Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All this discord and rhetoric the past year or so regarding civil and gun rights and Obama hate, and gay hate, Democrats vs Republicans, and everyone in the country seemingly hating everyone else, etc., got me to thinking.
When the Founding Fathers made up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the other founding documents, they forgot to set up a way to disband the arrangement if or when things didn't work out. Apparently the only way to reset the clock or to dissolve the government and start over is by armed insurrection. Which is of course illegal.
Or did I miss something? There doesn't seem to be any system in place whereby Congress could just agree that we can't any of us agree, on anything, and that we should all just go our separate ways, and let the states form smaller unions or remain independent nations, like Europe. (Though we all see how well that works.)
Anyway - what do you all think? Should there be some way to peacefully dissolve the United States and allocated federal assets equally between the states? Or do we wait until groups start localized insurrection like up in Oregon, followed by widespread civil upheaval with corresponding death, destruction and the probabilities of generations of poverty? Or do we just fiddle a *** ("j-ig" is a banned word? LOL) until the national debt causes a governmental failure and anarchy?
Is there any other county that you know of that made contingencies for failure?
All this discord and rhetoric the past year or so regarding civil and gun rights and Obama hate, and gay hate, Democrats vs Republicans, and everyone in the country seemingly hating everyone else, etc., got me to thinking.
When the Founding Fathers made up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the other founding documents, they forgot to set up a way to disband the arrangement if or when things didn't work out. Apparently the only way to reset the clock or to dissolve the government and start over is by armed insurrection. Which is of course illegal.
Or did I miss something? There doesn't seem to be any system in place whereby Congress could just agree that we can't any of us agree, on anything, and that we should all just go our separate ways, and let the states form smaller unions or remain independent nations, like Europe. (Though we all see how well that works.)
Anyway - what do you all think? Should there be some way to peacefully dissolve the United States and allocated federal assets equally between the states? Or do we wait until groups start localized insurrection like up in Oregon, followed by widespread civil upheaval with corresponding death, destruction and the probabilities of generations of poverty? Or do we just fiddle a *** ("j-ig" is a banned word? LOL) until the national debt causes a governmental failure and anarchy?
the founding fathers had no way to imagine cultural Marxism and the consequences of what the Marxist do to a society. In the minds of the founding fathers Marxism would have seemed so evil that it would have been unbelievable.
AHEM - Americans are promised a REPUBLICAN FORM of government.
REPUBLICAN FORM SUMMED UP:
"What's YOURS is YOURS!"
"Do not trespass upon the person, liberty, or property of another."
If you examine existing statutes, no law violates the republican form.
HOWEVER, if you consent to be governed, and shift to the indirect DEMOCRATIC FORM, all bets are off.
What most Americans are upset about are all the voluminous laws rules and regulations associated with the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.... and that's by CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
You may not know how and when you consented, so you should inquire of your public servants for more details.
Ask them for a copy of the law that :
[] imposed INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE at birth (citizenship has mandatory civic duties)
[] Required one to enroll into FICA before one can live and work in their own country
[] Taxed, infringed, or impaired any endowed rights and liberties
All this discord and rhetoric the past year or so regarding civil and gun rights and Obama hate, and gay hate, Democrats vs Republicans, and everyone in the country seemingly hating everyone else, etc., got me to thinking.
When the Founding Fathers made up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the other founding documents, they forgot to set up a way to disband the arrangement if or when things didn't work out. Apparently the only way to reset the clock or to dissolve the government and start over is by armed insurrection. Which is of course illegal.
Or did I miss something? There doesn't seem to be any system in place whereby Congress could just agree that we can't any of us agree, on anything, and that we should all just go our separate ways, and let the states form smaller unions or remain independent nations, like Europe. (Though we all see how well that works.)
Anyway - what do you all think? Should there be some way to peacefully dissolve the United States and allocated federal assets equally between the states? Or do we wait until groups start localized insurrection like up in Oregon, followed by widespread civil upheaval with corresponding death, destruction and the probabilities of generations of poverty? Or do we just fiddle a *** ("j-ig" is a banned word? LOL) until the national debt causes a governmental failure and anarchy?
Um, how can this possibly be screwing up? they were forming a country where debates and disagreements would be handled legally and with votes, not with guns. Anyone can change or even start over the constitution with an amendment. its hard to do, only been done 27 times, but it can be done. Congress can't do it since they are only a small part of the government. All the states themselves must vote to ratify an amendment that ends the union. Its can be done.
This nonsense is Oregon is nothing. A few criminals who will hopefully be taken in and charged as the criminals that they are. There will be no upheaval at all. While there will sadly be bloodshed, criminals often do fire back at police trying to stop them from violating the law. I feel badly about it, but it is often the result.
