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.

 

Planning on Overthrowing the government? It's a Crime!

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lilwolf
 



besides very few people here are actually stupid enough to actually plan something like that...

waste if bandwidth for you because no one here is really that ignorant...


Not really a waste of bandwidth, and please, don't underestimate some people's stupidity. We have a few posters here now that have made it quite clear that they intend to overthrow the government by violent means.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



Good post WUK...it needed to be said...because like you said...I don't think some on here really understand the seriousness of their comments here on ATS.


Thank you,

I know you have seen these people too, and I just wanted to let them know what they may face if they try and go through with their little plan to forcedly overthrow the government.

Now to be clear, I am not talking about the people who plan non violent political protests. A protest is a 1st Amendment protected right of free speech. I am talking about those that want to subtly recruit others on here to join them in a violent "revolution" to overthrow our constitutionally elected government.

reply to post by blindface
 



The DoI was illegal too.. didn't stop the colonies from disolving their alligence to the British Crown. I don't doubt that it's illegal, just saying.. point?


The point is to Deny Ignorance. Isn't that why we are here?

The point is to try and talk some posters out of doing something that they may get into a lot of trouble for.

The point is to try and potentially save people's lives. Because when you start a violent revolution, people can die, death in the real world is permanent, it's not a video game.




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I'm from Ireland, I know what political violence looks like.. you don't have to preach to me on that point. I was only pointing out illegality means nothing..



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
After reading this post I can think of 2 quotes by Ben Franklin:
1) Treason is a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the loosers.
2) Revolution is never illegal in the first person such as our revolution. It is only illegal in the third person, their revolution.

People can talk about wanting to overthrow the government, but most do not, cause unless they can justify it, not to the courts or even congress, but it would have to be justified to the citizens of the United States. If they will not support it, then it would be illegal and not go anywhere, only if the population supports it would it be legal. Fortunately the population tends to be more level headed and prefer to do the revolutions where it belongs at the ballot box.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Whooo boy. Where to begin... this is going to be tough cause I have the OP on ignore so I can't really comment on his comments... not that I would want to, but regardless.

You see, the great thing about this law is that it was created by the guys that are at risk of being overthrown. Obviously in their eyes it is going to be evil but it is the equivalent of Hitler making a law during World War II that stated:

"No opposing country is allowed to invade Germany or they will be fined and charged accordingly."

OBVIOUSLY, the opposing forces aren't going to care for such a law and they are going to do it anyway. Quite simply, this law was created outside of the bounds of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and violates our freedom to maintain a just government.

I would be willing to accept and follow this law if indeed the government I opposed chose to follow the Constitution that we hold as the basis of our government, however - since they choose to ignore THAT law, I shall choose to ignore theirs. Let the two opposing forces collide and in the end - freedom and liberty shall always win.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Sorry to burst your bubble, but this law has been upheld by the United States Supreme court. I think you ought to look at this link as well...

www.answers.com...


In the late nineteenth century, Congress and states began to enact new limits on speech, most notably statutes prohibiting obscenity. At the outset of World War I, Congress passed legislation designed to suppress antiwar speech. The Espionage Act of 1917 (ch. 30, tit. 1, § 3, 40 Stat. 219), as amended by ch. 75, § 1, 40 Stat 553, put a number of pacificists into prison. Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs was convicted for making an antiwar speech in Canton, Ohio (Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 39 S. Ct. 252, 63 L. Ed. 566 [1919]). Charles T. Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were convicted for circulating to military recruits a leaflet that advocated opposition to the draft and suggested that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on involuntary servitude (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

The U.S. Supreme Court did little to protect the right to criticize the government until after 1927. That year, Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote an influential concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 47 S. Ct. 641, 71 L. Ed. 1095 (1927), that was to guide First Amendment jurisprudence for years to come. In Whitney the High Court upheld the convictions of political activists for violation of federal anti-syndicalism laws, or laws that prohibit the teaching of crime. In his concurring opinion, Brandeis maintained that even if a person advocates violation of the law, "it is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on." Beginning in the 1930s, the Court became more protective of political free speech rights.

Through the 1970s the High Court became more rigorous in its examination of statutes and prosecutions targeting sedition. The High Court has protected the speech of racial supremacists and separatists, labor organizers, advocates of racial integration, and opponents of the draft for the war in Vietnam. However, it has refused to declare unconstitutional all sedition statutes and prosecutions. In 1940, to silence radicals and quell Nazi or communist subversion during the burgeoning Second World War, Congress enacted the Smith Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2385, 2387), which outlawed sedition and seditious conspiracy. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951).

