I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[Uncensored2008]

You insane people really crack me up.

Of course. Support of the Bill of Rights is "insane" according to the Khmer Rouge democrats.

No doubt those who "cling to guns, god, and the Constitution" will find themselves in party work camps to rehabilitate such "insane thoughts." We have seen this from your side before.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/30/1/136.full.pdf

 

[Avatar4321]

I plan to govern myself

That IS what the nation was built around. Those such as Skylar desire a nation ruled by absolute authoritarians, but we were established upon a Constitution that looked to self-rule as the basis for good government.

The Stalinists in this thread can't grasp such things.

We need to promote self government. If we restore that our constitution will take care of itself

 

[kaz]

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Good. Now get the fuck out of my country.

What makes you think Kaz was in North Korea to begin with?

Syndi's usual fair. I want it, it's mine. Give it to me or go away. She's a peach

 

[Faun]

They are not absolute authoritarians.

You can't even comprehend the implication of how holding elections every two years makes you sound retarded .

Elections where candidates are anointed and "fixing occurs?"

Leaked Emails Suggest DNC Was Conspiring Against Bernie Sanders

Elections that are not honest have little meaning.

The people voted, not the DNC. The people chose Hillary. You may not have noticed, but the RNC was against Crazy Donald. Again, the people spoke. They chose Crazy Donald.

 

[kaz]

I plan to govern myself

That IS what the nation was built around. Those such as Skylar desire a nation ruled by absolute authoritarians, but we were established upon a Constitution that looked to self-rule as the basis for good government.

The Stalinists in this thread can't grasp such things.

We need to promote self government. If we restore that our constitution will take care of itself

Yes, we should start by taking care of ourselves and government should only get involved when one citizen infringes on the rights of other citizens to make their own choices. Right now, usually it's government infringing on our rights, which is exactly why I withdraw my consent to be governed. Government has become the criminal

 

[Faun]

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Good. Now get the fuck out of my country.

What makes you think Kaz was in North Korea to begin with?

Syndi's usual fair. I want it, it's mine. Give it to me or go away. She's a peach

It's quite revealing of you how you imagine so many men posting here as female.

 

[Faun]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

Sorry to inform you, but withdrawing your consent is not actually an option of yours. It's the will of the majority of those whom choose to vote. You're only options are suicide or fleeing the country. That choice I'd yours.

Wrong, douche bag. Majority vote does not constitute consent of the minority.

Of course it does. We are a nation of laws, instituted, preserved, and enforced by the government WE elect. And we elect them by majority rule. By majority popular vote in the Congress and majority electoral vote for the president.

They fact that you don't like that couldn't be more meaningless -- majority rules.

This nation's government is run just as Thomas Jefferson suggested in the Declaration of Independence ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That consent comes strictly from the majority who successfully elect the people to represent us in the government.

If you don't like it -- tough shit. Like I said, there's two ways out -- death or leave. The choice is yours.

None of what you said disproves what I said. All you done is repeat, majority rule is consent over and over in one form or another. The majority does not consent for the minority. In fact, we are seldom asked to vote on individual issues. We merely get a choice between which of two scumbags to send to Washington. Then they claim they have a "mandate" to do whatever they planned to do. Of course, they have no such thing.

Says you. Not the Compact or the laws of this country. The Compact is still in effect. You disagree. And it doesn't matter if you do. As the law isn't subject to your whim or personal opinion.

Worse, you avoid the obvious pitfalls of your absurd application of 'consent'. If a rapist was caught in the act of raping a woman, per your own reasoning he could declare that he 'no longer consents to be governed' and be exempt from any law.

Historically, legally, constitutionally and practically......your proposal is simply nonsense. Which is why its never been the system of laws in our country.

You're an anarchist. We the People aren't.

How can an illegitimate contract still be "in effect." It was never consented to in the first place, and the government has violated the terms at every opportunity. It definitely lost any shred of credibility in 1861.

As always, you're understanding of consent is wrong and moronic. Whether the rapist consents to anything is irrelevant.

The government violates the terms....according to who? Your follow up argument is based on the same fallacy as the argument you're trying to buttress: that you and you alone have the authority to interpret the constitution, its applicability, or its authority.

Um, nope. You don't. That's a power held The People and delegated to their representatives.

You're neither The People. Nor their representatives. Rendering your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the application of any law or the outcome of any case.

"I" said "I" withdraw "my" consent to be governed. As a collectivist, you don't understand what that means, do you?

Yeah, that means you're delusional.

And by 'fast and loose', you mean accurately and in context?

And Madison is certainly a better source than you are on the meaning of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Our arguments frequently reach this point. Where you cite yourself. And I cite an infinitely more knowledgeable and authoritative source. And you get increasingly frustrated as I listen to the knowledgeable source rather than whatever you make up.

Unless you've got a better source than Madison, you're done.

Madison has no more authority to interpret the Constitution then me or you or Kaz.

