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.
originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: chr0naut
You need to cite a few sources. Just you saying this opinion piece doesn't make it so. The country was wide open and full of personal danger. Every citizen had the right to defend life and liberty from whatever threatened them be it a foreign invasion, government suppression of liberties, a bear, mountain lion or even a skunk that walks on 2 legs.
You see, my opinion is just as logical and valid as yours and I think yours stinks.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: CharlesT
Well said. But he doesn't get it. He is so hung up on finding ways to invalidate the Constitution that the practical application of liberty doesn't exist any more. Its just an arguing point now...which is pretty much what I was trying to say in the first place. The concept is still there but the actual liberty itself is gone. We waited too long to defend it.
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Are you guys part of "A well regulated milita"?
Otherwise as I see the second amendment, you are not part of the people who have the right to bear arms.
As I see it there is already a "well regulated milita" which is the National Guard. As long as you have those, you have no direct right to bear arms as a private person not being a member of the National Guard.
Alexander Hamilton wrote 1788 "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." and "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it." Source
The US incarcerates more of, and a higher percentage of, its citizens than any other country on Earth. There's no 'liberty' in that.
The US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery and while the US Constitution spoke of liberty, it didn't actually cover all of its citizens.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut
The US incarcerates more of, and a higher percentage of, its citizens than any other country on Earth. There's no 'liberty' in that.
You were free to commit the crime and now you are free to enjoy the consequences. Punishment for criminal behavior is not the same as a loss of liberty.
Liberty is more than just being able to come and go as you please. But yes, we do incarcerate more than many other nations. Perhaps we should just chop the hands off thieves off instead of putting them in jail...
The US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery and while the US Constitution spoke of liberty, it didn't actually cover all of its citizens.
Yes, but we were also the most recently formed nation.
And in terms of how long it took to end slavery we were the quickest by far. Many still haven't stopped it.
The concept has always been there. And there have always been those in power who sought to serve themselves rather than their constituents. That is why we were meant to be governed by many rather than a few or one. It was believed that the voice of the honest would outnumber the voice of the corrupt. We have the numbers and we have the desire. What we are missing is will to take back what is ours.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: chr0naut
What has always struck me as contradictory is that the EC is only used to choose one position.
Out of the 545 people proposing, passing and upholding laws only 1 (POTUS) and 9 (SCOTUS) are not chosen by "Tyranny of the Majority".
Stranger still is the idea that the other 535 can be in bed with anyone (special interests) and they can overrule a veto by the one chosen by the EC.
Now if we do some quick math and take into account that these people are "upper class" and the population of the US is 327.2 Million:
545/327,200,000
Americans are ruled by the .00016%
That is a very small minority, where the average person has NO SAY. Many complain about it every day and yet they denounce a system where their vote counts and it might make a difference for one where they place their faith in these 545 people over their fellow citizens.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: chr0naut
My main point was really more about how every position, other than POTUS and the Supreme Court, is chosen by "Mob rule". Why is it ok then?
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: chr0naut
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with them. They are the ones who think that "the people" choosing for themselves is "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule".
I pointed out that they are suspicious of the people living on their block or neighborhood, or maybe those living down the road but they trust in a minority, maybe the minority you called "criminal and the anarchic".
ETA: The EC is not even a band-aid to that wound. It only provides the illusion that the mob (fear mongering) will be held at bay while the minority of elected officials will fight for their rights. It is only used for one position which can be overturned by Congress.
The contradiction I see is that they keep complaining about how these people don't "work" for them but choose to keep a system where they keep handing their voice/vote to those people.
It's okay that you don't understand our Constitution, since you're not an American.
When the Constitution was ratified the only Americans who could participate in government (i.e. vote) were property owning White free men 21 years of age or older.
But incarceration is loss of liberty. You may as well argue that those who are executed aren't actually dead, because they deserved it.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
When elected officials openly declare that they are aware of the wishes of their constituents but are acting in opposition to them - we have lost an essential piece of what is supposed to make our government work.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut
But incarceration is loss of liberty. You may as well argue that those who are executed aren't actually dead, because they deserved it.
That is a very narrow definition of liberty.
The only thing lost is the ability to move about freely. They still have freedom of speech, religion, press, and within the limits of their incarceration, assembly. They have by far the majority of rights, or liberties, as anyone else. Liberty is more than just the ability to come and go as you please.
You are attempting to use overly specific points to indicate a much broader idea. It doesn't work.
The question is really very simple: have we waited too long? Is the government too big, too powerful, too grounded in disregard for the American people and their wishes for us to ever take back control and set this nation back on course as our founding fathers intended?
In other words, has our government rendered our Constitution moot? Sure, they are quick to point out the Constitution when it serves their purpose. But when it reigns in their power and stops them from abusing their position, do they hold that document sacred? Sadly, the answer is no. When it proves deleterious to their agenda the Constitution is nothing more than an antiquated piece of some long forgotten ideal that should be ignored.
When elected officials openly declare that they are aware of the wishes of their constituents but are acting in opposition to them - we have lost an essential piece of what is supposed to make our government work.