30 Percent of Republicans Say True Americans May Have to Resort to Violence to Save U.S.

You need to review the case of the Boston Massacre, where soldiers who had done the killing were defended by one John Adams

 

The Colonies were not trying to "secede" from the British Empire, (at least not at first) they were defending their rights AS ENGLISHMEN. Freedom came later, particularly when they realized that true taxation WITH representation, (which was offered as the Revolution wore on) might be as much as 25 times as high as what they had.

 

No need for me to review it, I'm quite familiar with it. Adams won in Court, too, and got those Englishmen off. But that doesn't change the fact that he was one (of many) insurrectionists (sound like a familiar term?), rebels, and revolutionaries who killed, directly or indirectly (Franklin, for example, was far too old to participate in combat himself) tens of thousands of British soldiers, all because they rightfully felt repressed by George. No, not our George, the other one across the pond.

Whatever you're smoking, please share. I give you the text (well, the start of it) of the Declaration of Independence itself. I think once you re-read it, you'll realize just how wrong this codswallop actually is.

I'm fairly sure "dissolving the political bands which have connected them with another" is just a fancy way of saying succession.

 

So who decides when you have to go to war with your own government?

 

As I say to the many delusional folks out there that trot out this tripe without understanding the power and scope of the constitution to manage a nation successfully for the better part of 230 years (OK, the Civil War was a bad stretch for the constitution), you can either howl at the moon and hope something changes or you can say to yourself, gee I like that moon. Our nation has decided to govern itself over time at the federal level and education is one of those things that the federal government has taken on using various legal justifications whether you like it or not. Since the Cato institute has come out repeatedly braying the same line you are braying here and they have the means to challenge it in court, why not send them a few bucks and see if they take it on. The Supremes are set up to do their bidding, its stacked with Federalists, lets abolish the government and give every little libertarian wet dreams as they sleep in rapturous calm once the government is dismantled. Or you can grow up and accept reality, its your choice buddy. Howl at the moon or say its a gorgeous moon....

 

Which is nothing but a fancy way of saying that you don't give a crap about the Constitution, nor whether or not it is followed or respected. Open your eyes and for the love of gawds, learn to read. It says what it says, and ignoring it won't make that factoid go away no matter how many times it's done.

 

No, he was right.

It does not begin with the Declaration contrary to what your Liberal handlers taught you in school.

The idea of rebellion started to form much, much earlier. Obviously, you're not aware of the Stamp Act Congress.

That was 1765. They bandied about the idea of secession, but sought to work within the framework as established by George III to effect change.

If you don't understand that, then you'll never understand the Declaration.

I taught the Declaration in my Intro to International Relations, US Foreign Policy and International Law classes, because the moron students I had somehow managed to complete 4 years of high school and be graduated and allowed to vote, yet had no freaking idea how to write a proper essay and the Declaration is the Universal template for the most perfect essay. Worse than that, they didn't even understand the Declaration because it was so poorly taught in high schools, if taught at all.

So, let's do that.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,...

[bold emphasis in original; underlined and italic emphasis added]

Make no mistake about it. The Declaration creates 13 separate independent countries, each sovereign in their own right. It does not in any way, shape or form create one country.

When in the Course of human events....

Why is "Course" capitalized?

Anyone? Bueller?....Bueller?

What does "Course" mean? Well, my friends and I would say "she's on the rag."

The word "Course" in common usage at the time meant a woman's period, or if you want to be medically correct, then menses and the menstrual cycle.

The operand in "menstrual cycle" is "cycle."

What these men were saying, is that what's about to happen is cyclical within the context of human history.

My degrees are in Economics (BA), Political Science (BS/MA) and International Relations (PhD) so I'm hardly an historian, but I am aware that there are theories about history, including:

1) History repeats itself
2) History is cyclical
3) History repeats itself cyclically

Those men were well-traveled, well-read and quite learned, and while they had no knowledge of Sumer, Akkad, the Hittites, Hurrians, Mari, Nuzi, Mitanni, Eblaites, Elamites, Sushites, Kassites (the biblical "Khush"), Gutians and others that preceded Greek civilization, they were aware of the Greeks and all those who followed.

It would appear they believed in Theory #2 & #3.