Skylar is high, the idea that Madison thought that future generations of American should shut the fuck up is ... well .. Skylar ...

When did I ever say you should 'shut the fuck up'? You're more than welcome to babble in any manner you wish. Just don't expect it to amount to much, rationally or legally.

As you v. Madison on the meaning of the constition has the same winner every time: not you.

And your unilateral declaration that you 'do not consent to be government' is legally meaningless nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to your relationship with the law, the courts, the goverment or the People.

Sorry, Kaz......but you're still subject to the law.

Actually, it was kaz who said, shut the fuck up...

So Madison thought that if a resident of your State consented 200 years ago or more than you consented and you should STFU.

STFU, girlfriend, you're full of shit

Says you. Not the Compact or the laws of this country. The Compact is still in effect. You disagree. And it doesn't matter if you do. As the law isn't subject to your whim or personal opinion.

Worse, you avoid the obvious pitfalls of your absurd application of 'consent'. If a rapist was caught in the act of raping a woman, per your own reasoning he could declare that he 'no longer consents to be governed' and be exempt from any law.

Historically, legally, constitutionally and practically......your proposal is simply nonsense. Which is why its never been the system of laws in our country.

You're an anarchist. We the People aren't.

How can an illegitimate contract still be "in effect." It was never consented to in the first place, and the government has violated the terms at every opportunity. It definitely lost any shred of credibility in 1861.

As always, you're understanding of consent is wrong and moronic. Whether the rapist consents to anything is irrelevant.

The government violates the terms....according to who? Your follow up argument is based on the same fallacy as the argument you're trying to buttress: that you and you alone have the authority to interpret the constitution, its applicability, or its authority.

Um, nope. You don't. That's a power held The People and delegated to their representatives.

You're neither The People. Nor their representatives. Rendering your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the application of any law or the outcome of any case.

"I" said "I" withdraw "my" consent to be governed. As a collectivist, you don't understand what that means, do you?

Yes, and it’s just as ignorant and ridiculous now as when you first posted it.

You couldn't back up that empty statement last time you said it either

G'head ... tell me again how you ignore my posts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because you're brain-dead and can't understand the states, including the one of which you're a citizen, formed a compact with the federal government, bound by the U.S. Constitution and the framework laid out within it. Neither you nor krazy kaz, as individuals, get to unilaterally "opt out." You're morons who can't grasp that, I get that; but comprehend it or not, the majority of voters decide their representatives for everyone in the U.S. The majority of electoral votes decides the president for everyone in the U.S.

Don't like it? The shit is still tough and you still have a choice to escape it, as I mentioned earlier.

And you're beyond stupid to think you had a choice of only "two" to send to Washington. Republicans offered 17 candidates from which to choose. Democrats offered 3. America picked the two we have remaining to choose from.

It is you Bolsheviks who are violating this compact. The states consented to the CONSTITUTION of the United States. As you subvert this, such consent becomes null.

Further, the question is not who is elected president, the question is can unelected justices nullify and revoke the ratified Constitution? You of the left demand that the SCOTUS alone is the law of this nation, that the Constitution has no meaning, If the courts can render the Bill of Rights null, then the compact is null and void.

As I demonstrated from WikiLeaks, the Khmer Rouge democrats offered only one Candidate. Regardless of the choice of the people, Hillary was the choice.

Hillary is dedicated to appointing members of the Dictatorship of the Judiciary who will revoke the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, the heart of the Bill of Rights. Such a move is not legitimate and will be rightfully met with resistance by those who support government of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

[Faun]

Because you're brain-dead and can't understand the states, including the one of which you're a citizen, formed a compact with the federal government, bound by the U.S. Constitution and the framework laid out within it. Neither you nor krazy kaz, as individuals, get to unilaterally "opt out." You're morons who can't grasp that, I get that; but comprehend it or not, the majority of voters decide their representatives for everyone in the U.S. The majority of electoral votes decides the president for everyone in the U.S.

Don't like it? The shit is still tough and you still have a choice to escape it, as I mentioned earlier.

And you're beyond stupid to think you had a choice of only "two" to send to Washington. Republicans offered 17 candidates from which to choose. Democrats offered 3. America picked the two we have remaining to choose from.

It is you Bolsheviks who are violating this compact. The states consented to the CONSTITUTION of the United States. As you subvert this, such consent becomes null.

Further, the question is not who is elected president, the question is can unelected justices nullify and revoke the ratified Constitution? You of the left demand that the SCOTUS alone is the law of this nation, that the Constitution has no meaning, If the courts can render the Bill of Rights null, then the compact is null and void.

As I demonstrated from WikiLeaks, the Khmer Rouge democrats offered only one Candidate. Regardless of the choice of the people, Hillary was the choice.

Hillary is dedicated to appointing members of the Dictatorship of the Judiciary who will revoke the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, the heart of the Bill of Rights. Such a move is not legitimate and will be rightfully met with resistance by those who support government of the people, by the people, for the people.

