It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
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?

This is just it though. The people have all of the power in this country. The question is whether they choose to excersize it, or follow blindly.

The lack of "guts" (for lack of a better word) to challenge the authority in this country is a conscious choice, and one that has lead us to where we are.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:53 PM
erm...i want to say that the declaration statement brings us balance to the constitution. The constitution on its own is one thing, and has been interpreted as racist and fascist by many pertaining to old laws about who can vote or who is considered "free". Then theres semantics, of finances. Which on there own interefere with sovereignty due to debt and contracts signed by the past.

I would subscribe more to a declaration of "independance" more than constitution. Constitution assumes that people adhere to moral and ethical codes, which is just a facade generally at the core of things in the end.

Declaration states determinite realities are uninfringable such as food and medicines and basic survival, meaning people should be able to squat, be nomadic, communal, or tribal. Those who settle down somewhere should be more responsive and less oppressive to these independant thinkers.

Yes argue me with semantics. But i think that as a basis, if people would as a majority realise there values and viewpoints may be flawed against the realities of life, then we could go somewhere postive based on our modern problems and past constraints left for us. On top we must factor in the modern manipulators who use worldplay, and situational manipulation to get a selfish end which does not benefit personal pursuit of happiness or the ascent to personal liberty.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:56 PM
The Flaws to the orignal constitution Pretty much was the limitations on reps on the begining Stages. and The ability to amend the laws of it.

Washington did have a true design of a good law code.. Problem could of stemmed from there was that ability to dismantle it...

The orignal Constitution was that each state was its own goverment. For interstate matters There was a the "Union of the goverment" Which the president prosided in. Keep in the mind the states had no rule to actually enforce the decisions of what the union made. ...

Each state had individual Represenatatives elected by the people .. Which the amount of representation is shown on the consititution. Was Made X amount of reps is dertmined by the amount of citizens to the state.

This was all made for the simple fact that A. There is no "One" Goverment. B. The amount of representatives involved would eliminate the ability of some organization to completly control the congress...

So what the *snip* happened ? As soon as jefferson was in office, the progress on dismantleing it behind jeffersons back commenced. Mostly this took persuation and not control for things to come about... The One Major pivital point people either don't read or miss, is by 1819 Our "One" Goverment was voted on to exist. Simply due to the simple fact that arguments where on being pitched on states that would not follow the laws the union as a whole wanted to implement and the states had nothing to force them to it.

Down the line afterwards the constitution was stripped.. Roosevelt was the end of the constitution's existance with the ability at the end of the world war to institute war powers in effect and abilities amended that he had total control over companies, Goverment, and all law decisions which was supposed to be limited to getting us out of the depression... (Like ceaser) No president has ended this declaration. Hence obama Legally has free reign to never adhere to the constitution.. He also has every ability to control the companies in the US, create social programs on a whim and so forth, its just we get to have the side show and formalities to make sure regular people just don't go bonkers on misunderstanding thier own history.

So legally can we over throw our goverment as it is with all the *snip* up ammendments and declarations ? no .. Would washington do it ? hell yes, he warned us of this in his speeches, he tells how the goverment's should of been ran, but we failed.. plain and simple.


To my fix to all this mess if we do overthrow the goverment ... I would put the constitution back up and the declaration of independance though with one change.. i would eliminate congress and the house of reps and would institute the people of the nation have full voteing control, though albiat massive for what its for.. but atm I no of no Goverment that had restricted its member base to just elected officials that have been not controlled and a perversion of what the stood for ... As for the president position, that position would have no voteing power.

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

[edit on 9-4-2009 by GAOTU789]

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:14 PM
To the both of you that posted above:

Very good input. It seems that I am not the only one who is doing their research and study of the original documents and history of the United States as a whole. People of this mind set need to come together so as to accomplish the needed adjustments of our polical system and the government as a whole. The points you both made are great. Stars for both.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by Bldrvgr

I also agree for the most part, well thought out posts...

I do take issue with one statement from the previous poster... The bit about the Constitution being dismantled during Jefferson's presidency. I feel that the Constitution was being undermined by an ambitious cabal of men (including the conniving Alexander Hamilton) long before it was ratified. Even amongst patriots with noble ideals lay snakes...

It would be wise of us to take note of this, as there will certainly be some form of reorganization in the future.

I really believe that the core ideas of the Constitution are just as valid today as they were when they were written. I am a traditionalist in this respect. I don't think the documents have been corrupted or invalidated. I think that our representatives in government have forgotten the principles this country was founded on.

