Kentucky Declaration of Rights - Art. I, Sec. 2 Quote

“Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.”

~ Kentucky Declaration of Rights - Art. I, Sec. 2

Ratings and Comments

KS, Queensbury,NY.

Amen. This statement makes one question the status of "Our Republic". Thank You.

  • Reply
P.M.    5/29/05
KERR, Modesto,CA.

This quote says the people are powerless that our government has all the power to control our lives.

  • 1
  • Reply
Chicago    6/3/05

Hey, KERR, I think you have it backwards. This is a declaration of the people limiting the power of government over themselves. The Declaration of Rights is the specific enumeration of inalienable rights -- thus declaraing for all time that never will the government be given arbitrary power over the People.

cal, lewisville, tx

Makes me wish i lived in a republic!

Mike, Norwalk

cal, ;-) makes me wish I lived in a Constitutional Republic too.

jim k, austin

Our Republic has morphed into a democracy which is too bad for us. How far we have gone down hill is illustrated by the fact that we elected a socialist for president, backed by Pelosi, Boxer, Franks, Reed , Biden and a host of other fellow travelers. As to American voters, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Waffler, Smith

Does this mean that we do not absolutely have to stop at a STOP SIGN and that making us do so or pay a penalty is arbitrary power seeking. (1) A republic most normally has laws, (2) laws are meant to be obeyed, (3) thus a republic has power over free men. If you wish to be truly free go live in the woods and stay out of republics and civilization. This statement is only poetic device or sentiment obviously not actually true.

Jim, Stone Mountain, GA

A good recent example is the slim majority of 52% of California voters who denied marriage equality to a large group of its citizens. "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me." -- Reverend Martin Niemoeller

Mike, Norwalk

Jim, excellent statements. A slight correction; voters did not deny marriage equality, they simply tried to legislate or otherwise impose marriage's original religious meaning. A license is: "A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) Marriage is a religious sacrament that defines a covenant between two persons. Inclusive of that specific covenant, is an organized venue for such sacred ordinance(s) as pro-creation. Further, said religious covenant defines the duties, obligations, boundaries, and relationship to any extended life that may be brought to existence from such pro-creation activities. In a Representative Republic, such as was the U.S., the individual is sovereign with Creator endowed unalienable rights, he / she being king / queen - Caesar. The sovereign's hired servant's (government) authority is limited to his / its sovereign master's secular individuality. Religion's marriage predates the individual state's usurpation of such religious ordinance. Where or what is the lawful nexus that surrenders the sovereign's inalienable supreme authority and rights (religious and secular) to the once servant that the now, new master, claims said religious sacrament to be illegal without its license? There is no such lawful nexus. A licensed marriage (or any marriage where the secular government is a party) is contrary to common law, natural law, the sovereign / servant relationship, Creator endowed inalienable right, violates separation of church and state, and is an unlawful contradiction in terms. A gay marriage is also a contradiction in terms. The California vote does demonstrate a democracy's theocratic implementation.

Jim, Stone Mountain, GA

Mike, nice try, but I believe your logic is faulty. Two additional thoughts: "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" -- The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states. “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." -- Abraham Lincoln

Mike, Norwalk

Jim, I am in absolute accord with your second, immediately above, post. My point was, when secular government attempts to legislate morality and religious ordinances, while legally redefining millennially aged definitions, no matter what they do, it will be wrong because such beliefs and actions are personal beyond the purview of government (there can be no equality for all). By religious definition, homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships as no act of pro-creation exists. If a secular democracy wants to define a relationship, in secular terms, and then give mandate it to its inferiors, in privilege form (such collective being god to each individual), it is well within its purview. In a democracy, the California Supreme Court ruled correctly. In a representative republic, marriage is beyond the lawful purview of government.

Waffler, Smith

You guys by discussing rules, regulations, etc. whether they be secular, religious, government etcetera are proving the falsity of the quote. I sincerely believe that a republic is an organization created by men. Tell me of any organization of men that does not have authority. Tell me of a republic that ever existed that did not have courts, prisons etcetera. When you join or get involved with an organization you give up your absolute and arbitrary freedoms. You will behave and act within the boundaries of the organization.

