Revolution!!!

[Vast LWC]

My understanding of a Constitutional Convention is for the purpose of amending the Constitution.

My understanding of the Founders' rationale for the need to replace a government is because it would refuse to follow or defend the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

Amend the constitution to place barriers between corporate entities and politicians, and you're halfway there.

No revolution needed.

 

[Big Black Dog]

We have too many "career" politicians in Congress that become political powers in their own right. I'm all for term limits. Two terms and you're out of there. Why not term limits for Congress critters? We have term limits for our President. Also the perks Congress critters receive is way over the top. There should be no pension for life just because you got elected to Congress. They should be required to be included in every law that they pass for the rest of the country. In their own right, they have made themselves the "Lord and Masters" of our country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why we have elections to meet those grounds, Foxfyre.

I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?

Certainly not any of the trivial disagreements that partisans have been basing their political campaigns on recently...

There would have to be some pretty damn serious grounds for an actual uprising, and I can't see anything that's going on right now that would warrant it.

I think the quoted section from the Declaration of Independence would have to be the basis. Or a President overstepping his Constitutional authority indestructive ways and a Congress allowing him to do it. Or a Congress passing oppressive taxes and running up the national debt into the stratosphere putting the entire nation at risk. . ..

I can see all manner of less than violent reasons to need to oust existing leaders and install new ones with a new mission.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The military mind abhors treason, and convincing the leadership that a coup should occur would be almost impossible.

I've always wanted to an answer to this question. Do you think a revolutionary could successfully dismiss charges of terrorism and/or murder upon referring to the clause contained in what you've quoted in a court of law?

Also, do you think that the U.S. military would sympathise, Constitutionally speaking, with revolutionaries they'd been tasked with confronting, and disobey their orders accordingly?

To your first question no. I can say it with impunity (though I would probably go on the government watch list), but should I act on it, I would be committing treason under our existing laws and subject to very severe penalities.

As to the second question, I don't know how the military would act if they were convinced an unconstitutional government was overthrown by the people--I rather think they would side with the people. But. . . .the operative word is 'convinced' and that might be a tall order to accomplish.

I'm sure the majority of our military would side with the people....there are too many of them right now that are very angry with our govt. My son (in the Army) and i have discussed this.........

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Also, do you think that the U.S. military would sympathise, Constitutionally speaking, with revolutionaries they'd been tasked with confronting, and disobey their orders accordingly?

That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea. The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been hired by the government. For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.

I'm not suggesting that conscripts could not be deployed against rebellious citizens. But conscripts would be far more inclined to question the reason for such deployment than would our mercenary troopers, most of whom are more circumstantially analogous to police than conscripted soldiers are. And without an extremely good reason it would be close to impossible to turn citizen soldiers against their fellow citizens.

 

[Vast LWC]

That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea. The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been hired by the government. For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.

I'm not suggesting that conscripts could not be deployed against rebellious citizens. But conscripts would be far more inclined to question the reason for such deployment than would our mercenary troopers, most of whom who are more circumstantially analogous to police than conscripted soldiers are. And without an extremely good reason it would be close to impossible to turn citizen soldiers against their fellow citizens.

I'm sorry, I know this is the clean zone, but MY GOD I find that offensive.

Are you really suggesting that the military is made up of mercenaries that have no sense of patriotism, and are only motivated to join the military for the money?

Wow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As a citizen enlistee who transitioned through the beginning of the voluntary armed forces, I don't think anyone is trying to be offensive. I don't think so, at least.

The conscript was tied to his home community, and tens of thousands of home communities were tied to the military because of the draft of millions of conscriptees. Seventeen thousand Americans died in 1968, which along with Tet shook the core of America as the coffins came home to seventeen thousand families and thousands of communities.

The triumphs and losses of a conscript army affect the national conscience and awareness far more than a voluntary army.

That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea. The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been hired by the government. For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.

I'm not suggesting that conscripts could not be deployed against rebellious citizens. But conscripts would be far more inclined to question the reason for such deployment than would our mercenary troopers, most of whom who are more circumstantially analogous to police than conscripted soldiers are. And without an extremely good reason it would be close to impossible to turn citizen soldiers against their fellow citizens.

I'm sorry, I know this is the clean zone, but MY GOD I find that offensive.

Are you really suggesting that the military is made up of mercenaries that have no sense of patriotism, and are only motivated to join the military for the money?

Wow.

 

[Vidi]

That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea. The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been hired by the government. For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.

I'm not suggesting that conscripts could not be deployed against rebellious citizens. But conscripts would be far more inclined to question the reason for such deployment than would our mercenary troopers, most of whom who are more circumstantially analogous to police than conscripted soldiers are. And without an extremely good reason it would be close to impossible to turn citizen soldiers against their fellow citizens.

