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.

 

The truth behind America's 'civilian militias'

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



1) If Congress is to provide arms for the militia (or militias), then why is that Second Amendment exists at all as it would seem that it is up to the individual to procure, keep and bare arms?


The second Amendment exists to limit the federal government from writing laws against the kinds of weapons an individual can have. The reason that it differentiates between the Militias and the people is the roll the Militia is supposed to play in the defense of this nation.

Today, the Militia according to the government is the National Guard, although I disagree with the concept of a National Guard. I feel personally that the States individually should raise their own Militias.


2) If the Congress is control of the militia, why exactly is the President in charge of the use, placement and movement of all armed forces? Would that not also imply that the President could also order a militia to deploy on a target or protect an area of his choosing?


In my opinion I feel that it's an incorrect use of the powers of the presidency to order the National Guard/Militia to do anything. I feel that it is up to State governors to order Militia to action.


3) If the People are indeed ultimately in charge of the country, as established in the preamble. Could not these People also decide that a body (or all bodies) of the government have suddenly abandoned their limitations as established by the Constitution and act according by verbally demanding a recall of part or all of the current representation? Could they also determine that armed force my be necessary to accomplish this?


They in fact have the opportunity to do just that in every election, they have the opportunity to recall members of congress they feel aren't preforming their duty, and every 4 years they have the opportunity to select a President that they feel is the right choice to lead this country. Individually States also have remedies for the potential recall of Senators or Representatives that they feel have compromised the will of the citizens of the state.

As far as armed force to overthrow the government, that is always a possibility, I personally don't see an instance where this is a good idea, especially if the majority of the nation is against such an idea. I feel that if a group of people want the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected government their intentions are automatically suspect. A minority of people wanting the violent overthrow of the federal government in my opinion have no intention of freedom but to forcibly instill a version of fascism onto the people against their will.


4) If the People were to decide to overthrow the seated government and succeed to do so by force of arms, is it still going to be called treason by the replacement even if the exact current Constitution is used by the new representation of the People?


The founding fathers were in fact called Traitors to the crown. In reality they did commit an act of treason against the crown, however, to the winners go the spoils, the reason that the signers of the declaration of independence were not hanged was because America won the war of Independence.

So, if for some reason a rebellion occurred today, and those rebels won the war, they would of course be committing treason, however, like the war of independence, that treason charge would never be acted upon because to the winners go the spoils. Therefore, by that definition, they would not be traitors, but patriots, especially if the rebellion was a populist one, and had the support of the people.

However, again, I would be highly suspect of a group who wishes to overthrow the constitutionally elected government. I would question their motives, what goals they wished for the people and how they planned to govern. After all, it was under this exact scenario that Cesar became emperor of Rome.


5) If an enemy of the US is an organization or group that seeks to remove, alter or restrict the provisions and rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, would not a federal government that seeks to conduct themselves outside the limitations and confines of Constitution also be considered a domestic enemy?


No, the organization or group that does this is the domestic enemy, and the co-conspirators in our federal government would be traitors to the Constitution.


If so, and since such a group would not call forth for its own destruction, would it not fall upon the People themselves to make such a determination and act upon it, by armed force as necessary, in oder for the Constitutional limited federal government was restored?


There is a non violent way to handle this, if the corruption is so widespread as to affect the entirety of the legislative branch, the legislation of the states have the authority to assemble under a continental congress, as outlined in Article V of the United States Constitution


Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


www.archives.gov...

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this civilly with you, I have missed the decorum of the debate forum. I hope I was able to adequately address your points.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
i think your a loonie loon loon.

i believe in militias and i believe in the second amendment, but if you were in my militia i was sure as hell quit.

you should start a militia i suggest you name it, the crazy slaves.

i am an ex soldier, and i give you my personal gaurantee your 10:1 ratio doesnt matter, you would be slaughtered like sheep.

Or prove me wrong, son.

