The renowned English philosopher John Locke believed that if we were to understand the nature of power we must first examine the origins of it. Locke felt that Nature is a state of perfect equality amongst all men. In this state, no one man has more power or jurisdiction than any other man. However, Locke also stipulated that a person who was out to harm himself or others should not be given equal rights under the law.

Locke's stipulation recognized that if one is to act in such a way that appears contrary to the natural laws, it is the right and responsibility of all men affected by these actions to judge and punish the offender. In this sense, each man will be the judge of whether his "rights" as described by nature, have been violated. The right of each man to interpret and enforce the laws of nature as they see fit may be a source of much chaos. So, in order to regulate the implementation of these laws of nature, man agrees to a social contract, under which all men are governed by one common ruler.

John Locke was a practical man. He saw that man is incapable of governing himself. In his Two Treatises of Government Locke argues the function of the state is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, primarily to protect the right to property. Locke's social contract thus became an implicit agreement between everyone in a society to respect a legal authority, a supreme sovereign, so as to enable the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, relied heavily upon John Locke's Two Treatises of Government.This provided, in large measure, the philosophical justification for our break with Great Britain. In Jefferson's own words, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness cannot be taken away. Governments, which get their power from the consent of the governed, are created to protect those rights. When a government fails to do so (protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) the people have a right to abolish it and create a new form of government.

Perjury is a crime. Bill Clinton, as President of the United States, committed the crime of perjury. He lied when he gave a written deposition in a civil law suit. He willfully gave false statements which were found to be not truthful. When a Federal Judge makes a determination that a person willfully made false statements, either orally or in written form (deposition), the crime of perjury is substantiated by the evidence itself.

Should Bill Clinton have been impeached from office for breaking the law (Perjury)?

If ordinary citizens have been deprived of their liberty and imprisoned for the crime of perjury, then why do we not remove a President from the Office of the Presidency when that office holder violates his oath of office by committing the same offense (perjury) ?

If we are going to dissemble the language of the law and then apply the law unfairly and unequally, we might just as well tear up the social contract between ordinary citizens and any legal authority to govern.

No, Blingo, I do get it. What you have never understood is that you must follow the rules for posting to this board. You were mistaken in the belief that you had the right to post to these boards. In fact, you were given the privilege to post here provided you observed the rules. After having many of your postings edited or deleted in their entirety, you still haven't learned the value of being civil. Just as a newpaper editor has the obvious power and advantage of newsprint ink to bury their critics, the administrator and moderators have the power and advantage of the keyboard to do the same. A valuable lesson learned don't you think?

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: SunDogg ]