A better term would be attempted Coup dâetat. For that is what was the goal. To capture, intimidate, or kill enough of the Congress to prevent Biden from being properly certified as the Election Winner.
But since most of our citizens have no idea what a Coup is, Insurrection is a more easily understood term by the Masses.
It was an attempted overthrow of the election process. Using violence as the weapon.
It was a first in American History. And as sure a sign of the death rattle of the republic as we are liable to get. But we have done it to ourselves, and the Republic is doomed. Not because Biden was elected. Not because of the impeachment. Those are symptoms, not the cause. The cause is us.
We detest the Constitution. One and all of us. We detest it because it doesnât say what we think it should say. It doesnât mean what we think it should mean. Left, Right, doesnât matter. We hate the damned document. Weâve hated it for generations. And weâre not going to change now. Nobody respects it. Nobody honors it. And nobody loves it all.
Look at our laws. They are written to get around those restrictions placed upon us by our Forefathers. The Courts create loopholes and exceptions. All in the interest of whatever they are blathering about now. A document written so anyone can read and comprehend it has been mutated by verbage from legal minds to mean exactly what it doesnât say. Most of the time it now means exactly what it says should never happen.
The First Amendment doesnât say the Supreme Court shall rule as invalid if it violates the various restrictions. It says Congress shall pass no law.
I said we were to blame. We are. We vote the same parties all the time, and those parties love, or claim to, only parts of the Constitution. So we put the same fools back in office, instead of voting them out. Right and Left.
Twenty years ago, I said we would be better served if we handled Congress like Jury Duty. You get a letter in the mail, picked at random, and you are a Congressman for the next two years. You live in Government Housing. Every congressman gets an identical apartment. Every senator gets an identical apartment. They couldnât wait to go on recess and go home.
About the time they got comfortable with the power, it was time to head home, your tenure is over.
I'm not sure you understand the nature of the constitution. You mentioned the first amendment as an example of what we should adhere to, but that amendment wasn't added to the constitution until more than 4 years after the original document was ratified. Wouldn't that be an example of ignoring the original document like you were complaining about? The framers of the constitution knew that their specific document wouldn't be adequate to deal with challenges that would be faced in the future, and included procedures to make the changes needed to meet those challenges. If you want to complain about the way our constitution has been interpreted, then that is your right, but to say any adaptation based on interpretations is not allowed or even condoned by the text of the constitution shows you don't understand the original intent of the framers.
Yes, the Founders admitted and allowed for changes to the Constitution. That is why they provided the Amendment Process. But every amendment has been interpreted to death. None of them are worth the shadow of the words that are written. Take any one you want.
Letâs take the Second. At the time it was written, when a Criminal was finished with their prison sentence, they were allowed to once again arm themselves. There was no prohibition against anyone walking into a store and buying a gun. Now, weâve decided that the Framers never intended this, or that. Weâve decided that the Constitution allows us to penalize people for life over any crime. We take pride in this attitude. A restriction that is now part of the Founders intent, nor the letter of the Amendment, but itâs fine. The Supreme Court said so.
We hate the Constitution. We hate what it was always meant to represent. Freedom. We hate what it was intended to be, a restriction on Federal Government Power. We hate not being able to tell someone you canât do that by passing a law prohibiting it. We detest the idea that we canât rewrite history to say that this, this abuse of the limits on power, is exactly what the Constitution says we can and must do. We get furious when someone tells us that our ideals are unconstitutional. We denounce anyone on the other side as Fascists, or Socialists, but we all do it.
Look at the exceptions for secure in the person and papers. We canât stand the idea that the guilty person might go free if we donât find a whole new exception or loophole. So we came up with dozens, and then hundreds of exceptions. Each exception built onto the back of the one before. Now, you really arenât secure in anything except what is between your two ears, assuming there is anything there. We even have people in jail for not testifying against themselves. And that is just fine. Perfectly fine. Itâs what the Founders would have wanted. Weâll call it contempt of court.
