Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

To Defend The United States Constitution: The Next Step! Unite! For A Free People!

page: 1
35
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
To Defend Not Amend.

Our Nation is out of control Constitutionally, Economically & Ethically.

We have a rogue government, refusing to be acountable to it's citizens!

Your First Amendment solution is being denied. The Constitutional accountability clause allows for a petition of The Government when it violates the Constitution.

The Government can be petitioned for a redress of grievances!

The lengthy record of these unanswered grievances and violations makes CC2009 necessary; CC2009 is A Continental Congress.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org...
www.cc2009.us...







[edit on 11-10-2009 by burntheships]




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Good cause, but few will see it, or care... mainly because I think it is against ATS rules... is it not?

Edit:


1e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:

i) You will not use your membership at The Above Network, LLC site(s) for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.





[edit on 10-10-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
She is right. You cant vote them out because they are not part of the public system.

This is a decent video showing some of the highlights from recent years.


[edit on 10-10-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


Dont think so...

Is this the flag you want to wave?




The right to petition in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms and sometimes taken for granted, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right, making it a fundamental right in both representative democracies (to protect public participation) and constitutional republics, like the United States
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 10-10-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Ha ha, you got me, actually I hope people are getting motivated more, I would in fact love to see nothing less.

It is time to take back our country.

Sometimes the points of my posts are missed... but a few will get it.

BTW, I love that flag!





posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


Alright now, it is time to take back the country.

Love which flag? The Gadsden Flag, or the U.S.S.A?

I really love this one:



Although I am most likely understood by flying this tea stained one to show solidarity with The Founders:





[edit on 10-10-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
One of the main things that I picked up on. Is the word "Change".

There is none.

There hammered Bush in the video and even showing Kieth Oberman speaking truth in relation to our founders. Could you get them to repeat that today. No way.

But what has changed?

Nothing.

With the tyranny of the Govt. so out in the open, how can you fix it without going back?
Back to undo what decades of coruption has done.
Back to undo what decades of past presidents have pushed thru.

How can you fix anything what so ever by putting more on the pile?

How can you fix it by adding to the size of the Govt.?

I am not trying very hard to hound Obama, but is it not clear?

Is there not a very clear path to clean off?

To start reversing the damage.
To start putting the power with the people again.

I think the only power the PTB have, is what we as the People give them.
I think if we stand up, they have no power.

I think if we tell them what it is going to be with banking, wall street, and other areas of total coruption, they just have to do it.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
To Defend NOT Amend.


Just a note. The founding fathers gave congress the rights to ammend the constitution provided there are sufficient votes. While an ammendment has not been added in a while, constitutionally congress reserves that right.


Our Nation is out of control Constitutionally


What has been unconstitutional exactly? Can you be more specific so we can address your statement more clearly.


Economically


It has been depressive financial times, but nobody had a magic wand to make the economy heal in under a year. The economic crises happened in Octobor and likewise regardless of who ever assumed office, the economy was going to be the way it is for time to come. It took years to get to this financial crises, I'd be curious to an explaination from you regarding how under a year we can fix it all up?


Ethically


Like allowing the health corporations to refuse coverage to those who already pay them? Or like the fact 122 americans die because they cannot afford healthcare? Like the fact gays are officially being told they cant be gay when they join the military? Yes we do have ethical problems... my issue with is that most here dont consider those specific ethical problems.


We have a rogue government, refusing to be acountable to it's citizens!


Depnds on your views. If you mean the government isnt accountable solely on rightwing conservatives you are greatly mistaken. You share this country with other citizens.

I will agree with you that for the moment many politicians are not being held accountable to he consensus of the majority hence the healthcare reform debates.


petition of The Government when it violates the Constitution.


and again, please post to us specifically where the government has been unconstitutional, and be specific in the government members thanks.

SG



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
be patient it is not time yet they have not actually done anything we can prove and we must wait to early and we will be terrorist we must wait until they show us thier terrorist before we strike, just be ready for anyhting.

The Tree of Liberty, from time to time needs to be watered with the blood of TRYRANTS and PATROITS.

Depopulation is soon with in years its us or them.

