Which Republic do you live in?

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I belong to a few different sites. I started calling the State of Wisconsin the Republic of Wisconsin a few weeks ago. I was trying to get a trend going.


I started doing this because of a couple of reasons. For one, it sounds cool, the second it is an excellent conversation starter.

I tried it last night at my local pub. 2 out of the 5 people I said it to, asked me why I called it the Republic of Wisconsin. It was like fishing, putting the bait out there. People are hungry for knowledge now. A lot of people are frightened of what the future holds.

They know we are in an actual depression, they just do not know how bad it is yet. Money being borrowed from one country to the next, all of it based upon a lie. The devil is warming up the strings and sooner or later, the fiddler gets his due.

I told the two that asked why I said Republic of Wisconsin, that the US Constitution guarantees the differing "states" Republic forms of government. Both of them said we are not Republics, we are Democracies.

Time to inform the masses people. Democracy is not our form government.

One of them asked me if there was anywhere he could read up on the Constitution. I gave him my pocket Constitution. Now I have to get me some more. That is like the 100th I have given away so far this year.

It is reinvigorating my heart that people are waking up.

I would have brought in the other part of the conspiracy, that the State of Wisconsin is actually a corporation, but it is better to teach slowly, let them absorb at their own rate. If people want to learn faster, they will push for the info.

I have a friend that is currently pouring over the Declaration of Independence. He had finished reading through the Constitution. He was actually the one that asked me about the Grand Juries and why I created that thread.

Anyway, which Republic do you live in? Hello from the Republic of Wisconsin.




edit to add-for those of you not in the US, what form of government do you have?

[edit on 5/18/2010 by endisnighe]




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I live in the Democratic Constitutional Republic of Florida.

S+F

[edit on 5/18/10 by Misoir]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


That works as a descriptor. Way to go Misoir.

Tell me, what does that Constitution part represent?

Does it limit the power of the government, or is it just a "damn piece of paper"?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Its pretty lonely here in the Flip Floping Democratic State of Pennsylvania.

As the home of Independence Hall in Philadelphia can be considered the birthplace of the United States of America, as it was here that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the Articles of Confederation uniting the thirteen (13) colonies, maybe we can finally call ourselves a Republic again.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I live in the California Republic, which actually makes clear it is a republic on its state flag. I thought I might add to the O.P.s praise of Constitution, that each state constitution is as equally important, if not more. Most people, on some level, are aware of The Constitution for the United States, and The Bill of Rights contained within that document, but very few could tell you what their state constitution says, and that document is as important in the protection of rights as is the Bill of Rights.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
nice going end

yep, giving them the whole story
might send them into shock
good job on pacing the info



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Misoir
 


That works as a descriptor. Way to go Misoir.

Tell me, what does that Constitution part represent?

Does it limit the power of the government, or is it just a "damn piece of paper"?


It instructs what the state government is permitted to do, so in a sense it is a limitation of state powers. It goes further though if you have ever read it, it states what the liability from medical lawsuits is. The only state constitution to do so.

No constitution is a damn piece of paper, I believe it can be interpreted in different ways that might upset others who believe their interpretation is correct. Like myself, I deeply respect the constitution for not only establishing freedom in America but laying the foundation for freedom in the whole world. They looked to the US model for a basic concept of freedom that they have established after WW2.

Like I said it is up to interpretation as not just 1 interpretation is right, I'm sure even the founding fathers interpreted the rules of the constitution differently from each other. I am a Constitutional Socialist, I coined the term and like it or not, it is possible.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


I just dug up your Republic Constitution or called Commonwealth-

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Political Powers
Section 2.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

No Discrimination by Commonwealth and Its Political Subdivisions
Section 26.
Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.

Appropriations for Public Assistance, Military Service, Scholarships
Section 29.
No appropriation shall be made for charitable, educational or benevolent purposes to any person or community nor to any denomination and sectarian institution, corporation or association: Provided, that appropriations may be made for pensions of gratuities for military service and to blind persons twenty-one years of age and upwards and for assistance to mothers having dependent children and to aged persons without adequate means of support and in the form of scholarship grants or loans for higher educational purposes to residents of the Commonwealth enrolled in institutions of higher learning except that no scholarship, grants or loans for higher educational purposes shall be given to persons enrolled in a theological seminary or school of theology.

Do you have welfare of any kind in your state not as laid out in this last section? If you do, it is un Constitutional


Pretty straight forward Constitution. I doubt that it is followed anymore, though.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yes, the Republic of Wisconsin Constitution.

I have been working on reading our Republic's Constitution.

Wisconsin Constitution to 2008

reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Hell, if the things I have learned over the last year were dumped on me in one sitting, I would have thought the person telling me was straight from the Northern Center-a facility for the slightly off


[edit on 5/18/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Welfare you say?

Let me pass a survey over in North/South/South West Philly, Downtown Harrisburg at least the counties I frequent. I'll get back to you on that, but I would have to lean on yes, welfare is provided though not sure if it is state funded or federally.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


Sorry, I had missed the part with the mothers. See my edited comment. I had only read the first component.

reply to post by Misoir
 


Democratic Constitutional Republic of Florida



It instructs what the state government is permitted to do, so in a sense it is a limitation of state powers. It goes further though if you have ever read it, it states what the liability from medical lawsuits is. The only state constitution to do so.

