What Are Our Options When the Constitution No Longer Protects Us?

June 30, 2003 | sweetliberty

[Ferret Fawcet]

I am not educated in the ways of war or war tactics/strategy, so thank you for enlightening me... I have often wondered how we could have a successful revolt, since the gov't has a seemingly endless supply of resources...

I guess it comes down to who wants it worse... if the gov't wants to maintain power badly enough, could we put it past them to NOT use WMD? They could twist it around through the press, making them appear to be faultless...

...but I do see from your posts that it CAN be done, and it gives me a small glimmer of hope... one thing's for sure, government has become a monster, and I fear it is very close to the point of no return... we try to change things through traditional channels, and it's not working...something's got to give!

[SevenDaysInMay]

Do you envision this clause to make all state laws at variance with utopians' vision null and void so that the federal government can provide uniform laws without those pesky states' governments?

In 1789, the several states had sodomy laws on the books, remaining in force after ratification. Law is an expression of social norms, proscribing some behaviors. The 10th's reservation of states' rights provide states with lawful authority. For good or bad. And that was before the AIDs danger of homos endangering others through their behavior. Physiology made more difference than Texas law. (I don't believe that Texas should have made such behavior illegal for anyone wishing to engage in it. Physical damage and death is the critical risk of such anal behavior.)

Some human behavior is undesirable if not damaging to the wellbeing of the citizens of this nation. Make a list.

I may rather fancy polygamy now that consenting privacy is so cool and there are so many "abandoned", young women needing a safe, loving, PRIVATE family home.

What is "...equal protection..."?

This SCOTUS sodomy ruling interpreted for what it does for prostate pals, extended, voids state laws differentiating human behavior. Why is agism legal? State laws controlling behavior of different people have no validity before this SCOTUS, except when the SCOTUS says so.

Why are minors and elders treated differently before the law? Why are sex workers so lawfully under threat? But a few of the round edges to clear lines...

What IS the difference between people having intimate contact and bearing arms? Both are privacy based God-given rights. I see none after this ruling. Homos packing can pack heat. However, "compelling State interests" are capricious.

We face outlaw blackrobes, congressmen, and presidents. They think that are changing for central government's convenience this "living" Constitution by rule. Our Constitution is not changed, but their lawful "authority" remains only because of overwhelming police powers of government. "Compelling State interest" is the chant of unconstitutional tyranny.

THE 2nd Amendment SCOTUS interpretation will unraval our government's lawful authority. Either SCOTUS rules that our 2nd means what it says within the context of our 9th, 10th, and 14th or it commits federal suicide by destroying its own position before our Law of the Land.

[MississippiMan]

You are of course right. The core of this case is not privacy, nor equal protection, nor due process. It is a stamp of approval that legitimizes homosexuality, plain and simple, an attempt to reverse natural law.

MM

[Congressman Billybob]

Since I was pinged to this thread, I respond.

The quote at the top from Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address is square on point, and was not familiar to me. It echoes, however, Jefferson's very familiar words in the Declaration of Independence. The ultimate solution for a fatally defective government is the "right of revolution."

Most of us, me included, see the situation in the United States as headed in that direction, but not at the end of that road as yet. So the solution in that situation is to work within the constitutional structure to strengthen and protect the Constitution itself.

We need to do two things: 1) Keep Bush in the White House, because no possible alternative President will do any better in nominating judges who will obey the Constitution, and 2) Defeat as many as possible of the Democrats in the Senate who do not want judges who will obey the Constitution from being confirmed to the bench.

Those two steps should buy us another generation, since Supreme Court Justices serve for life, and are usually appointed in their mid- to late-40s (and tend to live long and healthy lives as a rule).

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies."

[Past Democrat]

Even if people DID form militias (or what have you) and start a revolt, could we ever hope to succeed? The gov't has all the high-tech weapons and gizmos- the citizens would be out-gunned.

I'm ready for Jesus to come back, myself- He's the only answer to this (and every other) mess we're in. Keep looking up!

 

 

I am ready for Jesus to come also, but if we do end up in a revolt, then hold faith in the fact that high-tech weapons can't fight the ground war that will need to be fought and that we the people are much greater than the army of the FEDS. Just look at Iraq, you have a small number of people causing a lot of trouble, are numbers would be much larger and most young people would not be on the side of the goverment. If a million or two people in Iraq were to turn against us right now we would loose a lot of people and about be forced to withdraw. So pray for Jesus and do not fear:

Operation American Freedom!!!

[sweetliberty]

This is also an interesting article on the Supreme Court...

Demystifying the Court - What Justice Scalia is up to

[Budge]

The solution was very simple. - Close state schools and tell the feds to go to hell.

Ah, more anarcho-lunacy from the perpetually-unhappy - -

I have read a lot of your comments, especially on this thread. Must you really be so disagreeable, especially with some of your inane comments as italicized above?

Would you please explain to me - better, all of us, just where it was mandated that the state, or federal government should be in charge of educating our children?

[Ferret Fawcet]

Operation American Freedom

I like the sound of that! Let's roll!

[sweetliberty]

This is a good article by Cal Thomas relevant to this thread. See also the article at post #246.

End of the Constitution?

[Roscoe]

Be sure to paint the Moon purple while you're at it, too.

Luna-tics.

[Cold Heat]

Justice Scalia exhibits a occasional attitude because he is vastly outnumbered on the court. His only help seems to come from the courts newest and junior member.

The rest either do not share Scalia's passion for states rights and limited government or are dead set against it in favor of a more European view of human rights that trump all. In fact, many of his worst nightmares spend their off time in the bowels of Europe where they get even more ideas for human kind.

I do not blame him for being a bit edgy in his commentary. Sullivan is full of it on this one and there is no explanation (printable) for Dowd's comment.

[jmc813]

I have read a lot of your comments, especially on this thread. Must you really be so disagreeable, especially with some of your inane comments as italicized above?

Try not to mind the gun-grabber brigade. They're in the minority here at FR.

[Cold Heat]

I may be wrong, but I still don't share Cal's thoughts regarding the major effects of this ruling.

I agree that Kennedy's opinion was scary but the rest were all over the map with their footnotes.

The court does not seem to have much unity even though there was a majority.

I await the coming challenges, lower court rulings and the rest of the story.

[jammer]

Proposal: Since I at one time replied to CJ's posts in good faith, I believe that I have good evidence, as you do, that he/she is not honorable, is a disruptor. I have just quit replying to him/her. Now I see that Chancellor Pallantine is the same way. Even though I posted to him/her last night, I think we should just ignore them totally. They are just disruptors.

[jammer]

Your posts are mentioned above, so I am pinging you.

[Roscoe]

Just like their leftist comrades, they want the centralized power of the federal government to determine what state and local laws should be.

[tpaine]

Budge; Cultural Jihad; Roscoe
I have read a lot of your comments, especially on this thread. Must you really be so disagreeable, especially with some of your inane comments as italicized above?
Try not to mind the gun-grabber brigade. They're in the minority here at FR.
252 -jmc-

They've just been joined by an 'irish_link'..
Search on my name for our exchange about assault weapons this morning.

[ladylib]

Give the people bread and circuses and they will be happy enough.

[tpaine]

"they want the centralized power of the federal government to determine what state and local laws should be."
-roscoe lies-


Typical BS. -- We want the constitution to be honored by federal, state and local governments.

[Roscoe]

We want the constitution to be honored by federal, state and local governments.

No, you want the states and local governments to be forced to conform to your ignorant misrepresentations of the Constitution.