That paragraph is the Preamble, and the second is their biases, ie, their philosophy, and it was an attempt to explain not just to Britain, but to the "World" -- meaning France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, the Holy Roman Empire, the Papal Estates, the Italian City States, the German principalities and duchies, and Tsarist Russia --what they were doing and why they were doing it.

I wouldn't expect to see a Preamble and Statement of Beliefs in an informal essay for test, but everyone should graduate high school having written at least one formal essay in their lives.

The second paragraph also contains their Hypothesis, which is required in a informal essay:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Having stated their Hypothesis, they then present evidence in support of their Hypothesis (also required for an informal essay.)

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.


He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.


For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:


For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

All of those indirectly reference the Stamp Act Congress.

The tried for 10 years to get the King to work with them. The King would call a meeting at some podunk settlement 200 mile west of Philadelphia out on the frontier, and when they got there, all they found was a message from the King telling them the meeting had been moved to Charleston (South Carolina) three day's hence, and there's no way they could get there in time. Then the King would berate them for not being at the meeting in Charleston.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat about 3 dozen times and you can see why'd they be mad at the King.

But the seeds were sown even earlier than that. It was around 1748-49.

The point being, they didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey! Let's split from the whole freaking program!"

If you don't understand these two...

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.


He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

....you won't understand Article III of the Constitution.

Anyway, after laying out all of their evidence to support their Hypothesis, they draw a conclusion:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

The Colonies are united only their Declaration of Independence and establishes "Free and Independent States" (plural not singular.)

But, of course!

 

Yes, that is the "roll-up effect" I described earlier.

All governments always over-react. It's the only thing they know how to do, because at the end of the day, they are all bureaucracies and are loathe to yield even an iota of power.

It doesn't have to be anyone or any group in particular. It's simply when a sufficient number reach the breaking point, and "a sufficient
number" need not be a majority.

Throughout history, "a sufficient number" has always been less than 10% of the adult population.

Well, I don't like it and it violates the Constitution. Perhaps you're not aware that both schools and universities existed and had the Framer's of the Constitution wanted the federal government to have control of education, they would have plainly said so, and since they did not, that is strictly the purview of the several States.

Since the federal government has taken over education, the education system has gotten markedly worse, not better.

 

spare me the framers argument, its weak and unfounded. They wrote a vague constitution for a reason, deal with it.

 

What reason was that?

And I disagree. It's not vague, but flexible, and that's not just semantics. If it was vague it wouldn't have lasted this long and the same thing would apply to a document that was rigid and thus would have broke because it couldn't bend.

 

The Constitution is nearly infinite in its capacity for necessary and beneficial change, unike conservatives.

 

There is nothing vague about the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority with respect to education in this country.

The men who wrote it had incredible foresight and worded it in such a way as to account for new technologies.

"....or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

That's simple, elegant, genius and flexible as you noted.

Speech is not confined to the spoken word, just as press isn't confined to newspapers or other printed media.

That's pretty forward thinking.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Why is it worded that way?

If Congress started banning religions, then by default, the only religion that is not banned becomes the de facto national religion, and those men had already seen (and experienced) the harm that comes from having religion mixed with government.

A lot of the people on this thread don't seem to be aware of the word "inherent."

Since time immemorial, a head-of-State has certain inherent powers. The men could have listed all those powers, but that would have made Article II somewhere between 100,000 to 200,000 pages long.

Rather elegantly, they simply operated on the presumption that the President has all traditional inherent powers, except those that are expressly barred or restricted.

Like waging war. The head-of-State declares war, but in the Constitution that power is prohibited and given to the Congress.

Same for treaties and appointing cabinet members. Those powers were given to the Senate, just as the power of taxation was given to the House.

Since legislatures came into being, they have certain inherent powers. Those men feared an all powerful central government, which is one reason they flat-out rejected a unitary-State in favor a confederation, but the central government under the Articles was too weak and would have ultimately resulted in the destruction of the US.

Since the goal under the federal was to limit the power of the central government, the powers of Congress are spelled out and they have those and only those powers.

 

AFACT the "goal" of limiting the power of the Central Government is not stated anywhere in the Constitution. Indeed, you say yourself that "the central government under the Articles was too weak and would have ultimately resulted in the destruction of the US" Nor does it say that Congress has ONLY it's enumerated powers. If it does please point that out to me. Please and Thank you.

