Forgive me for a blurry eyed mid conversation interuption here, but are you holding that once we created a compact through the constitution we lost all right to throw off an oppressive government because we agreed to it?
If you browse my posts, you will see I am no fan of anarchy or uprising, but I wonder where to draw the line on this reasoning.
The anti-federalists and nullification folks had some points that are more valid after a couple of hundred years than ever, it would seem.
How to diffuse things in an acceptable manner is my biggest question at the moment, I suppose.
No, but we agreed to this form of government, and by extension by re-electing the vast majority of them and allowing their programs to continue, we are the ultimate owners of all of these ills.
The best remedy is still the ballot box, and, if all else fails, the route of state nullification through the ninth and tenth amendments. It would be a lot easier for the states to stop ridiculous legislation if they hadn’t allowed direct election of senators, but that’s another conversation.
I just simply don’t agree that we have a need to overthrow government by force. That just makes us a banana republic, or Imperial Rome where the army decided the emperor.