I was Born FREE I will DIE FREE to PROTECT my country and my bothers and sisters, this is or country them are terrorist if they step any farther over our line, good luck



[edit on 10-10-2009 by slipknotrules2009]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Just a note. The founding fathers gave congress the rights to ammend the constitution provided there are sufficient votes. While an ammendment has not been added in a while, constitutionally congress reserves that right.


It is vital to the Republic to uphold The Constitution and act within in it rather than amend it, if that is you believe that The Constitution should be upheld. How could the government possibly uphold amendments if it refuses to uphold The Contstitution?

Upholding The Constitution is not "right wing" nor "left wing".



What has been unconstitutional exactly?


Let us just look at this last year...

Economically: The bailouts were unconstitutional. The Federal Government has no authority to spend the taxpayers money to buy distressed assets, much less to take ownership in private fianancial institutions. Article 1 Section 1. While I am not a constitutional scholar, it is clear to see that the "bailouts" were unconstitutional.


We have a rogue government, refusing to be acountable to it's citizens!


Obvious...very obvious. When Congress approves a move by the government that is unconstitutional, ie. "The Bailouts" that is what I would consider a "rogue" government!


I will agree with you that for the moment many politicians are not being held accountable to he consensus of the majority hence the healthcare reform debates.


We agree on that.




[edit on 10-10-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


I'm actually not a fan of the "Defend not Amend" thing since we need an immediate amendment to repeal the abhorrent 16th Amendment, IMO. the initial meager 1% income tax has ballooned into the ultimate nightmare of corporatism and willing government collusion at the expense of the Individual and their right to economic liberty.

We also need an amendment to secure Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution which says all currency in the States must be of Gold and Silver. This couldn't be properly defended by the courts or the Constitution since the FED began it's reign as cheif inflationer 96 years ago...

Therefore, we must safeguard the concept of sound money by amending it's security, since sound money wasn't properly protected. 4 cent dollar anyone?

I also think there should be an amendment for a mandatory balanced budget since 30 of 50 states operate just fine under that premise as is. And the others are on a fast track to bankruptcy. Governments simply can't be trusted with deficit spending despite the good intentions. Thus, secure it with an amendment.

I'd also like an amendment for Congressional term limits to get rid of career politicians who favor their and their party's interests before the People. 12 years in the House, 12 in the Senate, then live under the laws you made.

So let's defend the principals of freedom, liberty, responsible politicians and sound money above all else, even if that includes amending the Constitution...

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Boom Slice]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Since your on one of your almighty correct everyone campains.
You said this.


Just a note. The founding fathers gave congress the rights to ammend the constitution provided there are sufficient votes. While an ammendment has not been added in a while, constitutionally congress reserves that right.


That would be wrong. Congress does not have this power. They have to get each state to ratify each change or addition. They alone do not have the power. Of course, at the rate we going the last two years, they might try to change that too.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I just wanted to state that I appreciate Southern Guardian taking the time to reply to this thread. He's certainly more patient than I am when responding to another's empty rhetoric. What do I mean? Well - accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a communist is a good example. Equating your loss in a fair election to being denied representation in government is another.

The Constitution was meant to be amended. It is the longest lasting Constitution in the history of the world because it has the flexibility to change over time. It's vagueness permits each generation to interpret the document to apply to new technology and social values. When this is insufficient, each generation has a means to amend the document.

Sunny-day Constitutionalists or those who remained silent during illegal domestic wiretapping, torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial, and unprovoked wars. I have zero respect for these people whatsoever. They have no appreciation for the Constitution itself or its ideals. They opportunistically exploit it to forward their own agendas. These are the people who cared nothing about torture until Pelosi might have know about it. True constitutionalists care little about who broke the law - they want accountability regardless of political affiliation. They don't see the law as something that can be abandoned whenever it's inconvenient. They don't see inherent human rights as the exclusive domain of American citizens.

Fortunately, only someone of minimal intelligence could ever find a photoshopped American flag with a hammer and sickle on it to be compelling political commentary. Only a fool driven by base emotions and instincts such as fear and hatred could ever be convinced by such simplistic imagery. The constitution and declaration of independence were intelligent documents written by intelligent men. They would have understood that losing in a fair election is not fascism, but demanding that its results be disregarded because you don't like the outcome is. If the combined will of the voters is something that you feel can and should be disregarded and tossed aside because it is different from your own, you are not in support republics.

