If It's Our Constitutional Right to Overthrow Corrupt Government, Why Don't We Do It?

A little comic relief here...Does anyone else remember the episode on South Park when Cartman decides during a re-enactment of the Civil War that maybe it's time the South wins afterall?

It's pretty funny. The lesson there is that it just takes lots of Schnopps!

This is just a clip.
cwmemory.com...

(I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers here. If we've been paying attention,the war was not all about "owning slaves" as we were taught in school,so this is not advocating anything like that at all. I felt a disclaimer might be necessary,just in case!)

Entire episode here:
www.southparkstudios.com...

reply to post by AlreadyGone


Oh wow, hmph that interesting I thought it would have had more support. I wonder how they felt after it was over, like were they happy it happened or not. But I think everyone could boycott, theoretically, I mean if nobody is going to work or buying anything, what responsibilities would anyone have to attend to? The only exceptions would be people who work in healthcare we can't let people die.

reply to post by glitchinthematrix


Why did the Jews stop rebelling against the Nazi's in the concentration camps? Too much fluoride in the water.

reply to post by On the Edge

I love that episode of South Park, its hilarious. There is actually an entire documentary about how America would be if the South won. Its pretty funny but mostly harps on the slavery angle.

reply to post by glitchinthematrix


Please show me where in the Constitution it gives you the right to overthrow the government???

It in fact does quite the opposite and declares you a traitor if you attempt to do so.

Article 3, Section 3

Section 3.

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Most people in NC were tired of the war. Tired of the constant hunger, death, shortages... it was so bad, kids would chase down wagons hauling corn for horse feed and gather the kernels that fell on the road to eat. The state was divided and families and child hood friends became bitter enemies... feuds sprang up that actually rivalled anything the Hattfields and McCoys could muster.

As far as responsibilities... children, animals, some people literally live day to day on what they make that day... a lost days wages would be traumatic, children would go hungry.

How about medical personel... doctors and nurses... they gonna strike? Firemen... Policemen? EMS crews? Phone Operators... need some for emergency calls... technicians... refridgerator repairmen... all those folks home striking... someone's gonna have a clogged toilet or a broken well pump... plumbers? AC/Heat techs... if it is summer, gotta fix that AC today... if it is winter...no heat? A farmer is ready to harvest... rain will set in tommorow... he gonna delay harvest to strike and suffer financial loss?

The way I understand it now is that our country was overthrown years ago,we just weren't aware that it was more in terms of economics than bloodshed.

The issue then would be to take back what was stolen.

reply to post by AlreadyGone

I said except healthcare workers, lol. But most of what you listed are not things that are essential. Like a broken fridge or clogged toilet could wait a day or week, if the nation was taking a stand. Those things are not that serious. If everyone was on strike kids could stay home because their parents would be home. Vets could probably stay open for emergencies. But most people who live paycheck to paycheck do not get paid daily. So they would still have the same amount of money short term. When it was actually time for them to get paid again it probably would hurt their pockets. But everything can't be perfect if you want to affect change.

No it's not. The states are a stop-gap measure and secession is considered before revolution. You're wrong in trying to persuade a revolution that's not how it works. If a people of the state do not agree with a government, it secedes, it doesn't revolt. You'd better be careful and not say anything close to trying to incite a revolution.

This isn't the 13 colonies under England. We have better ways to settle problems than inciting riots and revolutions.

You're really misguided on that assumption.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Your reference addresses treason. Casting off an oppressive government, who by very definition is itself guilty of treason, is not treason. It is in the highest spirit of the founding fathers. Removing tyrants who have all but done away with the rights for which the nation exists is an obligation of the people.

When traitors gain office and begin regulating, limiting and eroding the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, the security of our free state is compromised. We certainly do not live in a free state now. In order to re-secure our free state, we have been reassured via the 2nd amendment the arms necessary to work collectively in martial operations. Unfortunately, the traitors who have been and who are in office have restricted that right making the 2nd amendment useless.

The constitution does later address rebellion and insurrection. These two issues were inserted so that the federal government would have legal justification for punishment and martial activity within our free nation. This clause is not an issue if the rebellion succeeds. Only if it fails does the government need something authorizing them punitive actions.

In the musical 1776, the character of Ben Franklin says something about this that, although I don't know if it is an actual quote from him historically, it applies.

Why, Mr. Dickinson, I’m surprised at you! You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person – such as ‘our’ rebellion. It is only in the third person – ‘their’ rebellion – that it is illegal.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


OS is correct, if a revolt was ever considered it would be the governors of a state or states, not people. I think people are deliberately trying to start #...we won't and we're not going to fall for your baiting and disinfo.

Go back under the rock and think of a new idea to start trouble...not you OS, those people.

reply to post by Wolf321


The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to rebellion...that is a very distorted view of it.

If you rebel against the Government, you will be a traitor as defined by the Constitution...that is just fact. If you overthrow the government by means of rebellion...the Constitution is then null and void.

I could get into details of the crazy talk of internet revolutionaries...like who are the targets? And what is put into place after the rebellion? What are you fighting for? But I have learned in the past that internet revolutionaries don't want to talk about that...they just want to put on their tri-corner hats and quote dead business men who rebelled because England was cutting in on their business and they wouldn't stand for that.

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
You'd better be careful and not say anything close to trying to incite a revolution.

Yes,and before anyone gets their hopes up,remember,"they" are already at least ten steps ahead of you.
(There is probably even fluoride in the Schnopps!)