Your solution smacks of totalitarianism. Ban contributions from interest groups = not allowing citizens to pool their resources to speak with a louder voice than any of them could do by themselves. (I see Citizens United as being a ringing endorsement of the First Amendment.) Banning smear campaigns = not allowing the freedom of even unpleasant speech. Fact-checking on penalty of fines = a slippery slope to the government deciding what is "true" and thus can be broadcast, versus what is "false" and thus must be banned.
No it doesn't at all. Limiting champagne donations is already in effect for the average Joe, $2700 I believe. Banning corporations and groups levels the playing field so that politicians won't be swayed by millions of dollars to vote for what a specific group wants instead of what the PEOPLE want. It's the reason that approximately 90% of Americans WANT extended background checks on guns, but Congress WON'T vote in favor of it because the NRA has paid them not to. It's the reason why most Americans are in favor of raising the minimum wage, but Congress won't vote for it because corporations like Walmart, McDonald's and Papa John's pay them not to. Do you even understand Citizens United? It allows for undocumented, limitless donations from ANY corporation, lobby, or special interest group to be funneled into champagnes. How is that a "ringing endorsement for the first amendment?" Large donations are also unnecessary for running a champagne. Bernie Sanders had raised over $73 million in less than a year with contributions of less than $30 each! Who do you think he will be working for, the people or a few wealthy corporations?
Smear champagnes are not about telling "unpleasant truths," they are packed full of lies and their sole purpose is to brainwash and confuse. When the lies in the ads are debunked, most of the time the candidate airing them has them pulled, but the damage is already done. All of our freedoms and rights come with responsibility. It is not a free-for-all. We have freedom of speech, but we can not shout threats in a public area, create, obtain or view child pornography, or lie under oath. We should be holding our elected officials to much higher standards and not allow them to get away with this stuff.
Slippery slope my booty. Fact checking is not done by the government, but unbiased private groups. The press can be free to broadcast whatever story or news piece they want, but they are not free to just make up stuff and say whatever they want willy nilly. That is why 'Fox News' is listed as an entertainment channel and not a news channel and why certain "news" magazines must be labeled as "opinion" or "gossip."
So you see, we actually have a lot of these things in place, but 1)the rich people are finding a way around them and 2) NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION.
.........When the Founding Fathers made up the Constitution and Bill of Rights and all the other founding documents, they forgot to set up a way to disband the arrangement if or when things didn't work out............
The founders thought they had it figured out. And maybe they did. Maybe the country is, in fact, run best by those who own land and homes and businesses, and have skin in the game. The whole idea that everyone should vote and every vote should count is ludicrous, in my view.
There are a lot of people who should be required to stay in their home on Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
AHEM - Americans are promised a REPUBLICAN FORM of government.
REPUBLICAN FORM SUMMED UP:
"What's YOURS is YOURS!"
"Do not trespass upon the person, liberty, or property of another."
If you examine existing statutes, no law violates the republican form.
HOWEVER, if you consent to be governed, and shift to the indirect DEMOCRATIC FORM, all bets are off.
What most Americans are upset about are all the voluminous laws rules and regulations associated with the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.... and that's by CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
You may not know how and when you consented, so you should inquire of your public servants for more details.
Ask them for a copy of the law that :
[] imposed INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE at birth (citizenship has mandatory civic duties)
[] Required one to enroll into FICA before one can live and work in their own country
[] Taxed, infringed, or impaired any endowed rights and liberties
Republicans broke their republican promise so many times in the past, that their promises cost much less than the effort to publish them. The only party which is true american, is Libertarian. It's what old GOP used to be, but as Ron Paul said, it's not me who left Republican party, it's Republican Party that left me.
The founders thought they had it figured out. And maybe they did. Maybe the country is, in fact, run best by those who own land and homes and businesses, and have skin in the game. The whole idea that everyone should vote and every vote should count is ludicrous, in my view.
There are a lot of people who should be required to stay in their home on Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
If only property owners should vote, how much property do you think should be the minimum required? And should that and citizenship (which I think you would also advocate) be the ONLY requirements for voting, in your view, or do you think there should be other requirements, also?
Apparently the only way to reset the clock or to dissolve the government and start over is by armed insurrection. Which is of course illegal.
In accordance with Dalton v Specter (1994), and United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), and even Hamdi (2006), et al. the people have the right to insurrection.
The legal concept is "extra-constitutional powers."
The Constitution can be re-written by calling a Constitutional Convention. The text of Article 5 follows:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