If you don't like current leadership, don't vote for it! If you want others to share your perception, then convince them with intelligent but fair debate. Turn off photoshop and use your words. Write with passion but leave the rhetoric and fallacious remarks at home. Show those sitting on the fence that your viewpoint is the best, not by shouting out the opposition but by listening and responding to their side. Demand the opposition do the same for you.

The hearts and minds you are fighting for are the undecided. You won't convince them by presenting cartoons that indicate you think they are stupid and naive. Quit lying. Quit distorting. These are the tactics of desperate losers. Show you are better than that.

Until the neocons institute these changes, I'm not interested in what they have to say because they have nothing to say.



[edit on 10-10-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


I say let the national divisions die and come together as a species. But that is just me.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
It is vital to the Republic to uphold The Constitution and act within in it rather than amend it,


I disagree. There have been many ammendments in the past made by congress that were necessary, and many ammendments that individuals like you im sure readily support.

The 2nd ammendment, right to bear arms, was added to the constitution 14 years following the original constitutional drafting. 4th ammendment against unreasonable search and siezures. Suffrage no longer restricted by race (15th ammendment). These are just minor examples of constitutional ammendments by congress following the original drafting the constitution. By your definition, all those ammendments are wrong.

At the end of the day it depends on your personal beliefs over certain ammendments, but the necessity of congress to add to the constitution every once in a while is real.


if that is you believe that The Constiatution should be upheld.


The constitution can be still upheld and ammended at the same time. No where in the constitution does it state non-preference towards ammendments. The founding fathers foresaw changing times and the necessity of ammendments to clarify the rights of the individual.


could the government possibly uphold amendments if it refuses to uphold The Contstitution?


Well thats a moot. The ammendments like it or not are part of the constitution. Upholding the ammendments are upholding the constitution. If you could be direct as to what original constitutional wording to which the government is not upholding would be much appreciated because I fail to see what part of the constitution your refering to thats indangered.


Upholding The Constitution is not "right wing" nor "left wing".


Ofcourse. The citizens of this nation are both right and left leaning. You were talking about the citizens concerned, to which I stated you were incorrect.. using the "citizens of the nation" is a very broadbrush. There are people who believe the constitution is being upheld and needs to be further upheld with healthcare, and then there are those who feel this is against the constitution.

Both sides represent the citizens of this nation. So when you mentioned "citizens" in general, I felt you were painting a very broad brush in the actual consensus over the constitution.



Let us just look at this last year...

Economically: The bailouts were unconstitutional. The y Federal Government has no authority to spend the taxpayers money to buy distressed assets,


I understand your concerns. The bail-outs in my opinion were rather distasteful, however these were overgrown corporations ready to sink the rest of the nation with them. But beyond your opinion over the bail outs, it is unknown whether it is unconstitutional. However the rulings by the supreme court during world war 2, the last depression and the federal governments role in the development of the united states during the 40's gave congress more powers than previously. Because of those court rulings allowing greater authority to congress concerning the war and the depression, it has been used as reasoning for congress to loan out large corporations that greatly influence the market.

I'd be wary in labelling the bail outs automatically unconstitutional as these overgrown corporate banks had a grea weight and influence over the economy and likewise over the welfare of americans, welfare that congress is given responsibility over. Congress didnt interfere with the market, congress gave loans to which these overgrown corporations accepted, and while it seemed distasteful, the was a matter of slowing down any further collapse into a pending depression.


Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, an expert on constitutional law at Harvard, said in an interview that such a challenge was unlikely to succeed because the doctrine of Congressional delegation, which flourished in the 1930s, was significantly weakened during the New Deal and never recovered.

The bailout, Professor Tribe said, “certainly tests the outer limits of Congressional delegation authority,” and “if the delegation doctrine were genuinely alive and well, TARP might be among its potential victims.”

But, he said, recent cases in which the Supreme Court approved broad delegations of authority made it clear that it was unlikely to intervene on constitutional grounds. As an example Professor Tribe cited the authority conveyed to the federal Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act.

www.nytimes.com...

So past rulings from the courts have broaden the limits of congress to act over what they feel is a danger to the welfare of the nation.


muchn less to take ownership in private fianancial institutions.


How do you expect anybody to take ownership? A market without laws and boundaries (capitalism) eventually leads to corporatism to the point where the fat cats get too fat to stand themselves up, and likewise when they collapse, the rest of the nation falls the dominos and we, citizens, have to suffer for it. There is a cycle of financial crises in the unrestrained market, and ultimately we suffer for it.

Take ownership? Corporations legally have the same rights as citizens, and yet we citizens have laws over us to ensure a stable society. Corporations should take the same responsibility.... and yet they have not taken any responsibility. If the private market wanted to take responsibility, this crises would not have happened.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
That would be wrong. Congress does not have this power. They have to get each state to ratify each change or addition. They alone do not have the power. Of course, at the rate we going the last two years, they might try to change that too.


That would be wrong. Congress could not change the manner in which amendments are passed since doing so would require an amendment, which would need to be approved by 3/4 of state legislators. Split hairs much? That's not going to happen and even if it did, that's would be what the majority of the people want. If you can get the enormous amount of support needed for a constitutional amendment, even if the amendment requires everyone to wear green hats, then that's the law. It's not your right as an individual to pick and choose which laws or constitutional amendments you want. That's the right of the people as a whole.

Now, if your solution to an undesired law or constitutional amendment is to burn the whole system to the ground and start over, good luck with that. Unstable governments that are frequently being toppled and overthrown don't really inspire the support of their people or the respect of the rest of the world that is necessary to maintain national sovereignty and confidence of those wishing to engage that country in international commerce.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by burntheships
To Defend NOT Amend.


Just a note. The founding fathers gave congress the rights to ammend the constitution provided there are sufficient votes. While an ammendment has not been added in a while, constitutionally congress reserves that right.


Our Nation is out of control Constitutionally


What has been unconstitutional exactly? Can you be more specific so we can address your statement more clearly.


Economically


It has been depressive financial times, but nobody had a magic wand to make the economy heal in under a year. The economic crises happened in Octobor and likewise regardless of who ever assumed office, the economy was going to be the way it is for time to come. It took years to get to this financial crises, I'd be curious to an explaination from you regarding how under a year we can fix it all up?


Ethically


Like allowing the health corporations to refuse coverage to those who already pay them? Or like the fact 122 americans die because they cannot afford healthcare? Like the fact gays are officially being told they cant be gay when they join the military? Yes we do have ethical problems... my issue with is that most here dont consider those specific ethical problems.


We have a rogue government, refusing to be acountable to it's citizens!


Depnds on your views. If you mean the government isnt accountable solely on rightwing conservatives you are greatly mistaken. You share this country with other citizens.

I will agree with you that for the moment many politicians are not being held accountable to he consensus of the majority hence the healthcare reform debates.


petition of The Government when it violates the Constitution.


and again, please post to us specifically where the government has been unconstitutional, and be specific in the government members thanks.

SG


If you consider your labor private property, then the government nationalizing your industry (health care, for exmple) makes you a government employee. It it a felony to sell your services privately. Now you are restricted to wages detemined by the government, how do you feel?

Why not nationaize all univeristies and cost control academic salaries to make higher education affordable for all students? You may not teach privately as this is a felony. How do you feel?

I suppose freedom is the basic constitutional issue.

Another issue is that do you/will you need big government to micromanage every aspect of your life.

I was listening to a older podcast of Mark Levin before logging on today, and he mentioned that there are 23 million public employess in the nation. The manufacturing sector has 21 million. So the 21 million workers provide for our entire nation. What do the bureaucrats do other than consume tax payer dollars. Take out the military, what do these other bureaucrats do?

When other countries in the world stop giving us credit this government will fall. They will try to raise taxes to keep themselves in jobs. They will print money. I think at this point people will just say no.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Is there some reason "Communism" is always the big Bug-A-Boo when the righties come screaming out of the rotten woodwork?

First off, *This* government didn't start the bailout program. The *last* one did.

Second, *this* government is far, far more Constitutional already than the last two combined. During the last two administrations, restrictions on protests and demonstrations kept those in "disagreement" with the admin's policies far, far away in so-called "Free Speech Zones". With *this* government, not only are the protesters welcomed to join the meeting, some of 'em are even showing up *armed* with *loaded guns* and being *allowed* to *openly* exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms. You think anyone would have been allowed to do that under the previous administration?

An administration that brazenly violated those rights when it ordered *mercenaries* to *forcibly disarm* the citizens of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities so their homes (and prime land for building pretty new homes rich white people will want to move into, forcing the "negative elements" out) could be seized and "condemned"?

Considering none of the economic mess we're in now would even have happened had it not been for the prolonged and premeditated economic attack carried out on the Middle Class for the past 25-30 years, we should be counting our lucky stars right now that unemployment is *only* at around 17% nationwide (a conservative estimate including the number of people who "no longer count" and people stuck in low-wage, part-time jobs while desperately seeking full-time employment) and not closer to 25-30%.

You live in a country where a small handful of rich white A-holes literally OWNS YOU. Everything most Americans eat, watch on TV, see in theaters, listen to on the radio, read in the newspaper, and wipe your butt with is shoved down your throat by the same huge, ravenous, amoral, and ultimately destructive machine and that machine is controlled at the top by a tiny group of people who hold over 95% of this once-great nation's wealth. They have so much money and power they can override the will of 300 MILLION PEOPLE--either through the corruption of the political machine or the direct manipulation of the masses by way of an equally corrupted media.

This is the cancer stage of capitalism as an economic system (it is NOT a "political system" as so many seem to fail to grasp). We're living in the part where capitalism unrestrained and unrestricted infects every aspect of life, and suddenly everything, including your very soul, has a price tag on it. The mega-rich keep getting richer while everyone who *isn't* already rich gets in the breadline. Hard work will *never* make you a rich man. Hell, anymore hard work won't even pay rent for a shoebox-sized apartment in the average city.

The rich get tax cuts at the Federal level making their lifestyles effectively tax-free while the working poor and dwindling middle class pay *more* in taxes on the state and local level because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to fund the infrastructure of our nation, and the cost burden falls to the workers.

Unemployment keeps climbing because real wages haven't kept pace with inflation for *decades*, leaving millions at the subsistence level where they can't afford the goods and services that *must* be bought if the providers of same are to remain in business. If the providers, the stores and manufacturers and the guys who work the docks and the truckers who haul the merchandise to the store can't stay in business, that's *thousands* more unemployed. And it's millions more in lost tax revenue, meaning bridges won't get fixed or even inspected and a dozen or more families lose their lives when one finally gives out. Cities can't afford their transit systems, meaning people can't get to work due to cutbacks in routes or have to pay almost twice as much for the same trip. Too bad their wages aren't increasing to compensate, leading to even less money flowing through the system, fewer goods and services being purchased, more companies out of business, more unemployed, and so on and so forth.

It's just too damn bad so many Americans still can't tell they're in the throes of a corporate fascist system *right now* and are afraid of the solution because they've been told (lied to) that it's "Communism"--which most of those who fear it wouldn't recognize it if they saw it.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Just a note. The founding fathers gave congress the rights to ammend the constitution provided there are sufficient votes. While an ammendment has not been added in a while, constitutionally congress reserves that right.


That would be wrong. Congress does not have this power. They have to get each state to ratify each change or addition. They alone do not have the power. Of course, at the rate we going the last two years, they might try to change that too.


Exactly! The only other way for The Constitution to be amended is for a constitutional convention to be call for by Two Thirds of the U.S. legislature, and for that convention to propose one or more amendments!



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


I absolutely love G. Edward Griffin and what he represents, which is the truth.

I wrote the thread below based on his book by the same title with videos.

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

Our Government has gone rogue on us and bypassed the populations wishes completely, bought and sold as a commodity, through the power elite, who lobby Congress and Senators, and as well put people in office like Barack Obama, who would rather speak ill of our country to the rest of the world apologizing for us citizens claiming the atrocities are our fault when it is the people in power who use propaganda to show the world what they want, not what is reality, that we have no control of our Government through the electoral process.

Political Collusion of a President and Congress in Collapsing America, The Fall of the New Rome

I was pointing this out under the Bush Administration prior to the current problems as well as that our economy was being collapsed on purpose via a means of greed, corruption, and pre-planning through collusion by those in Congress as well as the President.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]






top topics



 
35
<<   2 >>

log in

join