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.

 

Why follow the U.S. Constitution?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
It means you are for peacefully assembling to protest, right? But peacefully assembling doesn't get anybody anywhere. The U.S. Constitution is designed to keep people wimpering, so why be all for it when you believe it is time to change the U.S for the better? The constitution is your enemy when it is time calling for change.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


As i understand it, the constitution is there to restrict the government, not the people. That is where all the outrage stems from, when these amendments are trampled all over nowadays with new legislation.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
It's what gave us the power the corrupt are using to wage democracy all over the planet. That's what happens when you trust people with no supervision to do the right thing. Now we have a situation where the power was illegally taken from the states and they don't want to give it back. Instead, they keep firing more unconstitutional laws out to solidify their position of power.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


While I don't necessarily disagree with you somehow I don't think you have thought this out carefully. Exactly what would you replace this document with and what specifically in it do you feel limits?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


The Constitution was designed to keep people whimpering? Please... I doubt you have ever read the constitution, much less understand its intent.
edit on 30-12-2011 by METACOMET because: fx



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by WarJohn
 


The Constitution was designed to keep people whimpering? Please... I doubt you have ever read the constitution, much less understand its intent.
edit on 30-12-2011 by METACOMET because: fx


exactly.

first thing i thought when i read the thread title, does this person advise politicians? lulz



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WarJohn
It means you are for peacefully assembling to protest, right? But peacefully assembling doesn't get anybody anywhere. The U.S. Constitution is designed to keep people wimpering, so why be all for it when you believe it is time to change the U.S for the better? The constitution is your enemy when it is time calling for change.


Do you have a battle plan?

What happens when you win the battle.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The constitution hasn't been followed for decades. It is an instruction manual not a piece of paper that makes us free. People just assume that freedom is automatic, that its the military's job to protect them. That is simply not the case when you have an out of control government in charge of it. All Americans must do their part to ensure freedom. Both left and right want to twist the constitution to mean what they want it to mean. People believe that those in power must know more than they do so they stopped questioning. I think people are starting to wake up finally.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The Constitution is our get out of communism pass, only WE THE PEOPLE can ever change it, but what for???
It gives us the right to be heard and to bear Arms to defend it



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Also I disagree with that peaceful assembly doesn't get results. Problem is that people believe that holding up signs will make a difference which it won't. There are only (as far as I see it) two ways to change the system: one way is through violent revolution through organized guerilla warfare. And the other by peaceful but dedicated non-participation. What does that mean exactly?

It means not buying products (ending consumerism) that aren't necessary for survival (food, water, shelter, clothing). Those items that are necessary for survival are hopefully made or grown or recycled but if purchasing is unavoidable then buying locally and buying strictly small business. The next thing that it means is not going to work AT ALL. If 170 million people stop working for 3 months (huge sacrifice) it stops the machine. The next part is refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the government as a representative of the people (it isn't and never has been) by refusing to vote, pay taxes or showing up for court. The next part would be setting up temporary local governments on a volunteer basis.

If we stop buying products, stop supporting non local businesses, share whatever resources we have (including growing our food on available land regardless of "legality"), stop voting in farce elections, stop paying attention to any legislators/congressmen etc.., stop participating in Unions (which have agendas and are hierarchal), start using civil disobedience (read common law, everything else is artificial and used to control), stop relying on government and organizations not created by us without permits or licenses. Recycle all products that we have and barter more.

If we were to do that the government (noticed I didn't say OUR government) will be brought down to it's knees and will have no choice but to step down. We then have a chance to build a SMALLER government that respects individual choice, as well as community and commons. We would need to get rid of central banks and wall street ALTOGETHER. Re-write the concept of corporation charters and begin an isolationist policy, eliminate ourselves from globalization and free trade and build weapons on a STRICTLY defensive basis. We would need to eliminate fiat currency and issue either currency backed by something tangible or have faith based currency that is lent locally, interests free. Government in it's lesser role would be in charge primarily on security, diplomacy and infrastructure (and possibly currency maintenance).

The above is just my opinion of course, but I am sure there can be many variations that come out of it.

The constitution was made as a way to check governmental power. Currently it is the best thing we have. It can be made more current, with certain loop holes taken out. The constitution when written, was done with the purpose of small government and that's why it's currently watered down. There is ABSOLUTELY no way that the constitution is able to work with the current size of government AND with addition to how our currency is given out and made. In order for us to modify the constitution (if that is intended, which I am not sure is the best thing), we would first need to make sure government is much smaller and outside factors such as transnational corporations or foreign countries are NOT involved in the process. The elimination of our (their) Central Bank is would be the most important first step.

edit on 30-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 



It means you are for peacefully assembling to protest, right? But peacefully assembling doesn't get anybody anywhere.


I think the Reverend Martin Luther King and "Mahatma" Gandhi would beg to differ with you.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


They have laid the ground work, but our new version of it would have to be way more aggressive. The point would be to break down government altogether and rebuilt it anew. Any other outcome without that necessary goal would be cosmetic. I don't want rights AFFORDED to me by THE government. I want rights of THE government AFFORDED by the people. Amendments and concessions aren't good enough.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by WarJohn
 



It means you are for peacefully assembling to protest, right? But peacefully assembling doesn't get anybody anywhere.