No constitution is a damn piece of paper, I believe it can be interpreted in different ways that might upset others who believe their interpretation is correct. Like myself, I deeply respect the constitution for not only establishing freedom in America but laying the foundation for freedom in the whole world. They looked to the US model for a basic concept of freedom that they have established after WW2.

Like I said it is up to interpretation as not just 1 interpretation is right, I'm sure even the founding fathers interpreted the rules of the constitution differently from each other. I am a Constitutional Socialist, I coined the term and like it or not, it is possible.


Well, interpretations aside, when Constitutions are written, they meant a specific thing. Even though people later on would like to interpret it differently, the differing Republic Constitutions and the US of A Constitution were written meaning a specific thing. I call it the Original Intent.

People have to understand the meaning of the terms at the time that these things were written. Not the modern day definitions of the terminology.

If things are meant to change, that is what amending the Constitutions are for.

I like your term Constitutional Socialist. It is quite descriptive.

If you look at the Pennsylvania Constitution sections up a couple comments, it does allow welfare. I believe this is a component of socialism. So yes, if a state wants to do such things that would be fine.

This is where I do not like the federal to step over it's powers. The Republics should handle there internal matters and the feds can stick it.

Just imagine what a Republic could do if the federal government did not steal the labor of the citizens. The Republics could independently decide how much socialistic practices they could do, without the federal government using it to attempt to become empire. This would also cut down on the management of such a monstrosity that the federal government has become.

Breeding corruption, fraud, malfeasance and other forms of criminal activity.

[edit on 5/18/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I'm from the Federative Republic of Brazil. And our people, like the people from many other democracies, also confuse the ideal of the power of the people as a real power. It is not a power when you are passive. Only when you are active as a whole. Otherwise, the power is in the hands of the politicians, the judges and the corporations who fund the political system and buy the sentences from the judges.

Just a different flag and native language. Other than that, same crap all over.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Take a look at these two constitutions. Delaware Constitution of 1776 and Hawaii Constitution of 1950.

There is a pretty huge difference between the two.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by henriquefd
 


The first link I found with the Fedarative Republic of Brazil in the link-

Federative Republic of Brazil

General information


I like what it states here-


In spite of the Country being constituted as a Federation, the existent political centralization is big, and the autonomy of each unit of the Federation is small.


Why is it the same all over? The people that get into the federal component of the government ALWAYS have to take more power. It is like a sickness. I find it revealing this habit of the federalist totalitarians. They use their positions to garner power and control. Where it DOES NOT belong.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Most forms of Democratic socialism hold the belief that the power(such as welfare and other government services) should not be managed by a federal government, but instead should be decentralized. Take Finland for example, when they collect taxes the majority go localities(like counties) instead of the federal government. The feds in Finland make the minimal rules(alot like the constitution lays a minimal groundwork) and it allows the localities to handle the resources and create laws that they want.

They say it stops corruption. There is no federal education, agrictulture, or other federal departments like in the US.

I prefer keeping the federal government to the bare minimum, only protecting the nation and handling interstate things such as our highway system. Welfare, other government services, and departments should be managed by their states and they should send what they collect to the counties.

Federal government: Minarchist, only protecting the republic, upholding the law, enforcing the law, managing interstate and internal trade, and managing foreign affairs.

State government: Should act like our federal government now, managing their own departments, trade agreements, welfare, governemnt services, taxation and laws.

Local government: Allocates the resources given to them by the state government. They should be allowed to establish their own income, sales, payroll and corporate taxes. They should control their own schooling, welfare, etc...




That is what I consider 'Constitutional Socialism'.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I come from the Empire State of the South, The Republic of Georgia.

My ancestors were there with James Oglethorpe when Georgia was founded.

It was named after King George of England who gave my family and some other families tracts of land as gifts.

My brother and our families still live on that land.

For this land gift and for giving my ancestors that fled Germany in the early 1500's a safe place to live, I feel a special bond with England.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Take those payroll taxes and shove them.


Also, if there are any property taxes on individuals, shove them also.

Tax any corporation all you want, but leave the people their labor, their property and their rights of liberty alone. Period.

Government does not need the money from the individual. All they need that for is control and the subjugation of other countries and citizens.

People need to realize that forced collectivism is wrong. Period.

Voluntary collectivism is fine. Just leave the people alone that want to survive or perish on their own. By their own merits or their own failures.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I live in the Republic of Ohio.

I like to tell everyone I know that I am a Citizen of the Ohio Republic, not the STATE OF OHIO.

Call me crazy, but I personally don't like telling people that a Corporation is my home.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


Yes the dreaded STATE of, putting that corporate moniker out there for all to see.

Incorporated in the corporate entity of the UNITED STATES.

Thanks dalan for posting.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I'm going to move to Wal-Mart to live in the camping aisle.

Its almost the same thing.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join