[drypowder]

when the US government is clearly governing against the people by acting in full-out lawlessness and clearly using tax money to constrain liberty and circumvent the American people thus causing harm to the people (making war on the people), is it still a legal body according to the Constitution? The whole intent of the Constitution was for the people to exercise the right to restrain government power and to take physical action against such a government. Thus, by Constitutional Law, it legalizes the American citizen to take up arms against those in government under these very circumstances being perpetrated by this administration.

[OneWingedShark]

when the US government is clearly governing against the people by acting in full-out lawlessness and clearly using tax money to constrain liberty and circumvent the American people thus causing harm to the people (making war on the people), is it still a legal body according to the Constitution? The whole intent of the Constitution was for the people to exercise the right to restrain government power and to take physical action against such a government. Thus, by Constitutional Law, it legalizes the American citizen to take up arms against those in government under these very circumstances being perpetrated by this administration.

Right on -- the only issue is a little nit to pick: 'legalizes', and that only because there is a real distinction between legal and lawful ~ Our government is legal (having the form/appearance) but not lawful (having the substance) ~ just as our right to take up arms is lawful, according to the highest law of our nation, despite what lesser statutes say (this because if they are contrary to the higher law then they cannot be law themselves).