Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

So you want a rebellion? You can't.. The constitution says so.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Declaration of Independence

Constitution of The United States of America

I have been reading to excess both the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepencence. What I have found is quite interesting. The Declaration of Independence directly conflicts several of the laws that we are bound by in the Constitution.

From Declaration of Independence:


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.


From Constitution:


Article 1 Section 8 : To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Article 1 Section 9 : The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


These areas of both documents discuss in some part rebellion or insurrection. The Declaration of Independence calls for rebellion or insurrection against the government if it becomes too destructive. The Constitution on the other hand, gives Congress the right to suppress insurrections or rebelions using the military. Under the Constitution, Congress is given the right to suspend Habeas Corpus in the event of a rebellion or inssurection.

An interesting note on the subject would be the issue of the Posse Comitatus Act, it is in no way shape or form a part of any of the founding documents written by our forefathers. It is a federal law and as such is open to interpretation, but according to the above laws stated in the Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act is null and void. Congress can deploy troops on American soil in the event of rebellion or insurrections against the government. Likewise if you are part of the rebellion or insurrection, you can have your right of Habeas Corpus suspended indefinitely.

Some complaints listed in the Declaration of Indepence:


He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
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 kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
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 Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:


These complaints listed above are ones that are currently being impossed on the People of the United States. Through some mistake somewhere in the creation of the documents that follow after the Declaration of Independence, the people were given not one way aside from election of officials, a way to correct a tyrannical or over powerfull government. My main concern is that election of public officials does not empower the people. The corruption runs deep enough that just elections alone will have no effect on the current form of government.

The appointment of cabinet members is not a part of the government layout given by the Constitution. In fact the creation and appointment of people to such offices that are newly created on a near daily basis, is part of the complaint list given by the writers of the Declaration of Independence. My feelings are that the use of cabinets and special offices create an usurping power of government, that under a magnifying glass, anylizes and restricts the rights of the people.

Use the links above and read both documents. I think that once you read them both, there will be a certain epiphany come about. The Constitution was written quite restrictive to the peoples rights to change the new government once it became established. More or less my feelings are that the forefathers, relying on good faith and their newly found brotherhood, neglected to put in a check and balance system that would usurp the government if it became all of what we attempted to get away from in the first place.

Everyone that wants to change the way our country is ran must become very educated in ALL of the documents that led to formation of our country. Only through knowledge will we be able to form a new and properly functioning form of government. We must use what works and take from history and experience what did not work for govering the populace, and form new laws to protect what was not protected right in the first place. The Constitution is like swiss cheese, so full of holes, leaving it open to so much interpretation, but also lacking regulation in government activities.

I think that as a whole we get confused about what laws and rights we are actually given or implied. Some times the ideas of the Declaration of Independence become twisted in our minds into the laws of the Constitution.

This time people lets do it right.

Personal note: This is gonna be one wicked fight....!!!

edited to make title better.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I am bumping this to the top because I feel it is of real importance that people know our founding documents. We spend so much time relying on them to voice our opinioins, I think everyone needs to know their content. They really are not as protective of our freedoms as everyone thinks.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
With the multitude of threads being started that discuss insurrection and rebelion, of those how many knew that those subjects are illegal. Though protected by freedom of speech, they are still illegal to act upon. The true question is how far the manipulation of the people runs. Have we been being taught that the constitution protects the people not the government? The fact of the matter is that it is quite the oposite. The constitution protects the government more than the people.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Well I think when it comes down to it, I don't think "a Damn Piece Of Paper" or otherwise is going to tell people what to and not to do..

When you back someone in a corner for so long you better expect to get bitten, if not you one stupid idiot.

So regardless we have the constitution for guidance, but in the end that wont make any difference when we are fighting for what we all think is right, and when that day comes we are all *snip* cause everything everyone thinks is right is all wrong,

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by GAOTU789]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
The problem is how do we define "All" in your statement. In order to change the system there has to be a majority of the populace that agrees with the changes wanted. Currently the people as a whole are blind to the travesties that are being committed. Most people are not strong enough to stand up for what they believe. The act of restructuring the polical system is a rebellion as defined by the lack of protection for it in the constitution. There are no safeguards protecting the people who are in disgust with the corruption and greed. Ironically it protects those that are preying on the populace under the guise of doing what is best for the people.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Article 1, Section 9 has come into play in several rebellions, insurrection, and even the tyrant Lincoln hid behind it.

The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted many different ways through the course of American history.

I think it could be argued that a larger threat to our individual liberties is the very law which bastardized our most beloved document: The Patriot Act.

