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.

 

Why dont we follow or Decloration of Independence

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I dont know about you but im getting tired of hearing that our goverment is doing wrong and they dont like it..why dont we do somehting about it..on the Decloation it tell us if our goverment is doing wrong we have the right to overthrow it..well maby not in those words but ath what it means..why dont we do it?




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The Declaration of Independence was just that -a declaration of independence from Britain.

Although these words still ring true today.


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.


I thought about snipping the middle section, but decided to leave it. After all, mankind
will choose suffering rather than going to all the trouble of fixing the injustices of their government.

Revolution is a great idea. Pulling it off is not so easy. And after one has overthrown a government, what then? Do we keep our Constitution and elect all new people? Or do we write up an entirely different form of government?

Here's a thought: Write to your Representative. The House of Representatives is the section of the Federal government that writes up and votes first on articles of impeachment.
Write a letter. On paper. Sent through the US postal service. Ask for impeachment. Be clear. Check your grammar. State that you understand that impeachment is an expensive process, both in man hours and tax dollars; and that you are making the request because you feel that it is vitally important.

If enough people demand impeachment, it will happen.

A small number of zealots writing letters was all it took to impeach President Clinton.

The Declaration listed 27 specific grievances (unless I miscounted). Here are a few that I can apply to our government today:


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.


And one more bit from this very important document:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.


The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America allows the right of the people to petition their government for redress of grievances.
So write your Representative. If they don't respond, vote for someone else.

*edit to fix external source error, and to add that all external quotes are from NARA, linked at the top of my post.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Busymind]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I think you mean the Constitution.

And in that case you would be correct. The Democraps and Republicants have done a jam up job of running this great Country into the ground. When our gov't is practicing Imperialism, using the Treasury as its own personal ATM, and the Treasury is asking Congress to raise the debt limit because we will exceed it on March 20th - it's time for "We The People" to do something about it.

If you vote for a democrap or republicant in this upcoming election, or any subsequent election, you are part of the problem.

It is time to show our elected "representitives" what we think about them. Vote 'em out. Or, take it one step further, start a petition for impeachment of each and every one of them that have violated our Constitution. Wait - that's every last one of them.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I'm ok with impeaching every Congressperson that violates the Constitution. It's better than civil war.

To be fair, not every Democrat or Republican is a bad guy. When choosing a third party candidate, make sure you pick a party that
1. Believes mostly what you believe
and
2. Doesn't concede their votes.

A candidate can concede and "give" their votes to another candidate. The Libertarians never concede. I'm sure there are other parties that on't concede either.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Absolutely.

I really like the Constitution Party, and as far as I know, they haven't conceded in the past.

If a CP candidate isn't on the ticket, a Libertarian is my second choice.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by the news paper man
we have the right to overthrow it..well maby not in those words but ath what it means

The Dec Of independance does not have the standing of law in the US. It is illegal and unconstitutional to revolt against the US government.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
yes but most politiction say what you want to hear so then you vote for them but when they get into office they go the opposite of what they say. I think that we should run our selves.

MY dad says that the reson why politions are the way they are is because they never got high..lol



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

but when they get into office they go the opposite of what they say.

What does that have to do with the consitution or the declaration of independence?? The Politicians elected by the colonies to approve and draft the declaration and constitution did precisely the same thing, politicians allways do that.

I think that we should run our selves

How? How would a congress that is made up of over 300 million people operate?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
LOL. Half of the populace doesn't bother to vote for the President once every four years can you imagine how few people would show up to run our government on a daily basis?

Suppose the various bills, propositions and resolutions that come before Congress were put to a popular vote... Maybe everyone could cast their vote on the internet? People who don't have an internet conection could vote at their local library? Of course, for rural areas; "local" is subjective... Hmm...

I see self-governing as technically feasible, and more dangerous than making Bush supreme dictator or some such. People vote stupidly. I think it's bad enough that our congresspeople tack on perks for their districts. Can you imagine how crazy it would get if everyone voted for their own benefit?

Wow. It's mind-boggling.

News Paper Man, I think it's great that you're critically examining your government. We need more people to do so.
I'm not trying to shoot you down. I'm trying to get you to think deeper.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by the news paper man
I dont know about you but im getting tired of hearing that our goverment is doing wrong and they dont like it..why dont we do somehting about it..on the Decloation it tell us if our goverment is doing wrong we have the right to overthrow it..well maby not in those words but ath what it means..why dont we do it?


This is a foolish post...I thought you meant why don't we follow Locke's theories anymore...which we did when the Declaration was written.

Today we follow "Hegelian theory" which is progressive...it's because the South in the Civil War used Progressive theory to protect Slavery; when they lost; the new Politicians adopted Progressivism (which is racist but universal) and so race became the dominant issue of the US and it is today still.

Because of progressivism the US no longer follows the Declaration's principles...the last president to support that was Lincoln.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Maybe you should check your facts on that. Lincoln was very close to the way Bush is today - tip-toeing around dictatorship.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeeTwin60
Maybe you should check your facts on that. Lincoln was very close to the way Bush is today - tip-toeing around dictatorship.


This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've heard to date.

Yes Lincoln was borderline dictator; but like Cincinnatus of Ancient Rome he had full intentions to rescind(?) his dictatorship after the conflict.

In fact; after he was re-elected he did just that.

Lincoln believed and argued more-so than the preservation of the Union; that the Founding Fathers believed in the words they wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

The Southerners renounced the Declaration of Independence; they ignored Thomas Jefferson's existence except in their spite; and they sought to reform their own Union based around the principles they had been arguing since the early 1800s.

Lincoln stood for the Founding Father's principles.

