Declaration Of Consent Template: Fill & Download for Free

I think history has demonstrated that this is the case.Most new nations which have emulated the U.S. system of government have quickly turned into dictatorships. The full Presidential system, in which the President is both the constitutional head of government and head of state, lends itself to authoritarianism.This didn’t happen to the United States for two reasons. One is that we already had a tradition of separation of powers and limits on the government based on the historical legacy of our mother country. The principle of the rule of law over even the monarch (the Magna Carta) and of the people’s consent to being governed (the Declaration of Arbroath) were both invented in the British Isles.The second is that our first President was George Washington, the American Cincinnatus. This didn’t have to be the case. Our first President could have a been a man who took counsel of his ambition, and decided he cared more about himself than the long-term future of his Nation. And much lesser men who became President in a full Presidential system have done just that. Washington was a conqueror and a statesman; if anyone had the right to make himself a Dictator, it was him—and he could have done so with the full consent of a majority of his people.Like Cincinnatus, he was given the power to rule his Nation twice, first as General of the Continental Army and then as the first President of the United States, and both times, after his duty was fulfilled, he went home to his farm.Not every new country is blessed enough to be part of the Anglosphere and have a George Washington. The U.S. system should not be used as a template for other newly-independent countries.

You’re looking at this, I presume:“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ….”The answer is no.Not only did Thomas Jefferson live in a different era, it was a comment about the citizens of a state. That state was Great Britain and the government was the Crown.Yes, I know, it has been re-interpreted for all people in a country in some more modern interpretations, but this was written for a specific purpose, “to justify armed insurrection against the Crown!”See:The Declaration of IndependenceHow do you define "consent of the governed" as Jefferson used it?Consent of the governedNote that Green Card holders are still guests and not U.S. Citizens. They pay taxes & etc. just like Citizens of the USA, but they are not Citizens of the USA.ADDED: And, those Green Card holders are free to return to their Country of Citizenship, take a copy of The Declaration of Independence with them as a template and commit armed insurrection there, if they so please.