The strong central government needs dismantled and rebuilt in the image of the original republic. The strict bipartisan system needs legitimately opened to other parties. Anything less is selling ourselves short.

There was mention made of direct representation, or true democracy. I would beg the author of that statement to reexamine the difference betwixt republic and democracy as forms of government, and perhaps reevaluate their stand... The founding fathers were torn between repulic and federalism. These were the original bipartisan battles in congress, and the "party" system was born. Jefferson's views eventually won, and the republic stood for the time. Had Adams been reelected, I am not sure he could have remained as close to non partisan as he did. I am certain that all who read this can safely guess which form of government we are currently suffering with.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:59 PM
The people can change their government every four years. The form of government they were under before this one had no such elections, as far as I know.

You all had a chance 6 months ago to change. You have many more chances coming up. You have many layers of government all under the control of the people, at least the ones who take the time to actually participate in it.

Rebellion or insurrection in this system will quickly be uncovered for what it is....Treason, Murder and Armed Robbery, be careful what you buy and sell.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by huckfinn

My point exactly. In a perfect world, We the People do have a choice. We do have an opportunity to affect change.

The bipartisan system that has been eased into place by TPTB has effectively limited that opportunity to a lesser of two evils choice.

The political control wielded by the Federal Reserve is staggering. Every soul in this country is enslaved to the dollar.

The point of this thread, though, is the legality of rebellion/insurrection/revolution based on our founding documents.

I'm certain some change of a more drastic nature will occur in the near future in my beloved country. I still believe in the Constitution of the United States. I don't speculate what form the change will come in, rather I feel that revolt is a strong liklihood in the future.

I've noticed your responses to be level and concise in most cases, but I beg to ask if you are in Manitoba, and if you have a true feeling for the general attitude amongst citizens of my republic? I'm not saying you are out of touch, perhaps a bit cavalier in your summation of the electorate.

Thank you for your post.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:09 PM

Originally posted by huckfinn
The people can change their government every four years. The form of government they were under before this one had no such elections, as far as I know.

You all had a chance 6 months ago to change. You have many more chances coming up. You have many layers of government all under the control of the people, at least the ones who take the time to actually participate in it.

Rebellion or insurrection in this system will quickly be uncovered for what it is....Treason, Murder and Armed Robbery, be careful what you buy and sell.

You are funny. No one here is promoting murder, robbery nor treason of any form. Yet I guarantee I can prove the government in place has comitted such violations of human law. The election process if fallable at best. The system is broken, in no way can you elect some of the people that truely need to be in office. It is not how it was intended to be.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by cbianchi513

No, I don't live in Manitoba I live in Illinois, the birthplace and home of fair and representative government. I also have lived for some time in Louisiana; a place also known for it's empowering political environment.

My point is this...any discussion of armed rebellion or insurrection is the path to complete failure. I am glad the Constitution was written in such a way to make a successful rebellion in this country impossible. That way if you are unhappy with your lot you'll spend more time thinking about a way to change it.

The forces that hold your world in place are not things that can be changed with a gun or are outgunned and outspent, in ways you cannot comprehend. You can only change your system, by changing your system according to the methods that are available to change your system. Learn how to use them.

I don't say what I say to be cavalier, I am just giving my advice to prevent idiots from committing suicide. I don't care who you know or what they think they know...if you pick up a weapon to "save your Republic" your story most likely ends in Florence, Colorado at the ADX or as a fugitive in the deep wilderness of Manitoba.

As far as this idea that something must happen soon, I can only say that when you're pinned down and the cops have you surrounded and your friends are calling you on a bullhorn to surrender, remember what I explained to you this day.


I suspect that the people that have used the Governments of the world to oppress the people are near defeat and they are also the ones that are calling loudest for the type of behavior the thread discusses.

They are trapped and destroying this Nation is obviously the only thing that will save their lives and fortunes. The ones that do still exist have sustained catastrophic loses over the last 41 months and cannot hold out much longer. And, what brought them to this pathetic condition didn't require even a single weapon.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

Ultimately murder and armed-robbery is what most people with these types of political views end up with, even if that wasn't your initial purpose.

Remember the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France...?

Someone has plans for something like that in the United is unavoidable and you must be here to help. Oh, you are different.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by cbianchi513

My point is this...any discussion of armed rebellion or insurrection is the path to complete failure. I am glad the Constitution was written in such a way to make a successful rebellion in this country impossible. That way if you are unhappy with your lot you'll spend more time thinking about a way to change it.

