SCOTUS does not recognize the right to rebellion against the government

If succession is constitutional was ultimately never decided legally. Personal rebellion (as compared to action of the states) is almost certainly treason.

 

Of course "insurrection theory" is treason to the US and the Constitution.

 

True. George III didn't allow no rebelling either.

 

LOL, so you want Congress to pass a law legalizing and decriminalizing deadly revolt?

LOLOL!!!!

 

No, such a law would be redundant.

 

so you think if someone engages in violent revolt against the USA, they shouldn't be charged with a crime?

LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Never said that. There's just no need for a law against rebellion.

 

its called "treason", and its illegal.

 

If you're rebelling you don't give a damn about that. You've already written off your life for the cause.

 

All insurrections against the existing order are inexcusable, except those that succeed.

 

then why are folks here demanding that violent revolution against the govt. be decriminalized?

 

Which would include the founders and all others who participated in the American revolution and all other revolutions. What you're saying is that it is not true that The People are the rightful government, it's merely a belief.

 

I don't know. Maybe they haven't thought deeply enough. Law ceases to exist in a rebellion -- sure it's still on paper but it don't mean a thing.

 

I would not say that, but a trumper might think that such a silly false conclusion to be correct.

 

Not by insurrection...in fact that is what the Militia was there to deal with

 

Then what are you saying ("silly trumper" aside)? I don't know which of 3 statements you object to since you didn't specify so I'll assume all of them.

You can't have it both ways.

1. Either The People have an unalienable right to create their government and change it or they do not. Given that they can at any time, violently or non-violently and have throughout history, it would be difficult to consider that concept theoretical.

2. Either SCOTUS has the power to define rights or it does not. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes SCOTUS to define rights (not that anyone or anything can since all rights are inherent at birth) and the 9th Amendment protects all unenumerated (undefined) rights. SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution and the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from seizing powers not specifically granted to it. So that's not theoretical either.

3. And the last point, that the unalienable right to change and/or determine government is enshrined in our founding document is fact, I didn't invent that.

 

By any means, violently (as the founders did) or non-violently (the overthrow of the Soviet Union for example). There is no exception to the unalienable right to create or change government. Is it "legal"? Of course not, no government would make it lawful (at least not violently).

 

Regardless of LW and OP efforts to conflate and confuse the definition of "militia" into (para) "organized private armed groups" in a feeble red herring attempt (insurrection theory, an oxymoron, is -utterly- irrelevant to legitimate 2A analysis), the word "militia," as it appears in the Constitution, means the whole able-bodied population at large who may reasonably be expected to defend life and property... against -any- unlawful action by -anyone-.

SCOTUS has found that the 2A creates an individual right to bear arms, and that's all that matters. That is the law. Don't like that? there are channels for change other than extralegal mental masturbation. Use those.

Better luck next red herring. Maybe pick one that's not so obviously bogus.

 

Sure there is, it's legal if you win.

 

You debunked your own statement with your copy/paste.

 

Under the wording its for the Militia, and the authority to call them up and organize them for war rests with Congress and only if they order the calling up of Militia to serve, we don't use a Militia system we have a volunteer armed force and reserve forces for them so it is unlikely to ever happen. The right to bear arms is tied to that and the Militia laws. Now States can organize a Militia but there are some terms a State Defense Force and they answer to their State governments and are organized by the States and again are not rabble with guns. The unorganized militia is lawful but is tied to the authority then of Congress and acting without that would be unlawful.

Any rabble armed and fighting the government forces is Treasonous you can though Vote and using other means to 'change direction' of the government so do that. Local and state governments are more important anyway IMHO.

References and Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_State_Defense_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Naval_Militia

 

What the OP really means is what the founders built but the founders also recognized the caveat in the OP. If government becomes tyrannical the door is open to changing government, by force if necessary.

 

The civil war has already begun.

Daniel Greenfield wrote back in Mar 2017, "This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control."

"The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left."

----
After losing elections SINCE 2010, dems haven't changed one bit or moved to the center. The left has taken them over and aren't going to stop until they rule the people.

I would suggest dems toss out leftists from their party and back down BEFORE it turns into a shooting war.

Steve

 

Anyone who advocates "insurrection theory" may well be reported by their neighbors to Homeland Security.

 

The civil war has already begun.

Daniel Greenfield wrote back in Mar 2017, "This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control."

"The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left."

----
After losing elections SINCE 2010, dems haven't changed one bit or moved to the center. The left has taken them over and aren't going to stop until they rule the people.

I would suggest dems toss out leftists from their party and back down BEFORE it turns into a shooting war.

Steve