Posted on 04/12/2012 7:14:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Then it is our perrogative to reject the government...
“What if”? Obama has all but verbally denounced the Constitution already.
What do you mean "if", Andy?
Our government rejected our Constitution long ago. Now it’s trying to figure out how to reject the wishes of people while still squeezing every penny out of them.
We have the right and the DUTY to abolish any government that no longer serves the people.
Game on.
consent of the governed
Amendment II
The COTUS is the only thing that legally allows the government to exist.
The minute they do that (not like they haven’t already), then they are no longer legitimate.
If you were an alien from another planet trying to catch up on Earth history, I think a reasonable question would be:
"An amendment? The fundamental check on the government power was the second afterthought?"
Meeting in the middle sounds good to me.
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.” - Abraham Lincoln
The only question is, how long until the “free expression” of your thought is squelched on “Free Republic” due to self censorship?
It cuts both ways: what if enough States voted to reject the present Federal Government?
Indeed with ObamaCare (tm) we have arrived the point where the present government with presently enacted laws is on the verge of being more dangerous to liberty and prosperity than anything that could be ratified by the States following a Constitutional Convention.
Exactly. At that point, the Government has lost all legitimacy and is properly considered outlaw and must be dealt with. We’re fast approaching that point now. It’s truly sad that people desire power so much that they are willing to destroy the greatest nation on Earth to achieve it.
The Romans ended up with an Emperor. But our 'leaders' seem predisposed to surrender US sovereignty to foreign (multinational) interests.
Either way, the number of 'subjects' is growing.
CW-II, here we come.
That has been tried. It didn’t work out very well.
It cuts even another way. What if enough morons exist now to embrace this Nanny Federal Government?
Modern candidates must mirror the electorate to gain a majority. That's why we are getting such awful candidates, I'm afraid.
BCR226: It’s truly sad that people desire power so much that they are willing to destroy the greatest nation on Earth to achieve it.
You mean like the Soviets were willing to destroy us, etc? While it's sad that there are so many AMERICANS who are willing to destroy this country, it's not surprising since so many of them have been taught this country is evil and this is not "their country" but the "1%'s country."
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
All quite true. However, it seems pretty clear that at minimum a very large minority and quite possibly on many issues a majority of “the people” are in favor of these usurpations.
So “the people” is not a unified group opposed to the government. Unfortunately.
Any revolt against this government will be an ideological civil war, not a regional one, and will be very nasty. See Spanish Civil War for a start on what it would be like.
Here are a few more questions:
What if a significant percentage of the population figured out that the feds didn’t give a damn about the Constitution and our laws, giving them lip service when convenient and ignoring them when it wasn’t, and decided that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?
What if just 1% of gun owners - those roughly 900,000 people motivated most by the ideals of the American Revolution, those equipped with the best weapons and tactical gear available to civilians, those best trained in the use of those items and in small unit tactics - decided that the feds were a domestic enemy of the people and the Constitution, and acted accordingly?
What would the feds be able to do to combat some 900,000 highly motivated people spread across a continent intent on a replay of the American Revolution, when the feds could barely cope with the sloppy and incompetent “Beltway sniper” and his teenage accomplice?
Just asking.
What if the concept of “the consent of the governed” was finally rendered moot at Appomattox in 1865?
What we have today is the inevitable result.
The 2nd Amendment allowed for CW-I. The next “CW” would look more like Iraq or Afghanistan. That worked out well.
“Lock and load?”
>>>>>>>>>>
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
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.
(That’s in quotes, y’all - ran across it somewhere, written, I think, by a bunch of dead, male, one-percent, isolationist Crackers clinging to their guns and Bibles. Take it for what it’s worth.)
The writers of the Declaration of Independence put it well, there’s no improving on that.
IF?!?
The people are the government. The soldier in the field, the policeman on the beat, the government employee in his office, are all part of the people.
Only if we willingly turn on ourselves do we violate the constitution. Only if we allow corrupt politicians to divide us rather than unite us will we self destruct.
No constitution will not work unless we have moral citizens electing moral leaders. An American Idol mentality selecting the sexiest candidate is bound for disaster.
The problem is not the constitution or the government, it is the people doing the choosing.
It’s going to get very dark for a long time.
When at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Do you think that the American Revolution worked out smoothly, with no slip-ups, no enemy victories, no casualties? The obvious answer is "no" - but that didn't prevent the Founding Generation from regrouping, licking its collective wounds and trying again and again until the Brits tired of fighting us and left.