So mote it be.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I've never read the "Art of War", now I'd like to, however, its seems that there are numerous tactics and different forms of "war" that could be employed to solve the problem of an unrestrained government abusing its citizens.

You would require different "weapons" and "shields" for different forms of war. You can make peaceful political war using legal attacks to impeach or imprison the worst offenders. You can wage an economic war against the corporate interests or a PR war to influence public opinion. Numerous peaceful means can be seen as different fronts in the war against corruption.

The "people" who are not in a sanctioned militia, who have the right to be armed, perhaps it is up to them to use violence when necessary and still remain loyal to the Constitution. Today's treason could be tomorrow's beloved historical event at any rate.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 


The art of war is mandatory reading for anyone getting an MBA, I do highly recommend reading it.

A more fun read, that would help in today's society is Paranoia 2nd Edition. It's a RPG I know, but you would be surprised at the amount of business help it is.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

...

Forced government healthcare taxes.

...

Thoughts?


Yeah... my thoughts are, anybody who's against universal health-care has been brainwashed. You SERIOUSLY believe that universal health-care (which, by the way, was SH*T-CANNED pretty much on the starting line of negotiations with Republicans- meaning the pathetic package we have now is NOT universal health-care) warrants revolt??

I specifically wanted to comment on this because I'm so sick of seeing it. Take it from an Anarchist- Universal health-care is essentially one of the BEST deals a government can give to its populace in our society. If you don't see this then you're truly blind. The only people who have a REAL reason to fight universal health-care are the rich and any companies who stand to lose money when the government is providing a better deal than they can. Fact is, too many Americans can't afford proper health insurance. Another fact, IMHO, is that your level of wealth/status should NOT dictate your access to proper and either free or realistically-priced medical care.

If you wanna stay on the right-wing bandwagon without a single leg off it... fine, I can't necessarily change that. But I suggest you quit it and try to look at each thing rationally instead of buying the "THAT'S COMMUNISM WHICH MUST BE 100% EVIL!" propaganda. I mean Jeez... even Communism had good aspects to it, at least in theory. In practice though, it's ultimately a failure just as Capitalism now is. Though, to my horror, it seems China is having some success using extremes of BOTH...

Sorry to digress. To address the actual article/issue... I am very wary of most militias in this country, not because I disagree with the need for them, because I'm actually all for the right to bear arms and prepare to fight any enemy. However, I AM wary of their right-wing ideologies which I see as, at best, misguided and counter-productive, and at worst, absent-mindedly quasi-Fascist. Also... I think it would be a terrible tragedy if the white/Christian far right, being as relatively UN-oppressed and well-adjusted (when compared to most others) as they are, started a revolution in this country when the left deserved one for over a century.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
This is the problem with having a huge criminal central government.

In a federated republic, where states are sovereign entities, the people could move freely between them to find the one that best suits them.

If a state has extremely low taxes with little social welfare, the people will move there that want to be free from government, and vice versa. But when the criminal federal government steps in and craps all over states rights, there is no where to run.

Of course, in order to have a socialist police state, one can not have free independent states because all of the businesses would flee to the free states leaving nothing but degenerate scumbags in the welfare states. Hitler was vehemently against states rights because of this. To a socialist, competition is a sin - especially when it comes to taxation.

This is why state sovereignty was necessarily destroyed during the civil war. Lincoln could not abide by states removing themselves from the control of federal taxation. This would have created a competitive state of taxation between the north and the federated south - something any statist knows would never work.

I think what really needs to happen is that states need to secede from the union. We need to have free states that are independent from federal control in order to create a state of competition in taxation and regulation.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Edit: It should be noted also that if the government of the United States ever does become illegitimate I would also volunteer and fight just as hard against them in order to restore the Republic as well.


