "we the people..."

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Britain is hardly relevant any longer on the world stage.

The US has led the world for quite some time. Should the left get their way, that will cease sooner than later.

The Greeks, the Romans... the greatest societies (British Empire as well, curious you'd pull that one out of nowhere) all fell, and fell from within. Just as what's being attempted today through similar division. What built our great nation was our freedom, and the unending pursuit of it. Ironic that our destruction is likely to come from those who would abuse, undermine, and destroy that foundation as they slouch towards the over-governance we long put behind to make our country the power it is.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

You don't get to individual rights until Amendment 9, adopted a couple of years later. 

I'm not sure where you were educated (it was a strikingly poor education,) but the first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights.  (Not just 9.)
They certainly weren't outlining the rights of government.  They outlined the rights of the individual, which is why they're the first 10.
It's not "we the federal government."  It's "we the people..."

I'm not sure you read what I wrote.  Please try again. 
Remember, just because the Constitution says the federal government can't do something, doesn't mean that state and local governments can't do it.  At least it didn't, until after the 14th amendment was passed.
The idea that the people have rights that neither the states nor the feds can violate does not appear in the text of the Constitution until Amendment 9.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Britain is hardly relevant any longer on the world stage.

The US has led the world for quite some time.  Should the left get their way, that will cease sooner than later.

The Greeks, the Romans... the greatest societies (British Empire as well, curious you'd pull that one out of nowhere) all fell, and fell from within.  Just as what's being attempted today through similar division.  What built our great nation was our freedom, and the unending pursuit of it.  Ironic that our destruction is likely to come from those who would abuse, undermine, and destroy that foundation as they slouch towards the over-governance we long put behind to make our country the power it is.

Your knowledge of world history seems superficial.
The Greeks were conquered by the Macedons.
The Romans were invaded by Germanic tribes many times and tried to make peace with them by interbreeding and even allowing Germans to be emperor. Eventually, the will to resist was lost because it was Germans fighting Germans.  Even so, the Empire persisted in Constantinople for another 1000 years before the Turks defeated it.
The British Empire was mostly defeated by two costly wars with Germany.  It was after the second world war that the empire was devolved and the welfare state began.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is circling back again, again to jj's original point - which is the foundation of it all.

The Constitution was a framework for self governance. Not a creation of a nanny state whose purpose is to control the people.

Amendments 1-10 are the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the individual. The individual is not ignored until 9. 1-10 covers the individual and what the established federal government can't touch. The creation of the Constitution itself was born from the Declaration of Independence. They explicitly included these for the same reason you're suggesting the idea came about later. That if it weren't explicitly stated, they entire purpose of the creation of our Constitution would be lost.

What you're missing is that the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. There isn't a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence, on which its foundations are based. The people, not federal government, comes first. That's the entire point of rights being inalienable... that not every single right had to be explicitly written, outlined, or amended for it to be a freedom that couldn't be encroached by man (in this case the Constitution)... that they were given by a creator and could not be taken by man-made government of any level.

It's also why the first and second amendments are so important. If there should be a necessary call for another such declaration of independence, we the people would have the means to begin again if necessary. Were our federal government continue to bloat unsustainably as it's currently doing, I'd expect a convention of states to occur before it gets anywhere near that point in order to clean up the mess.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."