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
If a people of the state do not agree with a government, it secedes, it doesn't revolt. You'd better be careful and not say anything close to trying to incite a revolution.

Actually that is illegal. The Civil War saw to that. It makes logical, moral and legal sense that if the people of a state no longer wanted to be apart of the US, they could simply secede. Unfortunately, the failure of the south during the civil war set the precedent that a state cannot leave the union without the consent of the union.

the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.

- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Only a few states codified the right of secession in their state constitutions at the time of the US Constitution.

The federal government would later play the matter of state secession both ways. They would claim it impossible, and when it finally happened, treated the states as if they did.

while Lincoln and much of his cabinet thought and gave lip-service to the idea that legal secession was impossible, and for that reason often refused to recognize states as actually having "seceded" (done the impossible), they certainly acted toward those states as though real secessions had in fact occurred, both by taking Constitutional rights away from the seceded states, and (Lincoln excepted, since he was dead) by making them go through a readmittance procedure following the Civil War.

Source

When the southern states seceded, the US government refused to leave the independent state of South Carolina. If the US government had recognized the legitimacy of secession, they would have removed their troops.

Thus today, secession is illegal.

With the exception of Texas and Alaska, the states in general are too broke to be on their own and dependent on the federal teat. While Texas and Alaska do have the resources to financially and militarily stand on their own, I think the US Federal government would take action against them not wanting to lose out on the natural resources etc.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to rebellion...that is a very distorted view of it.

If you rebel against the Government, you will be a traitor as defined by the Constitution...that is just fact. If you overthrow the government by means of rebellion...the Constitution is then null and void.

I obviously disagree. The founders spoke openly about the causes and need for revolution of any free nation. As the 2A clarifies 'to secure a free state' is the reason we have the right to bear arms.

As I have pointed out, the constitution does have to address the concept of rebellion, but as you say if the rebellion succeeds, then the Constitution is null and void, thus the clause becomes irrelevant.

However, the topic then becomes more important. Who are the real traitors? The ones who corrupt, pervert and erode the Constitution to their benefit and the detriment of the nation and the people OR the people who rebel in order to restore the Constitution and liberty?

I could get into details of the crazy talk of internet revolutionaries...like who are the targets? And what is put into place after the rebellion? What are you fighting for? But I have learned in the past that internet revolutionaries don't want to talk about that...

I personally don't know of anyone who wants or calls for armed rebellion against the federal government. However, I have personally and amongst friends and colleagues discussed the justification and means necessary for such a thing, as well as the post-event solutions. I would be happy to discuss he details with you via PM if you are interested in the theory and ideology of it.

From the conversations and thoughts I have had, most would say they would simply go back to the original constitution and amendments and start from there, without all the other laws, codes and regulations that have restricted freedom. The ultimate goal is to restore a free nation, restrict the federal government to limit corruption and control.

reply to post by Wolf321


I think one important point that most don't think about is actually the fact that if a rebellion ever did succeed...then the Constitution is in fact null and void.

They would be nullifying the very thing they claim to be wanting to protect.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I don't know if that is how many would view it.

Right now, many don't see the Constitution being followed, both in spirit and technically. A rebellion against the government, wouldn't be against the Constitution, but the traitors holding office (elected and appointed) who have corrupted and perverted the Constitution. The rebellion would only served to remove them. The constitution would thus remain in place, although as I have pointed out, the clauses dealing with treason, rebellion and insurrection would be interpreted such that the patriot liberators would not be guilty of such. Much the same way a cop can use force against an aggressor and it not be considered battery or murder.

Thus, at the end of the day, the only traitors would be those thrust from office, and they would be made accountable for their crimes. A new constitutional convention could then be called, and I suspect the members would start with the existing Constitution, and then add the clauses necessary to prevent such easy abuse, corruption and massive size that created the fall of the US government.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You make a good point. The Constitution isn't there to save your ass if you do something stupid and later realize it was a mistake.

But there is the wording of the 2nd amendment that clears that up.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Most people look at the right to bear arms part and overlook the rest.

The militia is the armed American people, but a well regulated militia is one with structure that adheres to and subscribes to the original contents of the constitution that each state had agreed to, it is not the national guard. Each state who agrees should be able to secede from the Federal Government if it does not go by the constitution (however I know many will state that is not the case and states can not actually secede) That aside, even if the Constitution is a thing of the past, if you study the blue print that the constitution laid out for us it does not matter.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Unfortunately, there are no real heroes or true revolutionaries in this story. Because, the guy who tries to start something will not be killed, but be mocked and ridiculed for the rest of their lives.

The revolution does not start unfortunately until the federal government oversteps their bounds and stops caring about the Constitution and puts it on an open display. Thats the 2nd amendment and thats why its there. The founding fathers knew that the nation would ultimately deteriorate back into the hands of tyrants. Thats why they placed the 2nd amendment the way that they did.

And to the poster who suggested that revolution would be peaceful, you are living in a dream world. Many people will die, family members, mothers, fathers, children and friends. It is not anything to look forward to other than the fact that it will correct our path for future generations.

If starvation and death doesn't sound peaceful that is... it is not going to be a walk through candy land by any stretch of the imagination.

well, get started, get free, and get into free business, leave them behind....

sedm.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">sedm.org...

A lot of people don't find it worth dying for. Or if they do think that way, they die the wrong way for the wrong cause.