How soon can you get here? This government has been illegitimate for over a century and is in dire need of restoration to a Constitutional Republic that actually FOLLOWS the Constitution as written/intended by the founders.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I think what really needs to happen is that states need to secede from the union. We need to have free states that are independent from federal control in order to create a state of competition in taxation and regulation.
[edit on 20-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


I couldn't agree with your post more. Unfortunately some of us live in states whose Constitutions specifically state that secession is not an option. It would require changing the state Constitution to allow for secession.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I think what really needs to happen is that states need to secede from the union. We need to have free states that are independent from federal control in order to create a state of competition in taxation and regulation.
[edit on 20-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


I couldn't agree with your post more. Unfortunately some of us live in states whose Constitutions specifically state that secession is not an option. It would require changing the state Constitution to allow for secession.


If one could ever convince enough people in the state that secession is a viable option, that inherently wouldn't be a problem.

The state legislature would have to become convinced that leaving the union would be the best option for the state.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I for one am all for militia's though some of the less "Educated" ones should be removed from existence. The airborne soldier said it perfectly about the one man's comment about "Not posing a threat after your time in service"...you don't just forget all the things uncle sam spent millions to train you. I for one took an oath to support and defend against ALL enemies both foreign and domestic. I intend to keep that promise even if it kills me. As for the post about using airsoft...Its a training tool our own military uses on a monthly basis if not more in some units. Its a hell of a lot cheaper then Sim-unition rounds and like previously stated most airsoft is actually scaled to 1:1 versions of the exact real world weapon. Suffice to say your not going to see a airsoft sniper rifle shoot as far as a real rifle, its still a very good training tool. For those of us who actually know about real sh*t and not crap you do in video games...you know that training is very important. Sorry if i trailed a bit from the topic.

See the problem with most militia's is the bad rep they get for the jerk off's who play Army in the woods and do stupid things that hurt innocent people. Every time something like this occurs, dumb and misguided people in government want to take more of our constitutional rights away from people who didn't commit the crime. Moving closer to a place where the only ones who have guns are the state and federal government



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The unorganized militia is *not* the military nor is it the national guard. USC title 10 section 330 defines exactly who is legally defined as militia. the Dick Act of 1906 (possibly 1903, I don't recall offhand) further defines the National Guard.

I would have posted the full text of 10:330 but I am on my phone right now. To paraphrase, males ages 16-45 *are* the militia. Legally defined and still standing law. It specifically EXCLUDES members of the National Guard.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The Troll speaks.............LOL

Nice to have a civil debate isnt it, I am glad we havent stooped to name calling and accusing folks of things we dont have any idea of are true.........LOL

BTW......I vote every election...............Libertarian.....call me the eternal opitmist....LOL. The trouble is that even though we are the third largest party in America we get almost ZERO coverage and when we do it is usually some freakjob that they focus on to discredit the entire party. That an the fact that leading a bunch of people that dont want to be told what to do is inherintly hard.....much like herding cats

OK insult me some more you havent called me a troll in almost 2-3 posts........LOL



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I guess its just the rebel in me but the last time I checked, the only way to deal with tyranny is through force. Look at our own history.

The banksters and Congress have ruined this Republic. No amount of protesting will fix it. There needs to be a way to hit reset and get the states to deal with the federal government.

When a person becomes dissatisfied with a service he can stop paying for it. Of course this will cause his servace to be cut off. There is no way to turn of Governments service and have them shut it off.

Not unless the states which created the Federal Government in the first place control the purse strings. I am a firm believer in limited Government both in size and scope. The constitution was put in place to limit the scope, control and size of the federal government.

We the people have failed in our oversight of government. Now we have to face the facts.

A freeman once again or a slave to government to have them control every aspect of our lives.

The the people through states have the power to alter or abolish the federal government. That is where the work must be done.

It all must start local and it will end local.

We have a chance to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

There may be a peacful means to get our republic back but its going to take time and effort.

If peacful means fail well then ....

Molon Labe



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


If peaceful means fail it means you haven't tried hard enough. It's failed logic to think the only way to fix this country is open warfare. I again have to question the motives behind someone who wishes open warfare among Americans.