 

So you believe that if a small cadre of people find themselves sufficiently aroused by what they see as governmental malfeasance the 2nd amendment gives them the right to take their Constitutionally permitted weapons and go murder those they regard as malefactors?

And since you give no requisite number for these rebels I must conclude it could be as small as one, nor does it seem to limit your power in these regards to governmental matters alone.

So in other words the Constitution gives you the right to basically murder anyone you disagree with, is that right?

 

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

^^^^^ This is what you call a limitation. Anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is left up to the States or the people. That's why States can have different laws.

The Constitution is neither vague nor flexible. Only power-grabbing liberals want it to be and they have successfully destroyed a lot of it.....and that's how you get nationwide gay marriage, abortion, etc.

 

My lord, we have a budding Supreme Court justice among us. What a load of laymen's laments. Tell you what, advocate your legal positions with your favorite legal entity and petition them to let you try a case before the SCOTUS. I am dying to hear you submit that the US government is illegal according to your opinion.

 

How is it even remotely possible people don’t know the Constitution grants very few powers to the national government and specifically states in the 10th Amendment those powers are strictly limited?

 

You do.

 

So if I have a dispute over my taxes I have the Constitutional Right to assassinate any government official I deal with? And by extent any government employee over anything? And since we all are the government in this country anybody over anything? Murder is legal?

This is not a semantic quibble. You are maintaining that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to KILL somebody. That sort of right has to be spelled out in detail and I don't see any other way to look at it than this.

 

I never said anything about a "Constitutional" right. I do, however, think the Declaration of Independence does a good job of laying out some guidelines that you ought to apply to the situation:

It's up to you to decide if your tax dispute is a "light and transient" cause or "a long train of abuses and usurpations" that is "destructive" of your rights. If you sincerely believe it's the latter, the founders would seem to contend that you have both a right and a duty to "throw off such Government". Might be a good thing to discuss with your closest friends before you just Leeroy Jenkins the whole thing, but ultimately, the decision is yours and yours alone.

This is one of those lame lefty talking points that I've never found very convincing. I'm skeptical you even believe it. If you do, wouldn't that make the Jan 6 self-guided Capitol tour a government-sanctioned action? In either case, I'm quite confident that Pelosi doesn't view the peasants as equal parts of the government.

I didn't mention the 2nd Amendment, but I think it's pretty obvious that there are times and places where killing someone is justified. Kyle Rittenhouse found two such times and places in one night. George Washington's men killed all sorts of government officials, and most Americans believe their actions were moral and just, to offer just one more example.

 

You're ignoring my question. WHO CHOOSES WHEN MURDER IS JUSTIFIED? Is it the individual citizen for whatever reason he may please? Is murder now legal?

 

I'm not ignoring your question. I answered it. You asked: "So who decides when you have to go to war with your own government?" and I answered you: "You do."

I'm mildly curious about your view on the matter: Is that a decision you'd leave to some other person / organization to make for you? Maybe wait for the U.N. to give you the green light? Or your current governor? Or until some public policy survey-taker finds that 51% of the populace supports such action?

Personally, I don't have the level of faith in those aforementioned groups / individuals to entrust them with such a monumental (for the individual, at least) decision.

It's almost certainly not going to be a legal act under the laws of the government at the time (despotic governments rarely leave it legal to oppose them, let alone kill government officials), but whether it ultimately is viewed as justified (something like the Revolutionary War or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising) is a question for the history books. Since you won't have the benefit of that hindsight with your tax dispute, you'll have to do your best to figure it out in real time. And to answer your last question: yes, ultimately it's up to each individual citizen, including you, to decide for themselves if the time has come to "throw off such Government".

 

So murder IS legal, according to you. Should we find several dead bodies in your backyard you will simply say, "We had a dispute, I felt justified in killing them" and the police will go away. Indeed, I expect you will deliver them to the dead bodies disposal site yourself and there will be no police visiting you as no police will exist. What need for them? There is no real crime as any "dispute" over ownership or anything else can be settled by simply killing one or another party

Isn't Anarchy great? Aren't you glad the Founding Fathers gave us one instead of that stodgy old Republic Ben Franklin liked to go on about?

 

I don't know whether you are dishonest or just dense. Try rereading the highlighted portion of my post below, requoted for your convenience. Then reread it again. Then again. Think for a while on the meaning of that portion. Then see if you can figure our where you went awry: