It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: New US Revolution is Legal

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Just thought this was worth re-evaluating.

Does anyone have updated info on the status of these fights?




posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   


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 of 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 shewn, 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. —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. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


The Declaration of Indepence makes the legality of an armed revolution very clear.


Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by soficrow
The new American Civil War is being fought in courtrooms around the nation. The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) reports that 370 Civil Liberties Safe Zones now exist in the USA. Over 56 million people are legally protected from Patriot Act and Homeland Security measures' illegal disregard of civil liberties.

I don't see how they are somehow above the law in this situation. Federal law supersedes state law, and certainly local resolutions.


The Constitution supercedes both federal and state law. The only way the Patriot Act could have been legally passed is if congress were to ammend the Constitution. As it stands it's in direct contradiction with the highest law of our land.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I think maybe the safest thing to do would be to remove ALL incumbents and dissallow campaign financing of any kind, and electronic voting machines, just for one election cycle until we can adress the numerous problems with both. Any other suggestions?


How about we start by adding another amendment to the Constitution which says that no law can be passed to ever abridge the Bill of Rights (including Constitutional amendments) and that any law that is passed abridging those freedoms is considered null and void. Also we need an amendment that says that an executive order can never contradict the Constitution and if a president ever declares an executive order which does they are to be releaved of their office.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
You have voted ShakyaHeir for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


Amen- preach on brother. Sadly, thouse very people in power are the ones we must convince to limit their own power. Power corrupts . . . (you know how the saying goes)

You know congress just voted themselves another pay raise?? (after wasting tons of time on the pullout "vote" cough- power grab)Those pompus morons are grossly OVERPAID- the troops got under the cost of living raise and the civilian civil service got nada. Vote to limit their power or even set up a vote of the CITIZENS for a pay raise no way.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Good stuff Shakyaheir. Than you.


BUT - Do you not think the courts are the best place to start? Or are you saying that's a waste of time and energy?






posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The United States Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing whatsoever in America. It is nothing more than its title, though some people are convinced it is also partially a propaganda piece that was used to seduce other states into joining the fray.

In any case, the famous lines in the preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence were merely the opinions of the revolting authors, and their statement in no way makes revolution legal in America. Revolution, by its definition, is not something done lawfully.

Zip


[edit on 11/30/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Actually, I do not think that going through the court system would be helpfull at all. If you take note of many of the recent Supreme Court rulings, you will note that they are more for enpowering the Federal goverment, lowering the states rights as well as individuals.
I created a thread on this a while back on PTS
To Arms! To Arms A Call for all Americans! Time to overthrow the Goverment!
It goes over some of the many court rulings that are against the people.
It is a good read as well as many of the replies.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Ipso Facto


Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
The Declaration of Indepence makes the legality of an armed revolution very clear.



From the United States Constitution
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [...]

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States [...]

Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

In the United States, armed revolution is legal only if it succeeds.

Otherwise, it is treason.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
The United States Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing whatsoever in America.


So I guess legally speaking America is still a colony of England? Well...at least in England's eyes maybe?


In any case, the famous lines in the preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence were merely the opinions of the revolting authors, and their statement in no way makes revolution legal in America. Revolution, by its definition, is not something done lawfully.


I'll give you that, revolution is unlawful to the government against which the revolution is being fought. But you're talking about law in the technical beaurocratic sense of the word. I for one beleive that law has a higher purpose, and once that purpose is violated it becomes law only in name.

And to give you an idea of our government's stance on the legitimacy of revolution, just two decades ago we secretly funded anti-communist revolutionaries in Nicaragua.


Originally posted by Majic
In the United States, armed revolution is legal only if it succeeds.

Otherwise, it is treason.


Very true, not only in the United States but anywhere.


Originally posted by soficrow
Good stuff Shakyaheir. Than you.


BUT - Do you not think the courts are the best place to start? Or are you saying that's a waste of time and energy?




I think the best place to start is with the lawmakers in Washington D.C. They out of everyone have the most power to prevent any further decline away from the principles of a free society. And if legislation doesn't work then the courts are another avenue to pursue. Revolt against the government is a last resort, and the Patriot act is not justification enough (to me) to revolt but it is a step in that direction. What would it take? I can't tell you that until it comes time to make that decision, which I hope it never will. One can only speculate.