Irony at it's greatest. I just want to know who really came up with that name? My money's on Cheney- that guy's really smart.

I think this is a good OP, subtly rife with potential disagreement!

The author is obviously a fan of Jefferson (great quote by the way, one of my favorites). Surely the OP doesn't suggest that the Constitution that Jefferson (who encouaged regular insurrection, and a weak central government) helped draft would prohibit the will of the people?

Keep reading history!

Edit: added the Jefferson bit...

[edit on 7/4/09 by cbianchi513]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
With the multitude of threads being started that discuss insurrection and rebelion, of those how many knew that those subjects are illegal. Though protected by freedom of speech, they are still illegal to act upon. The true question is how far the manipulation of the people runs. Have we been being taught that the constitution protects the people not the government? The fact of the matter is that it is quite the oposite. The constitution protects the government more than the people.


The Sons of Liberty did not shy from the Crown, though they were well aware that sedition carried a death sentance...

In their time, mere discussion of revolution and independance were kept very hush hush due to the fear of capture. Meetings were held in taverns and basements, and made to look like social gatherings.

Loyalists, Torries, traitors... all of these were dangers our founders faced. Yet somehow they managed to gain independance from the most powerful nation in the world at the time.

Thank Providence that We, the People have our Constitution, our free speech, our right to assemble.

It really ought to make our job a bit easier the second time, shouldn't it?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Yes I am a very big fan of Jefferson. Jefferson though as one man, probably had to compromise in order to get what freedoms we attained through the ratification of the constitution. Ironically most of the rights we entertain as a populace were ammended to the constitution. The main rights had to be added to it at a later date. I am sure the constitution is not all of what Jefferson wanted in pertainance to peoples rights.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Declaration of Independence

Constitution of The United States of America

I have been reading to excess both the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepencence. What I have found is quite interesting. The Declaration of Independence directly conflicts several of the laws that we are bound by in the Constitution.

From Declaration of Independence:


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.


From Constitution:


Article 1 Section 8 : To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Article 1 Section 9 : The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]


The documents are written at nice digestible reading level for all.

However you are taking things out of context. (I'm not about to turn the interpretation of these docs into a long debate like lawyers would).

The unalienable rights; LIFE LIBERTY HAPPINESS

Can't just kill someone (although in some cases would qualify right #3)
Can't imprison or enslave them.
Can't inhibit someones pursuit of happiness. Whatever that might legally be...

That's what your quote from the DoI is in reference to "altering" or "abolishing" a gov't that steps on those inalienable rights.

Whose right is it to perform ?? "it is the Right of the People".

They didn't describe in detail how that could play out. A mob of Weathermen obviously wasn't enough to radically change gov't.

Now that regular folks are waking up and seeing the depth of lying and corruption, a revolution might happen. In huge numbers.

If the military is called to assist in quelling a revolution, would they put their parents and siblings in jail or shoot at them? Our gov't has no other force to reckon with Americans armed to the teeth.

UN Troops? Pshhht. It'll be many years before that would become a threat. If ever.

So, in loose interpretation of the "conflicting" elements; size does matter.

Insurrections & Rebellion are small scale; where Revolution is a huge number of folks of the country. With the potential to win.

Hope that helps shed some light on it. Use dictionary to redefine what think a word means. You'd be surprised that what you thought it meant isn't really the case or at least misses the mark.

Edit to add: Excellent post and Thomas Jefferson advised to question gov't. I think that constitutes patriot behavior.


[edit on 4·7·09 by DrMattMaddix]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


I concur, there is a distinct difference in scope between a revolution and an insurrection. Again, history teaches us that George III made this crucial error initially.

Realistically, what you are saying about US service personnel being forced in some cases to make a moral choice could happen in the near future. I'm still with you here.

What I am concerned with is this... I agree with you that more and more people are becoming aware, awake, whatever word you choose to use... People are realizing that what we are being told, what we see on the news, everything... lies. People really are aware of this... I see it everyday!

Problem is, in my area (and I suspect many others) people are generally complacent, or more than willing to just "sit back and watch". I find myself asking "Do I really want to potentially make a supreme sacrifice to preserve these people???" alot. We'll see if the moment presents itself.

The problem is... What will the spark that ignites the flame be? What if the people in New Jersey start their revolution, and the people of PA don't even know about it?

I'm pretty sure Goliath can handle one state, but never the entire populace.

There needs to be a nationwide signal, a modern day Paul Revere.

The redcoats are coming!



