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.

 

Is there a conspiracy to take over The United States and destroy our freedoms? No of course not!!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
They are doing it right to our face.

I use the term "they" loosely. More correctly, you are allowing it to happen. A similar question would be, "Who is taking over The United States?"

And the answer would not be, "super elites" or "secret societies" it would be YOU!

Those of you who have forgotten what The United States is, a Union of States.

You are creating from our Federal system (which no longer really exists) a Unitarian system.

The current status of our Federal System:

Representational Federalism.

What does that mean?

It means the Federal Government is the only true power, and that the States only exist because the units of the Federal Government are elected by "regions". Representatives and Senators by the States, and the President by the Electoral College.

But as we see, the Federal Government can do whatever it wants. It already has, time and time again.

Garcia vs. San Antonio (1985)

Roe vs. Wade (1973)

These two cases greatly show the distress our Nation is in.

The States are besieged, and so far the only defenders of our US Constitution has been the US Supreme Court, which very minorly revived small aspects of it in regards of Interstate Commerce.

The defense of the US Constitution is not the real responsibility of the President, or the Courts, but the People. To the former it is only symbolic. To us it is real!

Why should we wait for a day when the Federal Government will say, "ok we're through now, we'll give you back your rights and your States and your freedoms."

To wait for such a day is vain hope, we must become more aware now.

The enemy to the United States is ignorance.

Ignorance of States' Rights and how they have been destroyed.

Without States' Rights, the Federal Government will oppress someone always.

Example:

Athiests remove Under God from the pledge, religious devote suffer, Federal Government declares that all schools should teach creationism, science suffers.

When the Federal Government decides who wins, someone always loses. And in the game of life, that loss is unbearable.




posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
You're right. No, of course not.
Without the Federal government, those black kids could not go to school in Little Rock. States have tons of rights, the marriage age comes to mind, because of the recent controversy about gay marriages. It seems to me that people who decry about the Federal government, are just scared of upsetting the status quo. Just because we, as a nation, mature and realize that what we have done in the past is wrong (black and women voting, for example) doesn't mean that the government is trying to take rights away. It means we are growing as a nation., and correcting mistakes, that our founding fathers could not fathom would be an issue. Can you imagine what ATS would look like in 1920 if it existed? There would be topics on how can the Federal government tell states that women can vote! It's the end of days! Look at the Middle East! President Warren Harding is the ----- mentioned in Revelations!



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Wow curme so much ignorance.

So by your logic, Nazis couldn't have killed Jews, or Soviet Union couldn't have killed 20 million people.

Because by your logic the Federal Government is the great supporter of human rights and freedoms.

Moron.


Get your ideological head out of your arse please and wake-up to reality.

The Founding Fathers maintained States' Rights because doing so prevents tyranny. The Founding Fathers sure as hell knew a lot more than you do about how to create a nation. They were living in the "enlightenment" era, a time when self-governance was understood and freedom could be best acheived by our nation at that time.

Simply put by Ben Franklin was it?

"I don't agree with what you say, but I'll die to let you say it."

I don't agree with Slavery, or with women not voting, but I'll die to support a States' right to do as its people want it to do. States Rights today does not mean we will have a return of Slavery.

You ignorant cuss.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Free Mason, please tone down your insults. In fact, to argue a point, you should not need to curse others.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
It's just that passion against those so blind as to not beable to seperate States Rights from the issue of slavery.

As I stated to you in the chat.

04:17 [ktprktpr] it's something, atl east
04:17 [ktprktpr] yeah
04:17 [FreeMason] Yeah that's some libertarian thing right? To move to small states to try and win seats in the Federal Government? Lol
04:17 [FreeMason] But after they abolished slavery, they should have yielded their usurped power, instead they did not, they kept it, they abused it
04:16 [ktprktpr] have you heard of the Free State project?
04:16 [FreeMason] Exactly though, the feds abolished the states rights, that was betrayal, they abolished Slavery in doing so, that was good.
04:16 [ktprktpr] we need to move towards states rights and state control
04:16 [ktprktpr] right, and I agree with that
04:16 [FreeMason] Founding Fathers
04:16 [FreeMason] But today we are beyond all that, no one is a slave, and everyone is a Citizen, now is the time to return to that noble and pure institution of State-Centered Federalism, without Slavery and oppression. And create the ideal United States that was in the hearts but not the minds of all the
04:16 [ktprktpr] they'd just "Riz Again!"
04:15 [ktprktpr] you can't leave teh south somewhat intact
04:15 [ktprktpr] But the thing is, to destroy one part of the south, you had to destroy all ofit
04:15 [ktprktpr] and some very bad byproducts, like abolishing state rights
04:15 [FreeMason] Slavery as an issue with States Rights, is one of life's ironies...to defend something noble and pure means you had to defend something that was the complete opposite, also a tragedy
04:15 [ktprktpr]



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason


I don't agree with Slavery, or with women not voting, but I'll die to support a States' right to do as its people want it to do. States Rights today does not mean we will have a return of Slavery.