Would the repeal of the First Amendment be enough of a reason? Would amending the constitution (or declaring an executive order) to allow more than two terms for the president (in the case of a hypothetical national emergency) be enough? What about mandatory identification microchipping, or the confiscation and outlaw of all firearms? Who knows?

One thing is for certain, if there is going to be a revolutionary war in America anytime soon it will be fought over the issue of Freedom VS Security and the revolutionaries will be called "terrorists" by our government...

[edit on 1-12-2005 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
All that this really does is make the police within the specific districts not enforce the laws provided in the Patriot Act. In that sense, the citizens are being protected from this law by local or state government organizations. As was said earlier, this does not stop the federal government. Situations such as these where federal cops pursue an investigation that local cops stay away from were the recent medical marjiuana facilities being busted in California.


However, when you really look at it, most of the information that the federal government gets on a suspect is the result of local police work. If the local police are ignoring the provisions set forth by the Patriot Act 1 & 2, then the feds have just lost a major source of information, and thus local residents within these "safe zones" are being protected, to an extent, from the Federal government.

That said, I'm also not naieve enough to think that this protects people completely. The federal government can still request library records, tap phone lines, bug homes, monitor internet activity, etc. They just have to do it without the cooperation of the local police.


On another point that someone else made, as I understand the workings of the government structure in the US, specifically the relationship between local, state, and Federal governments, local laws can supercede any law set forth by a higher government, if it is not spelled out by the higher government. For instance, There is no Federal law regarding days that alcohol is legal to sell. Maryland state also has no law regarding legal days to sell. However, several counties and Baltimore City in Maryland has deemed the sale of liquor (in a non-bar establishment, such as a liquor store) illegal on Sundays. Additionally, I seem to recall that state and local laws can further a law madated by the Federal government. For instance, the legal drinking age (and this isn't so true now as it was previously). The Federal government has never, to my knowledge, had a law regarding the legal drinking age. Many states used to set the legal drinking age at 18, and some local jurisdictions set it at 21, and others (even to this day) have banned the sale or consumption of alcohol altogether.

I only use alcohol laws as an example in this, because it's a pretty safe topic, and not typically the subject of debate (I don't want to derail this thread into a debate about other laws). These examples, however, are a good illustration of how State and Local laws can supercede Federal laws. It is possible, and with enough resistance on the legal front, eventually the Federal government will be forced to change their own laws to prevent civil unrest and posible rebellion.

A shepard can only push his herd so close to the cliff, before he is trampled by the cattle.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Originally posted by Zipdot
The United States Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing whatsoever in America.


So I guess legally speaking America is still a colony of England? Well...at least in England's eyes maybe?


No. You're splitting hairs. The United States Declaration of Independence was simply an announcement of our intention to form an independent country, provided in writing. It included our reasons for doing so. It was not intended to set legal precedent for United States justice. The Constitution obviously does that. The Constitution outlines a definition of treason and its punishment and neither the United States Declaration of Independence nor any other legal document overrides the United States Constitution.

As a question of moral legality, well, sure, I guess revolution is "morally legal" under several circumstances. As a question of United States precedent, certainly it could be said to be the correct course of action under certain circumstances. I'm just pointing out that someone cannot start a revolution, have it completely crushed, and then in a courtroom point to the United States Declaration of Independence and expect to be acquitted of all charges of treason.


Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

In any case, the famous lines in the preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence were merely the opinions of the revolting authors, and their statement in no way makes revolution legal in America. Revolution, by its definition, is not something done lawfully.


I'll give you that, revolution is unlawful to the government against which the revolution is being fought. But you're talking about law in the technical beaurocratic sense of the word. I for one beleive that law has a higher purpose, and once that purpose is violated it becomes law only in name.


Okay.

On a different note, there's a lot to be said about the standard of living. It's quite underrated. I speak with young rebels from time to time who tell me about how great a revolution would be. I remind these people that sewage, electricity, water, law enforcement, and all damn kinds of infrastructure will be lost in the case of their ideal revolution.

