Talk of Armed Revolution on ATS Inappropriate

reply to post by mnemeth1

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.

Somehow I doubt that. Which has been the basis of my argument. I believe that it's not the real intention to revert the government back to it's roots, but to overthrow it, and instill a more oppressive government in it's place.

Originally posted by infinite
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]

So you're telling me that a signed piece of legislation created by the US colonial government and entered into the US code books as law under the organic laws of the United States really isn't law, its just some statement that's meaningless in legal terms.

Sure dude.

While our modern courts may have rendered it meaningless, that does not mean it doesn't hold the weight of constitutional law. The Constitution derives its authority from the natural rights of man; and was created to further protect the natural rights of man. So too is the Declaration born from those same natural rights. See 9th amendment.

The right of revolution enshrined in the Declaration can not be legislated out of existence any more than a supreme court decision upholding slavery negates the right of black men to be free.




[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

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.

Somehow I doubt that. Which has been the basis of my argument. I believe that it's not the real intention to revert the government back to it's roots, but to overthrow it, and instill a more oppressive government in it's place.

I find it difficult to believe a government can be more oppressive than the one currently in existence.

Try running a business once.

We'd have to devolve into Maoist China to reach more oppressive levels than we have now.

What would come of it? An oligarchy that has no respect for constitutional boundaries and legislates whatever they like? We already have that.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Did the US Deceleration of Independence appear on the British Parliament legislation? No. At the time of passing, the United States was still under British authority and the Continental Congress had no legal existence.

The First and Second Continental Congress both passed literally dozens of deceleration which were nothing more than protests at British rule. It had no legal standing. It might be stored under US code law, but it has no real legal footing.

Same with the Irish deceleration of Independence and all others. None of them have no true legal requirement, if their colonial rulers simply refuse to recognise it.

Treaty of Paris (1783) was the first document to be legal ratified by the Continental Congress. Deceleration of Independence was agreed - not legal ratified (it couldn't be due to British opposition)

If you knew your own history, which clearly you don't, the document influenced all American constitutional law to come. It is an expression of rights and nothing more.


The Supreme Court, however, has generally not considered it a part of the organic law of the country. For example, although the Declaration mentions a right to rebellion, this right, particularly with regard to violent rebellion, has not been recognized by the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government.

US Declaration of Independence

The South tried using the Declaration of Independence as a means of legal rebellion during the Civil War - which the Supreme Court over ruled.

So, there it is, from The Supreme Court. It is not considered to be apart of organic law.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite


The supreme court also declared negros to be uncivil barbarians fit to be slaves.

The Declaration was entered into the US code books as organic law after the creation of the US federal government.

It is law.

Whether or not the supreme court respects it as law is another matter entirely.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is law.

Whether or not the supreme court respects it as law is another matter entirely.

Well, if the highest court in your nation declares otherwise, it is not law. Simple. If the Supreme Court does not recognise it as organic law, then you cannot argue.

Abraham Lincoln and Founders might've suggested the document should be law and used to interpret the Constitutional laws of America, but the Supreme Court has said otherwise.

Similar to The Treaty of Paris - only article 1 is still legally functional (recognise the US sovereignty and independence from Great Britain. The rest of the Act is no longer or recognised as law.

And saying "its law" does not constitute (excuse the pun!) as an argument - I've described the legal status of the revoluntary Congress and explained why the document has no legal authority. Find me information that states the declaration is not a statement or expression of rights.

Jesus wept...make an effort..

[edit on 4-1-2010 by infinite]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I would have to agree vehemently with this statement. I was letting you two cuss and discuss this alone for awhile.

The Supreme Court is made up of humans, a fallible animal.

God's law is not fallible. Common Law and such should be and always will be to err on the side of rights of the individual, not of the state.

The civil war is one such thing. The inclusion of the slaves after the initiation of hostilities was a move by Lincoln to try to sow the righteousness of the Northern States.

Slavery was not the main purpose of the hostilities.

Of course it should have been, but it was not.

It was the argument over whether or not the States had sovereign rights, which they did have.

Many think and are correct in their position that the North was wrong.

My opinion on all of this, so do not flame me please.

reply to post by endisnighe


For some reason, American politicians do not believe in Constitutional Reform. In Europe, we do this about every decade to ensure our constitution is up to date and acceptable to the citizens of each respected nation.

Which is why there is numerous political debates over the US Constitution.

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is law.

Whether or not the supreme court respects it as law is another matter entirely.

Well, if the highest court in your nation declares otherwise, it is not law. Simple. If the Supreme Court does not recognise it as organic law, then you cannot argue.

Abraham Lincoln and Founders might've suggested the document should be law and used to interpret the Constitutional laws of America, but the Supreme Court has said otherwise.

Similar to The Treaty of Paris - only article 1 is still legally functional (recognise the US sovereignty and independence from Great Britain. The rest of the Act is no longer or recognised as law.

And saying "its law" does not constitute (excuse the pun!) as an argument - I've described the legal status of the revoluntary Congress and explained why the document has no legal authority. Find me information that states the declaration is not a statement or expression of rights.

Jesus wept...make an effort..

[edit on 4-1-2010 by infinite]

No, its not that "simple"

The civil war showed us that.

It is a signed piece of legislation created by the continental congress and entered into the US code books as LAW.

That makes it law - in every sense of the word.

