You seem to be very proud of GB's success at conquering many parts of the world such that, at one time at least, the sun never set on British Empire. Those who have fought against British colonialism (or colonialism of any kind) are not so proud.edh wrote:Note how there was only the New Englanders fighting for independence at this stage, no other colonies revolted at this time and Canada remains part of the Commonwealth today. So it was not universal to the colonies, just the 13 states that went on to form the US. You can't universally blame George III for this as he was only a constitutional monarch, the politicians of the time operating in the difficult times that they were in were those who took the fiscal and militiary decisions, these would be your 'tyrants'. I think we can also claim a level of success in that the British monarch is head of still head of state in 16 countries. Only the monarchy of Denmark and the Netherlands can claim similar feats. Spain lost all of it's colonies through independence struggles whereas we peacefully held many, the big exceptions being India and the US.
As to the specific grievances that the US colonies had against the King, the US Declaration if Independence states: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." The specific list of those repeated injuries and usurpations are enumerated here in the US Declaration of Independence (signed by representatives of all 13 colonies, not just those in New England):
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html
I have not expressed a personal opinion as to whether the 2nd should be lawfully amended, but I do not believe it should be merely "interpreted" out of existence, ignoring the obvious original intent of the constitution.edh wrote:So you're saying it's correct or not?
I didn't say one cannot get rid of the US Constitution. In the US, there are two ways that could happen:edh wrote:Again, the Weimar republic had all of these things and the Nazis got rid of them. An example of how was burning down the Reichstag, blaming it on a man with learning difficulties, then reconvening government in an Opera House covered in Swastikas and surrounded by SA (not SS, the SS were later) to dissuade those who didn't agree with them from coming in. In addition the Weimar republic had given rise to some very weak, ineffective, unpopular governments so many people were only too happy for it's freedoms to be eroded.
1) Lawfully amending it
2) Adopting a policy that the constitution only says what we "interpret" it to say, regardless of what it actually says, or regardless of the original intent (when documented) of the those who wrote and approved it (aka Founders).
You are wrong, we will decide for ourselves. Likewise, I have absolutely no interest in deciding how the UK, or GB, governs itself.edh wrote:I would actually say you don't have the luxury of deciding it for yourself. Instead it is brainwashed into you as the American way in which your president is reverred as a king (you even have special crimes specifically applicable to harming your president, very simialr to old fashioned treason laws we have), the US as being the ultimate democracy and the insitutions of your country as being holy. I notice you capitalise the f in 'Founders'. As a serious point is this something you are taught in school? Traditionally this happens when naming those considered device, ie God, kings, queens, when using He, Him, Her to refer to them as well.
"Special crimes specifically applicable to harming your president"? I think you are confused. In the US, almost all crimes are state crimes, including murder. Historically, there have been some federal crimes that were defined when it involves more than one state, such as transporting kidnap victims across state lines, etc. After JFK was assassinated in 1963, the US realized that the federal government (and the FBI) had absolutely no jurisdiction in the murder investigation, so laws were passed to make it a federal crime to harm federal employees (not just the president). Your comments about founders vs Founders is rather ridiculous. The term Founders applies to specific people that could be named if time and space permitted, and not a general class of people.