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 anything in the constitution that would allow us to get rid of them all?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
the way i see it, there are two ways to change the government: we can try armed revolt, or refuse to pay taxes. if everyone in unison stopped paying taxes i think the government would get the message a lot more clearly.




posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
the way i see it, there are two ways to change the government: we can try armed revolt, or refuse to pay taxes. if everyone in unison stopped paying taxes i think the government would get the message a lot more clearly.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Czulkang
I'm serious, is there? I'm NOT talking about a revolution, im just wondering or would it have to be a state by state recal/special election? and if we did that is there anything else we would need to fix? Special interists, lobbists? The current stock of them all in congress suck, and i mean all of them even my own senator and congressman,


"Easy" answer? The one already stated by the few here would be to invoke a Constitutional Convention. I put "easy" in quotes because it is anything but easy and for good reason.

The "hard" answer? An engaged and informed populace across 50 states. One where people were not only engaged in the "super bowl" of elections of our Federal representation, but where they are engaged from as small of a group such as the school board to their local representations to their States. That requires what the Founding Fathers thought would happen. Alas, we know that the continued growth of self-representation was stunted and thwarted by many measures. It isn't the Peoples' fault entirely but they are just as much to blame as the "special interests" and "lobbyist".

Where does that leave us then?

Few items would fix anything but there is a need to bring balance between the States and the Federal governments. The Seventeenth Amendment would be a start. That Amendment alone siphoned power away from the States and into the hands of the "lobbyist" and "special interest" by melding together our bicameral Congress from two separate, but equally powerful Houses into one large House of ill repute.

Invoking Article V is risky, but great risks bring great rewards; or disaster. It doesn't take a "formal" convention though to pass through an amendment. If several states band together and pass, via 2/3rds their legislature and then get 3/4th of their fellow States to agree on that amendment, it then becomes an amendment. Political-wise, it can be done in the backroom. Only a "show" convention would have to take place with all the States in place to create the amendment.

Sadly, as I stated above, the Seventeenth Amendment has all but destroyed that option by forcing all States to have popular elections of senators.
edit on 18-6-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by riffraff
the way i see it, there are two ways to change the government: we can try armed revolt, or refuse to pay taxes. if everyone in unison stopped paying taxes i think the government would get the message a lot more clearly.


Good luck getting a majority of the country to not pay taxes. You would have to sway businesses to not file W-4s for the most part to even start this. Tax "withholding" is ingenious. We pay taxes on a consistent basis to the government because payroll taxes (your employer) holds them and sends them to the Government. April 16th is nothing since the Government already has your money.

The shrinking majority who actually pay taxes on tax day already have things in order and their numbers are so small it wouldn't do any good in my estimation.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 
One huge problem in the system of the US is the voting by machine - and all of the fraud most people understand goes on.

The second problem is that laws for urban centers in the country are vey different than what good laws are for the rural population.

You can say "state's rights" but all of the states have these huge urban centers where - the very rich and the very poor live.

Our country is trully screwed - then add in all of the lobbyist.

I want to add one more thing - doesn't congress have to declare "war"? Why do all of these "giving money to arm rebels" and "police actions" -Like in vietnam, and the rest of "the wars" come in at?

What was the last "war" Congress officially declared? WW2?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The only way "We The People" can affect change is a way no one wants to go. It would require the blood of Patriots and Tyrants alike to be spilled until the Mississippi runs red. The only way to revive the Tree of Liberty is with it's favorite food, blood. That is the entire basis for the 2nd Amendment. It would be worse for everyone for a very long time to come. Installing a new government wouldn't happen overnight and it would most likely be decades before things got back to some semblance of "normal". The US would be war torn for year's to come, as We the People are too far divided.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


The war on terror was the last official declaration of war, specifically Iraq and the whole WMD mess.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
 
One huge problem in the system of the US is the voting by machine - and all of the fraud most people understand goes on.


