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.

 

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

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
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?


Once you loose everything you have nothing left to loose will one fight, only the people on the sidelines watching will either still be working for the powers to be or still have something to loose.

Did that make any sense?




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

What powers do all of you feel should be limited?


This I'm personally not sure about. As corrupt as the current government is it would require someone a bit more intellectual than myself.


What requirements do you all feel should be met in order to be in a political office?


#1 would be Honesty and Integrity. During this past election it amazed me how many people who were running for office were being investigated for various crimes and yet people still voted them in! If a government official is under investigation for criminal behavior why in the world would someone vote for them? Boggled my mind.

#2 - They should, like anyone "applying" for a job, be able to pass a DRUG test. If we the people have to do it, so should they. We should not have government officials who are "representing" the people doing things that we are not allowed to do.


What benefits should be given to elected officials?


#1 - Base Salary with Medical Benefits that they have to contribute to. Same as any other working Joe. No Retirement for Life.

#2 - Small Housing Stipend to help pay for a "Temporary" residence in DC.


What restrictions should be placed in order to set a new system of checks and balances?


As with your first question, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on this one.


How do we keep the corruption out of the government?


One way this can be accomplished is by electing officials who qualify based on what I posted regarding qualifications. Another is to limit the influence that corporations have on our elected officials. Do not allow them to recieve campain contributions or any other sort of financial benefit from corporations.


What term limits should be in place for people elected?


All elected officials should be limited to a specific number of years of service. That's not to say they can't "advise" the future elected officials but they cannot hold office after x number of years/terms.


Should cabinets be elected instead of chosen?


Yes, I think they should. Now whether they are elected by the people or by our Congress I'm not sure. However, they should NOT be filled by "Friends" or those who are "Owed" due to political connections/contributions.


How about the supreame court, should it be an elected body?


See above response.

Now I know these aren't perfect ideas and they don't cover every aspect but they're a few that I've had and thought I would share.

-------

With regards to the differences between the DoI and the Constitution. As others have already mentioned these are totally different documents. The DoI was directed at the King of England in an effort to itemize/document their issues with the King.

The Constitution was written after they had won their Freedom.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by cnichols
 


That was a very good and well organized response to questions I have stated. The comments about you not being "intellectual" enough to come up with ways to properly control the government, seem to me are selling yourself short. You don't have to be an intellectual to know what you think is right. As far as proper wording so as to create a loop hole free document securing the peoples rights, yes it will take scholars. I am aware that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two different documents. The point to be made was the shift in paradigm between the documents in the short time span between. I really value everyones input on how the system can be improved. Only through everyones input can we make a new stronger system of the people for the people by the people.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I am aware that the Declaration of Independence was written to the crown of England. My assumption was that in current times one could exchange the word "He" with "They" of course reffering to our current political system. To say that the constitution trumps the Declaration of independence is to say that the constitution would exist with out the declaration of independence. Just a little food for thought.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
We already have an excellent form of government, our constitution. The Declaration is part of it, its foundation, just as a company must have a founding document and later on it writes its bylaws.

The Constitution is like the bylaws of the document of incorporation or founding.

This 10 minute video is very excellent, explains why a Republic such as this country was originally designed is the only way to go, and why the only alternative to it is an oligarchy of wicked men to enslave and kill the populace.

www.wimp.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
For those who keep binging up "Armed Insurrection" and "Armed Rebellion", KNOCK IT OFF..!!! At no point in this thread has anything been stated that could be missconstrued as instigating or propagating a need for violence.

For those who keep saying "Use the current system", KNOCK IT OFF..!! The current system does not work as it was intended to. Do you honestly think anything you say matters to a CEO of a Major Bank? The government thinks anything the CEO of a major bank says is very important. Its simple mathmatics, Government cares about CEO's thoughts more than yours, but CEO cares nothing of you, there fore the government cares nothing of your thoughts. You don't have the money to make the system work, but then if you had the money the system would be working in your favore already.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
We already have an excellent form of government, our constitution. The Declaration is part of it, its foundation, just as a company must have a founding document and later on it writes its bylaws.

The Constitution is like the bylaws of the document of incorporation or founding.