I think the Reverend Martin Luther King and "Mahatma" Gandhi would beg to differ with you.


That is a very good point. However, I wonder if non-violent protest can work in today's world? Maybe I am being myopic, but it seems that there is no more moral compass that would make our "leaders" respond to anything but violence. I get the feeling that if a given action does not bring money and/or power to TPTB, they are not interested. I fear that the only way to get our country (world?) back is to take it back with force.

Edit- PS. My son is here for the holidays (he is deployed to Afghanistan). I have had this discussion with him and he is convinced that there are enough soldiers (including officers) who are disillusioned with our government that if the poo hits the air blower there will be a whole bunch of trained, armed badasses on the "right" side of the conflict; at least enough to make it an interesting fight.
edit on 30-12-2011 by DragonTattooz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 



I don't want rights AFFORDED to me by THE government. I want rights of THE government AFFORDED by the people.


The government exists at the sufferance of the people. If enough people reject it, it will fall. A violent uprising by a minority would only impose the will of the few on the many. Tricky things, societies.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The civil rights movement succeeded with peaceful protest SUPPLEMENTED by violent bursts of action. Do not confuse "common taught" school history with reality. Reality is that both peaceful and violent discord brought about the changes in civil rights.

As for Gandhi - he has a populace united under a single religion and with single beliefs backing him every step of the way. Something like this is not only impossible with Americans as a whole, but it is ridiculous to think about when you have freedom of thought and religion. American's are built on the ability to disagree with one another, and many times are fed subjects simply to disagree on. A peaceful revolution like the one in India will NEVER take place in a location like America.






As to WHY follow the U.S. Constitution. Well, the document is supposed to inhibit the government from infringing on our Creator given rights that each man was born with. And it does, when followed. As many have said, it has not been followed in some time, but in order to follow it and protect our rights, we must first get our rights back that we lost.

How does that happen? Revolution.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 



I don't want rights AFFORDED to me by THE government. I want rights of THE government AFFORDED by the people.


The government exists at the sufferance of the people. If enough people reject it, it will fall. A violent uprising by a minority would only impose the will of the few on the many. Tricky things, societies.


Yes, I agree. That is exactly what I said pretty much in my other post. I don't want a violent uprising if it can be avoided, which I believe can be if done through non-violent, non-participation. That way however would be a drastic change in our lifestyle and priorities which I am not sure people have the will for it. I hope they do.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by WarJohn
 


Our forefathers wrote--> "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government' and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

The Constitution was ORIGINALLY written to protect the people from an overbearing government. However every law that has been signed by the President, no matter which one, and approved by the Supreme court becomes part of our Constitution. EVERY LAW. People think the Constitution is just what was written by our forefathers when in fact it has been changing every day since the day it was originally written. EVERY FEDERAL LAW is a new part of the Constitution. When Obama signed Obamacare into law it became part of our Constitution. So what our Constitution WAS it no longer IS because of how lawyers and politicians twist words.

Personally I believe this government that we have now is to corrupt to change and we should grow a pair and do what our forefathers said was our "right and our DUTY". Government has done a good job at dividing us though and I am sure you have heard the term "divided we fall" Well get ready for the fall and the FEMA camps my friend.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonTattooz

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by WarJohn
 



It means you are for peacefully assembling to protest, right? But peacefully assembling doesn't get anybody anywhere.


I think the Reverend Martin Luther King and "Mahatma" Gandhi would beg to differ with you.


That is a very good point. However, I wonder if non-violent protest can work in today's world? Maybe I am being myopic, but it seems that there is no more moral compass that would make our "leaders" respond to anything but violence. I get the feeling that if a given action does not bring money and/or power to TPTB, they are not interested. I fear that the only way to get our country (world?) back is to take it back with force.

Edit- PS. My son is here for the holidays (he is deployed to Afghanistan). I have had this discussion with him and he is convinced that there are enough soldiers (including officers) who are disillusioned with our government that if the poo hits the air blower there will be a whole bunch of trained, armed badasses on the "right" side of the conflict; at least enough to make it an interesting fight.
edit on 30-12-2011 by DragonTattooz because: (no reason given)


Yes you are absolutely right IMO. But the difference is the term "non-violent protest". What we need to to come away from the conditioned belief that non-violent protest gets anything done (it doesn't). We need to instead think of the terms "boycott and non-participation". The only thing that matters to them is money revenue. How does protesting hurt that? Well it doesn't. But if millions of people stop working and stop buying then things will change.

The negative aspect of that is that it will crash our economy. But what do you believe will happen in 2012? The economy will crash on THEIR terms anyway. The only way I see out of this mess is if we do it on OUR terms and band together to form local networks which will support each other. Everyone needs to add their part. Let us stop working for a paycheck that benefits the elites and keeps us in slavery, and start working for ourselves instead. Would you be able to live without electricity, easy access food, no mail, no public transportation, no police force for a year? I think we can as long as we pool our resources and communicate needs. Chaos will be needed to break down this corrupt and sinister system. True trade and community will be needed in order for as many of us as possible to survive.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join