"...who will revoke the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments"

 

[Uncensored2008]

We need to promote self government. If we restore that our constitution will take care of itself

Skylar is a demagogue, but I have emphasized from the start that an uprising against the entrenched ruling elite need not be violent. I agree that self-government and particularly self-reliance are the key elements to reestablishing Constitutional government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The people voted, not the DNC.

Sure they did sparky, and the checks in the mail.

I mean, who are we going to believe, a Soros hack like you, or the actual emails from Schultz et al?

The people chose Hillary. You may not have noticed, but the RNC was against Crazy Donald. Again, the people spoke. They chose Crazy Donald.

The RNC may be stupid, but the held a fair election, unlike the Khmer Rouge democrats.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because you're brain-dead and can't understand the states, including the one of which you're a citizen, formed a compact with the federal government, bound by the U.S. Constitution and the framework laid out within it. Neither you nor krazy kaz, as individuals, get to unilaterally "opt out." You're morons who can't grasp that, I get that; but comprehend it or not, the majority of voters decide their representatives for everyone in the U.S. The majority of electoral votes decides the president for everyone in the U.S.

Don't like it? The shit is still tough and you still have a choice to escape it, as I mentioned earlier.

And you're beyond stupid to think you had a choice of only "two" to send to Washington. Republicans offered 17 candidates from which to choose. Democrats offered 3. America picked the two we have remaining to choose from.

It is you Bolsheviks who are violating this compact. The states consented to the CONSTITUTION of the United States. As you subvert this, such consent becomes null.

Further, the question is not who is elected president, the question is can unelected justices nullify and revoke the ratified Constitution? You of the left demand that the SCOTUS alone is the law of this nation, that the Constitution has no meaning, If the courts can render the Bill of Rights null, then the compact is null and void.

As I demonstrated from WikiLeaks, the Khmer Rouge democrats offered only one Candidate. Regardless of the choice of the people, Hillary was the choice.

Hillary is dedicated to appointing members of the Dictatorship of the Judiciary who will revoke the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, the heart of the Bill of Rights. Such a move is not legitimate and will be rightfully met with resistance by those who support government of the people, by the people, for the people.

"...who will revoke the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments"

With the decade long assault your party has waged on civil rights, do you think your ploy convinces anyone?

Anyone at all?

 

[Avatar4321]

We need to promote self government. If we restore that our constitution will take care of itself

Skylar is a demagogue, but I have emphasized from the start that an uprising against the entrenched ruling elite need not be violent. I agree that self-government and particularly self-reliance are the key elements to reestablishing Constitutional government.

I completely agree that an uprising need not be violent. Gandhi taught the Indian people that if they want to be a free people they need to govern themselves. We need to do the same.

 

[kaz]

We need to promote self government. If we restore that our constitution will take care of itself

Skylar is a demagogue, but I have emphasized from the start that an uprising against the entrenched ruling elite need not be violent. I agree that self-government and particularly self-reliance are the key elements to reestablishing Constitutional government.

It starts with people like us speaking up and convincing people. In a way, the left realize that, which is why they are so hysterical to shut our speech down. What they are getting away with is built on ignorance. Information is their enemy

 

[kaz]

We need to promote self government. If we restore that our constitution will take care of itself

Skylar is a demagogue, but I have emphasized from the start that an uprising against the entrenched ruling elite need not be violent. I agree that self-government and particularly self-reliance are the key elements to reestablishing Constitutional government.

I completely agree that an uprising need not be violent. Gandhi taught the Indian people that if they want to be a free people they need to govern themselves. We need to do the same.

In this country, the military isn't going to fight freedom backers for socialists anyway. They like most right minded Americans just need to grasp what's actually going on.

Trump and Bernie only existed as political forces because people on both sides are realizing what is going on is wrong. They just need to channel that into better decisions than Trump and Bernie

 

[SuperDemocrat]

That is very hard for you to do on an individual level but can be done on a society wide level. What if everyone simply stop obeying the government all at once? How much power would they have to bring people back in line?

 

[Avatar4321]

That is very hard for you to do on an individual level but can be done on a society wide level. What if everyone simply stop obeying the government all at once? How much power would they have to bring people back in line?

What you're describing is, for lack of a better term, passive resistance. If that's our plan then we need to study the masters. Jesus, Gandhi, mlk jr

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you're describing is, for lack of a better term, passive resistance. If that's our plan then we need to study the masters. Jesus, Gandhi, mlk jr

That is my intent for any and all unconstitutional gun restrictions.

Do not comply with unconstitutional laws.

 

[kaz]

What you're describing is, for lack of a better term, passive resistance. If that's our plan then we need to study the masters. Jesus, Gandhi, mlk jr

That is my intent for any and all unconstitutional gun restrictions.

Do not comply with unconstitutional laws.

Wow, where would we start?

 

[Synthaholic]

collectivist

#LibertariansLoveBuzzwords