Revolution is illegal according to the 14th Amendment Sec 4 of the US Constitution

reply to post by gwydionblack


Well when the people in government high up decide not to tell you the command codes for missiles and the nuclear weapons then you already lost your seat as being a world superpower...

It is designed to dissuade foreign governments and national or foreign businesses from offering financial support to a revolution. It is saying if you finance a revolution, the U.S. government can not be held liable for debts accrued in the name of the rebellion.

"France, if you offer financial support to a break away republic and we repatriate said republic, we do not include their war debt in that repatriation."

For example...

If revolution seperates you from the USE (yea) would you pay a debt for a country you are no longer a part of??

Originally posted by P-M-H

If revolution seperates you from the USE (yea) would you pay a debt for a country you are no longer a part of??

I think you missed to point of the post.

Revolution in itself will not release the debt.

There is no escape

You have only one choice, continue on the present course or be destroyed.

Mutiny is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly-situated individuals (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change or overthrow an authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), but can also occasionally refer to any type of rebellion against an authority figure.

Most countries still punish mutiny with particularly harsh penalties, sometimes even the death penalty.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by In nothing we trust


That's really not the point of the section.

It says nothing about forcing a successful rebellion to pay their share of U.S. debts.

If the rebellion is successful, how exactly would they force it to pay foreign debts? The U.S. debt would still be held by the remaining U.S. nation.. Foreign courts may try to recoup debts from the new nation if the U.S. claims it no longer holds certain debts on account of the rebellion, but that is not constitutional law in action.

It is the opposite statement... It says the U.S. isn't responsible for any debt incurred through an act of revolution.. whether you win or lose, the U.S. government isn't going to pay your revolutionary debts.

If California Succeeds, win or lose, any debt accrued in support of such an action will remain California's debt and no payment will be made by the national government towards those debts.

Originally posted by Fiberx

It says nothing about forcing a successful rebellion to pay their share of U.S. debts.

I suppose you are correct.

A successful rebellion would, of course, include drafting an entirely different constitution.

They would likely try and impose an embargo or trade blockade of some kind, unless the new republic chose to honor it's old debt.

Don;t forget,this amendment was ratified in 1868. Right after the 'War of Northern Aggression' as those from the south like to call it. It was written to make sure that reparations could not be forced from the Union to the Confederacy after the war for the Confederate actions taken. That is why the slave notation was included. The Southern states tried to sue for loss after Lee surrendered.

Zindo

What will be funny is when these right wing idiots actually grow a pair and do decide to secede from the Union.

If they aren't almost immediately overrun by some foreign troops, the UN certainly would set up a peacekeeping force.

They would have to produce their own currency, which no one will take till they are actually recognized as a nation, therefore they won't be able to trade with any other nation.

Right wingers being extremely xenophobic and altogether fearful of everything and everyone, means it's almost certain that a continuous bloodbath and internal war will be a constant thing.

So, not being able to trade with any other nation (including the United States) means the people in the new breakaway republic will most likely starve, It's probable they won't trade with mideastern countries because well, "Day are all terrists over der!" and so, no oil.

But hey, you will be "free"

Originally posted by whatukno
What will be funny is when these right wing idiots actually grow a pair and do decide to secede from the Union.

If they aren't almost immediately overrun by some foreign troops, the UN certainly would set up a peacekeeping force.

They would have to produce their own currency, which no one will take till they are actually recognized as a nation, therefore they won't be able to trade with any other nation.

Right wingers being extremely xenophobic and altogether fearful of everything and everyone, means it's almost certain that a continuous bloodbath and internal war will be a constant thing.

So, not being able to trade with any other nation (including the United States) means the people in the new breakaway republic will most likely starve, It's probable they won't trade with mideastern countries because well, "Day are all terrists over der!" and so, no oil.

But hey, you will be "free"

Interesting take

Who will concieve of new innovations, do the hard work of daily production and pay to take care of the huddled masses if independants ditch the rest of the country?

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Stereotypical much?

It's not like you'd do it any differently.

America is home to many armchair revolutionaries that would RUN at the sight of a real revolution.

reply to post by whatukno


They're more than welcome to try. A bunch of militants are no match for a fully-funded federal army.

Originally posted by The Sword

America is home to many armchair revolutionaries that would RUN at the sight of a real revolution.

Who's up for a good game of revolutionaries and counter revolutionaries then?

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Call me when you find a way to release yourself from debt and you find a nation willing to trade with you. Your best bet at this point is to trade with a nation like Iran (which no one will do at this point) or perhaps Russia (but oh no, they're COMMIES!).

No, revolution is NOT illegal. Revolution is EXPECTED by the Consitution.

My signature is a DIRECT quote from the Constitution. Read it.

Originally posted by The Sword

Call me when you find a way to release yourself from debt

I'm pretty sure Jesus already paid the debt friend.

reply to post by babybunnies

No, revolution is NOT illegal. Revolution is EXPECTED by the Consitution.

My signature is a DIRECT quote from the Constitution. Read it.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government

Might I humbly suggest that you ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE CONSTITUTION?

Because guess what? That is NOT in the United States Constitution. That is actually in the Declaration of Independence.

reply to post by In nothing we trust

Interesting take

Who will concieve of new innovations, do the hard work of daily production and pay to take care of the huddled masses if independants ditch the rest of the country?

Interesting that you think that only right wingers work.

It's also interesting that you somehow think that people who generally believe that humanity has only been around for 6000 years, innovate anything. From what I understand, most scientists actually don't buy into the whole creationist theory, and in fact it takes science to bring about innovations.

It's also interesting that you think that all Independents will leave with the right wingers to form their new confederacy. Because believe it or not, REAL Independents are neither right wing or left wing and have the capacity to think for themselves.

Originally posted by whatukno

It's also interesting that you somehow think that people who generally believe that humanity has only been around for 6000 years, innovate anything. From what I understand, most scientists actually don't buy into the whole creationist theory, and in fact it takes science to bring about innovations.

You're doing too much assuming

Try not to think so hard

reply to post by In nothing we trust


And I'm sure you'd approve of a theocracy where everyone follows the Bible by each letter within.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by In nothing we trust

 

And I'm sure you'd approve of a theocracy where everyone follows the Bible by each letter within.

On the contrary

I think you'll find that I'm more of an agnostic with leanings toward theism or athiesm as suits my mood.