True, but I stand by that such corruption, via machine or "chad", is systemic of the gerrymandering of the system by all levels of Government; from local to Federal. Simplistically viewing it of course.

"The second problem is that laws for urban centers in the country are vey different than what good laws are for the rural population."

This is a broad statement, but I understand what you are saying. New York State has very different laws than say Kansas or Oklahoma. There is nothing wrong with that though. That is how the system was designed. It was designed so that the People of a given State can experiment. If the People of New York want to give up their freedom of choice in the free-market to buy a 64oz soft-drink, that is their prerogative -- not Kansas' or Oklahoma's.

(A sidebar to the above; what most are up in arms about with this is that the great People of New York did not decide this factor, rather a mayor did; by decree and bureaucracy. )

You can say "state's rights" but all of the states have these huge urban centers where - the very rich and the very poor live.


Our country is trully screwed - then add in all of the lobbyist.


I wouldn't say "truly". It is on a different path than what it was designed to travel, but that course can be corrected. Lobbyists, are you and I -- if we so chose to be.


What was the last "war" Congress officially declared? WW2?



Correct and the abdication of their powers is sickening. Give any branch an inch, they will surely take a mile. All of them. We should never commit troops without a declaration of war.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
This is a simple thread, but I've really enjoyed some of the thoughts such as rabbits and others.

There is a quote I think applies more so to America than ever before:

The ignorance of one voter in a Democracy impairs the security of all
- John F. Kennedy


I believe this quote doesn't just apply to voting, but Democracy in general. It isn't merely an education issue but also part of the very core of how we debate and what we debate. Ignorance is also a lacking of knowing; which is what the media reports by not touching on key issues.


Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by Czulkang
 

Our Founding Fathers were very smart guys, and they built the best charter for Humans to follow in a civilized society, however... they require ACTIVE participation of all of the citizenry for the system to work...
We have woefully disregarded that important piece of the puzzle and are now paying the price...
edit on 17-6-2013 by coastlinekid because: (no reason given)

Whilst coastlinekid has hit the nail on the head in many ways, and perhaps I will be burned or have my shoes stolen for this comment ...

Perhaps the issue is that America for too long has believed that the rules and rights set down by the founding fathers were perfect and not a growing evolution. Life is so much more complicated now, there are so many more issues, and there were already a lot to begin with. The founding fathers may well have done things differently if they could perceive the future and its advances.

I fear if rabbit's idea was put into action the same nest would unfortunately be remade anew, because the problem isn't the politicians it's the system that creates them and makes their strategy effective. American people are that system, and they will remain resistant to change so long as they believe their core system is 'perfect' and it's just politicians to blame for messing it up.

Dunno, just thoughts.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
reply to post by Happy1
 


The war on terror was the last official declaration of war, specifically Iraq and the whole WMD mess.


There was no congressional declaration of war, as designed by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

It was an extension of the War Powers Resolution that allowed the president, as his predecessors before and aft has used to commit our soldiers in the field of battle.

Post Script: Wrong clause....corrected now.
edit on 18-6-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Congress voted and agreed, it's no different than them saying it themselves. Iraq was a declaration of war for all intents and purposes and was backed by a majority of congress.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Congress voted and agreed, it's no different than them saying it themselves. Iraq was a declaration of war for all intents and purposes and was backed by a majority of congress.


"All intent and purposes" is not the same as declaring war, as prescribed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

They are to declare war. Instead, we have authorized the Executive to use the military in a fashion that the Executive sees fit to "protect" the United States of America from "imminent" threat. That isn't war. That is giving one branch full control of the most power military the world has seen a blank check to wage war without the consent of the People.

There are many scholars who can verify my stance.