We hate the Constitution. We hate it with a passion. We blame the other political ideology for screwing up the world because they donât see it the right way. We arenât abusing it, we arenât destroying it, weâre interpreting it.
And it happens every day. The Constitution is meaningless. And we celebrate it. We defend that meaningless reality.
So yes, the 6th of January was one of the death rattles of the Republic. Itâs Very nearly dead now.
So you admit all has been done as provided for in the constitution. Looks like the constitution is what you have a problem with. How long have you opposed the constitution?
Where in the Second Amendment does it say that you can restrict a person from buying a gun because he had been in prison before? Where does it say that in the Federalist Papers?
Where does it say in the Fourth Amendment that a cop can search a car? Based upon a hunch?
Where in the fifth Amendment does it say a man can be held in jail for years for refusing to testify against himself?
I love the Constitution. I love the idea of freedom. I love the intent of restricting the Government and protecting the individual. You on the other hand think all those abuses are exactly what is not only allowed but the intent of the Constitution.
I'm pretty sure searching cars isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution, because they weren't invented yet. That's why the framers included provisions for amendments, and gave the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution to cover questions the constitution didn't directly address, like searching cars. I gotta ask again, how long have you opposed the constitution?
Out of curiosity. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is responsible for Interpreting the Constitution? I can tell you that Iâve never seen it, despite reading the Constitution and Federalist Papers more than once. So where does this authority come from?
The Original Decision was Marbury v. Madison. There the Supreme Court found a limit to their power. There the Supreme Court realized that there was nobody authorized to tell the Congress or the President no you canât do that. So the Supreme Court took the power unto themselves. They just said weâre going to do this, and that is our role.
That decision in 1803, practically days after the Constitution was signed, was the foundation of all Supreme Court decisions to date. A group of people said âI have the powerâ and nobody said no, you donât.
Since that time, the entire meaning of the Constitution. Limited Government, power derived from the consent of the governed. Restrictions on the power of the Government, has all been eroded until it is no better than the Rights of the Soviet Citizen from the USSR. It means what the Government says it means. Just words on paper.
You say that cars arenât mentioned in the Constitution. True. But letâs take a look at what the Fourth says.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Is not a car holding your papers and effects?
But one phrase in there. Against unreasonable searches and seizures. Today, that means anything that the cops find, no matter the lame assed excuse given, is perfectly reasonable. When this was written, the newly declared Americans had just fought a war against people who used to search houses wagons and barns at any whim. Looking for weapons, or propaganda materials, or information on the growing rebellion. The British were doing what our police are doing today, searching at any whim. And if the police say you are guilty, by God youâre guilty. To jail with you. If the British said you were an enemy, you were.
All of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War are being done to our citizens, again, by the Government. Only instead of the Union Jack flying over the heads of the people abusing the citizens, itâs the Stars and Stripes. And today, itâs even worse.
You may think that I support those who attempted the Coup on 6 January. I donât. Because they had no idea what they were going to do. No plan. NO goal. All they had was rage, and conspiracy theory nonsense. And if I was going to help overthrow the Government, Trump is about the second to last person I would follow, or support. Because he is not the one to lead us into a future without a basic set of agreed upon laws.
So no, that is not what the Constitution says we are supposed to do. Accept the mumbling of the Supreme Court. That is what the Supreme Court said we were supposed to do. Nobody said this is your job, do it well.
Letâs give you an example. Letâs say you hire a guy to take care of your lawn. He shows up and starts cutting down Trees. You demand to know what he is doing, and he says he decided that the trees needed to come down, and nobody told him he couldnât, so there.
You would do, what the Congress should have done. Fire the guy right there on the spot. The Congress had the power. They could have impeached the Supreme Court. Then they could have passed an amendment outlining the additional authority being granted the court to conduct reviews. Instead, they just let it go, and accepted it by silence.
If Hating the Constitution, according to you, is disagreeing with self appointed power and authority, then in your eyes I am a hater. I canât change your mind, but you might want to read some history to find out how we got where we are with the Constitution. And I think if you do, youâll come to the same conclusion I have. The Republic is pretty much dead, and we are doomed to fall.