Again, thank you for your insight. Over time I have noticed the amount of thought you have put into this matter, and how important it is to you. You are a true patriot as well.

You mention that the Constitution makes successful rebellion impossible. Are you referring to the same section of Article 1 that was mentioned earlier as a key factor in this?

As I mentioned earlier, I welcome change with open arms. Whatever form they come in. All of us that are reasoning folks want no violence. It is true that there has been an increased level of talk here on ATS on the very subject though.

You mention alternate ways of enacting change. Please realize that We, the People truly need to unite for our voices to matter. What would you have us do? (I'm not trying to put you on the spot, it seemed to me you might have a notion here).

As I also mentioned earlier, I feel the Patriot act needs to go. With it in place, it renders the Constitution impotent. Until it's grasp on our liberty is released, the tension will remain palpable I am certain.

It's all about retaining your values and morals. There will be those that will take advantage of any chaotic situation, as well as those with amazing philanthropic qualities. In my experience, turmoil either brings out the best, or accentuates the worst of the human spirit. The choice is ultimately personal, and free will is a beautiful thing.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:45 PM
Yes I am different and would hope that others that share the view are different from what has so often skewed the process. You stand strongly backing what I consider to be a corrupt government. I as everyone I talk to every day if they think the government is corrupt. Their answer everytime is YES. How do you use a system that is corrupt to change the corrupt system? As stated above our voice together will challenge the government. Violence is only in response to violence and shall not be taken lightly. If you are shot at you have the right to shoot back. I don't care who is shooting at you. If they don't shoot then how would there be violence? Robbery is what is happening with bailout after bailout along with special spending and contract awarding to people that are tied to the government. What I ask for is not robbery. You keep harping on crimes that will be comitted, which will not be comitted if the cause is right. As said above the current system DOES said crimes and is no held accountable. Who holds the government accountable for their actions? The answer is the people. We are now trying to hold them accountable for their lawlessness.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:13 PM
It is my understanding that,
under Article 1 Section 8,
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

These "troops" were to be provided by state militias.

No provision is made in either document regarding any federal militia.

Therefore, while the Posse Comitatas Act may not be mentioned in either document, neither is any type of federal troops, including Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, or any other that fall under DHS.

To the best of my research, it seems federal troops first came about in 1865, given to us by Lincoln, in another unconstitutional aqct, in order to win the Civil War.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:31 PM
The important thing to keep in mind is the very different nature of the two documents.

The Constitution is the legal foundation upon which our nation is supposed to be built, and it includes provisions for elections so that the government can be changed as the people will it, as well as for amendments to the document itself. It was carefully crafted specifically to make a revolution such as had just occurred unnecessary. A rebellion would by its very nature be designed to usurp the Constitution and install a different form of government, be it a new monarchy, a dictatorship, or whatever. So of course rebellion is prohibited. It's only logical.

The Declaration of Independence was simply a document addressed to King George III and the Parliament explaining the reasons for, and the moral and legal justifications of, the revolution being undertaken. It is inspiring to read, but it has no legal force. Only the Constitution has that. The Revolution was illegal under British law and had it failed all the participants could have, and many would have, been hanged as traitors.

Want to change the government? Vote. Write your Representatives and Senators. Petition for an Amendment, or a Constitutional Convention if you're really looking to open things up for radical change. Those are the ways we can legally effect change.

An armed rebellion would be every bit as illegal as the American Revolution was, and if the constitutionally based government were successfully overthrown, what would take its place?

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Oaktree
To the best of my research, it seems federal troops first came about in 1865, given to us by Lincoln, in another unconstitutional aqct, in order to win the Civil War.

The US Army was founded in July of 1775 by the continental congress. I think it coincides with flag day, but you'd have to ask a soldier for the date.

The same year, in October, congress formed a federal Navy in Philadelphia. They name Esek Hopkins of Rhode Island the first commodore of the flotilla.

Shortly after this, congress decides to give the Navy real teeth, and establishes two Bn's of Continental Marines on 10 November 1775 (oorah). Hopkins appoints Samuel Nicholas to recruit able bodied men to go underway with the new Navy. He recruits primarily at Tun Tavern, located at the time where present day Penn's Landing lies. Nicholas is considered the first Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Hopkins and Nicolas, along with sailors and Marines left Philadelphia flying the Gadsden flag according to many accounts, including Marine corps tradition. Just don't fly it in Missouri, please.

They mounted a very successful campaign, including the battle of Nassau...