This 10 minute video is very excellent, explains why a Republic such as this country was originally designed is the only way to go, and why the only alternative to it is an oligarchy of wicked men to enslave and kill the populace.

www.wimp.com...


You just described in your last paragraph what most people believe the government is doing now. The constitution is not solid enough at this point in time to ensure a government of the people by the people for the people. Most people feel enslaved by the government and elite ruling class. Please clarify what makes our form of government excellent at this time. Do you support corruption and criminal activities in all tiers of government?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Oh yes, and with regards to your comparison of the DoI to what is going on currently. That is something I observed about 5 months or so ago. If you take references to the King of England and replace them with references to the current government it definately fits.

As far as my references to being intellectual enough (lol) ... I'm just a simple truck driver. What do I know?


On a different note though, yes I have some feelings about what is right and what is wrong but I'm not totally familiar with all the "powers" that they (the government) currently "have" so I don't feel qualified to comment on them. IMO they have (or say they do) much more power (at the Federal Level) then I think they should. And since I don't feel knowledgeable enough about what powers they have how can I say what kind of restrictions they should have?

I definately do agree 100% that CORPORATIONS have no business in our Government in any way shape or form. (pardon the pun!)



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
If you want a really good read on the roots of Revolution,
try Thomas Paine's Common Sense.
It's free. All you have to do is read.



— Doc Velocity







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



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

You just described in your last paragraph what most people believe the government is doing now. The constitution is not solid enough at this point in time to ensure a government of the people by the people for the people. Most people feel enslaved by the government and elite ruling class. Please clarify what makes our form of government excellent at this time. Do you support corruption and criminal activities in all tiers of government?


No, we no longer live in a Republic, a nation of laws and not men, but have been infiltrated and conquered from within by an oligarchy of criminals.

We now live in a nation of wicked men who have hijacked our government, who have trashed the constitution, and are stealing us blind and preparing to kill most of us and enslave the rest.

The 10 minute video I posted above is very good, describes how Rome was also once a republic and sank into an oligarchy. www.wimp.com...

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If we allow wicked men to creep in unawares and subvert the Republic, we will lose it.

Ben Franklin said it to the lady who asked what the Continental Congress had produced for the people in the way of a government. He said, "A Republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."

The video I posted above makes it very plain that a Republic is the ONLY form of government that is possible to have that will allow people to own property and live in freedom, to enjoy the fruit of their labors. Wicked and greedy men will ALWAYS claw their ways to the top, or slip themselves in like termites to bite and chew and devour the structures erected to provde for an orderly and peaceful Republic. It is the nature of evil to want to dominate and destroy. It is our duty as citizens to see this does not happen, and to clean house once in awhile and restore things to their intended and original state.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Your first post seemed to be in support of the current system. Now your second post truely defines your opinion and as such will be better considered a part of the discussion. Now lets find a solution to our common problem.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I found this interesting paragraph in a court case that Justice Marshall presided over.

Cohens v. Virginia:


It is very true that, whenever hostility to the existing system shall become universal, it will be also irresistible. The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.

The acknowledged inability of the government, then, to sustain itself against the public will and, by force or otherwise, to control the whole nation, is no sound argument in support of its constitutional inability to preserve itself against a section of the nation acting in opposition to the general will.


It makes a statement reffering to delegates that are in place to "repell" the usurpation of the power of the people by the governing bodies. My question is who are these said delegates? Are these delegates people like us, who are attempting to hold accountable those whos actions have lead to this corrupt system we now are ruled by?

The second paragraph if I am understanding it correctly states that the people if in a majority have the right to dislodge the government for repair so to speak.


[edit on 8-4-2009 by LeaderOfProgress]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
When the plane is falling from the sky, you do not revolt to change the pilot, you escape the plane - Daniel Quinn



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


That is a great video that should be seen in every civics class across the country! Thanks for the link!

Also thank you for bringing up the Franklin quote from referring to our republic. Never has it been as relevant, and you have solidified my earlier point on the difference between republic and democracy.

It's interesting to note many of the current changes that Washington has imposed on We, the People (taxpayers, anyway). We continually are thrust deeper into the well of debt... To the point where corporatism has become the law of the land.

