Revolution!!!

[FA_Q2]

No. Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances. Why? Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad. The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk. I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down. I don’t believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though. We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen. The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there. The sooner we address our loss of liberty, the simpler it will be to get on track.

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?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am sure of it. As the other poster pointed out, conscripts might be even more likely but even the regular army would largely refuse to fight against their own people. We are Americans and those would be our friends and neighbors that we would be asked to fight. I am one of those that would simply walk away should the government ever ask me to fight the American people themselves.

See the oathkeepers a good example. Many of their members are active military personnel.
Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

 

[MikeK]

Yes, as a matter of fact I am sure of it. As the other poster pointed out, conscripts might be even more likely but even the regular army would largely refuse to fight against their own people. We are Americans and those would be our friends and neighbors that we would be asked to fight. I am one of those that would simply walk away should the government ever ask me to fight the American people themselves.

Whenever I contemplate this issue I'm reminded of the infamous Bonus Army rout which you might be aware of. But for the benefit of those who aren't, about 20,000 veterans of WW-I who had been impoverished and made homeless by the Depression had formed a massive protest in which they marched en masse on Washington to demand that President Hoover authorize payment of all or some part of the enlistment bonus which had been promised to them and never paid. These veterans gathered and established an encampment just outside Washington DC which came to be called "Hooverville" and consisted of many tents and fabricated shacks.

President Hoover sent police to remove that encampment. When the vets resisted several of them were shot and killed but they refused to leave. Hoover then ordered the Army to remove them.

Commanding units of the U.S. Army Infantry, a Cavalry unit and some tanks, General Douglas MacArthur (the same) attacked and routed the encampment of veterans, many of whom he once commanded in battle, killing several of the veterans and wounding others, including their wives and children. He drove the veterans away and burned their tents, shacks and meager personal belongings.

Details of this incident are available via Google.

See the oathkeepers a good example. Many of their members are active military personnel.
Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

I'd heard of Oath Keepers but I knew nothing about them until I visited that website (thanks). It seems to be an important organization.

 

[onecut39]

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.

Just a couple of considerations.

The Declaration is simply a political paper with no authority in law.

The Declaration was written in 1776 and was more of a listing of the reasons for going to war rather than a statement of government.

Our Constitution would not appear for another 11 years. It is my opinion that the ability to "alter or abolish" government was part and parcel of the constitution in that the alteration or changes could come via the ballot box.

I don't think the constitution authorizes revolution.

Most of those now who speak so patriotically about revolution simply dislike being outvoted.

 

[saveliberty]

As a government becomes more corrupt citizens feel less inclined to follow the rules and obligations. It will simply fall under its own weight.

 

[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.

Just a couple of considerations.

The Declaration is simply a political paper with no authority in law.

The Declaration was written in 1776 and was more of a listing of the reasons for going to war rather than a statement of government.

Our Constitution would not appear for another 11 years. It is my opinion that the ability to "alter or abolish" government was part and parcel of the constitution in that the alteration or changes could come via the ballot box.

I don't think the constitution authorizes revolution.

Most of those now who speak so patriotically about revolution simply dislike being outvoted.

You are correct that the Declaration carried force of law only in the sense that it was the mutual agreement by which the American colonies took up arms to wrest their independence from England. And I'm quite sure that all those good people who conducted all the debate and conversations and speeches and correspondence during all the years that the content and character of the Constitution were hammered out each had a framed copy of the Declaration on their desk to remind them of what they intended to achieve.

But no, the Constitution does not provide for revolution. It does provide for amendment, however, and theoretically successful amendments could abolish the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term of office by a two thirds vote of those expelling the member. And we in the states can also hold elections to recall those we send to Washington. A President or Supreme Court justice can be impeached.

All this could be a means of accomplishing a bloodless revolution and replacement of the existing one with public servants rather than career politicians. We could complete the process with yet another amendment along the lines of the New Emancipation Proclamation--see separate thread in the CDZ--to ensure that the new government did not fall into the same self-serving destructive patterns as the old.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government grows more corrupt if the citizenry grows more corrupt in our nation.

As a government becomes more corrupt citizens feel less inclined to follow the rules and obligations. It will simply fall under its own weight.

 

[saveliberty]

The government grows more corrupt if the citizenry grows more corrupt in our nation.

As a government becomes more corrupt citizens feel less inclined to follow the rules and obligations. It will simply fall under its own weight.

That will happen when a government encourages bad behavior.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Water the tree, baby.

That's all I got to say about that.

I concur

 

[JakeStarkey]

Citizens in our country get the government they earn and deserve.

If citizens are civically virtuous, they will have good government.

If the government tries to be bad, civically virtuous citizens will vote it out.

But it the citizens are corrupt, the government will be corrupt.

I believe that the far left and the far right political extremes are corrupt in this nation.

Romney, hopefully, will bring power back to right of center to left of center.

The government grows more corrupt if the citizenry grows more corrupt in our nation.

As a government becomes more corrupt citizens feel less inclined to follow the rules and obligations. It will simply fall under its own weight.

That will happen when a government encourages bad behavior.

 

[William Joyce]

I believe that the far left and the far right political extremes are corrupt in this nation.

Romney, hopefully, will bring power back to right of center to left of center.

Nah. The "far left" and the "far right" are the closest we have to anything with integrity and principle. The rest is just part of the rotting machine. I mean really, the "far left" and the "far right" have no POWER, so how can they be CORRUPT? To be corrupt, you need to actually have your hands on the levers of power -- nobody greases your palms otherwise. Romney is as much of a tool as Obama, Bush, etc. These guys don't know what's going on. That's why they're allowed to rise so high.