Before I can come to who is losing and who is winning, let me first explain some totally simple things .To begin with, the definition of “liberalism” as in political ideology goes like this (Source: Wikipedia)Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed , and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, this includes individual rights, capitalism, secularism, limited government, democracy, gender equality, freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of religionSounds good I guess. Well, it is a good one, when it first began it was rocking.Back in olden days, the typical conservative and typical liberal back in the early days, would have some basic differences, likeBelieving in aristocracy and nobility. Conservatives supported it, liberals opposed itBelieving in religion’s role in administration. As known, conservatives supported it, liberals didn’tIn some cases, racial and gender superiority. Some early examples of conservatives were ardent supporters of segregation and opposers of rights to womenfolk, whereas liberals ardently were leading women’s right to vote marches and stood against segregation based on race.Liberalism and liberals over the due course of time, were responsible for several magnificent changes and were directly responsible for moments in history like the Age of Enlightenment, Renaissance, opposing hereditary privileges among kings and nobles, and even at one point influenced conservatism on a whole .One of the finest thing that liberals did in their entire period of existence was giving rise to thoughts, that somewhere much later on led to this moment in historyStorming of BastilleWe all know of French revolution, right? A despotic and autocratic monarch and his supporters in clergy and nobles getting overthrown by angry peasants and other commoners of France.Or this moment, more or less similarDeclaration of independence of thirteen colonies from Britain, all of which later became USASo one can say that if we have a France minus a King or Emperor, a USA minus a British flag in one corner and head of state as Queen Elizabeth II (like Australia does) , a Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen that became a template of constitution for several democracies (including USA and India), or even something called universal suffrage that counts votes of men and women as equal, they were something that came out of a group of liberal thinkers.On an interesting note, if someone in 1830s Britain ever asked the Tories (the ones who today are called Conservatives) to have a woman as their next party leader, half of them would laugh their asses off and the other half will look at this remark as something blasphemous.Despite these differences and being polar opposites, conservatives and liberals had some striking similaritiesBoth supported an open marketBoth believed in the protection of one’s civilizationThen, came the most drastic event……..Cold War….and it all changedAllied forces fought a war for freedom against a fascist and anti-humanity nation called Nazi Germany, won and now the largest two of them were the “big bosses of their respective “political blocs”The Capitalists, free-market believers represented by USA now clashed against the communist, leftists and socialists, represented by USSRLiberalism which earlier had one rival to contest against, now was having more competitors, in form of communists and socialists. Both communists and socialists in the very beginning had similar thoughts with liberals when it came to the concept of abolishing religion and nobility’s role in political and social life.But…..some major differences. Unlike liberals back thenCommunism never was for free speech, rather very much against itCommunism believes in centralized control, again something not a liberal qualityIt is difficult to assess what happened in detail, so it’s just my belief, that with the passage of time, liberalism and communism seemed to get intertwined into each other, and slowly liberalism began to get reflected as a left-leaning belief for those who never saw themselves as liberals. Guess liberals needed to expand a fanbase against conservatives, and ended up siding with the ones who are nowhere close to them.A tragedy!!!!How did it work over these years?Once upon a time, liberals included feminists (I mean the real one and not just by words) like Emmeline Pankhurst, someone who led the protest for “Universal suffrage” where women could finally be allowed to vote. She and her two daughters were imprisoned several times, simply for demanding equal rightsThen there was John F Kennedy, a Democrat, a staunch supporter of civil rights for black Americans, someone who wanted Americans to stand united in the darkest hours, who tried hard to make sure the old folks of USA can pay for their medicinesIn case of India, there was no usage of terms like liberal or conservative or right-wing or left-wing until very recently, however some of them could definitely be defined as a liberal if one judges by the same metrics as used in western world centuries ago. I guess you will know a lot more about these ones than I wouldSocial reformers who fought tooth and nail against some serious social evils, educationists who advocated their lives in imparting quality education to those who were back then seen not worthy of that by society, and freedom fighters.Today, the heroes of liberals and progressives, well for USARashida Tlaib, someone known for her open support for anti-Israeli terror gangs and Ilhan Omar, who similarly, is friends with the banned outfit Muslim Brotherhood and has sympathies with al-Shahaab , an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Somalia,and these days sees an “anti-Islam conspiracy” in Kashmir valleyAnd for India, well we have our own ditto copiesThis one doesn’t need an introAnd this oneYakub Memon: its NOT about innocence. Its about whether there's enough evidence against him to justify taking his life— Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose) July 24, 2015Wonder what JFK would think of Miss Omar and Miss Tlaib for their interesting friends. Hmmmmmm.A tragedy!!!!!The double-speak:As someone said, one needs to practice what they preach.Someone who thinks that there should be open borders and a free pass to all refugees for sake of greater diversity, seems to have a problem if someone says that they wish an ordinary Bengali or Bangalorean to be able to buy a retirement home in Srinagar or a Marwari says that they wish to begin a new business in Gulmarg.Someone who claims to “smash patriarchy” every time, seems to have issues if a law is passed that makes an archaic practice of instant divorce illegal that for a long time led to many Muslim women getting thrown from their own houses, as an “attack on minorities”.Someone who claims to fight crony capitalists from building a hotel over tribal lands attempts to make a vacation house for herself, over the same landSo from these, I can say one thing in the most straightforward way as I can- Liberals today, at least a very significant number of them, don’t even follow what they themselves claim to represent.In short, the best word for such people is not a liberal, it’s a hypocrite.It’s time- Save liberalism from liberalsToday unfortunately, the term “liberal” no longer represents giants and heroes like JFK, Roosevelt, Ambedkar, Emmeline Pankhurst, or Mahadev Ranade.Today it has become a term to represent hypocrites who don’t follow their own rulebook and sometimes even criminal-minded and unrighteous individuals, people whose opinions are dictated by not ideology, but self-interests.Today ironically, some of the things liberals promoted once, especially on capitalism, is seen as a conservative quality (at least that’s how it gets branded)As things have taken such a nosedive and real meaning of liberal has gone lost in translation, I think in days to come, liberals are going to lose even more, and nobody is to blame for this, other than liberals themselves.Saving liberalism from such liberals is the need of the hour I guess, because the problem is certainly not with liberalism. An ideology that led to the independence of the USA , overthrow of French monarchy can certainly not be evil, but same can’t be said about the liberals who claim to represent it these days.