Declaration Of Pre-Existing Relationship Form: Fill & Download for Free

I feel like these very simple questions are someone’s homework ;Human rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, pre-exist any form of government, and government must enshrine those rights in a legal framework.The Constitution of a nation, in this case, the United States;Establishes the major institutions of the governmentLays out the interactions between those institutionsDefines the allowable areas for expansion or growthDefines the relationship between the subordinate entities composing the nationDefines the relation between the government and the people themselvesDefines the rules for Amendment, Repeal, or Abolition of itself.In the case of the United States, Democracy is a character of the Government in that representatives to the government are elected by the people, and it is those entities that share the power of lawmaking, as opposed to being simply an advisory council to some unelected entity who dictates the law.

“How would you amend the 243 year old US Constitution to address current cultural issues and environmental threats that technology, industrialization and capitalism have wrought which could never have been imagined when the constitution was drafted?”You presume by your question there were no environmental threats or cultural issues or concerns about technology in the 1780’s…. But there were. They just aren’t what you would consider issues today. You notice slavery was left out of the Constitution. Had it even been addressed (whether pro or con) the Constitution would never have been ratified - it was that divisive an issue. In fact the Declaration of Independence asserting our rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” originally read “Life, Liberty, and Property”. “Property” was, to some, a reference to slaves. They refused to declare a right to own slaves. So it, too was changed to allow for the larger issue, forming a new country, to occur. Capitalism? It was in effect already. It required the industrial revolution to tap its full potential.Jamestown and Plymouth colonies (1607 and 1620 respectively) were founded on socialist policies. Within 2 years, as they very nearly starved (Jamestown lost over half their settlers - many to starvation), they switched to a version of capitalism. Essentially it was “You don’t work, you don’t eat”.Please actually read the Constitution. It’s not all that long. You will find it sets up the format of the government. It allows 3 branches, each providing a check on the other 2. It provides for how elections are held. In short it defines how the government shall run, what the relationship of the States are to the government, and who controls the commerce between the States. There is more, obviously. That’s the Cliffsnotes version of the Cliffsnotes to the Constitution.The Bill of Rights was added, as a unit of 10 Amendments, to enshrine what government could NOT do regarding the pre-existing rights of citizens. They even figured they hadn’t listed all the rights, and fearful of that, they added the 9th Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) . One such right not enumerated, but in common law, was the right to travel freely on public roads. The prior 8 Amendments were to ensure some very specific and important rights were NOT infringed/abridged. Wanting to be sure the states didn’t lose their powers they added the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.).Social, cultural, technological issues were up to the Congress, and the States, to sort out for themselves.

Yes, but the question is “why is the statement true?”. The answer is “because Logical truth is ‘that [which] remains true under all reinterpretations of its components other than its logical constants’”.Aye, there's the rub - Logical constants. “What is a logical constant?"; that is, what special feature of certain constants makes them logical in nature?” (I am copying directly from the font of communal knowledge - Wikipedia - to minimise claims that I am setting my own axioms for this argument).In short, logical constants are symbols that are chosen to convey relationships that allow sentences to be Truth-bearers. They are placeholders that have the same semantic value under every interpretation. Thus, they are Invariants.So, we begin to see the circle - sentences are made truthbearers by the formulation of their contents according to the invariant logical constants that are chosen as the determinants of the form of the system being utilised. This form then represents truth.Wait. These sound like rules. Who sets them? The speaker - whoever chooses the method they will use to convey their message. Most succinctly: the one who makes the words.Words can mean what we want. Want an example? Just Google it. What is ‘a google’? It's a neologism, that's what.So, when we set terms and then join them using the symbols we declare to be invariant we can say whatever we damn well please - it will be true because we made the language.This is how Atheism is provable - because a-theism contains no definition of God by necessity - it is a position of pure refutation that makes no positive assertion of its own content - because the content of the essential statement must be an absence: a (negative Greek prefix) -theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods). Barry Goldberg’s answer to What are philosophers’ greatest argument against the existence of God? makes this extremely clear:There are no arguments for the non-existence of gods, per se, but only counter-arguments to refute the claims that any sort of god exists.Thus, an atheistic position must establish Logical Constants that confirm its logic and (here's the dagger) these logical constants must be invented arbitrarily. This is the crux of my argument: simply that humans invented all systems of language. To argue otherwise is fatal to an atheistic position. Why? Because any claim to logic being derived from some inherent property of the universe defines a logic being present in the universe a priori. No logic is possible without an extant intelligence - it’s explicit in the Oxford definition:Logic [mass noun]: Reason conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.So, either humans were the first to reason in logical terms or they were not. Pick any pre-human ancestor and the argument still holds. Be careful with stretching the idea of Reason back to original biogenesis or else a “reason that results in life” will be described by that extension.In summary, either the statement “there is no God” is true because we arbitrarily invented the logical forms that determine its truth or a pre-existent Logos endowed words with meaning to which we must be reasonably accountable. The statement is either self-referential or a non-human intelligence preceded our languages. This is the God from Grammar that allows the ontological argument to even take Form. Hence, it satisfies Randall Munroe’s needs:Yes, you need ‘logos’ to make the word ‘ontological’ sensible.