When the minority wish to control the majority, that minority has no interest in freedom, they wish to dominate and control. (the minority here are those that think shooting and killing Americans is a great idea by the way.)

Just remember, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov

[edit on 8/21/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by whatukno
 

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




The second Amendment exists to limit the federal government from writing laws against the kinds of weapons an individual can have. The reason that it differentiates between the Militias and the people is the roll the Militia is supposed to play in the defense of this nation.

Today, the Militia according to the government is the National Guard, although I disagree with the concept of a National Guard. I feel personally that the States individually should raise their own Militias.


I think you missed my point just a bit here. If article states that Congress is to provide arms for the militia, then why would the Second spell it out a little differently, that individuals can keep and bare arm arms as part of a militia (or any other other sort of force). It would seem to imply that the individual has some sort of responsibility to their own safety and security. If we look at the Ohio Constitution and their interpretation of the Bill of Rights.


§ 04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.


Naturally various states do vary on how the Second Amendment is viewed, but living in Ohio, I tend to use this example. I also like how it is careful to note that standing armies are a danger to liberty even in 1851, despite the lessons learned of ineffectiveness of militia use in the War of 1812 for national security and defense.



In my opinion I feel that it's an incorrect use of the powers of the presidency to order the National Guard/Militia to do anything. I feel that it is up to State governors to order Militia to action.


Then I must question as to what your stance on Arizona's new illegal immigrant law is. Does the state of Arizona have a right to form a militia with the express purpose of guarding their borders and interior from those here illegally since the Federal Government have declined to do so for them as provided guarantee under Article 4?

Or to phrase the same question in another way, prior to the 13th Amendment could a state legally refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and actually give armed sanctuary to runaway slaves? Or more specifically, could an individual stand on the grounds that it is both immoral and reprehensible that the government would define a human being as not only just 3/5 of a person but as property as well?



They in fact have the opportunity to do just that in every election, they have the opportunity to recall members of congress they feel aren't preforming their duty, and every 4 years they have the opportunity to select a President that they feel is the right choice to lead this country. Individually States also have remedies for the potential recall of Senators or Representatives that they feel have compromised the will of the citizens of the state.

As far as armed force to overthrow the government, that is always a possibility, I personally don't see an instance where this is a good idea, especially if the majority of the nation is against such an idea. I feel that if a group of people want the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected government their intentions are automatically suspect. A minority of people wanting the violent overthrow of the federal government in my opinion have no intention of freedom but to forcibly instill a version of fascism onto the people against their will.


This is more of a lead in to my next point, but you already saw that they points became rather joined in their theme. You are well aware that only 1/3 of the citizens of the colonies sided with the Revolution. 1/3 were loyalists to the crown and the remaining 1/3 were neutral on the matter. The founding fathers and the continental solider were very much in the minority at the time. In fact it could be argued that the mass printings of Thomas Payne and Paul Revere's reporting of the Boston Massacre was the basis of reaching even the 1/3 of supporters for independence from the crown.



The founding fathers were in fact called Traitors to the crown. In reality they did commit an act of treason against the crown, however, to the winners go the spoils, the reason that the signers of the declaration of independence were not hanged was because America won the war of Independence.

So, if for some reason a rebellion occurred today, and those rebels won the war, they would of course be committing treason, however, like the war of independence, that treason charge would never be acted upon because to the winners go the spoils. Therefore, by that definition, they would not be traitors, but patriots, especially if the rebellion was a populist one, and had the support of the people.

However, again, I would be highly suspect of a group who wishes to overthrow the constitutionally elected government. I would question their motives, what goals they wished for the people and how they planned to govern. After all, it was under this exact scenario that Cesar became emperor of Rome.


