Talk of Armed Revolution on ATS Inappropriate

I love when people ignorantly use the Declaration of Independence as a clarion call to start blowing people away. I mean, why not, it worked so well with Timothy McVeigh.

I mean it must take a staggering intellect to piece a two hundred year old "screw you to King George" together with the far right's absurd ideology.

But the funny part is that no one can seem to get past the preamble. But you would understand exactly why they decided to declare their independence from Brittan if you did.

Originally posted by Sephirah
reply to post by moonzoo7

 

Where does it say overthrow of government is illegal? Last time I checked, it was a right and duty.

Majic posted the Smith Act for you; however, it is clearly in conflict with the Declaration of Independence which was written to express mans natural right to revolt against tyrannical government.

So basically the Smith Act is a violation of our natural rights and should thus be considered unconstitutional; but of course, the Supreme Commissars of the Courts don't see it that way.

So basically you can be arrested for plotting to over-throw the government, even though the declaration of independence declares its your right when government fails to uphold your natural rights (ie. violates its constitutional boundaries)

Its kind of a "catch 22" - since the supreme court declares what is constitutional and what is not, if they declare something that's unconstitutional constitutional, you have no recourse. - and of course, they will always declare what ever they have ruled to be constitutional.


Here's a prime example of the Supreme Court in action:

Dred Scott v. Sanford – March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.

With that ruling, the Supreme Court made slavery constitutional.


"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.


"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

Really? And I was led to believe ATS was to promote free thinking, and to talk openly if the government is failing the people. It is good if people want to storm the capitals doesn't matter how well protected the evil is.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution, they are two separate and unequal things entirely.

The Declaration of Independence does not make revolution legal. All it did was tell King George to go jump in a lake.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution, they are two separate and unequal things entirely.

The Declaration of Independence does not make revolution legal. All it did was tell King George to go jump in a lake.

The declaration of independence and the constitution are both predicated on natural law.

They both hold the same weight.

The constitution is the codification of a government designed to protect mans natural rights, the declaration is the reason why the constitution and our government was created.

One is action, the other is the reason behind that action.




[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

I discuss natural rights further here:

reply to post by whatukno


I am most certainly not ignorant although you seem to feel obliged to attack without stating any specific reason why. No one ever said an overthrow had to be violent, and I shudder to think of the abominable atrocities of the Parisians during the French Revolution. Mob rule is chaotic, ignorant and unpredictable. I am, however, saying that in Man's current state of evolution, non-violent government overthrow would be rather difficult.

Let me impress the issue that you seem to overlook. Perhaps you should read it again. The government is given power by the CONSENT of the people. Unless you have been living under a rock, you may have noticed that the people are incredibly unhappy with what our government has been up to. You may have also noticed their blatant ignorance of the peoples wishes, even though the matter is brought to them everyday. Ignoring the people you govern is a smack in the face--to have the audacity and brevity to fear not the people who put you in power! As if there was no way we could take it away! This stinks of arrogance and possible reassurance of a backing SEEMINGLY more powerful than the people--the bankers, illuminati, etc. But we all know what happens to rats; they soon realize they were thought of as disposable all along and suffer their ill fate.

For those who think a revolt could never be done, you forget how little there are of them and how many there are of us. Would they turn our own military on us? A military comprised of our own sons and daughters? They are humans with emotions and loving bonds, not machines. Would they kill their own families? This notion of helplessness is proof positive of all the brainwashing the government and shadow government have been doing over the years. Thankfully, not all have succumbed.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Thank you for expressing my point better than I could have. It's nice to see someone reading things for what they are and not just arguing trivialities.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The Declaration is not law.

Our Constitution is.

Your idea of natural law is a strange one.

Maybe, do us a favor, ask an animal about natural law.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The Declaration is not law.

Our Constitution is.

Your idea of natural law is a strange one.

Maybe, do us a favor, ask an animal about natural law.

Yeah, the declaration is law.

That's why its in the US code books.




[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Hey would you look at that so it does....

But what's this?

A preamble to this resolution, agreed to on the 15th of May,


stated the intention to be totally to suppress the exercise of every


kind of authority under the British crown.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by whatukno]

further, you'll find the declaration under "organic" laws of the united states in the US code books.

Organic laws are those laws fundamental to the foundation of government.

en.wikipedia.org...

You'll find the constitution in there as well, along with the ordinance of 1787

Here's all the organic laws from the US code books hosted on the house.gov website.

uscode.house.gov...

each of those holds the weight of law, supreme law.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

So your re rebelling against the British crown?

You know what? I am bored with these threads now, if you all want to start blowing away Americans, that's your business. I guess, as long as your citing the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence it must be all ok to start blowing up federal buildings.

I really don't care as long as your not trying to gun me down.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by mnemeth1


"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Just reposting Thomas Jefferson's lovely quote.

reply to post by whatukno


WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the

Supreme Judge of the world

for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES


hmmmm

who's the supreme judge of the world?

Rather than destroy the house that serves to protect you, you may want to do some interior decorating. I suggest you start a new political party and make the changes you desire. Ballots or bullets?

reply to post by mnemeth1


So they appealed to god?

And what did god say back? Did they get a response?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

So they appealed to god?

And what did god say back? Did they get a response?

You can call the supreme judge "god" if you wish.

The founding fathers had various euphemisms for him or "it" or whatever you like to call it.

This is where mans natural rights are derived from, not from a piece of paper stamped "constitution" on its header, but from mans very existence.

Because we exist, we have rights.

These rights can not be removed no matter what laws the congress or the courts may pass.

The right to revolution when a government becomes tyrannical is stamped out in the blood of our countries forefathers.

As distasteful as this may be to many of you, this is reality. A fight against government would not be to over-throw it, but to restore it. Back to its original intent of protecting our natural rights, rather than destroying them.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Jim Scott


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Voting will not solve the problems in this country.

The power has been out of the hands of elected officials for a long time.

Turning off your TV would be a better start than starting a new political party . . .

Might as well pee in an ocean of piss if that's your plan . . .

[edit on 1/4/2010 by JPhish]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Actually, it's not. It's just a statement. A declaration to serve as the Second Continental Congresss wishes to separate constitutional authority from Great Britain. Abraham Lincoln suggested it should be used to interpret the US Constitution, however, there is no legal requirement for it to be used in that way.

It simply listed colonial grievances against King George III and colonial rule.

Its beliefs should not be confused with the United States Bill of Rights.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by infinite]