Posted on 04/29/2012 9:55:16 AM PDT by OwenKellogg
With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers effectively signed their own death warrant.
The Declaration said in part "[t]hat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [re: unalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ... 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 security."
Many Americans complain about the idiotic regulations and rules passed by our government. I question, though, whether we, as Americans, are willing to put our creature comforts on hold for our principles.
... Make your economic voice heard. Reduce your income, cut back spending, and fund your taxes only when due. Do these three things in unison, and we will win. Vote with your wallet!
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Civil Disobedience, that is the disregard of Federal Regulation, is the function of the States. Texas and Arizona to name two, are showing the way
Eric holder will be arrested if he should show up in Maricopa County.
I’m going to vote against Obama and peraude others to do the same. The Politically Correct Left regards that not only as disobedience, but as racism.
The only problem with that phrase about, “change it or abolish it and institute a new gov’t” is that anytime anyone tries to start a movement like that the fedthugs come down on them and destroy them in one way or another for other unrelated charges - usually firearms-related charges.
They can’t charge people with “trying to overthrow the gov’t” because doing so would usurp the document so that the gov’t goes after them with trumped-up charges.
Can you say, “Ruby Ridge”?
It’s only civil disobedience if it’s done by Conservatives and the Tea Party. OWS can do what they want and be protected under the same law(s) that prohibit Conservatives, et al.
Then don't use them. They actually aren't needed.
What would happen if one million people calmly walked into Washington DC, sat down in the streets, and simply didn't leave?
And who would speak for the 1 million people sitting in the road in DC? Who would define what they want - the Marxists, the global fascists, or the American-American constitutionalists?
We need two countries -one free and independent and one Marxist/fascist/globalist. You can not combine the choices without killing constitutional freedom. The marxists and globalists have decided they are not bound by nor loyal to the constitutional Republic anymore.
That's the quandry. Would it be a million rock-ribbed Conservatives or a million fuzzy-headed Marxists?
The point is still, you don't need weapons to carry out a revolution. You just need bodies.
Me, personally - I would have no problems if the next Glenn Beck rally in DC just did not go home. It would certainly send a message would it not?
>>Can you say, “Ruby Ridge”?
Tim McVeigh probably could. But he was stupid and fed the tyrannical nature inherent in the bureaucracy instead of starving it.
Should’ve found a way to make salt like Gandhi did — where that nature was reduced in the face of its own self-evident tyranny.
In the end, India won her freedom because the British wanted to perceive themselves as moral and just.
Do America’s leaders still want to perceive themselves as moral and just?
Just how big of a Ruby Ridge do they need?
The Communists have taken over America.
They are telling the Feds to go after people who ridicule their takeover and control for the conversion of America to socialism.
Seems rather simple to me, Communism is the enemy, those that form an alliance with Communism has the same shade of paint on them.
Me, personally - I would have no problems if the next Glenn Beck rally in DC just did not go home. It would certainly send a message would it not?
The point is, the elitists will orchestrate the message and response in service to themselves in answer to a large protest. As long as they are in power, this is what will happen.
when the ‘form of government’ includes the majority of people on the take one way or another there will be no remedy in sight, just everyone, including the government, looking out for themselves. One of the strategies of our corrupt government is to make the citizen feel like somehow through benefits, pay, or government program they are getting their share of the spoils. Just satisfied enough to let the game go on. Makes me want to puke what has happened in this country.
Henry David Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” and basically said that everyone has a duty to disobey government regulations even if it is nothing more than jay-walking when the sign says not to.
Kind of like putting sand in the gears..
>>It would certainly send a message would it not?
And when porta-potties are full the “leadership” will snicker at the HDTV spectacle from the comfort of their living rooms, miles and miles away in their home states.
IOW, the logistics of such a siege are problematic and would render a Pyrrhic victory.
Besides, the problem is as much with WE the people, as it is with the swine in the farmhouse.
Observe what WE choose to consume, whilst being mesmerized by American Idol and Dancing with the Starz — in between commercials for Viagra and Sleeping pills.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
Revolution? Observe the Rat and RINO howls already rendered because a small number of Tea folks have been able occupy a seat and say “NO!”.
That’s the revolution FRiends - Seat by Seat.
Charlie Mike.
bttt
That is why I speak in the hypothetical and leave it there without advocating for it.
The point is, the elitists will orchestrate the message and response in service to themselves in answer to a large protest.
That is true as well -- generally speaking.
But it still possible to do quite a bit without resorting to violence in any fashion whatsoever and isn't that the whole point to Civil Disobedience?
Indeed, they are getting closer to what's really needed--an overt declaration that certain aspects of the federal government are fundamentally illegitimate, and nobody is bound to abide by them. Something similar may be happening at the county level in Illinois, where the voters of Pike County have, by an overwhelming super-majority (80% if I recall), effectively declared that the Illinois statutes which would charge someone who carries a loaded weapon on a public right of way with "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon" are illegitimate, at least as applied to such conduct. It will be interesting to see how that plays out; if state police tried to charge someone with AUUW within Pike County, the defendant would be entitled to a jury of Pike County residents. Conviction would seem difficult under such circumstances.
Shifting to the federal stage, I think there needs to be a shift in dialog toward recognizing that the Constitution doesn't merely give the Court permission to strike down certain statutes. Rather, any statute which is contrary to the Constitution is, by definition, illegitimate. Further, the Court has no authority to declare otherwise. Any Court decision which would seek to uphold an illegitimate decision would itself be illegitimate.
On a related note, there needs to be a shift in how precedent is regarded. Since there is no Constitutional basis for court precedents to have any authority, legitimate precedents can only be legitimately and meaningfully applied to questions of legitimacy when in cases where all other laws would, in totality, be truly ambiguous. Otherwise, any precedent will either be redundant (if it agrees with what the other laws say), irrelevant (if the laws have changed since it was written), or illegitimate (if it disagrees with what the other laws say). In none of those scenarios would it be even slightly relevant. The only time precedent should be considered, absent bonafide ambiguity, is in determining remedies. For example, if the Court were to illegitimately strike down a perfectly legitimate statute, and then a later case were to come before it concerning that same statute, the Court could rule that the statute was in fact legitimate, and always had been, but nonetheless rule that because of its previous ruling, the government would be forever enjoined against prosecuting violations of the statute which occurred between the issuance of the two decisions. Such action would not recognize that the earlier ruling had ever really been "legitimate", but nonetheless recognize that the government may not legitimately punish people who regard its rulings as granting legitimate license.
Incidentally, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment explicitly codifying a somewhat expanded version of the last notion into law, but with a caveat:
Going partly Galt.
It has happened. Google up The Bonus Army sometime. It wasn't a million, but it was a hell of a lot of people.
This is very true. What can be done? No offense intended, but we have a great many that cannot be converted to thinking that they have to earn what they have.
Quite literally, I see a lot of "Free money? Where?" going on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.