Again, I'm not huge on army history, but you have to remember that the Continental Marines basically disbanded for (I think) 16 years after the war...Interesting tidbit of info: during the War of 1812, the British burned nearly every building in DC with the exception of the Marine barracks... Out of mutual respect.

I will agree with you in my belief that Lincoln was one of the most profane presidential violator of the Constitution, but that is off topic...

Edit: Jab at the tyrant from IL.

[edit on 7/4/09 by cbianchi513]

[edit on 7/4/09 by cbianchi513]

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:01 AM
Of course, the Declaration of Independence was written 11 years earlier than the Constitution, so certainly the Declaration could not contradict a document that hadn't been written yet. As to the reverse, though, the Constitution has already been broken, over and over again, by actions of two Presidents AND Congress in the last 8 1/2 years. The Patriot Act, suspension of Habeus Corpus, eminent domain ruling by SCOTUS, and actions of the Federal Reserve WERE and ARE acts of rebellion. Any action by Americans to RESTORE the Constitution, by reversing the direction that these traitors have taken us in, would NOT be an act of REBELLION, but an act of RESTORATION.

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:02 AM
If revolution, real revolution, honest revolution was easy, then it wouldn't be so hard. Heh. I know, it sounds weird and nonsensical. like a Yogi Berra quote. The U.S. Constitiution is only as good as the people who are elected to uphold it, appointed to uphold it, and the people who vote for the people entrusted to uphold it. When the constitution is ignored, then it is up to the people to take charge and return the government to the principles of the constitution. It might result in death and dishonor and imprisonment, but it is not illegal. And according to the Declaration of Independence, it is required in order to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is the constitution perfect? Nope. It does have amendments to it passed throughout our history. So it wasn't the be all, end all document. That was considered from the very beginnning. But there are "truths" and they should not be ignored.

Edited to correct lazy finger activities.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by kyred]

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by kyred

The U.S. Constitiution is only as good as the people who are elected to uphold it, appointed to uphold it, and the people who vote for the people entrusted to uphold it.

Yes, a star for you. That is the key. The people who have been entrusted to uphold that sacred document have failed miserably recently to do that, and patriotism requires that be corrected.

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:27 AM
Responding to the OP, I don't see any contradiction between the Declaration and the Constitution. There was a progression of events that necessitated the composition of each of these documents, such that you can't just compare them point-by-point without taking those events into consideration.

I mean, in the Declaration we're all gung-ho let's overthrow the government; but in the Constitution we've already achieved our independence and we're building a new nation, so we're much wiser and more cautious, and we're already thinking about protecting our new government against threats from within.

After the composition of the Constitution, we found the document wasn't nearly as flexible as it should be, so here came the Amendments. That's the beauty of our Constitution, that it is a strong foundation of compromise and agreement, but that it is still open to evolution and amendment.

I do think the original Amendments detailing freedom of speech and right to bear arms should not be infringed. Our American heritage is one of revolution and civil war and ongoing social reformation, and I do think it's imperative that the government fear The People. To throw off the shackles of tyranny, The People must be guaranteed Free Speech as well as a means of upsetting the balance of power by force of arms.

Sure, it's illegal to plot the overthrow of the government — I understand this, it makes sense, we need to protect the network of agreements and compromises and rights that our Constitution affords us. Certainly. Those who are openly plotting armed insurrection are, for one thing, stupid, because their best laid plans have already been scrutinized by the FBI and ATF and Homeland Security and Dick Tracy in this, The Information Age.

So, while I can talk a hell of a good game of American Patriotism, I personally take these online calls for Revolution with a grain of salt.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 4/8/2009 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


Before we get too tightly wrapped around the axle, consider the portion of the Declaration of Indepence that you highlighted in your Opening Post.

I draw your attention to the Statements that all begin with the word 'He'.

You DO know who they were referring to, correct?

The DofI was a concerted effort to break free of the reigns and controls of the 'Mother Country', England....and her efforts through intimidation and excessive taxation to control another 'colony'....the British Empire had extended her reach too far. The 'Empire' would be distracted by other 'colonies' around the World, plus various conflicts....our forefathers saw a chance to break away from the tyranny of the King (that's the "He" in the complaints) and also to break away from the oppression of the Church.

It would seem to me that the Constitution trumps the Declaration of Independence....because, the Declaration was, really, an attempt at redress of issues that the Colonists found oppressive.

Of course, it is a vital Document, nonetheless, and must be preserved and revered for Historical purposes......

*edit* for typos...I'm anal that way....(and prolly missed a few...)

[edit on 4/8/0909 by weedwhacker]

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in