They were tied more than I had originally intended. See above and add: And Cincinnatius was the defender of Rome that would both rise and step down as needed. For those not overly familiar with the role he played, Police Commissioner Jim Gordon's ending monologue to his son describing what Batman was to Gotham at the end of The Dark Knight is a loose retelling of that role.

Another historical aspect is that the Tao Te Ching was the written statement of Lao Tzu as he left China for Tibet that was given to the guards at the border gate before leaving (and thus unable to return). It was these writings that became the basis of Taoism.

Needles to say, that not everyone that sees the problems around them and is willing to take an extreme (force or self exile) "should be considered suspect". I will also make a somewhat direct shot here. Wuk. I have a very hard time accepting a person that is elected under false pretenses as "Constitutionally Elected". Failure to uphold and outright circumventing the Constitutional processes while in office is most assuredly unconstitutional under article 6. Failure of the particular body (House or Senate) to take action against those members that violate the Constitution is not overly convincing either.

Here I will specifically point out the recent Health Care Reform. The forced purchase of any tangible item by the Individual People is most definitely outside the scope of the Federal Government. The Amendment Process should have been started and completed before the bill was voted on in the first place. More on this further down.



No, the organization or group that does this is the domestic enemy, and the co-conspirators in our federal government would be traitors to the Constitution.


I am not sure we will ever agree to disagree here, my friend. I see the federal government as more than capable as being defined as a Domestic Enemy, not to itself of course, but to the People that it fails to serve for failing to serve and instead choosing to rule over the People.

As a body, should it chose to overstep its authority, which it has done numerous times in the past and most recently with the Health Care Bill, and begin to trample on rights held by the individual. Then the Federal Government become just as much (or perhaps more so) of a threat to the People than any other nation on earth is capable of doing. Since the People are the ultimate authority, it is both their right and duty to remove such a corruption. And let me make it clear here that the State and even Local Government can also become such a detriment to the People to become identified and classified as Domestic Enemy.



There is a non violent way to handle this, if the corruption is so widespread as to affect the entirety of the legislative branch, the legislation of the states have the authority to assemble under a continental congress, as outlined in Article V of the United States Constitution


There are many non-violent ways to combat a government that has become tyrannical.

    By Ballot. We can endeavor to find and elect better candidates that will serve the People. Despite horribly low participation levels and the high financial requirements to educate the voters that do participate on a candidate's position, the participation level here is still higher than what would turn out for a well publicized insurrection.

    By Petition. Still works. The key is making sure that the recipient takes the opinion statement seriously and fears losing reelection or facing an immediate recall.

    By Noncompliance/Civil Disobedience. Tax revolt. Labor Strike. National Disobeying of Posted Speed Limits by 35 MPH. Kick An Elected or Appointed Official Repeatedly in the Groin Month. The sky is the limit on what sort of disobedience you wish to organize and implement. The key of course is to have a large enough group to participate. If the group is large enough and the event is widespread enough, the simple truth is that they cannot arrest you all.


My point entirely is that open armed conflict should never be the first option. Bt should always remain an option, especially if it is the government that takes actions to remove it from the list of options. Mostly because of the fact that American History has shown that the US Government can and will use armed force against the People. You may wish to take the time to research the following events.


    Kent State Massacre
    Battle of Blair Mountain
    Little Rock Nine (actually a positive use of Federal Power over a State, but yeah there was armed force used)
    The Whiskey Rebellion (noteworthy because it was the impetus for the ending of the Articles of Confederation
    and the implementation of the US Constitution)
    The Trail of Tears (might as well just say the whole policy on all Indians in the US but this is good single example)

    And what about that little thing that happened in the early 1860's, where the Constitution was so flung so far that in came back with a missing Amendment?

    Actually the technical aspect is that Ohio did indeed ratify the original 13th Amendment, however Ohio (despite every history book stating 1803 admission to the Union) was not finalized until 1953. Although that finalization did accept Ohio's admission as Mach 1, 1803.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




I appreciate the opportunity to debate this civilly with you, I have missed the decorum of the debate forum. I hope I was able to adequately address your points.