Sedition prosecutions are extremely rare, but they do occur. Shortly after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the federal government prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind Egyptian cleric living in New Jersey, and nine codefendants on charges of seditious conspiracy. Rahman and the other defendants were convicted of violating the seditious conspiracy statute by engaging in an extensive plot to wage a war of terrorism against the United States. With the exception of Rahman, they all were arrested while mixing explosives in a garage in Queens, New York, on June 24, 1993.

The defendants committed no overt acts of war, but all were found to have taken substantial steps toward carrying out a plot to levy war against the United States. The government did not have sufficient evidence that Rahman participated in the actual plotting against the government or any other activities to prepare for terrorism. He was instead prosecuted for providing religious encouragement to his coconspirators. Rahman argued that he only performed the function of a cleric and advised followers about the rules of Islam. He and the others were convicted, and on January 17, 1996, Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge Michael Mukasey.


After debating you on your plan for a while now, I have to say. I will back the Constitution and back the Constitutionally Elected Government and defend it from all enemies foreign or domestic. If you choose to be a domestic enemy of the government, then I am afraid that I cannot support you in your endeavor.

Don't worry, no one is going to come shooting at you, they will most likely arrest you. But I am sure that if they look at your posts here on ATS an insanity plea would be quite easy for you to get.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


YOU DON"T LISTEN!

Knock knock. Is anybody home in there? Did you read my post? Are you absent minded to the reality of the world?

Are you saying that the government has NOT done anything to defy the Constitution?

If you are saying that then you are blind and supportive of it's destruction. There are countless laws that are created in violation of the Constitution, particularly the 10th, that the supreme court you mention has no comment upon. Why is this?

NEWSFLASH
BECAUSE THE DAMN SUPREME COURT IS APPOINTED BY THE SAME CORRUPT LEADERS THAT ARE IN OFFICE!


Oh boy George. This is a tough one to figure out. This is one tough noodle to crack.



I will assume that you agree that the government has violated the Constitution, in which case I can aptly refer to you to read my post again. In fact, just for ease of your mouse, allow me to provide you with the paragraph in question - posted by none other than: ME!



I would be willing to accept and follow this law if indeed the government I opposed chose to follow the Constitution that we hold as the basis of our government, however - since they choose to ignore THAT law, I shall choose to ignore theirs. Let the two opposing forces collide and in the end - freedom and liberty shall always win.


The Alien and Sedition Act, the Smith Law, and anything to follow in its stead are all unconstitutional as stated by the Framers of the Constitution itself, with the exception of ONE man, John Adams who pushed heavy for it. Why? Because he wanted to secure his power and the power of the Federalists. The times have changed but the reasons have not - the law seeks only to preserve their power by unconstitutional means and thus it will not be rewarded merit by myself or any other revolutionary.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by gwydionblack]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


So you think secession is a crime? Wow care to show me the law forbidding secession? And in case your going to bring up the civil war don't because it was an illegal action by Lincoln. None of the states would have ever signed on to the constitution if they thought for one minute it forbade secession! I do wish people would actually study some history...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


I know, I know, yip yip yip...

The Constitution that you are so strongly in favor of is not a static document. That is why it has lasted as long as it has. It ebbs and flows with the nation. It is a living document.

The funny thing is, all the laws and rules that you are against can actually be repealed. There are some laws that I would like to see repealed. Like the Patriot Act. In my opinion, it's a gross violation of the Constitution. But it can be repealed by electing people who are in favor of repealing that unconstitutional law.

But you don't want that do you? I think that to you, it doesn't matter what happens. You just want your revolution, and I am just warning you that this law is on the books, and it doesn't matter if you don't want to follow it. They can potentially arrest you under this law, fine you, or send you to jail for up to 20 years.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Planning to overthrow the government by force should be a crime. It's not okay to murder American citizens in order to overthrow the United States government. Absolutely not okay. In another thread I explained the US military is unwilling to fight you, you should be unwilling to attack the US military or citizens as well. That's a horrible thought.

Use legal means, when legal means fail, use non violent means.

Non Violence can take time to be effective but it's a proven method and it doesn't let malicious forces use your actions against you.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The patriot act is null and void!

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

The constitution is not a "living document" that pernicious communist lie is how it has been circumvented.

"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.

"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields." DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. Also NORTON v. SHELBY CO., STATE OF TENNESSEE. Filed May 10, 1886

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson.