I'm sorry, I know this is the clean zone, but MY GOD I find that offensive.

Are you really suggesting that the military is made up of mercenaries that have no sense of patriotism, and are only motivated to join the military for the money?

Wow.

No offense man but I think you're reading his post with your dukes up ready to fight. ( perfectly understandable as the clean zone is still new to us )

I didn't get the same message that you got at all.

I see his statement as one of A conscript is more likely to disobey because they didn't choose to be in the device in the first place.

 

[hortysir]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsxBSXWqH4c]Revolution - The Beatles - YouTube[/ame]

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form

**** looking for the "Reset" button" ****

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From time to time in these political conversations, we have one or more members who think we are so completely screwed in this country, the only way out is to scrap the government we have, dust off the Constitution, and start over as it was in the beginning.

One fails to see why, the Constitution needs no ‘dusting off,’ it’s functioning now as it has since the beginning of the Republic, just as the Framers intended.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…"

In essence this was codified by the 14th Amendment, where the Bill of Rights is applied to the states and local jurisdictions via incorporation doctrine. Because one’s rights are indeed inalienable, they can be violated by no man or government, nor by the majority of the people through referenda.

The notion of ‘let the states decide,’ therefore, is clearly anathema to the principle of inalienable rights.

"That to secure these rights, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . ."

The above might be an appropriate response if one were subject to autocratic rule or to the tyranny of the majority, which may have been the case prior to the Foundation Era.

But that’s not the case today. Today the people are subject only to the rule of law, the government is limited by the Constitution and its case law, and the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek remedy of government excess.

Government can’t be ‘fixed’ by some grandiose top town scheme, the solution lies with the people working at the very local level.

 

[Samson]

REVOLUTION!!!! ​

(Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)

But for speculation and discussion only:

From time to time in these political conversations, we have one or more members who think we are so completely screwed in this country, the only way out is to scrap the government we have, dust off the Constitution, and start over as it was in the beginning. (Hmmm, that sounds almost Biblical doesn't it?)

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as noting the possibility that such would be necessary from time to time, and the concept is also included in the opening remarks of The Declaration of Independence.:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . ."​

What do you think. Deep down where you keep your most heartfelt convictions, fears, and longings, do you harbor such thoughts?

The right of the people to alter or abolish One Govenment, and replace it with ANOTHER government could easily be interpreted as simply voting differently: It doesn't necessarily mean revolution = tyranical blood running through the streets.

However, Jefferson was a something of a Francophile: he might have very well meant a "Reign of Terror," 1793-'94, perpetrated by the "Hope and Change" advocate of the day, Maximilien Robespierre.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea. The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been hired by the government. For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.

I'm not suggesting that conscripts could not be deployed against rebellious citizens. But conscripts would be far more inclined to question the reason for such deployment than would our mercenary troopers, most of whom who are more circumstantially analogous to police than conscripted soldiers are. And without an extremely good reason it would be close to impossible to turn citizen soldiers against their fellow citizens.

I'm sorry, I know this is the clean zone, but MY GOD I find that offensive.

Are you really suggesting that the military is made up of mercenaries that have no sense of patriotism, and are only motivated to join the military for the money?

Wow.

I didn't get that from his post. However, if you were a dictator laying the foundation for a takeover of the government, and could handpick who would head the Dept of Defense, who would choose the high ranking officers who in turn could hand pick who is accepted into the Armed Forces. . . . .I'm sure you see where I am going with this.

Every would be dictator makes sure he has a majority of the military with him before he makes his move.

The only flaw in Mike's analysis is that the same would be dubious forces could also control who was drafted into the army, so I think that particular issue is not a factor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson apparently had no problem with the governors of VA and PA mobilizing the militia in early 1801 if the Federalists and Burr continued obstructing his elevation to the presidency. However, he also recognized the constitutional, electoral process.

Too bad that the Southern states did not, in 1860 and 1861.

REVOLUTION!!!! ​

(Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)

But for speculation and discussion only:

From time to time in these political conversations, we have one or more members who think we are so completely screwed in this country, the only way out is to scrap the government we have, dust off the Constitution, and start over as it was in the beginning. (Hmmm, that sounds almost Biblical doesn't it?)

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as noting the possibility that such would be necessary from time to time, and the concept is also included in the opening remarks of The Declaration of Independence.:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . ."​

What do you think. Deep down where you keep your most heartfelt convictions, fears, and longings, do you harbor such thoughts?

The right of the people to alter or abolish One Govenment, and replace it with ANOTHER government could easily be interpreted as simply voting differently: It doesn't necessarily mean revolution = tyranical blood running through the streets.

However, Jefferson was a something of a Francophile: he might have very well meant a "Reign of Terror," 1793-'94, perpetrated by the "Hope and Change" advocate of the day, Maximilien Robespierre.