The supreme courts lack of respect for it does not diminish this fact.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by infinite


See that is why our Constitution was set up the way it was. It is hard to pass an amendment because the founders knew that people will give away their rights easily if given a chance with the right kind of incentive.

It may have been too much of a restriction though. That I can agree with.

reply to post by infinite



What you are arguing is that the US constitution and the northwest territories aren't laws either.

That's what you're saying.

If you want to argue that the organic laws created by the continental congress aren't really laws, then you have to throw out the constitution and the ordinance of 1787 as well.

They are all cut from the same cloth, hence why you find them all in the exact same place in the US code books, one right after the other.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

I find it difficult to believe a government can be more oppressive than the one currently in existence.

Try running a business once.

We'd have to devolve into Maoist China to reach more oppressive levels than we have now.

What would come of it? An oligarchy that has no respect for constitutional boundaries and legislates whatever they like? We already have that.

Tell that to the people in Iran. See if they will cry you a river.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I find it difficult to believe a government can be more oppressive than the one currently in existence.

Try running a business once.

We'd have to devolve into Maoist China to reach more oppressive levels than we have now.

What would come of it? An oligarchy that has no respect for constitutional boundaries and legislates whatever they like? We already have that.

Tell that to the people in Iran. See if they will cry you a river.

The CIA overthrew their first elected government, Prime Minister Mosaddeq. See Operation Ajax.

We put the Ayatollah in power.

So I guess you'd be against the Iranian people rebelling against the Ayatollah since it would be "illegal" under Iranian law.


Heaven forbid the Iranians revolt and overthrow an oppressive government - that we put there!


[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

slightly off topic but I just had to say this about the Iranians.

Over time, the corrupt iron fist tyranny we installed as a government over the Iranian people has relaxed its grip and is actually doing many things that are in the best interest of the Iranian people.

They are moving to sell oil outside of the corrupt dollar system.

They are nationalizing their banks and getting rid of a lot of the corruption and usury abuses.

They aren't so tyrannical with their religious laws as they used to be.

Relatively speaking, the Iranians enjoy a decent existence compared to the Iraqi's.

Right now our CIA is back in there trying to overthrow the Ayatollah because he's not playing ball anymore. The selling of oil off the dollar system is a direct threat to the dollar and US global hegemony. The US can not stand by and let them do this.

If a revolt comes in Iran, it will not be from the people. It will be another CIA staged stunt in order to install an even more corrupt regime.

I think this time the CIA is having a much harder go of it because the Iranians learned their lesson the first time - and the internet makes a powerful tool of education.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

Something tells me the form of government those that would overthrow this government want to install will make the current government system in this country look like a utopia.

I can just imagine the nightmare the extreme right has in store for this country if they ever revolt.

Probably would make Hitler look like a gentle benevolent leader.

Originally posted by whatukno
Something tells me the form of government those that would overthrow this government want to install will make the current government system in this country look like a utopia.

I can just imagine the nightmare the extreme right has in store for this country if they ever revolt.

Probably would make Hitler look like a gentle benevolent leader.

I think your scared of the personal responsibility that would come under a constitutional government, thus fear a return to one.

You're not scared some dictator will take over, you're scared that all your pet programs will get shut down and handed back over to the public where they belong.

Socialist security - gone.
medicare - gone
no child left behind? - gone and double gone
federal gun, alcohol, and tobacco laws? - gone
federal drug laws - gone

all gone - under a constitutional government.


To the public school indoctrinated masses, the thought of this is terrifying.

They have been made dependent and now fear the responsibility that comes with such freedoms.

yes an armed revolution would be wrong to start on ATS, but gathering like minded people with weapons to form militias to protect against a tyranical government is a WHOLE 'nother story betty boop from the 1930's.

reply to post by whatukno


Don't worry whatukno, if they were to revolt, which it seems you are hoping they will, you will get your wish. They will be locked up and all rights will be null and void.

A flowery utopia of absolute socialistic fascism.

Of course every country that has gone down that path has failed. But this time it will be different right? Because this time, more control, more social programs and the better intellectual elitist model will work better.

If you have not noticed things are going down hill and down hill fast.

And do not go into the right wing has had control thingy. That is just more governmental propaganda. There has been no real difference in either party for decades. Have we ever repealed any control legislation, ever?

What you are arguing is that the US constitution and the northwest territories aren't laws either.

That's what you're saying.

Erm, no I wasn't. Please read.

The Congress of the Confederation was organised to write the US Constitution. 1787 was when it was created, I believe. Have to correct me on the date, if I was wrong. Not the First or Second Continental Congress (which were conventions are not really a congress)

Congress of the Confederation later became your current contemporary United States Congress.

Also, that is why Peyton Randolph is not legally recognised as the first President of the United States. Even though, in theory, he was.

The previous two revolutionary Congresses had no legal authority within the colonials to ratify anything. Reason why the Supreme Court refers to pre-sovereignty America as statements and expression of rights.

Do you know your own history?

reply to post by infinite


I think it's high time for another quote. For this one, let's take a look at Thomas Jefferson's thoughts fromThe Federalist Papers, #28, written in 1788, 12 years after the nation was founded:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

I think it's quite obvious what was intended by the very people that framed our system of governance what should be done in the event that the People's Government should ever "become destructive of it's ends".

Don't you agree?

TheBorg