"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government." Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.


[edit on 1-4-2010 by hawkiye]

[edit on 1-4-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


NO, this is where you are WRONG. The Constitution IS a static document that is only changed when an amendment is successfully ratified and added. It isn't means to "grow" and "change" with a country - it is meant as the complete opposite. It is meant to withhold a government from gaining in power and THAT is why is HAS to be static.




The funny thing is, all the laws and rules that you are against can actually be repealed...by electing people who are in favor of repealing that unconstitutional law.


BWAHAHAHA!

Wow good luck on that card. Repealing the Patriot Act. THAT'S a good one. Depending on your state and how BRAINWASHED your constituents are, you can call that political suicide.

"Oh he's against the Patriot Act - that means he is for terrorism!"

Because let's face it, that is the standard mindset of the average American and an argument you have used against me countless times. "He is against this, there for he MUST be for this!" Funny how that doesn't really work in reality.




I am just warning you that this law is on the books


Well thank you kind savior. I certainly wouldn't know that plotting a revolution was illegal if not for this topic. I best refrain from purchasing weapons that they deem unfit as well and I best not be recruiting for this, because that is conspiracy as well.

If it wasn't ILLEGAL, then I'm sure a lot more people would have come up with the cahones to attempt it now wouldn't they?

Trust me, you aren't saving anybody. Anyone who has ever had thoughts or whispers about revolution know full well the illegality behind it - but when it happens, the only way the laws apply is if the revolution fails. If the revolution succeeds, the only law to worry about is Constitutional law. The ORIGINAL one... not the "living document" that you speak of which the government is able to take its liberties with.





Isn't it grand how our government is allowed to lead coups and wars against foreign countries, overthrowing their governments and replacing it with our own, yet it is illegal for the people to do the same. Kind of hypocritical yes? Or is this more of my "yipping" that you would choose to ignore because it actually makes SENSE?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Do you know what the difference is between those cases and some nutcase with a gun is?

Those cases were brought to the US Supreme Court and those laws were ruled unconstitutional based on evidence, rule of law, and non violent means.

If a law is unconstitutional it is the job of the supreme court to strike down that law.

It is not the job of some lunatic with a gun to overthrow the entire government just because a few laws piss them off.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 



Isn't it grand how our government is allowed to lead coups and wars against foreign countries, overthrowing their governments and replacing it with our own, yet it is illegal for the people to do the same. Kind of hypocritical yes? Or is this more of my "yipping" that you would choose to ignore because it actually makes SENSE?


OR you could elect people who would pledge to stop the war. Congress can stop the war if they would stop the funding for the war.

Course yet another non violent and legal way to bring about the return to the US Constitution.

Course we could go for the Constitutional charge of Treason. Which is listed in Article III Section 3:


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


So, your revolution, which would be you levying war against the United States Government, is an unconstitutional act of Treason.



[edit on 4/1/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Do you know what the difference is between those cases and some nutcase with a gun is?

Those cases were brought to the US Supreme Court and those laws were ruled unconstitutional based on evidence, rule of law, and non violent means.

If a law is unconstitutional it is the job of the supreme court to strike down that law.

It is not the job of some lunatic with a gun to overthrow the entire government just because a few laws piss them off.


It has nothing to do with nut cases with guns, stop trying to distract form the real issue by continually name calling. Read the cases again it says unconstitutional laws are as if they had never been passed! That doesn't mean we have obey them till the supreme court hears them it means they are null and void period!

Well I guess the founding fathers were just some lunatics with guns who didn't like a few laws. But the bliss ninnies who think we are obligated to obey every ridiculous unconstitutional law that a bunch of corrupt perverted criminals who call themselves congressmen decree are smarter and more advanced... Sigh!


Government derives its just powers from the people not the other way around. That means we the people are higher on the food chain then government because we created it. The creation does not rule its creator it obeys it's creator! So if the government fails to do its job and obey the people it creator then the people who created it are forced to alter or abolish it not obey it in it's rebellion.


[edit on 1-4-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



It has nothing to do with nut cases with guns, stop trying to dstract form the real issue by continually name calling. Read the cases again it says unconstitutional laws are as if they had never been passed! That doesn't mean we have obey them till the supreme court hears them it means they are null and void period!


And it's up to the Supreme Court to determine if those laws are in fact unconstitutional.

Under Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution it's up to the Supreme court to decide whether or not a law is Constitutional or not. Not just some dirtbag with a gun and a bad attitude.