Mike, Norwalk

Anonymous, you sound as shallow as Waffler, incapable of differentiating between a government of servants that act according to law and a government of masters that think they can make up law as they go. All rules, statutes, courts, prisons are not equal. Further, in all (-; 57 ;-) states, common law marriages are no longer accepted. And, even in those states that say they accept common law marriages it is only after you have complied with a check list of statutory requirements. (-; hmm, lol, not a lot of real common law when statutory requirements are involved;-) Thus, those heterosexual couples that choose not to enter a covenant of marriage are at a similar disadvantage as homosexuals in the current democratic theocracy. One good thing that may come out of the California Amendment, marriage may become an archaic term relegated to religious right wing extremists, to be left out of democracy's tyranny. That way, each individual may associate with another in their own way without government's amended, legislated, judicially ruled on, or otherwise religious term commandments.

J Carlton, Calgary

Waffler you take the ideas of liberty to new lows with small redundant arguments. The comparison is not between liberty and justice or liberty and ignorant laws of control. The comparison is between liberty and the fascist system we now live under. Try and elevate yourself above "stop signs".

Waffler, Smith

J I chose stop signs because Mike of Norwalk has spoken of his disdain for such things as being required to stop at these things or to be required to drive on a particular side of the street. Now what is arbitray or absolute power. In society we have conventions or agreements to do things certain ways. If you do not do them that way then it is the individual who is considered to be arbitray. In England and Japan they drive differently. My examples may be silly and absurd but they just point out the failure of the quote to be really meaningful or a universal principle or statement.

Mike, Norwalk
  • 1
  • Reply
Mike, Norwalk Waffler, Smith 7/15/21

“Law” has a broad nomenclature that divides into multiple political philosophies, many temporal images, diverse understandings, scores of mental aberrations, and an exponentially expanding difference of systems / exercises / administrations. Law's attributed source, helps define subsequent philosophical applications as well as the applied system of law and justice. – By example:

     1) “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence {a limiting static recognition of natural law, subject nomenclature animating an umbrella of that which is eternal and absolute in nature} natural law – the intended jurisprudence of the de jure States united) Infinite and unwavering rules of nature are categorically understood through assessable proficiencies such as gravity, physics, math, life, liberty and property (an Iroquois Federation measure, the constitutional law of the land).

     2) Legal Positivism; Legal Positivism is arbitrary, “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) – Legal Positivism is most often “used in opposition to natural law” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).

     3) Legal Realism; Legal Realism is arbitrary and habitually time/situation fleeting, instituted by any source, at any time regardless of natural law or legal positivism (executive, judicial, personal, etc.).

     4) etc.

     Differences that identify a body politic that recognizes “the laws of nature and of nature's God” (a limited administration of natural law or nature's law) from a government that utilizes Legal Positivism, Legal Realism or otherwise is: at natural law administrations, tools such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. are detailed to define the law that already exists. At other than administrations of nature's law, such tools are considered and acted upon as though they were the laws themselves – the legislators, as gods, have the ability to create law.

     One example of applied difference is movement or transporting oneself as an inalienable right. Each individual has an inalienable right to travel. Each person has a right to travel from point “A” to point “B” or point “B” to point “A”. If everyone tried to travel at the same time – A to B or B to A, injury would occur and rights would be violated. At natural law, a “Rule of Order” would be established through a given tool (code, statute, etc.) to have all individuals travel either on the right or the left. Natural Law's Rule of Order then enhances inalienable right and liberty. At other than natural law, the temporal gods establish law (codes, statutes, etc. becomes law – conducting one's self would be made illegal without the gods' privilege). Said laws' mandates would also contain threats of punishment (beyond natural law cause and effect) for violating its compelled compliance. If traveling on the right or left were a natural law issue, either all those in the U.S.A or U.K would be dead.

     A stop sign can be utilized as a rule of order at natural law or an arbitrary tyrannous tenant. Helots, serfs, slaves, theocratical dupes and those mental midgets such as Waffler do not / can not understand the difference. If there are multiple parties arriving at an intersection where "stop signs" are present, a set "rule of order" would establish a procedure that would best serve the inalienable rights of each and every involved. If the situation held that there was only one party in the vicinity of the stop sign laden intersection, the same "rule of order" would not be applicable. At arbitrary tyranny, the so called "law" (corporate bylaw or other despotic mandate for owned chattel) would dictate an entirely different understanding than would be explained by nature's law.