Revolution is indeed an exciting topic. I suspect the fall of the U.S.A. will happen in my lifetime or shortly after (I'm 40). It will probably end with more of a whimper than a bang: sudden violent revolutions happen in places with more compactness; we're a vast nation with tons of different places, languages, races, etc.

Who knows what the trigger events will be. Read "The Collapse of Complex Societies", it's got some interesting material on this topic.

 

[Peach]

We are fortunate enough to live in the greatest nation earth; yet, daily, I read more and more hard core complainers. Edited Forget "proud to be an American", try "THANK GOD I WAS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY".

 

[Foxfyre]

A gentle reminder to folks just now coming into the thread that this thread is in the CDZ.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe that the far left and the far right political extremes are corrupt in this nation.

Romney, hopefully, will bring power back to right of center to left of center.

Nah. The "far left" and the "far right" are the closest we have to anything with integrity and principle. The rest is just part of the rotting machine. I mean really, the "far left" and the "far right" have no POWER, so how can they be CORRUPT? To be corrupt, you need to actually have your hands on the levers of power -- nobody greases your palms otherwise. Romney is as much of a tool as Obama, Bush, etc. These guys don't know what's going on. That's why they're allowed to rise so high.

Revolution is indeed an exciting topic. I suspect the fall of the U.S.A. will happen in my lifetime or shortly after (I'm 40). It will probably end with more of a whimper than a bang: sudden violent revolutions happen in places with more compactness; we're a vast nation with tons of different places, languages, races, etc.

Who knows what the trigger events will be. Read "The Collapse of Complex Societies", it's got some interesting material on this topic.

The United States began and has continued to be unique among nations, however, because of its exceptionalism. We are the only people on Earth who started out with unalienable rights and devised a government to protect them. In every other nation, the government assigns the rights the people will have.

Now admittedly we have too many people (and elected leaders) who have never been taught that concept or who are now depending on the entitlement nanny state mentality to keep it deeply buried. For if we should have a resurgence of understanding and commitment to restoring that concept, we immediately solve most of the problems we have in this county.

And in my opinion, that would be the purpose of a revolution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A gentle reminder to folks just now coming into the thread that this thread is in the CDZ.

That's why I hate this board there should be some type of notice before you post.,

 

[Foxfyre]

A gentle reminder to folks just now coming into the thread that this thread is in the CDZ.

That's why I hate this board there should be some type of notice before you post.,

Yeah, I was tripped up once too, but it taught me to check the forum before I enter a new thread.

 

[P@triot]

Since the liberals in government (including the judicial branch - such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) fundamentally reject the United States Constitution, I'm not sure I see a way to "fix" the problem through the proper channels. If even the judicial branch is corrupted by Communism/Marxism/Socialism, the checks and balances cease to exist (as seen by the Supreme Court upholding the glaringly unconstitutional Obamacare).

If all representatives of all branches actually upheld the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold and protect, then the cancer known as liberals/progressives wouldn't be an issue. But since they blatantly violate the law and disregard the legal document that protects us, I really don't see a way of fixing the problem short of force. If they won't adhere to the ultimate law of the land out of integrity and oath, then we pretty much have to do it by force.

As Thomas Jefferson also said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots (conservatives) and tyrants (liberals)".

I think it's a damn shame, but I suspect it is true...

 

[Foxfyre]

Since the liberals in government (including the judicial branch - such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) fundamentally reject the United States Constitution, I'm not sure I see a way to "fix" the problem through the proper channels. If even the judicial branch is corrupted by Communism/Marxism/Socialism, the checks and balances cease to exist (as seen by the Supreme Court upholding the glaringly unconstitutional Obamacare).

If all representatives of all branches actually upheld the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold and protect, then the cancer known as liberals/progressives wouldn't be an issue. But since they blatantly violate the law and disregard the legal document that protects us, I really don't see a way of fixing the problem short of force. If they won't adhere to the ultimate law of the land out of integrity and oath, then we pretty much have to do it by force.

As Thomas Jefferson also said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots (conservatives) and tyrants (liberals)".

I think it's a damn shame, but I suspect it is true...

I've given my two cents in "The New Emancipation Proclamation" thread (also in the CDZ) with a resolution as the first step in restoring original intent of the Constitution.

This would allow us to restore the government to public servants instead of career politician and bureaucrats whose No. 1 focus is on feathering their own nests.

The second thing that needs to happen is to restore the Founders intent that the President, Congress, and bureaucrats were limited to only what the Constitution specifically allows or instructs them to do.

The figures you mentioned and most of our elecgted leaders these days take the position that they can do any damn thing these please if the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid it.

That turns the normal checks and balances the Founders intended on their head.

 

[Intense]

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.

There's already a mechanism in place for that. A Constitutional Convention.

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.

Constitutional Amendment Process is for Amending the Constitution. Constitutional Convention, everything is on the table. I don't support a Constitutional Convention. Think Mark Levin. Conservatism is built on staying with what works, Tailoring to need and circumstance, building on existing Foundation, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Change for the sake of change is disguised Tyranny, change that better establishes and Maintains the cause of Justice, is by established purpose. Different animals.

 

[Intense]

The government is destructive because it's corrupt. Politicians are owned by corporations and special interests.

We have let that happen. Now we reap the consequences. It doesn't make one iota of difference which administration is in the White House.

You might be overlooking who owns or controls the Corporations.

 

[Intense]

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.

Squash the Power to Monopolize and open up competition.