You ignorant cuss.


So, if your state today, supported slavery or women not voting, would you support what your state believes in, because of states rights? Or would you stand up for what you believe in? Um... poo-poo head.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I would challenge my State's beliefs as a citizen of my State.

The more proper question would be would I do anything about another State's slavery? Most certainly not.

If you believe the Federal Government should dictate what morals a State should follow, then one can equally argue that The United States should dictate what morals the world should follow.

After all, if we would not tollerate slavery in one soveriegn State, why tollerate it in any other and so forth.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Would people really be in favor of slavery anyway? It's just not reasonable anymore...But states could end up passing laws that would seem ridiculous to an outside observer.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Simply put by Ben Franklin was it?

"I don't agree with what you say, but I'll die to let you say it."


That is a rough approximation of a quote attributed to Voltaire.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

www.quotationspage.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 04:53 AM
link   
is this a shift in the opinion of an organization? does that mean u have truly lost it?


i agree with the states rights thing, we have no business in any state but our own, though we should have both militias and federal armies.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   


Would people really be in favor of slavery anyway? It's just not reasonable anymore...But states could end up passing laws that would seem ridiculous to an outside observer.


I agree with Freemason in that this goverment have to much power over us the citizen and that the federal goverment is over using this power as now, but when you leave it to the states to do their own free will then the more people will suffer because of this. The states and the goverment have to have a harmony.

This is an example of what happend in history when we had a church-state union kind.

In Massachusetts state capitol in Boston stand two statues, one is of Anne Hutchinson, tried and convicted in 1638 by both the church and the state and sentenced to exile in the wilderness for the crime of holding unauthorizes discussions abut religion with friends and neighbors in her own home.

The other statue is of Mary Dyer, convicted of the crime of merely being a Quaker and executed by hanging on Boston Common in 1660.

This two statues symbolize relations between religion and government, typically invoving a union or allieance between the civil power and established organize religions.

The example of Church-state unions usually work against freethinkers, and religious and lifestyle minorities. In the time of the colonies most of the states force people to pay taxes to support religion and made second- class citizens of members of other type of religions.

In other countries around the world in wish they have church- state unions you can see the bad effects, Muslim countries, that changing from Islam to another religion is a crime. Other countries have to pay heavy taxes for their churches.

This is my example why the goverment have to keep control of the states, because it can go either way, the states can become religious pushers or religious, goup, racial, ethnic, gender or other persecuters.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Marg, I believe that the US Constitution as conceived was that harmony that we both agree needs to exist in this Union. The problem was, the Federal Government was given the right to control commerce both interstate and foriegn, but was not allowed to deal with the issue of Slavery until 1805 or 8 (don't remember right off the top of my head) which was an aspect of commerce in both those respects.

In that sense the great conflict between the States and the Federal Government arose from the right of the States to have Slaves, but the right of the Federal Government to govern commerce, which because the majority of the Union was free, and so the laws passed not always had favorable actions upon slavery. Mix in fanatics on both sides and you have a volatile situtation.

I think that can be a safe and sure look at the flaw of a great doccument, that has led to the total abandonment of that doccument over the last 133 years.

But we live in an age where that flaw no longer exists, we should return to the Union as it was supposed to be, where the Federal Government had enumerated powers and the rest was left to each State to decide for itself.

All those oppressions and witch-burnings and slavery and so forth, did not happen because of the institution we had, but because our level of conciousness was lesser than it is today.

The institution of State-Centered Federalism is what Thomas Jefferson wanted, and what James Madison wanted, and what Hamilton would tollerate. It was what our nation was founded upon.

Slavery, oppression, these exist everywhere where there are small minds, it has nothing to do with the institution, it can exist under today's Federal tyranny more than it can in restored Constitutional Federalism. All that needs to happen is small minds sit in the chair of the oval office.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   


By FreeMason
I don't agree with Slavery, or with women not voting, but I'll die to support a States' right to do as its people want it to do.



The more proper question would be would I do anything about another State's slavery? Most certainly not.


Thats interesting. Hypothetically speaking, if you are for the right of each individual state to govern itself however it wishes that position must also relate to non threatening international relations; to also allow each country to govern as it wishes. Im pretty sure you were for the war on Iraq. Does that not mean you should have respected Saddams right to murder, oppress and rule his people and his Sovereign country as he wished? And respect the dictates of extremist Islam?

