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.
You know this is a really excellent point that these folks utterly fail to understand or grasp. Both the Articles of Confederation and the Confederate constitution were unmitigated failures. And I might add, their isn't anything more ironic than the fact that it was Shay's Rebellion that did more to bring about the scrapping of the Articles of Confederation than any other single issue.
But, who cares about history or good sense when they're enamored with the idea of destructive violence? There's no reasoning with a true bomb-thrower because he's in love with his bomb.
When the guns come out the talking ends. Treason is Treason
Treason is also in the eye of the beholder. I doubt citizens will care about what redcoats (aka federal government and their supporters) call them if they are the ones who start the oppression.
A US code may not override the basic rights of the Constitution, or else it shouldn't be recognized.
The courts, including the Supreme Court, over the years have consistently found that the freedom of speech is not absolute. A person may not say any damn thing he would like in any set of circumstances imaginable. The most obvious and easily understood example is the shouting-fire!-in-a-crowded-theater situation. Freedom of speech is not without limits.
The Supreme Court decision that comes the closest to answering the question of "does the 1st amendment allow us to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government" is Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. The decision draws a very fine line between the abstract advocacy of overthrowing the government and advocacy that "... is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
"As of 2009, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified."
So, this most recent Supreme Court decision basically upholds everything in the U.S. Code on advocating the overthrow of the government, giving a little wiggle room on the first paragraph of 2385 while affirming the rest of the statute.
That maybe Cav, but like I stated before, are you willing to sit in, let's say Marion or Atlanta while the waiting for the Supreme Court to agree with you?
I suppose that if you are a like minded jurist as Black and Douglas that you would be right, however, that would have put you in the minority when deciding Dennis.
Of course if you are defending the airheads on this site, I would argue that the arm chair revolutionaries haven't demonstrated a credible "grave and probable danger" and should be free to continue posting these tracts to their hearts content.
I'm a first amendment purist like Black and Douglas, two of my favorite justices. Dennis was coward's law, based on irrational paranoia.
On the other hand, since America's national socialism is based on 100% voluntary consent, ignorance of that fact makes a revolution doubly foolish.
Just stop volunteering.
Or better yet, write a polite letter to your congresscritters and ask for a copy of the law that compels all Americans to enroll in FICA / Social Security. Also ask for a copy of the law that punishes any American who does not volunteer.
I do not doubt your assertions, however there's this....just for starters to be sure.
As of five days ago, the state of Florida has made it mandatory that certain documents be made available, in order to obtain, or renew your Florida driver's license. Your social security number is one of those mandatory items.
The system is set up, so that one must enroll to enjoy the freedoms afforded in the constitution. A backhanded way of forcing compliance, no?
On the other hand, since America's national socialism is based on 100% voluntary consent, ignorance of that fact makes a revolution doubly foolish.
Just stop volunteering.
Or better yet, write a polite letter to your congresscritters and ask for a copy of the law that compels all Americans to enroll in FICA / Social Security.
Also ask for a copy of the law that punishes any American who does not volunteer.
If a few million questionnaires show up, that might be enough to shake up the status quo.
That just makes all kinds of sense. Flood our government workers with even more work so they have to hire more aids to get it all done which costs us, the tax payers, even more money. If you truly wanted to know any of this stuff, you'd google it.
IAs of five days ago, the state of Florida has made it mandatory that certain documents be made available, in order to obtain, or renew your Florida driver's license. Your social security number is one of those mandatory items.
The system is set up, so that one must enroll to enjoy the freedoms afforded in the constitution. A backhanded way of forcing compliance, no?
I'm not sure driving is a freedom afforded by the constitution.
We had an election. There was a winner. I had to deal with it for the last 8 years. These people will have to deal with it for the next 4-8 years. They can speak with their votes. I'm sick of their
The courts, including the Supreme Court, over the years have consistently found that the freedom of speech is not absolute. A person may not say any damn thing he would like in any set of circumstances imaginable. The most obvious and easily understood example is the shouting-fire!-in-a-crowded-theater situation. Freedom of speech is not without limits.
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is an imminent threat on others' liberties. I would agree that storming the WH and Capitol building would be a similar threat (as of right now). Organizing militia as a "just incase" does not, and that's why you don't really have the military bothering with them. Because it would be unconstitutional.
Quote:
The Supreme Court decision that comes the closest to answering the question of "does the 1st amendment allow us to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government" is Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. The decision draws a very fine line between the abstract advocacy of overthrowing the government and advocacy that "... is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The problem is that CDers believe in their tiny little minds that our hypothetical discussion as well as forming militias qualifies. Nope.
Quote:
"As of 2009, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified."
So, this most recent Supreme Court decision basically upholds everything in the U.S. Code on advocating the overthrow of the government, giving a little wiggle room on the first paragraph of 2385 while affirming the rest of the statute.
Again, the US code means nothing to me. One should only obey it so they are not imprisoned while they work underground to ultimately destroy the US code and return to strict Constitutional governance. Getting locked up in prison does your revolutionary cause no good.
I will always defer to Jefferson's "blood of tyrants" quote. He meant business and his peers respected him. Drives the pro-government people nuts and their only retort is some ridiculous "white racist slaveowner" strawman.
The fact that it is accessible means nothing. If it violates the Constitution, it shouldn't be recognized.
Here's the thing, what is or what isn't constitutional isn't up to you the individual to decide, especially when your level of knowledge regarding the Constitution, US Code, Court precedent, or U.S. history is as abysmal as what you have demonstrated over the years.
Quote:
The only alternative is to go underground with one's ideals, and to amass support for your cause outside of the watchful eye of our benevolent federal government.
Please by all means do, of course being "underground" makes it a little difficult to recruit sufficient support, but that is fine with me, I hope that you can find the deepest hole available.
Quote:
Will the federal government and its supporters fall under the same fate of King Louis?
You dare to equate the despotism of an monarch with the free will of the people? Frankly such an expression only serves to further demonstrate that you are no better than any other totalitarian movement be it Fascist, or Marxist-Leninist!
Quote:
Turn the page to find out.
I will be dead and in the grave before that page gets turned.
Quote:
But, the question still stands. Will you be a redcoat or a patriot?
I will be an American, and regardless of my age, physical condition (assuming that you won't get your act together for decades) I will pick up a weapon and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign or domestic and anyone who would willingly subvert the democratic process is in my mind an enemy of the state, be they on the right or the left.
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.
