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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I just wanted to note my agreement with the fact War has not been declared since 1941. The authorization for use of force is the coward's way out of that predicament and it's how Congress has chosen to act since then. There are two key differences between the weak "authorization" vs. the formal declaration.

First is THE most critical to my thinking. A declared war has a fixed date it started. It also has a fixed date it ENDS. It isn't a matter of one man in the world (The President) deciding when he feelings like terming it 'over'. It's a formal matter with formal process to close out and end the state of War brought by the original declaration by Congress.

Second, a Declaration Of War in the formal sense is a total commitment of national resources and power to the cause. Iraq wouldn't have lasted a fraction of the time it did had this been the case. 1991 was FAR closer to what it may have looked like all the way around, including the formal cessation of hostilities at the end of the "war". I use quotes, because Bush Sr. needed threats from Congress, (Your Presidency will die in the sands of Kuwait if you do not seek our authorization, I recall hearing him told....publicly and in no uncertain terms) He still handled it like a real war, despite not having to by Declaration. There is no understating this point.


The problem for Congress and why they won't do this, in my view, is also two-fold. First on this is that they have NO WAY to sit back later and snipe the President in cheap political shots for advantage. If they stood like men to Declare it, they're in for the duration and they damned well better "be in it to win it" or history won't record a President losing a war ...but THEM as well, BY NAME and to a person. Nothing is worse to a Congressman than accountability in ANY form. Second here, full resources means full resources and if we're short men? It's not a President's problem to fret and cry over. It's Congresses DUTY to call up manpower from the public. (Selective Service...which you ALL are required to register with upon your 18th Birthday in America *IS* the Draft). I think Congressman have nightmares of that. Not of the draft itself...they could care less. It's the political cost of John Q. Citizen blaming them personally for it.




posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
You asked about the Constitution, but I have a quote from the Declaration of Independence -

But 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.

That predates the Constitution ....



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Many points are well taken. I for one do not believ that a Constitutional Convention would necessarily be a bad idea or death knell for our republic. Having personally observed what goes on at the polls here in Texas, what we NEED is to establish that voters are truly eligible AND MORE IMPORTANT for more than 10-20% of the voters to turn out for elections. I'll never get over seeing voter registration cards handed out in the parking lot and lots of cars and buses from Illinois and Ohio here at the polls in Texas during early voting.

Seems to me in New Zealand there's some sort of penalty for NOT voting but I defer to our kiwi members for clarification on that one since it's been the turn of the century since I worked there. Regardless, if MORE of the electorate turned out to vote nation wide, all that red on the map would definitely have a much bigger impact.

ganjoa



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
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.


I hope that doesn't mean electing the freshmen reps from the two corrupt parties, you won't see any change.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior
reply to post by Czulkang
 


The constitution was ingeniously designed to protect them.... from you.

The constitution is why TPTB have been so successful in America, an why you have had this problem growing since the start.

The bad thing about democracy are problems like this: when equality become so bad that some people are starving, the masses may decide to divide the elites wealth up to feed the poor - so the elite need a way to protect their power and wealth from the horrors of democracy. The constitution did this beautifully. Good luck trying to get your money back from the fed or bank bailouts or anything, the elite are the ones protected... by the constitution!

It is not your document, it was not written by the people for the people. It was written by them, for them.

It has been a fantastic scam though. That document fooled me for a long time.


edit on 17/6/13 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)


Exactamundo. I've been trying to get people to understand this fact for over a quarter of a century.

The Confederates understood it but since then secession has been a dead letter in the minds of the people. It is the ONLY solution.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Czulkang
 



As a matter of fact there is a clause that states something to the effect if if it isn't working, and seems like special interest has taken over "the people" can do ...something although I cannot remember the article exactly because I remember asking that question in grade school and being satisfied with the answer. Someone might already have mentioned it, I've not looked through all these responses, but I'll try to look it up.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You asked about the Constitution, but I have a quote from the Declaration of Independence -

But 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.

That predates the Constitution ....



Have to be careful though you don't invite a New World Order. (Yes! Just like you can't invite a vampire in or they gain power they would not otherwise have. lol) That word Guard is telling. Be careful what you ask for or you will get guards, guarding you. The forces that control things can easily force peoples hand and then exert total control. This is where I think we are going anyway little by little.They are trying and going to control us completely and even going to make it look like it was our idea!



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Czulkang
 


While searching I found these interesting quotes by Thomas Jefferson.