Of course I know you dont think so, so doesnt that make this statement a little contradictory:



If you believe the Federal Government should dictate what morals a State should follow, then one can equally argue that The United States should dictate what morals the world should follow.




[edit on 4-7-2004 by kegs]



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
No Kegs, the US Constitution prohibits that power to the States and I believe for good reason. It is unmanageable to have many conflicting treaties in one Nation.

The States ratified this, therefore my acceptance for it is not even necessary, the States accepted it.

The States however did not accept to be forced to live their lives as the Federal Government mandated.

As for Iraq, it did not ratify our Constitution, it is not a Republican form of Government (another requirement for Statehood) and therefore I could care less of its "rights".

"If you believe the Federal Government should dictate what morals a State should follow, then one can equally argue that The United States should dictate what morals the world should follow."

This is not contradictory kegs. This states that if you believe the Federal Government SHOULD dictate what a State does, then it should dictate what all the nations of the World does. Should it? I don't think anyone here would think so.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
My point is that if it was your stance that each state should rule itself, in that situation that same policy should apply to foreign relations. The constitution of Iraq has nothing to do with it, what I'm saying is that if each state is neighbour, each hypothetically with opposing laws and they are to leave each other alone, shouldn't the same be said for the world stage in that scenario? The last quote was contradictory because dictating what morals the world should follow is exactly what the U.S is doing, and you see that that is (or would be) wrong in the current situation yet in the situation you are hoping for you would still approve of interference in other countries whilst denying states interference with each other.



This states that if you believe the Federal Government SHOULD dictate what a State does, then it should dictate what all the nations of the World does. Should it? I don't think anyone here would think so.


I dont think so either. If each state could do nothing about what other states were doing, why should the country have the right to say what other countries are doing?

I dont know much about states versus federal government, in the same way you probably dont know much about Scots Law, but I find it an interesting scenario and wonder if that was the case what the U.S foreign policy would be, and how much it could get away with without being called a hypocrite.



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Kegs, first the statement I made is not contradictory because of the word "should". Had I said, "If the Federal Government is governing State morals, then it should be governing other foriegn nations' morals." Then I would have been wrong. But I used the word should before governing the State as well, implying a question of right or wrong.

So the way you were just saying, yeah it would be contradictory but I didn't say it that way.

As for foriegn afairs, if the State wanted to manage its own foriegn afairs, it wouldn't be joining a Union. The United States is not an alliance for defense like NATO or such, it is a Union, a single nation made of many autonomous Republics.

Those Republics expecting to manage their own internal affairs, creating a Federal Government to manage certain other affairs that many autonomous Republics would be too incapable of doing in unison.

Hence the nation that was established in 1789 was the perfect form of Government, it is only a shame that ideologies of right and wrong causing major economic troubles, tore it apart and with it, destroyed the institution that was so well created by our Founding Fathers.

kegs, the US foriegn policy did not really change as a result of its change in Federalism.

It fought Mexico for territory, it fought against Britain for rights on the seas.

Why should a Union, respecting the sovereignity of its members, be hypocritical for not respecting the sovereignity of non-members?

It is no different than a single State respecting its own sovereignity, but then conquering another nation.

Something that almost all nations on earth are guilty of.

The issue is that why should those who entered the Union expecting a respect of their sovereignity and their ability to still self-govern their own morals and anything not expressly enumerated to the Federal Government, have to tollerate those rights being usurped?



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Well FreeMason, sorry but I think the American Federal Government should have more power over the states. I believe in a strong federal government, that keeps the states in line, it's the best way to keep the United States a country instead of a collection of loosely connected states.

Sorry my man, the time of the powerful state has passed and I say good riddance.

Blessed Be
~Astral



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Easy enough for you to say Astral, the Federal Government is not attacking your Morals.



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
That's really what it's about for you FreeMason, isn't it? You just don't agree with the federal government, and you are so irked by it that you want to see the end of a strong federal government. I think that's a rather radical step. I am an activist for LGBT rights (look it up) and my cause has been made difficult by both states and the federal governmet. I don't want to redistribute the entire power system of the United States just to serve my ends, it's just not ethical. Instead I will vote for those who support the same causes I do, and keep campaigning for equality.

I'm also an advocate for a secular government, and while the Supreme Court seems to be on my side for this issue, President Bush and many in Congress are not. There's still a long way to go on this issue too.

My fight is just as hard as yours, but I will fight ethically, and in the end I and those like me will win, just watch.

May The Enlightenment Of The Goddess Find You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Easy enough for you to say Astral, the Federal Government is not attacking your Morals.


Morals are seperate from government, they are not intertwined in America.

We (America) do not have a state-sponsored religion like the U.K., the state is non-moral, neither to decide what is moral or immoral, but to remain on the sidelines and only interfere when ones rights are violated.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join