I say to them that, really, we are infinitesimally close to being precisely where we want to be as a nation - considering our standard of living, our diversity, our justice system, transportation systems, Constitution, freedoms, et cetera. We're just off by a tiny bit - why cause a revolution and all kinds of fuss just to correct a few small problems with the government? I tell them to revolt with their votes. My two cents.

I can't vote, personally, since I'm not a citizen.

Zip

[edit on 11/30/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Nine-Tenths Of The Law


Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
So I guess legally speaking America is still a colony of England? Well...at least in England's eyes maybe?

No, because the revolution succeeded. That's what the revolution was about. The rebels won, and England long ago recognized the legitimacy of the U.S government, thereby releasing any legal claim to the territory it occupies.

As I pointed out, an armed revolution is legal only if it succeeds.

If the American Revolution would have failed, however, then those who led it would have been arrested and executed for treason in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth. As it was, some of them were captured and executed before the revolution succeeded. Taking up arms against the Crown was not a trivial matter.

Getting back to my point, you claimed that “the Declaration of Indepence makes the legality of an armed revolution very clear.”

I pointed out that this was wrong and cited the Constitution in doing so.

If you don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, then that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I don't share it, most other Americans don't either, and unilateral declarations on your part of what laws govern this nation are neither binding nor authoritative.

If you do consider the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, then you are just plain wrong to claim that armed revolution is legal in this country, because the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to call forth the Militia to suppress insurrection and goes so far as to define the crime of treason (the only crime actually defined by the unamended Constitution) in a manner which most definitely includes taking up arms against the government.

I'm not sure what makes this so difficult to understand.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrowBush's Brown Shirt Patrols had people scared for a while, so decent people hid quietly and kept their heads down and their mouths shut.


sorry but what the heck are you talking about?



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

On a different note, there's a lot to be said about the standard of living. It's quite underrated. I speak with young rebels from time to time who tell me about how great a revolution would be. I remind these people that sewage, electricity, water, law enforcement, and all damn kinds of infrastructure will be lost in the case of their ideal revolution.

I say to them that, really, we are infinitesimally close to being precisely where we want to be as a nation - considering our standard of living, our diversity, our justice system, transportation systems, Constitution, freedoms, et cetera. We're just off by a tiny bit - why cause a revolution and all kinds of fuss just to correct a few small problems with the government? I tell them to revolt with their votes. My two cents.


I think you might have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I don't think that right now revolution is the answer, but we do need to change the course our nation is headed in. The bill of rights was put into constitutional rather than federal law for a very good reason, because it ensures that we will never risk becoming an orwellian society. And when you take that first step of infringing upon those rights you're also taking the first step into the realm of the police state.

Now is the time for everyone to speak out against that first step we've already taken, and take a step back. My hope is that the American people are smart enough to realize that they need to be protected from the government more than any "terrorists".


Originally posted by Majic
Getting back to my point, you claimed that “the Declaration of Indepence makes the legality of an armed revolution very clear.”

I pointed out that this was wrong and cited the Constitution in doing so.

If you don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, then that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I don't share it, most other Americans don't either, and unilateral declarations on your part of what laws govern this nation are neither binding nor authoritative.

If you do consider the U.S. Constitution to be the law of the land, then you are just plain wrong to claim that armed revolution is legal in this country, because the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to call forth the Militia to suppress insurrection and goes so far as to define the crime of treason (the only crime actually defined by the unamended Constitution) in a manner which most definitely includes taking up arms against the government.

I'm not sure what makes this so difficult to understand.


Firstly I want to say that I think the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and I think I've made this point clear several times in this and other threads.

Speaking in purely hypothetical terms, what if the United States government started largely ignoring the constitution, or even "temporarily" suspended it in a "national emergency"? What if they banned it? What if warrantless searches became commonplace, or people started disappearing for speaking out against the government?

Would it still be a crime in your eyes to fight against that government?

I mean legally I guess you could say "yes it would", but would it?

IMO the government can only justify suppressing insurrections if they uphold the rest of the constitution as well, and if they start to pick and choose...well that's not a government worth following anymore...

What I'm trying to say is that if the government started trampling all over the Constitution then a revolution would be defending the Constitution (the highest law of the land as you and I both put it) against further abuse by the government.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by ShakyaHeir]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join