Civil debate of an issue should always occur in every forum. Actually I could say that as member and not a mod as well and kept this part inside the "mod as member" text box. But yeah, I think that it can and should be said as a mod.

For those that don't know. Wuk and I have debated in the forums many times over the years. Although never in the debate forum as I never had status as a Fighter, which was by my choice. I am not a fan of the Socratic Format used in the Debate Forum, although I do use it on occasion. I am more of a fan of an open debate format which would allow for additional postings before a rebuttal. That and I am not big on participation in tournaments/contests, usually. Although my Writer status was established about a year ago when I submitted a short story for a Halloween writing Contest.

And yes, while we do debate each other publicly on different issues, our U2U's to each other actually are rather friendly and usually consist of "Hey, I said something here in this thread" or other non-confrontational topics. Not to give a lecture or some sort of example of what and how Civility and Decorum should be on ATS (maybe a little late for that), but this is what is meant when it is said to debate the topic and not the person. And partly why we both have mentioned looking forward to disagreement and debate.

Of course, mostly it is because we haven't debated one another in a while.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


whatukno never missed your point.

He attacks and attempts to degrade any chance he gets.

I have attempted to ask for a debate, but NO, he is the typical troll.

Anyone that thinks we are going down the road to tyranny? Terrorists.

Blah blah blah, the typical plant.

Only sits and perpetuates the idiocy. Think France 1942. He would be a collaborator. Marxist. Why do you think he has that Avatar, as a joke, or as a provacation?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 




I think you missed my point just a bit here. If article states that Congress is to provide arms for the militia, then why would the Second spell it out a little differently, that individuals can keep and bare arm arms as part of a militia (or any other other sort of force). It would seem to imply that the individual has some sort of responsibility to their own safety and security. If we look at the Ohio Constitution and their interpretation of the Bill of Rights.


Interesting, I have to assume that the reason that it differentiates between arms for the militia and civilian arms is in the intended use. The intended use of the Militia is for the defense of the nation and states, the intended use of arms in the civilian population is for the use of individuals to protect their own property.

So, yes, you are correct, the individual does have responsibility in part to their own safety and security. This is evidenced today in several states issuing concealed carry permits. Which I believe is a great boon to the Second Amendment.


Then I must question as to what your stance on Arizona's new illegal immigrant law is. Does the state of Arizona have a right to form a militia with the express purpose of guarding their borders and interior from those here illegally since the Federal Government have declined to do so for them as provided guarantee under Article 4?


Most of the Arizona law is fine, except for the parts that overstepped federal authority. But to directly answer the question, no, Arizona does not have the right to raise a Militia for the purpose of guarding their boarder and interior from.people that are here illegally, however, they do have the right to raise a Militia to guard their boarders and interior from an armed invading force. That invading force can of course be interpreted as armed drug cartel members.

The State also has the right to restrict the flow of narcotics/drugs through their state and may in fact employ the Militia to curtail the flow of narcotics/drugs through their state as well.

What the state does not have the right to do is to overstep the authority of the Federal government in it’s enforcement of immigration law, laws of this nature must be uniform, we simply cannot have 50 different immigration laws amongst the united states. The problem of the Arizona law is that it not only oversteps federal authority, it also violates people’s 4th Amendment right to protection against illegal searches and seizures.


Or to phrase the same question in another way, prior to the 13th Amendment could a state legally refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and actually give armed sanctuary to runaway slaves? Or more specifically, could an individual stand on the grounds that it is both immoral and reprehensible that the government would define a human being as not only just 3/5 of a person but as property as well?


Actually this is a different question, this isn’t about enforcing a federal law, this is about actively not enforcing a federal law. Which is entirely different, and why the underground railroad worked as it did. In that case, it wasn’t states that were breaking the law it was individuals.