 

[IGetItAlready]

We're certainly doing everything possible to turn our backs on the things that have made this nation the envy of the world for over a century. That's not going to change by itself.
If there is NOT another American revolution we will soon cease to be "America" as defined by 236 years of unparallelled history.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?

Certainly not any of the trivial disagreements that partisans have been basing their political campaigns on recently...

There would have to be some pretty damn serious grounds for an actual uprising, and I can't see anything that's going on right now that would warrant it.

You can start to look at the instances where the Bill of Rights and the Constitution have been circumvented, and first on that list would be the creation of the Fed Reserve private central banking system that has put the US people in perpetual debt that can never be repaid and is a huge reason for the global financial "crisis".

The American government has swung towards a more Fascist system in which profits are privatized, and debt is socialized.
There are many reasons for wanting to reverse the course we're on, and it's not so much
of a revolution with a complete overhaul and new government that is needed, as it is adhering to the original ideas the framers of the Constitution had in mind, and reinstalling a legitimate, honest and fair government that empowers the majority of people,and not just the elite minority, who through our elected (selected) leaders are dictating and controlling our lives against our will, and to our detriment.
But it seems people of good moral standing and integrity are very rare as evidenced by all the back door shenanigans and corruption. Notice how they always manage to sneak in
those riders that end up being put in our laws, usually at the request of lobbyists that benefit campaign donors It's all about money and greed payoffs.
Our money to satisfy their greed.
Doesn't matter what side of the isle their on, that's a false paradigm, and trick used on us to keep us bickering over the small stuff.
Politicians have a license to steal that enriches them and their benefactors which should be obviously clear by now, doesn't include the American people.

Psychological testing of proposed leaders would be nice, as the tyrannical psychopaths hell bent on war for profit need to be removed, and the revolving door of propaganda, lies, disinformation and the money that is used to keep it oiled and spinning has to be dismantled.
Good thread by the OP, but the paranoia of being put on the no fly list or of being monitored is proof enough that this government has instilled a climate of fear and forced complacency, where it should be the other way around.
Educating ourselves and not believing every single thing that comes from their lying mouths, and repeated ad nauseum by segments of the controlled media as factual, is a good place to start. How much longer will we continue to be gullible?
Do we need a revolution? Yes a peaceful one is preferred and can be achieved, but the PTB won't let the sheep protest and crash the pen and flee the farm without a roundup under the guise of "anti-terrorism" or "national emergency", and are readying themselves for just this scenario.
United we stand, divided we all fall never had more relevance or urgency.

BTW I answered under "no, but we need a good overhaul" however this wont be allowed and thus any advancement towards any overhaul will be met with resistance, and consequently lead to a peaceful protest/ revolution and where it goes from there is dependent on how unified the people are. Why do you think they keep us arguing and divided??

 

[Katzndogz]

Conservatives and liberals are now so far apart that there is no point on which compromise can be reached. The left consistently toys with their idea of the great revolution. They believe they are in the majority and that once started, the majority will rise up and create the great utopia. At some point they will have to move beyond the rhetoric and do something. Otherwise they will lose all credibility. They tried with the OWS protests, they will try again. This is something that can't be stopped.

 

[Katzndogz]

Politicians don't keep us arguing and divided. Politicians merely reflect the argument and division in the population.

If there were no politicians would the people reach consensus on redistribution of wealth, same sex marriage, gun control? Would the business class reach agreement with the parasite class on how much the parasits would be allowed to confiscate?

 

[dblack]

My understanding of a Constitutional Convention is for the purpose of amending the Constitution.

My understanding of the Founders' rationale for the need to replace a government is because it would refuse to follow or defend the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

Amend the constitution to place barriers between corporate entities and politicians, and you're halfway there.

No revolution needed.

This is along the lines of what I'd like to see. We need something like the separation of church and state keeping government and economic power from being concentrated in the same hands. But I don't see a lot of support for the concept in the general public.

 

[dblack]

Politicians don't keep us arguing and divided. Politicians merely reflect the argument and division in the population.

This is hilariously wrong. Politicians give lip-service to real ideological divides among voters, but when elected they serve the same agenda - regardless of their rhetoric or political affiliation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Politicians don't keep us arguing and divided. Politicians merely reflect the argument and division in the population.

This is hilariously wrong. Politicians give lip-service to real ideological divides among voters, but when elected they serve the same agenda - regardless of their rhetoric or political affiliation.

Yes and that agenda is to keep themselves in office where they focus on what increases their personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Which ties into my companion thread: A New Emancipation Proclamation that compliments this one. And they have corrupted the Constitution with the idea that they can do ANYTHING if the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit it.

Only by removing our elected leaders' ability to use their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and personal wealth can we hope to ever again elect public servants to high office who will revert to the intent of a government restricted to those things the Constituion explicity allows/mandates it to do.