SCOTUS does not recognize the right to rebellion against the government

I never said it was.

I never said otherwise.

Right, it's just a gdmn piece of paper that's our founding document, nothing to see here.

I never said otherwise. Among other things, it is a statement of certain unalienable rights, not a dictionary.

That's incorrect, they did, see the Bill of Rights (more specifically the 9th Amendment).

That's incorrect, no piece of paper can grant rights, they are inherent at birth. The Constitution protects ALL rights, from government and from others. The first 8 Amendments protect specific rights and the 9th protects all other unenumerated (unspecified) rights. The 10th prohibits the federal government from asserting powers not specifically granted to the federal government, so it protects the first 9 Amendments.

 

Your ignorance of the facts is further clarification that dems will continue to lose elections as they have SINCE 2010. When does it stop, when dems try to take over the gov because they keep losing elections?

Steve

 

I wouldn't worry none about the american public rising up over anything, they are an utterly subjugated people.

“[T]he best evidence indicates that the wishes of ordinary Americans actually have had little or no impact on the making of federal government policy. Wealthy individuals and organized interest groups—especially business corporations—have had much more political clout. When they are taken into account, it becomes apparent that the general public has been virtually powerless. … The will of majorities is often thwarted by the affluent and the well-organized, who block popular policy proposals and enact special favors for themselves. … Majorities of Americans favor … programs to help provide jobs, increase wages, help the unemployed, provide universal medical insurance, ensure decent retirement pensions, and pay for such programs with progressive taxes. Most Americans also want to cut ‘corporate welfare.’ Yet the wealthy, business groups, and structural gridlock have mostly blocked such new policies.”


“Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It”. Benjamin Page (Northwestern University) and Marin Gilens (Princeton).

 

It's all just paper. Laws are just words on paper. And yet, we are a nation of laws. We are NOT a nation of God or inalienable rights. Why? Because neither god nor inalienable rights can show up in court and make a legal argument. All rights come from paper and words. You are mixing philosophy with legality. The Founding Father's didn't make that mistake. The idea that these rights were just "floating in the air" and Thomas Jefferson snatched them up and wrote them down is silly. You are buying into myth, not reality.

The 9th amendment doesn't give you unlimited rights. Review the supreme court cases on the 9th. You won't see any conclusion of the sort. The 9th is simply a sniff test, but it doesn't limit the federal government's power. If it can find legal justification for it's actions, the 9th cannot be used to stop it. Basically, the 9th amendment says the feds can't stop you from chewing gum because there is no federal power or interest in them doing so. It doesn't say they can't stop you from rebelling, because they DO have the powers granted to run the country.

The 10th amendment's original purpose was simply to get anti-federalists on board with the constitution. The amendment itself has never been used as you are describing. So far, it's only been used twice to over ride federal laws. In both cases, it was where a law was written with NO INCENTIVE to the states to simply follow federal laws. The amendment is largely acknowledged as a simple truism, that the feds cannot simply make any law they want AND compel the states to follow it. It does NOT mean you can do whatever you want, including insurrection.

Sorry, but trying to recall what you were taught in high school civics class isn't going to help you build a case for rebellion. We've put down two rebellions since the founding of this country with the full authority and power of the US constitution backing the Federal government. If the right you claim existed, then no Federal powers or authority could have been used in either case.

 

A lot of the 'out of my cold dead hands' crowd need to be taken up on their fake bravado. On the other hand, the same applies to scum like Antifa.

 

What about the lying conservative media? Are you telling me they tell no lies? Because I can find and prove to you they lie. In fact, I can find more lies on the right than the left. Not that there aren't any falsehoods on the left, but defintely fewer. Sorry, that's a fail.

No, you can take your meds. That will help you stop repeating yourself.

You didn't provide any example as asked. The media in this country is far more truthful today than it's ever been. Look into the history of newspapers in this country to see what I mean. Even Fox news doesn't stoop to the levels of the past.

Here's a pro-tip, use real evidence and examples to make your point. Claiming the liberal media is full of lies requires you to prove the media is both liberal and liars. And you can't prove that because it's not homogeneous but rather made up of individuals who argue politics with each other and don't agree with each other all the time. Plus the outlets you would likely define as liberal, tend not to lie. And when they make mistakes, they follow accepted practices to correct those mistakes. So your case is thin, hence why you are repeating yourself ineffectively.

 

The election outcomes SINCE 2010 is all you need to know.

Dems have lost well over a 1000+ seats ACROSS the BOARD at local, state, and federal levels. The lying liberal media never told that, did they.

That's not a swing in power, That's a CRASH IN POWER.

Steve

 

So you are wrong. It's less than 1,000. It's 910. Not at all well over 1,000. You can google it. And yes, they told me the correct answer. It was on politifact.com among other places. I can only assume you find them liberal because they deal with reality, which has a well known liberal bias.

And it's also not unusual. All 2 term presidents have this happen. It happened to Bush and Clinton, and Bush/Reagan as well.