If it were the way you are thinking, no one could be convicted of murder or rape because the person could just say, "Hey that law is unconstitutional and I decided myself, that I didn't have to follow it".



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Are you blind? The supreme court is the one that ruled they are null and void and of no effect.

It has nothing to do with murder. The constitution does not address common criminal law that is left up to the states always has been. There is no constitutional defense for anything except that which the constitution is delegated authority over.

You are a prime example of why this country is circling the toilet boil. Americans are ignorant of history and basic concepts of law. The Maxim of law for the constitution is " if its not in there the federal government can't do it" The constitution IS A RESTRICTION ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! it has nothing to do with the men and women on the soil of the several states they have their own constitution. The Bill of rights was a further warning to the federal government that they had no authority over natural rights. The constitution does not grant rights. All those right existed before it was written. It is a supposed to admonish government to protect them. It was a warning to government to keep its hands off of rights! But all that has been ignored now and we have people like you thinking it's ok.

You want to avoid a hot revolution? Then start getting educated and stop believing all the crap you were spoon fed in public schools and on the TV and media. It's all crap.

As long as I am not oppressing or harming anyone you nor some gang called government have any right to tell me what to do or take the fruits of my labors against my will period! If you and the millions like you don't figure that out soon the violent revolution you and I both wish to avoid will come as sure as the sun rises!

If you and those like you just keep spouting this rhetoric and passing us off as nut cases then it is you who will bring about the very thing you wish to avoid. Don't you understand their are millions of Americans who have had enough and hundreds of thousands who get put out of their homes monthly join the ranks!

You people better wake up and stop thinking this is Mayberry RFD with just a few glitches and take this seriously before it's too late!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I am taking this quite seriously. However. I don't think that a violent revolution falls under the category of "not harming anyone". Apparently to you a violent revolution harms no one.

But if the law stated in the OP is not to your liking and therefore only to YOU is unconstitutional, then we can just go straight to the source and use Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


I would call a violent revolution against the Constitutionally elected government levying war against them. So if it's not Sedition, it's Treason. Either fines and a 20 year jail sentence or the punishment for Treason. Because apparently YOU get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which to YOU are unconstitutional and therefore can be ignored.

I mean you can try your defense in a courtroom. I wouldn't recommend it myself. But you certainly are free to try.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Yes its a crime becouse its so stupid. The lefty radicals relized years ago that the only way to overthrow the governement was through the democratic process.

Why just look at Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. They declaired war on the government, went to Cuba and met with Vietnamese leaders durring the war (an act of treason) planted bombs, members of their group the Weathermen killed cops, she did one year for refusing to testify against her fellows ect.......On the FBIs 10 most wanted list at one time.

And they are now respected leader....???? Works with kids....????


[edit on 1-4-2010 by Logarock]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
the best way to deal with what is happening is to just opt out. or at least distance yourself from the modern day economy as much as you can.
unfortunately, many of those who seem to be promoting the violence, I would wager to bet, have been the ones that have been reaping the benefit of this great economy that has been disfuntional for a very long time!!! the economy can't keep running the way it has been, without them having to chip in more than they want to for it's maintenance....this is why they are griping....
but.....well, they are going to keep participating, reaping as much out of it as they can, you can forget about them opting out...
they'd rather start a revoulution and bet on the idea that they will come out the winners!!

there are alot of stupid laws on the books that any one of us can point at and declare them unconstitutional, we dislike them, don't agree with them, whatever. most of us just go along and obey them anyways, since well, they really aren't worth the hassle of paying the price for breaking them!!

will the time come when this will be the case, I don't know...
but, obviously, the time is not come yet, since these guys are preferring to delude themselves with the idea that the very same gov't that they are claiming is unconstitutional will decide in their favor that they are right, rather than face the idea that hey, don't do the crime, unless you have no problem with doing the time!

if you don't mind, I'll just opt out. there ain't nothing going on that is worthy of my neighbor's, friends, and even the strangers passing me by on the streets blood! and, to tell ya the truth, seems like the majority of the people, up till recently, had decided that the status quo was perfectly acceptable to them....since well.....it was benefitting them in one way or another. what is good for the nation has been laid aside a long time ago. replaced by a "what is good for me" mindset...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



Yes its a crime becouse its so stupid. The lefty radicals relized years ago that the only way to overthrow the governement was through the democratic process.


Now you're getting it!

Want a change in this government? Elect better people! If you think they are all crooked, run yourself.

No need to commit Seditious Conspiracy or Treason to change the government. You just need to put better representatives in Congress.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join