It's so simple a solution, yet so hard to implement. Even folks who don't consider themselves "intellectuals" can play a pivitol role.

The Monster from Jekyll Island must be put down. With the Fed in power, all is for nothing... Our founding fathers would not fall for this fleecing, and they didn't have half of the information gathering tools we do. Why is the American public so apathetic? Can they not see taxation without representation?

The so called patriot act must be repealed in full. Many executive orders accompany this law, and thusly as well require dismantling. The patriot act goes against nearly all the principles the founding fathers stood for. There is nothing "patriot" about the patriot act.

The Constitution of the United States of America needs restored to it's full power. State's rights must be granted, and the federal government kept in full check and balance using the system as it was intended.

If I were to make a metaphor for our current federal government, it would accurately (I think) reflect the world opinion of Americans in general: It is a disgusting, crass, bloated hog.

The Constitution makes it illegal for many of the abuses of power that have occurred to take place, yet they have in spite of the document. Are We, the People to follow the example of our leaders, cast aside the ideals our great republic were founded on, and blaze a new and different path through history? Time will tell what the We the People will do.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
When the elected (or so called) government becomes the oppressor of the people, it is the duty of the people to abolish such government and institute another as stated in the Declaration of Independence. This is what we do every four years, either confirming or denying the leaders power. When this fails, it is the duty of the people to turn to the protection and support of the ideals that gave this nation a birth and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States in it's true meaning and form.

This present Government consists of oppressors from all parties. This government no longer does the will of the people, nor does it respect the Constitution it is taken an oath to protect and defend. This government has consistantly increased the burden and weight of taxation upon it's own people. This government has begun the nationalization of all major industry, banks, finacial institutions etc. where monetary power is and where industrial stength is.

We are now on the verge of another rebellion, if not by the ballot than by the will of the people themselves. But with this is a warning, that if the people are not united for the fight and the right to be free, they will lose the ability to resist, or that resistance will be harder to achieve.

In 2010, the first results of the electorial rebellion will begin. It will be a time to cast out the oppressors from all parties who, for personal gain, and for popularity, have placed tax upon the people and have aided in the rise of tyranny. In 2012, the final result of an electorial rebellion will have occurred. If this present administration is not cast out in humilliating defeat, we the people will have no other option other than open difiance to the agents of oppression and tyranny. And if at that time we do not stand up, we have only ourselves to blame and deserve the slavery to follow.

It's no longer about parties and politics, it's about freedom and truth, and the validity and power of the Constitution of the United States. Remember, that that power and validity is from and by the people themselves and therefore needs to be supported and defended by the people.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by cbianchi513
 


Surely we can accept that a government along with its associated political process is designed to be and produce a representative operation. A government IS the reflection of the people. A government that is not representative must be the product of a political process that has been subverted; thus the government is the reflection of some other people. Long story short the political process was subverted, for many years…in the current era the demarcation event, from what I can see, was when Lyndon Johnson became President.

So, I agree that the government for a long time was the product of a subverted political process, one that was fixed to produce an outcome acceptable to the people that subverted the process, but I also am of the opinion that the political process has been freed from this subversive element; however, it takes time to turn over the government. Unless the corrupt politician commits a crime we have to wait for their term to run its course…like with Rod Blagojevich. Thankfully, these corrupt elements within the government are also arrogant and blind in one eye (lacking depth perception) so they cannot see that they are no longer in control of the political process; they are then removed quickly and efficiently. At this point you should all be happy that they are continuing their crimes…this way it’ll be easier to punish them.

If the country is run by a criminal gang, this has to be exposed to the world…thus they have to make the first move. So it is irrelevant that the constitution doesn’t contain provisions for dealing with a rouge system. This is a strategic problem; Sun Tzu is a more appropriate reference than Thomas Jefferson.

They are losing, they know they are losing and now they need to know that if they don’t do something, and soon, that they will be remembered as the group that talked a good game but bent over and took it in the backside when the chips were on the table. Humiliating your enemy can be extremely satisfying.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by huckfinn
 



Man, once again you are so right it's eerie... Let's all hope you're right at any rate!