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.


=The Constitution=

"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the
worthies of our country have secured its independence by the
establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our
nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse."
--Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809.

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several
branches of government by certain laws, which, when they
transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render
unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion,
on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their
acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender
those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. Q.XIII

"It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own powers... without restraint." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance Bill, 1778.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.



Here is a good one from James Madison although I am still searching for the direct portion that assures us the right:

The People's Power in the U. S. Constitution

"All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution." James Madison
edit on 18-6-2013 by Loveaduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Loveaduck
 



"All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That government is instituted and

ought to be

exercised for the benefit of the people;


No promises that it WOULD be, though, are there? And there are no clauses giving the people the ability to make it so. Only THEY can hold their colleagues feet to the fire.

Everything predating the constitution and all of the sales pitches following its publication (federalist papers) to get it approved are not law.

www.anamericanvision.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Isn't there something in the constitution giving the American public the ability to overthrow the government in the event that the government stops serving its purpose? A total reform initiated by the American people.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by babybunnies
Yes. The idea that the people can replace the Government at any time is a cornerstone guiding principle of the US Constitution.


Exactly where is that stated in the constitution?



The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


Well that sounds like just what we were looking for. Thank you, lobbyists.
edit on 18-6-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Don't get too excited. All those little red spots have three people in them not the majority. It would be in your best interest to continue with the gerrymandering of districts and the dumbing down of education.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 


Well, since you note it that way.... I'd hate for folks to think I'm as shallow as a rain puddle on political data and statistics. That would be a horrible thing to project.


Aside from that, in terms of Constitutional change and imagining it would necessarily come in the form we'd individually want to see it or from the mindset we share, whichever 'side' that is, it's really important to see how close that all came and is sitting for the split in the U.S.

National State By State with Battleground %'s - 2012

In most cases, the win was a photo finish and by a figurative or statistical hair. Which means red could have flipped blue as easily as blue could have gone red.

House Race Results, by State - 2012

Now the House (2yrs) serves very short terms compared to the Senate (6yrs). So alternately, every other year sees 50% of the house up for grabs. The map there shows outlines of districts. In heavily populated areas? Oh yeah... Gerrymandering ought to be illegal by how it's done and both parties do it to obscene levels. For every Texas to look at, there is a California as well. The big cities get almost laugh out loud funny for how stupid it is, agreed there. Most though? Encompass good portions of states. All those shown came out of 2012 for status.

In terms of split within states for voting district? It's likewise split and split hard. No better is this seen than PA and Florida.

Pennsylvannia District Results

Florida District Results

Now....To see what a true landslide looks like? We have to go back a bit and that would have been the last time a Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would have been very predictable for outcome.

Ronald Reagan - 1984 Landslide Win

That is a scene I doubt we see again given how divided we've become and how hard the politicians work to keep us that way, every day. Always something new to focus on our differences in a negative light and from both sides.

Oh...and a final thought? This map is over 6 years old but shows at a glance how Population is distributed in this nation. (I LOVE the Northern Plains...and this map shows part of why..but I digress). The interior states are hardly without significant population and no less entitled to political say and influence, whichever way that may flow.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 12:40 PM
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,


Certainly.

If the majority of voters (key word there) in America want to change things, they can.

However, you are assuming that you speak for the majority of voters. While there are some representatives that I would DEARLY love to get rid of (I would like to retire Rick Perry, thank you) there are some that I like and do NOT want to get rid of.

Even if you got rid of everyone, then you have to have all the voters agree on new election policies, how voting can be done, how much money can be spent, how to monitor elections, and then you have to do something VERY anti-free-choice: forbid the people from voting for old politicians that they liked (whether or not you like them.)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
People are fools.

There already was a Constitutional Convention. A group had one probably two years ago and then they sent the results to each state government. Look how grand that is working out.

Because I'm sure if the people go ahead and pretend to change the rules, and then hand it over to government, they are simply going to disregard 200+ years of history for something they weren't even invited to. I'm sure that will work wonders.


EVERYBODY wants change but no one wants to work to change it. Nobody wants to sacrifice in order to attain a better future. The fact is that back in 1775, people actually had the balls to FIGHT for freedom and justice. Today everyone just wants it handed to them. Everyone wants to continue to make believe that voting and peaceful yelling and screaming is going to change anything and they deny the simply truth that NONE OF THAT has worked and it didn't take nearly as long for the Founding Fathers to realize that, for ALL of the Patriots to realize that.