Edit to add:

Tell, what State or power are we at war with? Whom did we declare it against? Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Mali? Syria? Sudan? Pakistan?....
edit on 18-6-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


We declared war on Iraq, no one else, as part of the war on terror. That was why Congress was even involved prior to Bush sending troops in. Why he had to fabricate enough evidence for the existence of WMDs to persuade Congress to vote in his favor, and why 2 operatives were outed before they could blow the whistle on the lies. The war on Iraq was officially over after Sadam was captured and then the military took over a policing role. It doesn't matter if Congress used the words "we declare war" they voted and approved the action.
edit on 6/18/2013 by EViLKoNCEPTz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by EViLKoNCEPTz
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


We declared war on Iraq, no one else, as part of the war on terror. That was why Congress was even involved prior to Bush sending troops in. Why he had to fabricate enough evidence for the existence of WMDs to persuade Congress to vote in his favor, and why 2 operatives were outed before they could blow the whistle on the lies. The war on Iraq was officially over after Sadam was captured and then the military took over a policing role. It doesn't matter if Congress used the words "we declare war" they voted and approved the action.
edit on 6/18/2013 by EViLKoNCEPTz because: (no reason given)


Congress approved of the use of force, but no formal declaration was made. Congress approved the use of force and committed the armed forces; which could be seen as an informal "declaration of war", but it is hardly the same as the precedent set prior to the aftermath of WWII. Vietnam, Korea, Grenada and all the "small" skirmishes we set out to be involved in were nothing more than a growing imperial power; one we fought against in WWII nonetheless.

While I respect the fact that at least President Bush sought Congressional approval of the armed forces, it wasn't a declaration of war against a foreign State. Semantics maybe and most likely, but when it comes to the lives of our fellow citizens, it should be clear that they are at war with a known enemy.

Iraq and Afghanistan (and beyond) has been anything but clear. Congress should revoke the power they so callously gave to the Executive to commit troops (and arms) to ensure that the People approve of any military action.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Exactly - semantics.

"Let's change the conversation" - every bit of liberal doublespeak - eroding the constitution, bit by bit.

Vietnam was the first "undeclared war" and the US military keeps getting sucked into the abyss - until

The US is arming alquaeda to get rid of assad in syria.

See where this leads us, if you don't pay attention?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
Vietnam was the first "undeclared war" and the US military keeps getting sucked into the abyss - until


Sadly, the Vietnam "conflict", i.e. war, was not the first war we engaged in that was undeclared. Korea would be the first in modern day history where we engaged in wholesale war against a nation. We committed troops to the United Nations to fight that war.

Before that, our skirmishes were just as prevalent as they are now. Outside of the following wars, we have only engaged via Congressional approval (and sometimes not) to use force as a nation:
1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
WWI
WWII

All others were engagement of troops committed for the gain of the Executive or "political" means such as protecting spheres of influence. It wasn't until recently (past 50+ years) where we have unilaterally engaged hostilities under dubious pretension.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
A constitutional convention?

For what? That document holds no power in this land, period. Anyone who believes such is a fool.

They will violate your privacy. They will take your guns. They will SHUT YOUR MOUTHS, AND MAKE YOU KNEEL.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Why do we need the Constitution's permission?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
This is a very interesting discussion for someone outside the US. But I have to ask if any of this is even relevant when you have an unelected and unaccountable group behind your government who are capable of exerting pressure on everyone from you to the President.

In modern America, any threat to the status-quot can be labelled a threat to the security of the nation. And the group assigned with dealing with that threat can operate outside of any oversight. Then you have a president who can enact special privileged to prevent you from holding any of them to account. It doesn't matter if their actions are legal or not, because you have a president who will deliberately block that question.

Isn't this debate and discussion all theory and bluster? It's nice to see people discussing it, but from what I can as an outsider, all avenues are blocked by the simple fact that this group of individuals and corporate interests already control the game, and they ripped up the rulebook a long time ago.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Czulkang
 




Is there anything in the constitution that would allow us to get rid of them all?


Hell yeah... next election comes around, don't be a patsy for the partisan political olympics. Unelect every single incumbent regardless of party affiliation. Let's build a freshman class of representation who got their jobs because we were fed up with the bovine excrement.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join