I usually stray a bit from your post, and this is no exception. Although LBJ came into the office of POTUS at an especially tumultuous turn of events for our republic, I don't feel that he was instrumental in the massive shift in political dogma that you (and to a large degree I,) feel.

Remember Ike's now infamous "parting words" about the military industrial complex?


www.sourcewatch.org...

Perhaps a warning from a wary and vigilant patriot? I really dig the part about security and liberty together.

Like I said, I truly hope you are right. I hope that positive change is truly all around us, and the "microwave" mentality we've been conditioned into (things are ready NOW!) blinds us to them. The Constitution of the United States guarantees We, the People the right to have large gatherings, like the Tax Day Tea Parties nationwide... Hopefully the real message will be heard by the representatives of the people, and the republic will be restored.


[edit on 8/4/09 by cbianchi513]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I will start this post by stating that the "republic" form of government is still the best option, but in some cases the people need the right to exercise a democratic voting process. When the laws or regulations being pushed upon the people are of such magnitude that they may interfere with the freedoms that the people were given by the original laws of the country, the people reserve the right to decide for themselves. These laws then should require a democratic vote so as to further the agenda of the people not the agenda of the elite. This in itself will creat a new oversight in government affairs, further adding a new check and balance to the system.

Several people keep talking as if a change in the system has occurred already, so I ask give me proof that the current administration is any different than others that it replaced. Promises have been broken, transparancey has become muddy, and theft of money to be given to special interest groups that supported the current administration has all occurred. The bulk majority of the people that have been put into cabinet positions are "buddies", not so much qualified for the postitions they are given, but given such postitions as repayment for assitance in furthering the current administrations agenda be it legal or not. If the current administration wanted true change then they would have enacted it by now. The sweeping changes that should have occurred already would have dramatically changed the political face of the United States immediately. Almost every move so far by the current administration has been in violation of the framework layed out by the founding fathers, from assimilation of companys by the government to the further propagation of acts that restrict the feedoms of the people, promoting more government involment in our personal lives. So once again how is the system working when you can be promised change but yet you recieve none? How does one still have any faith in the current system when you are blatantly lied to by the people sworn to uphold and protect your rights?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pai mei
When the plane is falling from the sky, you do not revolt to change the pilot, you escape the plane - Daniel Quinn


You will love this. How bout you try to fix the plane first before giving up and running away. If you are confident the that the plane can be fixed then why abandon it when it most needs your assitance? If the pilot is inaddequite for the job of operating the plane and there are others with more insight then you push the pilot out of the way and take over.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I have read the Declaration of Independence many times and the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. I based my perspective on our government off of them and why not? After all it seemed a pretty sensible thing to do.

Then one day not to long ago I decided alright, lets be brave now, lets read the Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War.

What an eye opener, I read it for what it was, based on who set the tone, who seemed in an authoritative position, just where that authority sprang from, who wrote it, who signed it and how they signed it.

I was pretty alarmed and felt I really should read the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812.

I had to research a few significant Latin words and titles, a few other treaties that pertained to those Latin words and titles and when I was finished I couldn’t sleep for almost two days.

My conclusion was that the only thing that happened in the Revolutionary War is we were granted by the Holy Roman Empire to set up a semi-autonomous government based on the Roman Republic and that our constitution had to be written in such a way to create all the mechanisms for the Treaty of Paris to be fulfilled.

My further conclusion was that when the Holy Roman Empire fell after nearly 900 years of existence it led to the War of 1812.

When I researched why eight representatives of the United States signed the document all with identical Latin titles instead of the offices they held in the United States, I discovered that those titles were in fact far more important and far older. What I discovered is that the United States President and his 7 associated who signed the Treaty of Ghent ending the war of 1812 signed them as officials of not the Holy Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire itself.

If you take the time to read and research these treaties as I did you might very well find yourselves coming to the same conclusion.

If you then research why in the early 1800’s shortly after the Treaty of Ghent there was a mass outcry by the public to curtail and end the Masonic Movement and why, you might be further alarmed.

If you take the time to find out that the original 13th Amendment written and ratified in the 1820s was never repealed but just quietly replaced during the tumultuous aftermath of the Civil War with the current version of the 13th Amendment you are likely going to discover that we have all been set up from the word go.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join