I believe that those individuals in fact did find it morally reprehensible to treat another human being as property, and that’s why they did what they did. Kinda part of the reason we got into that whole war to begin with. You know, that abolitionist, versus anti abolitionist, and the south’s silly idea of states rights or whatnot.


I have a very hard time accepting a person that is elected under false pretenses as "Constitutionally Elected". Failure to uphold and outright circumventing the Constitutional processes while in office is most assuredly unconstitutional under article 6. Failure of the particular body (House or Senate) to take action against those members that violate the Constitution is not overly convincing either.


I don’t really see why not, for a long time people have been put into positions of power under false pretenses, Moses led the Jews out of Egypt without having a clue where he was going, Pharos, Emperors and Kings were crowned claiming divine birthright, today, unfortunately people elect the best BS artist.

Now, here’s the thing, if a person is constitutionally elected, and fails to uphold their promises, is that more the fault of the person, or is it the fault of the electorate who fell for the bull? Take for example the diet pill industry, these people basically tell you that if you take their product, you will loose weight without doing anything. Preposterous to those that have an IQ higher than a gerbil, but this product sells, sells quite well and makes a great profit for the BS artists that market it. The same can be said for candidates, they are too a product, they are being sold to the public. People who have full conative use of their faculties should, like all good consumers, check the products ingredients before purchase.

Otherwise, people do get what they pay for, in the instance of an elected official, if the voting public does not do their due dillegence and votes in a person by name recognition or because they are a half a foot taller than their opponent, or they are younger, that is the fault of the voter, the person that is elected is actually only responsible for their own actions and not the actions of the entire governmental body. The obvious examples of this is currently Rep. Maxine Waters, and Rep. Charles Rangel. Both under investigation and accused of house ethics violations. Their actions are their own and not representative of the government as a whole.

Now, as far as health care reform, this is one of the products that Obama campaigned on did he not? Well as we know now, this bill passed and was signed into law, to many, this was not the product that they envisioned when Obama campaigned on it, and in fact there may be parts of it that go beyond the purview of Congressional authority to regulate commerce amongst the several states.

Now if it’s unconstitutional than part or all of the law may be struck down by the supreme court, but it does not mean that the individual people who voted for this bill should be lynched as traitors. It may mean that they should not be voted back into office when their term is up. But that is up to the individual constituency to decide.

In this country it is in fact legal for the legislative branch to propose and try and pass anything. It really really is, they can try and pass a law that makes it illegal to poop on Sundays, doesn’t mean that if it passes the executive branch will sign it, nor does it mean that if it’s signed that the judicial branch won’t shoot it down as unconstitutional. Just as they have done with parts of the Arizona law, instead of declaring the entire law unconstitutional, they instead blocked parts of the law that were.


Mostly because of the fact that American History has shown that the US Government can and will use armed force against the People. You may wish to take the time to research the following events.


Kent State Massacre
Battle of Blair Mountain
Little Rock Nine (actually a positive use of Federal Power over a State, but yeah there was armed force used)
The Whiskey Rebellion (noteworthy because it was the impetus for the ending of the Articles of Confederation
and the implementation of the US Constitution)
The Trail of Tears (might as well just say the whole policy on all Indians in the US but this is good single example)


I can’t deny that this government has done some incredibly vicious things in it’s time here, however, the fact remains that this is a government made up of the People, and if we want that government to change, we have to do it ourselves, there is no real need for violence, to do it, while of course violence is always an option, one must again be highly suspect of people who want to use said violence to overthrow a government made up of the citizens.


And what about that little thing that happened in the early 1860's, where the Constitution was so flung so far that in came back with a missing Amendment?

Actually the technical aspect is that Ohio did indeed ratify the original 13th Amendment, however Ohio (despite every history book stating 1803 admission to the Union) was not finalized until 1953. Although that finalization did accept Ohio's admission as Mach 1, 1803.