The principles of Locke and Hobbes; who were strongly anti-Slavery and believed in open Democracies; not autocratic ones.

So while I despise Lincoln's methods (utilizing the fullness of Executive Power) ... he was wholly right to do so.

Lincoln was charged to protect the Constitution; what he rightfully saw as an extension of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

When the Confederacy threatened the Constitution; the vaugeries of the Executive Power was designed for specifically that purpose; to be extended as infinitely as may be manageable by a President in order to fulfill his obligations.

George Washington believed that whole-heartedly.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
You are definitely full of yourself, and obviously see yourself as "above" all others.

You say my statement was "one of the most ignorant you've heard to date"...

First - If you can't carry on a conversation without insulting others intelligence, you have no place here.
You've been warned at least once already by a moderator.

Second - I seriously doubt that is the most ignorant thing you've heard "to date". That's just laughable.


Third - I think you need to re-read Article II, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution. No where in there does it give any President the right to do the things Lincoln did.

Now, if you can carry on a debate in a non-condescending way, I don't mind continuing. However, if you insult me again, it is over.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeeTwin60
You are definitely full of yourself, and obviously see yourself as "above" all others.

You say my statement was "one of the most ignorant you've heard to date"...

First - If you can't carry on a conversation without insulting others intelligence, you have no place here.
You've been warned at least once already by a moderator.

Second - I seriously doubt that is the most ignorant thing you've heard "to date". That's just laughable.


Third - I think you need to re-read Article II, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution. No where in there does it give any President the right to do the things Lincoln did.

Now, if you can carry on a debate in a non-condescending way, I don't mind continuing. However, if you insult me again, it is over.


You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Refer to Section I and the limitations and extent of powers of the Congress.

Section II has no limitiations or extent of powers of the Executive; but merely certain duties.

The Founding Fathers defended this in the Federalist Papers as being that the Executive must have the fullest extent of power possible for if the Congress should be dictatorial or ineffective the Executive must be able to break the stalemate by the will of the people.

Lincoln did just that; everyone under estimated him at first; but by the end of the War no one opposed him. The people cheered his arguments and successes.

Lincoln defended the belief that the Union was built on the principles found within the Declaration of Independence.

He even defended the right of rebellion.

Lincoln stated that the South had every right to have a Revolution against the "tyranical federal government"...Lincoln insisted the South to use this argument; but the South refused.

He knew they would.

Becuase if the South defended a person's right to revolt against a tyranical government...they would legitimize Black revolt.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Becuase if the South defended a person's right to revolt against a tyranical government...they would legitimize Black revolt.

That doesn't make sense, if it had to work that way, then the original dec of ind would've made it legit for them to revolt back then. Where is this actually shown to be a reason for them not using the DI to secede? Why do they need to use the DI to secede?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Becuase if the South defended a person's right to revolt against a tyranical government...they would legitimize Black revolt.

That doesn't make sense, if it had to work that way, then the original dec of ind would've made it legit for them to revolt back then. Where is this actually shown to be a reason for them not using the DI to secede? Why do they need to use the DI to secede?


When the Revolution was occuring the entirity of the United States had declared Slavery a wrong that will fade away. None of the Founding Fathers imagined that by the 1830s slavery would still be pevalent.

The second and third generation Americans (post-Revolutionary that is) changed their argument from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to a more "progressive" (beginning of Progressivism in fact) argument that historically Blacks were inferior and naturally should be enslaved.

The Southerners rejected the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson (once their celebrated hero) for this argument; thus to resort to "well we have a right to Revolt" would have been perceived as obvious hypocrisy and be given as obvious application to slaves to revolt.

Again, because in the 1770s the whole nation believed that slavery would end.

In the 1830s - 1860s the South's elite were fighting hard to make permanent the institution of Slavery.

Lincoln's theory or philosophy was that the Declaration of Independence gave a right to Revolution; but that no where is there a "Right of Secession" (which was in fact a theory not a principle of the US Constitution).

Thus that Constitutional argument was contestible and gave Lincoln a legitimate reason to pursue war on the South.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Quote: "I'm ok with impeaching every Congressperson that Violates the Constitution."

Well then - we might as well just start by Impeaching President Bush in that case (The Congressional Republicans are really just Lemmings that do what ever he says - or at least who ever controls Bush - Probably Cheney from his Secret Hidden Underground Lair - I can't deceid if Cheney is more like Dr. Evil or Darth Vader)!

-> The "Patriot Act" VIOLATES the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!!! Look into it - you will see that I am Correct!!! You see the Lemmings just Re-Passed it recently - we should throw the Majority of these Bums out on their BUTTS!!!



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Seraphim,
I'm MORE than ok with impeaching Bush. I wish it had happened 6 years ago.

I think you misunderstood my intent. Impeaching Bush was a given. I was responding in support of VeeTwin's comment:



It is time to show our elected "representitives" what we think about them. Vote 'em out. Or, take it one step further, start a petition for impeachment of each and every one of them that have violated our Constitution.


With the additional comment from me that not every congressperson is bad.
LOL, some of them haven't been in office long enough to be corrupted.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
When the Revolution was occuring the entirity of the United States had declared Slavery a wrong that will fade away.

But not somethign that was undone by the declaration and constitution. Slavery was still legal and it was illegal for slaves to revolt. I honestly don't think that there would've been a problem for the South to note in their secession that the DoI supports their revolt.


The second and third generation Americans (post-Revolutionary that is) [...]Thus that Constitutional argument was contestible and gave Lincoln a legitimate reason to pursue war on the South.

Interseting information.




top topics



 
0

log in

join