When a system of control and corruption is in place, that system will stop at NOTHING to maintain power.

The Declaration of Independence came before The Constitution and for good reason. It outlined the reasons and processes taken to abolish government that has dropped outside scope of the people. And remember, it didn't become illegal for states to secede from the union until after the Civil War. It wasn't even in the original document.

What we need is a revolution. There is no easy way around it. People either need to fight or stop wasting their time. It is getting quite old.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
To add: every other country on the Earth fights to overthrow their oppressive government, but not the US - we are too lazy and stupid for that.

Instead we will just keep on sitting in the pot as it boils while we wait for the man up stairs to put the lid on and keep us from ever getting out.



It is sad - the country that started it all, that demanded freedom in the face of tyranny, the set a standard that all other nations went on to follow- the United States of America, and we are the only ones too scared to actually stand up to big brother. Why?

Because we have all experienced a little bit of that "American Dream" and now we are stuck in it, stuck in the fantasy dream world that peaceful change is going to come. It isn't. It never does. Look at history. There is no action in inaction.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It is a scary thought, but ALL of the Constitution is not open to debate. The Bill of Rights is not open for any debate or change. The Bill of Rights puts on paper God given rights that our founders knew to be "self evident", but the only way the Anti-Federalists would ratify was if the Bill of Rights were included, because guys like George Mason and Patrick Henry knew that one day an Obama or Bush, or (name your power hungry Progressive) would come along and then the self evident rights would not be very self evident. "We hold these truths to be self evident....that AMONG these..." They were saying that there are other self evident rights besides Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The most important of which are declared in the Bill of Rights, with the 9th amendment pretty much wrapping it up by saying that we have more or other rights than those specifically listed in the Bill of Rights.

Having said all of that, my point is that A Constitutional Convention would only apply to the 11th amendment and up, and the various articles that regulate how the three branches should function and what authority they have. For example, Art 1, Sec 8 could be changed to include health care, or free houses for everyone, or whatever, but the Bill of Rights is off limits because those rights, among many others, exist whether or not they are on paper.
edit on 18-6-2013 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid
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)


I'd actually go so far as to say that many democratic countries, not just America, seem to have neglected their duties. Voting for the lesser of two evils is just not enough. People need to remember that democracy is not a privilege it is a right, and like any right it must be defended on a daily basis. Politicians are voted in by us, and their actions are our responsibility. If they're getting out of line, it is our duty to put them back down.

We have forgotten this in recent years, and every day that goes by we're digging our own hole deeper and deeper.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheNewRevolution
 


Exactly, a revolution is the only way. A revolution of the very machinations that govern societies, including influences from commercial activities and other corrupt means of influencing rule making.

A cohesive strategy for revolution is required first. Commencing with the legalities of making new policies, new rule makers, new processes for democracy, a new model for power structures, a new ideology of financial management and so and so forth, there is a gargantuan range of things that have to be organised and properly documented first for ensuring a smooth revolution instead of rapid chaos, a flow of revolution that completely denies the likes of mafias any influence at all on any of the procedures.

A government for the people would have to be very carefully planned before any inclination of revolution would be feasible. That and the backing of the largest percentage of the population, who would be privy to and in agreement with the proposed policies.


edit on 18-6-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
You do realise that constitutions are NOT holy? Nothing is ever written in stone so to speak. When radical parties come to power they are known to shred the constitution and draft a new one. This has happened in the middle east, in communist nations and facists nations.

I am not saying the USA needs to change its constitution or even make any amendments, especially in the bill of rights. Most if not all have their merit and passed the test of time. All I am saying is I think we should stop going after each others throats, I mean democrat supporters and republicans supporters. I cannot begin to tell you how much contempt I have for the media that ONLY talks about these parties and ignores "the smaller ones". It should be obvious to the careful thinker that it is by design of the ptb.

The problem is NOT liberalism, although liberals are controlled to a large extent by the same globalist machine that controls republicans. Why is everyone content by simply bashing Obama and ignoring the deeper issues is my main issue with all this? They are also ignoring alex jones, jessie ventura and countless other truthers who are not polarised conservatives.

Is this a mainstream republican plot to overthrow Obama by flooding the airwaves with as much scandal talk as possible so as to either a)force an impeachment that is not deserved or b)cause a landslide republican victory and have someone like john mcain win president???????

Whats the deal? Why so much desperation???



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join