What you CAN argue is that Obama was bad about bolstering down ticket democrats. That is true. Compared to Clinton and Bush, Obama did less for his party overall in terms of electioneering and fund raising. But that's not the same conclusion as you came to, which frankly, isn't supported by facts.

 

You are ignoring the "local" numbers. The 910 is the state level numbers.

No matter how you spin this, dems are losing elections and will continue to lose elections until they ask THEMSELVES WHY, and make appropriate and MEANINGFUL changes. AT minimum, it means moving toward the center.

Steve

 

Insurrection and rebellion is illegal everywhere and has been for as long as civilization has existed. Rebellions are successful sometimes but they are never legal.

 

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between natural or enumerated rights then? Clearly, the constitution, as written, does in fact articulate that it respects the natural rights. I would suggest that the 1951 SCOTUS ruling clearly doesn't respect this, and is a possible area where the precedent should be reviewed, and re-litigated. Murder is illegal, because of the definition of what murder is. Clearly, government can kill, which isn't the same legally, is it? People can kill, for various reasons, which doesn't provoke the act being murder, right?

So, as a 10th amendment conversation, I would suggest that your observation is wrong. There is, actually, a duty for those who wish to remain free to ensure that their government doesn't take that basic human condition away from them.

 

Correct, everything on paper is just words on paper. Your point?

We are just human beings and this nation is a paper created fiction, created by the Constitution, following another piece of paper that declared its independence from yet another paper created fiction.

Correct, only human beings can do that, using pieces of paper in support of arguments.

No they don't, rights are inherent. Pieces of paper can only describe them in the form of words. No piece of paper grants rights, nothing does other than being.

That's incorrect, I'm not mixing up anything. If anything, you are.

And you are making mush out of what I post, I said none of those things.

Correct, the 9th Amendments grants NO rights. No piece of paper grants rights. The 9th PROTECTS all unenumerated/unspecified rights. Please read what I post for comprehension and quit making up crap out of what I post.

It's irrelevant what the Supremes "conclude". They are not the Constitution nor do they have any power granted to them to interpret the Constitution. The 9th Amendment speaks for itself. No one who can read and understand English needs the Supremes to know what the 9th says, just a grasp of the English language.

Then you don't understand the 9th and are just trivializing it and/or basing your understanding of the 9th on what authority says it is, in this case SCOTUS (the fox watching the hen house). The 9th is written in plain English (i.e. words on a piece of paper). If you require SCOTUS to interpret the English language for you you are not a free human being. Your brain then belongs to SCOTUS.

Yes they do but they have also seized powers never granted to them by the Constitution.

The Constitution is ALWAYS being used (or not used) by the federal government as it sees fit. It's rarely used by the federal government as intended by the founders unless by coincidence.

Sorry but making crap up about me does not support any of your arguments. If everything I know was taught to me in high school civics class, I would be just like you.

Now you're mixing apples and oranges. What the US government does or doesn't do has little or nothing to do with rights.

"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." - Gerald Massey

 

An interesting idea for a country that came into existence after a rebellion against its government. Has there ever been a government that officiall allowed rebellion?

 

So Antifa should have the right to rebellion, free of any prosecution if they lose?

 

I do have the right to tell the govt. to kiss my ass if I don't like what they have done and the laws they pass they expect me to subjugate myself to...

 

Imagining you would win such a rebellion is even more silly

 

sure, but no govt. on Earth will give you blanket immunity if you commit treason.

 

Correct and the 1st and 9th Amendments protects your right to do so.

 

Well I have no position to do treason so I protest with what I can...Like tax avoision...

 

If the government stays on its current trajectory where it is taking increasing control over our lives, there will be a rebellion eventually. It may be in 50 years or 500 years, but it will happen.

We've all read the books ... Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, Atlas Shrugged. Americans will rebel if they see an inevitably dystopian future.

 

Your premise is wrong. Us constitutionalists know and believe that we have a right, nay an obligation, to rise up against a tyrannical government if necessary, but that right does not stem from the constitution. It stems from the same right that started the American Revolution.

 

JakeStarkey said: ↑
http://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Second-Amendment-PRIVATE-MILITIAS.html

The far right and some cons believe in "insurrection theory," that American citizens have an intrinsic right embedded in the Constitution to rebel against a tyrannical government. SCOTUS says 'no'.

Believe all you want, but it does not change the law or its effect if you rise up against it. I have no doubt you represent may a tenth of one percent of America. Yell all you want.

 

you have a natural right to resist tyranny, but treason should always be illegal.

 

It always is. However one's definition of treason may differ. A government will always define treason as insurrection against government. So with that definition, the founders committed treason.

The Constitution defines treason as:

Article III Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

But who is the enemy of the United States? Can the US government be the enemy of United States? Of course it can be.

"It is the duty of every patriot to defend his country from its government." - Thomas Paine

So if the enemy of the United States is its government, it would then not be treason if The People overthrew their government.

 

whatever, violent treason should always be illegal.

did the Founders commit treason? yes. and if they had lost the war they should have been put in prison for their crimes.

thats just how it works.