One state ratifying a constitutional Amendment does not make that Amendment law, I have researched this supposed original 13th Amendment and as of yet have found no factual basis for it’s existence. Although I do have an opinion that it is one of those things that pro slavery people have thought up well after the real 13th Amendment was actually ratified to try and bring back slavery.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I'm in the UK media and I still think there are so many strategic and tactical holes in the US civilian militia's plans.

The guy in the story can kill a man with a pen, that's nice, a lot of good it will do to him if a Hellfire missile is fired at his head from a mile up.

You do know that the US Military deliberately trains the enlisted to not be able to pose a threat to the Federal Government after their service right? It's all good and fun to play Rambo against infantry and armored formations until the Air Force or Navy shows up.

The United States Military can escalate force far and above what the civilians ever will be able to do. Indeed the US DOD can out gun every other force on the planet.

Once an insurrection actually begins, it will be Reapers and Spectres that disarm the insurgents not MPs.

The ballot box is a much lest futile method of changing things in your country, but that would of course mean having to believe that your fellow citizen is your equal in government.


You mean like we annihilated the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan several years ago? Good thing or we'd still be over there.... Oh wait a minute...


Fire power is not the be all end all and it has never replaced boots on the ground to rout out insurgents. I mean they could nuke the citizenry also and win overnight too but then they'd be #ting the bed now wouldn't they. There is no military on earth that could subdue the whole of the north American continent short of nukes. No one has the logistics or the manpower when there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. To many veterans with the same training as thier would be enemies. A percentage of the military would side with the people and bring some of those toys with them and some of those toys would also be confiscated by the veterans who are trained to use them also.

They would not be fighting a bunch of guys in robes with AK's, they'd be fighting the most well trained, well armed, most resourceful decentralized guerilla army in the history of the world and they know it which is why they have never tried direct gun confiscation!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 



About Treason: It is defined as giving aid or confort to the enemy.


YOU LIE!


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.


Article III Section 3

Levying war against the United States Government by American citizens is treason.


The United States government is not the united States. The people of the several states declared thier independence and created the federal government for common defense and to protect free trade and are its masters. The congress has no authority over the people its only authority as enumerated in the constitution is to tell the federal government what to do within the confines of the constitution .

Who holds the congress accountable if they act outside their scope? The people since they are the masters and creators and control the congress through voting and if that does not work then they can alter or abolish thier creation as stated in the D of I!


Especially because that constitutionally elected government is in charge of the militias and is tasked with:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Article I Section 8

So, if militias rise up against the constitutionally elected government of these United States they are traitors. Militias are constitutional because they are to be there for the defense of these United States, not the military takeover of the Union.


Only in times of declared war can the the federal government call forth the militia and be in charge of the militia. The rest of the time they are free to operate in thier respective states. The militia can put down insurrections and the federal government is in insurrection. The constitution forbids going to war without a declaration. The congress and the federal government now act almost entirely outside thier constitutional scope. The current wars were never declared in fact the last war that was declared was WWII so they and the congress are out of control and ignore the constitution therefore the people thier masters have every right to alter or abolish them as the federal government are the traitors to the constitution and thier creators and masters the people!

Having said that I do not wish to see civil war break out in the U.S.A. However it seems almost inevitable eventually unless we all stop taking sides and look for common ground on alternative solutions. Obviously voting is not working with fraud and misinformation no one is sure of the elections are fair, and most people have no clue who or what they are voting for. If we just continue on this path and do nothing different to change it then civil war is the inevitable destination as the anger reaches critical mass. What do you suggest we do or are you happy with the status-quo?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



Obviously voting is not working


Oh I see, so we should all vote for conservatives and that would make everything ok?

I see, votes don't work if people don't vote the way YOU want them to vote? Is that right? If people choose their own representatives instead of the representatives that you want it's rife with corruption. and so therefore the only thing left is civil war because people didn't choose the people YOU want in government.

I think they call your idea tyranny. You know, "Vote my way or die!"?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join