United Macedonia Diaspora

[Risto the Great]

Aha, understood and agreed.

[Vangelovski]

Buktop, you’ve completely perverted the meaning of limited government and the purpose of a constitution – you’ve turned it upside down and inside out. Anyone with a basic understanding of republicanism knows that a government/parliament can ONLY do what the constitution specifically ALLOWS it to do and NOTHING ELSE:

In 1787, the Constitution of the United States called into existence the federal government. What was significant, however, was that it was a government whose powers were expressly limited by the people.

Throughout history, government officials had exercised omnipotent power over their citizenry. Of course, there had been some exceptions, such as Magna Carta in 1215, when the great barons of England had extracted, at the point of a sword, an admission from King John that his powers were limited. But by and large, it was commonly accepted all over the world that people’s lives and fortunes were unconditionally subject to the commands of their government officials.

Thus, the U.S. Constitution was a terribly shocking document, especially to rulers all over the world. Because here were a people who were placing themselves in the role of master and placing government in the role of servant. In other words, in one fell swoop, the American people had inverted the historical relationship between citizen and government…
…they created a government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in a document. It was the first time in history that people had had the audacity to limit the powers of their own governmental officials.

For example, Article 1, Section 8, sets forth the powers of Congress. Whether you believe that all of these enumerated powers are proper or not, one fact is indisputable: that the powers of Congress were indeed limited. In other words, if the powers of Congress were unlimited, there would have been no reason to enumerate specific powers. By listing the specific powers, the Founders made it clear that the federal government’s powers over the people were not omnipotent…

…the Constitution expressly enumerates the powers of the federal government, they argued, if a power is not enumerated, it cannot be exercised. Since the power to regulate speech, for example, was not among those listed, government officials would not be permitted to regulate speech…

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0900a.asp
Jocob G. Hornberger


Founders designed the law of the land — the Constitution — to establish a federal
state with strictly limited powers. They sought to circumscribe carefully the powers of the new government…

Natural rights are granted by God, not the government. People entrust their rights to the protection of government, which rules by their consent. Only governments which protect these natural rights to life, liberty, and the free pursuit of happiness deserve the obedience of its citizens. Government's purpose, then, is to serve the people as the guardian of their rights (and not the other way around as under King George.)

Thus, the Founders secured liberty through law — first by appealing to natural law, and second by establishing a Constitution to limit legally the ability of any government to exercise more power than its citizens give it. With the powers of government strictly limited, citizens could be free to pursue their particular visions of happiness and the good life.

http://www.limitedgovernment.org/pub...fs/brf4-32.pdf
Stephen Lazarus
Research Analyst with PublicInterest Institute


Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits, which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution. With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)


"Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, it is equally as violative of the constitution for government to assume duties - to pretend to have responsibilities - as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr5.html


It was well understood in 1787 that there were generally three kinds of laws: (1) Fundamental or constitutional; (2) statute law; and, (3) common law. The Constitution was a “constitution” because it constituted a new government. The new government could claim no such continuity with any preceding as would make the common law any part of it unless the constitution so provided. It was limited and not general and did not so provide. The legislative power conferred by the Constitution was specifically restricted to those objects described and granted in the Constitution itself. That there should be no doubt about it the words “herein granted” were inserted and the specific powers catalogued in Article I. The Congress was required to look to the Constitution for all of its powers. It could not look to the common law or elsewhere for power.

http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/doc...overnment.html
R. Carter Pittman

You must be some sort of Macedonian Government official, trying to convince the people that despotism and tyranny are the real forms of republicanism.

[Buktop]

You either don't understand what I am saying or you don't want to

[Vangelovski]

I'm resting my case.

[El Bre]

Hi Lion,

No offense but, is it possible that theser are PIE words that came from east to west rather than the other way round?

[The LION will ROAR]

Hi Lion,

No offense but, is it possible that theser are PIE words that came from east to west rather than the other way round?

Maybe Someone who is more of an expert in langauge could answer that..
Does any other race/nation around that region used those words and meanings..?
El Bre, What i was getting at the difference between the connection with the Greeks and Macedonains to the Kalash tribe...
And there is no doubt that there is a connection with the Ancient Macedonians..

[indigen]

indigen,

I am a little unclear on the point you were making, particularly given that you quoted me twice in your post to me.

If you have been reading this forum for a while and if you've been following my posts for a while, then you would understand the manner in which I use the term 'Constitutional name'.