Ken, Allyn, WA

Stop signs are not arbitrary, Waffler. Everyone is required to stop at them. Are some people in England exempted from having to drive on the left side of the road? It is when a government gives you special treatment that it does not give me that power becomes arbitrary. Special interests and lobbyists who bribe to get regulations that favor them over the competition is lawlessness. Politicians who enable and profit from them are lawbreakers. Speaking of lawlessness, it has been observed that the dealerships that have been slated to close were overwhelmingly Republican or Clinton donors in the last election, while those who are to remain open happened to be Obama donors. I'm sure it's just a coincidence though.

  • Reply
Anonymous    5/29/09

Yes. In a TRUE REPUBLIC and where there are indeed FREEMEN!

Salome Kist, Carrollton, Kentucky

This law seems to only apply to men, which explains why the laws and those interpreting and giving to me to understand in terms of real and personal property, that I don't have any rights to my real and personal property as taken and controlled by a man. So, I think this quote, though provoking towards establishing equity, does not avail itself in my situation.

Ronw13, Yachats Or

Never cared for Lincoln or the 14th amendment. Unjust law is no law to be observed . More mischief framed in a law !

Hark, NYC
  • 1
  • Reply
    Hark, NYC    4/13/15

    A marriage is a union between a man and a woman!
    nothing more need be said.
    Gays must be free to enjoy rights guaranteed to all people without prejudice. they free to form a union but it will never be a marriage.

    Ronw13, Yachats Or

    You were free to do so in the beginning. Why spoil it ! Why do you think the French joined the fight in the first Place !

    Barbara, Columbia

    I think I just read some real stupid statements here.

    Barbara, Columbia

    Some people, seem to have a real ignorant understanding of, Majority. That is our system. we have and always have had a Democratic vote, and majority wins...except for the assholes that don't think it's right if its not in favor of what they want....How dare you idiots, even come close to compare it to, Nazi Germany. Hitler not only would have not allowed it, but he would have murdered will freaking better start learning how lucky you freaking idiots were given the civil union, that wasn't good enough...Now you want to take a Relgious institution...and change it to fit what you want...and dare to call them Nazi...I truly hope you get to find out real soon, what Nazi is, or sharia law..get to experience being thrown off a very high building, or have your privates cut idiots never know when to quit...and you will get what you asked for.

    E Archer, NYC

    The issue is a matter of jurisdiction. A stop sign isn't a law, it is a rule made by agreement whether implied or written. Pedestrians walking on the sidewalk manage to avoid others travelling in the opposite direction not because of 'laws' -- it is everyone's self interest to do so. The less we are allowed to self-govern and the more rules imposed WITHOUT our agreement, a de facto authority becomes established. This gradually erodes personal responsibility and centralizes power into the hands of others who derive their sustenance from regulating/taxing others.

    The American Republican government is an agreement between the people and the people. Republican government is empowered ONLY by the agreements of the parties of the compact. What most Americans have either forgotten or never learned is the power of their word, their signature, their consent. Without that consent, government employees have NO claim to regulate any activity undertaken by a free man/woman. The surrendering of responsibility for oneself to another for agreed upon benefits is a contract with terms and conditions, the violation of which may have severe consequences.

    The usurpation is the assumption that we ALL have agreed to surrender to 'authority' like subjects of the Crown. Placing ourselves into a permanent state of indentured servitude with the power only to vote for a choice of rulers. Waffler is a perfect example of that consciousness.

    As for majority rule, it is ALWAYS limited by the inalienable rights of the individual. Voting for anything is limited by jurisdiction and agreements of the people in the association. Club members may not impose their rules upon others who have not agreed to join the club. We are freemen first, not automatically on the hook for the debts/promises of those that preceded us.

    For the most part, Washington DC has imposed its authority on the sovereign states by applying MUNICIPAL statutes of the District of Columbia to the States themselves (Congress serves both functions for the federal government of the USA and the municipal government of the Washington DC). Little by little, a DC government is being established over the sovereign States -- only a small percentage of Sheriffs have dared to tell the feds to get the hell out.


    Get a Quote-a-Day!

    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.