To those on this thread who think that the fact that so many are dependent upon and supportive of the feds means an automatic defeat: think again. First off, if they're so dependent, then by definition they're sheep. Second, the American Revolution was not supported by all of the people - roughly 1/3 of the population were Loyalists and not only didn't help, but actively hindered the Revolution and cooperated with the British tyrants...and yet it is they who left for Canada or England when the bullets stopped flying. It is good to be aware of and realistic about what resources your enemy has at his disposal, but it is unwise to think that there is no way to defeat Leviathan...just ask the cave-dwellers in Afghanistan, who have defeated the 2 most powerful empires known to human history in a single generation.
The government is just a symptom of the citizenry choosing dependence over independence. Until that changes, we will continue with the same pattern.
“See Spanish Civil War for a start on what it would be like.”
Yes. Hardly anyone knows what the SCW was about or looked like or if it even happened. Those who do are almost always parroting the ‘red’ notion of what it looked like.
I have been discussing this for years with my friends (I have patient friends) but almost every faction in America today has an analog to some faction in the SCW. The only thing preventing it here is a more generalized prosperity, but that is fading.
God deliver us from such a trial.
Brilliance from the man with the lowest hairline in history.
Not that I disagree, because I do agree. But tread carefully my brother, as we discuss theoretical scenarios.
“What do you mean “if”, Andy? “
*****************************
Looks like “if” has gone the way of “is,” for the most part—both by supposed presidential whim!
Semper watching!
-GyG
*****
You say that like it is a bad thing.
I think we mentally look back on our Civil War and assume that is approximately what a replay would be like.
However, our CW was, despite its blood and terror, far and away the most gentlemanly great civil war in history. Largely because it was primarily, though not exclusively, a regional war instead of an ideological one.
The border states got closer to what most civil wars are like, particularly in MO and KS.
In most civil wars the enemy is not just the enemy, he’s a traitor. Things get real personal real fast.
Spain during its CW was roughly the size of USA during ours. In our CW the total of dead civilians from atrocities was probably in the very low thousands, if that. In Spain, despite a death toll among combatants about half that of our war, the dead civilians killed intentionally, not in collateral damage, totaled somewhere around 200,000.
What if a state(e) started to print it’s own money and forming voluntary infantry regiments with the governor as their C-in-C?
The Afghans didn’t defeat the Brits. The Brits eventually imposed their will and put an end their raiding for duration of the British Raj.
We can’t beat them because we’re not ruthless enough. If we applied the methods of the British Raj or, better yet, the Mongols, we could get this over with and go home secure in a real victory.
Of course, there wouldn’t be very many Afghanis left...
What if a state(s) started to print their own money and forming voluntary infantry regiments with the governor as their C-in-C?
I was just asking questions, same as Judge Napolitano. By definition, it is all hypothetical, all just a stimulant to a free and open discussion. :>)
But thanks for the warning - it may help others.
Freepers crack me up. I love hearing how if FedGov™ was dissolved or seceded from there would be anarchy. This is a REPUBLIC and I would argue every state would be much better off as an independent country. After about 20 years maybe some alliances could be formed and maybe the whole thing reconstructed, but reconstructed the right way not the way it was done last time.
The constitution was designed to create co equal branches of government in order to contain or restrict it’s power. The fact that there are challenges to our governing document shows that we are all under attack from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Germany btw had once 300 different countries and many fought wars against each other.
Actually not quite true.
The Brits were unwilling to pay the price to conquer and occupy Afghanistan, if they indeed were capable of doing so.
Instead, they established a "buffer zone" in their NW Provinces. These areas are largely occupied by Pathans and other peoples who are "really" Afghans. The Brits didn't try to control this area. They paid off local chiefs to keep the level of violence to a dull background roar. They would make punitive expeditions every few years to keep the inhabitants from getting too out of hand.
It was essentially a policy of "whack a mole" as has been proposed. "Rubble doesn't make trouble" wouldn't work because there wasn't much there but rubble to begin with.
The Brits also fought several real wars with the Afghans themselves, the last in the 1920s.
But the Frontier was never quiet, and raiding never stopped.
Dear Judge,
I’ll refer you to Amendment the 2nd.
Have a nice day.
L
150 years ago, we had a President from Illinois who twisted the Constitution and waged war to free the slaves. Today we have a president from Illinois who rejects the Constitution and wages war to make us all slaves.
The outcome of the Civil War was that the states did not have the power to break the covenant with the federal government. The net effect of that is that we the people are left with no choice but revolution.
Politicians have made this bed, they will then have to lie in it.
I would say that King George III got his butt whipped by 13 individual countries. I will risk possible internecine warefare if I get to keep the fruits of my labor. That is what it is all about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.