You would also understand my opposition to the manner in which some people and groupd use the term 'Constitutional name'; that is, in a way to suggest that it is acceptable for the name of the Republic of Macedonia to be different to the Internationally (i.e. United Nations) recognised name of the Republic of Macedonia, as is the case now, because of those same aforementioned people and groups.

Macedonia does NOT have a "Constitutional name", though this terminology has taken root and is now unconsciously part of the lexicon of some well meaning patriotic Macedonians. We need to lift up the level of our ideological game a notch or two, mate.

What do you think of the following statement by SMK (Todor Petrov)?:

SMK: Bezusloven prekin na razgovorite za imeto, vednash!

Името на државата Македонија е целосно затворено со референдумот од 8 септември 1991 година, кога македонскиот народ и граѓаните на Република Македонија се изјаснија за “самостојна и суверена држава Македонија”, без придавки и додавки и таа одлука е задолжителна за сите, без исклучок. Разговорите за името на Македонија претставуваат флагрантно кршење на Уставот и законите и повреда на основните човекови права и слободи на Македонците во сите делови на Македонија и во целиот свет. А, именувањето на државата Македонија со времената референца “Поранешна Југословенска Република” или со какво и да е име освен Македонија претставува геноцид врз македонскиот народ кој континуирано трае од поделбата на Македонија по Втората Балканска војна со Букурешкиот договор од 10 август 1913 година и поради тоа Европската Унија заедно со Грција на Македонија и должат извинување и репарации.

Од Претседателот и Владата на Македонија СМК побара веднаш и безусловно да ги прекинат разговорите за името на земјата, без екслузино право према кого и да е и со писмена нота да го воспостават нејзиното единствено историско име Македонија во Обединетите Нации и во сите меѓународни организации, со можност за употреба на уставната референца “Република”, без латинична транскрипција на македонскиот јазик, туку на англиски јазик “The Republic of Macedonia” со меѓународниот код МК односно МКД.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=30936&postcount=28

[TrueMacedonian]

Buktop, I think its time that you show your cards - rather than accusing everyone of "personal" agenda's while hiding behind an internet pseudonym.

Why do you blindly defend UMD? Are you a UMD member? Are you a UMD Board Member? Why are you acting as an apologist for UMD's blatant support for the Interim Accord and Framework Agreement? Living in New Jersey (Meto's home state), what are you links to Meto?

Guilty conscience I see.

[Vangelovski]

Guilty conscience I see.

!?!?!?!?!?

[UMDiaspora.org]

Thank you for making a sticky. UMD appreciates your support. Preparations are going very well and UMD looks forward to working with our Australian partners to help Australia recognize Macedonia.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Jankovska, do let us know the response that Meto provides you, if your question is in relation to ZMR. Cheers.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Hi Lion,

No offense but, is it possible that theser are PIE words that came from east to west rather than the other way round?

If they are indeed 'Proto' Indo-European words then it is more probable that they came from the west and then went east, but this would have taken place centuries before the expansion of the Macedonian Empire into southern Asia.

TLWR, are you basing your examples on the study carried out by Chasule? If so, can you please provide a link to these texts?

[Bill77]

I am not sure where i got These images from. But i know they have something to do with the Kalash.









Now have a look at a few images that are From Republic of Macedonia.

[Bill77]

Take a look at these photos of Kalash children. Gledaj surato na ovie deca. Dali licat isto kako makedoncina









And if you are to visit Macedonia, you will notice the majority girls have these pearcing Blue eyes. In particulor ive noticed in the Bitola area. Just like these Kalash Girls.

[Phoenix]

Jankovska, You tell me to relax then you tell me to go back to Croatia?? Sure i'd love to go to the Dalmatian Coast for a holiday, Dubrovnik is a fantastic city or even the Islands of Brach,Korchula (Where Marco Polo was born) Pag some fantastic places. However im not Croatian and Croatia is not my domovina, i do respect the country though i respect every country there is beauty to see everywhere even in Kosovo, my whole point was that we expect so much and give very little even when we were at war like the old saying goes "Kolku Pari Tolku Muzika"

prolet, it didn't matter in the slightest how much money the diaspora gave (or didn't) to the war effort in 2001...the outcome was predetermined by the USA...even if our diaspora had the means to raise billions of dollars the outcome would have been EXACTLY the same...at the end of the day our access to arms was cut-off and the ability to move arms into Macedonia was cut-off...they're some serious issues to overcome when you're fighting a war.

The sad thing is that as a people we don't learn...after a few years we're right in bed with the people that did everything in their power to destroy us.