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I can promise nothing that I quoted was taken out of context. I fully support a revolution. I do and will continue to put myself on the line, in order to acheive the objective of cooling the government down to a proper size. My thoughts are that the constitution usurps the declaration of independence, making just a novelty document.

I do question the resolve of many people when it comes to the act of putting ones self in jepoardy to attain a better nation for our children. I guess my main point is that when it comes time to stand up, how many will drop what they are doing and begin masochistical journey to true freedom.

Will those who do this acctually be cosidered patriots by all, just as our forefathers are now? Or will we be grouped as malitias and nutjobs for our attempts to improve our nation?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


The Constitution does trump all other documents in law.

The Declaration is a document listing grievance as well as demanding appropriate redress. It is directed towards the Crown, and does not guarantee anything, instead declares rights to be held "self evident". (Franklin's choice of words- trumping Jefferson!)

As to your closing paragraph, pertaining to patriots... I consider myself one presently, and only hope that my children and all decendants hold me in the same esteem.

History is, after all, written by the victors. If a revolution is really only a regional insurrection, and fails as a result... Will the history that public schools teach our children show these patriots in a positive light, or vilify them as extremists?

For example, what were you taught about John Brown? His cause and motivation were in my opinion based in a noble belief- that all men are created equal. I don't agree with his method, but his cause I can buy into.

I'm not sure about you, but I was always taught John Brown's insurrection at Harper's Ferry was a big catalyst in the war of northern agression...

The "cause" and "motivation" was not on the curriculum as I recall, and Brown is no hero in American history books...


Edit: The John Brown bit, as an afterthought.



[edit on 7/4/09 by cbianchi513]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
A question brought up in another thread was why overthrow. Well to answer that question I will start by saying that our government is very fallible as a governing body. The greed and the power plays combined with the general corruption have made this a government of the elite for the elite, not a government of the people for the people by the people. If we can enact a change in governance we will change the laws so as to limit the unsurmountable powers of the current govering system.

As to the comment that other countries are envious of our system, what do you think as you watch the system that you envy so much become erroded into a form of dictatorship by the elite. When is enough just that ENOUGH?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Great thread! I am enjoying reading all the posts. Wish I was smart enough to reply, but alas. I am not. I will keep reading to get educated.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
A true question to state is that now as an revolution may be upon us do we do away with the constitution and re-write it in a fashion that maintains the current structure but redefines the powers that are listed? Do we try to write it so as to make politics for everyone, instead of just for the elite class? I honestly feel that prior to any acctual action we first should gain the support of the people. Inform them of the system and what needs to be changed. Then re-write the constitution and put it before a popular vote of the people.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
What powers do all of you feel should be limited? What requirements do you all feel should be met in order to be in a political office? What benefits should be given to elected officials? What restrictions should be placed in order to set a new system of checks and balances? How do we keep the corruption out of the government? What term limits should be in place for people elected? Should cabinets be elected instead of chosen? How about the supreame court, should it be an elected body?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I started a thread with this, and someone redirected me here, so I will cut and paste.


I see and here many people talking about overthrowing our government, and I have to ask, why do you want to? Our government (and constitution) have been the envy of the world since the inking of the first document.

Nations across the globe have tried to mimic us. Our nation has seen the height of prosperity. It has been a true superpower.

The issue is not our government, but the people in it. Our system of government is fantastic and should be kept in power as long as possible.

What needs to be overthrown are the people in our government, not the system itself.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The key thing behind overthrowing the people in the current system, is making it to where they cannot accomplish the travesties that they have to this day upon the people. You will have to re-write the constitution in order to prevent a new corruption in government. This time the power of the people needs to be protected so as to allow a new system of checks and balances. The new system will have to made so as to hold those in power criminally liable for their actions. The system of checks and balances that are in place now are government regulating the government. How do the people have any part in the system in reatlity?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I understand what the OP is getting at, but I think you are overlooking a glaring contradiction:

An overthrow of our government is an overthrow of our constitution. Therefore, whether or not it is "constitutional" wouldn't matter.

ALSO, JEFFERSON CALLED FOR A REVOLT EVERY TEN YEARS. I hardly see him making it unconstitutional to do so.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
You are giving Jefferson too much power. Though he was influential, he was not the end all for the laws put into place. I am not asking for an overthrow of the constitution but a re-write of it so as to better clarify and strengthen the peoples control of the government. It is the government that I and many others like me, want ousted. The people are corrupt more so than the system. That is not to be taken as stating the system doesn't need repair.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join