| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
El Exigente
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:48 am Post subject: Should the revolution be violent or not? |
 |
|
U.S. Constitution Grants People Ultimate Power For Revolution
| Quote: |
There are actually two approaches to revolution for saving America: non-violence and violence. At this stage, it seems that most Americans believe in the nonviolent method - seeking peaceful resolutions through movements to restore, amend or nullify the Constitution. But, there are some Americans who believe in the revolutionary spirit of our founders' approach to liberation - violence as the only way to force our tyrannical government to respect our liberties and human rights. They believe that instead of convincing some bought-and-paid-for politicians to change their minds, or spending time trying to beat them at rigged elections by getting good people elected, they choose to fight to death in order to win back the country that "belongs to the people."
...
Article V offers two ways to alter the Constitution. Amendments may be proposed by either two-thirds of both houses of the Congress or by a national convention called by the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. Most Americans are quite familiar with the first option of constitutional amendment by Congress, but not many are aware of the second option that if a sufficient number of applying states exists for proposing constitutional amendments, Congress is required to call a national convention. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A national convention established through force or on violent acts would be illegitimate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There needs to be a revolution of sorts: against the financiers who ruined us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
It could be that calling a national constitutional convention as mentioned would obviate the need for a violent revolution by allowing for a peaceful revolution through constitutional change.
It could be that the outcome of a national constitutional convention would be to precipitate the violent revolution it was hoped to preclude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| America has its problems. Those problems are as of yet no where near bad enough to pick up a gun and harm another human being over, and anyone willing to "violently revolt" based on the status quo would be totally untrustworthy to form a new government if their revolt were somehow beyond all odds successful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The problem with approaching a peaceful solution is it doesn't work. You have the freedom of speech, but who's listening? I too wouldn't want a violent civil war, but if it comes down to the point most people are struggling just to keep the pot boiling while squatting on abandoned properties, then someone's going to get angry. If it comes down to the point a wealthy elite oppresses the people by use of police/military force, then there's going to be a big fight. I agree, the problems are nowhere as serious yet to seek a remedy through violence, but I also see peaceful talks like the tea party are only being ignored by those in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laguna
Joined: 27 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| A national convention established through force or on violent acts would be illegitimate. |
A national convention, yes, but a revolution, no so much.
The USA was started because of violent revolution against oppressors, it's the main reason we have a second amendment right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| America has its problems. |
Yes. Yes it does.
The level of problematicism (or viral problemast infection, if you will) has reached a stage of advanced suckiness.
What's the cure?
"Dammit, Jim, I'm an English teacher, not a doctor!!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Exigente
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| A national convention established through force or on violent acts would be illegitimate. |
No, that is not what the article was saying. Apparently you did not read the whole thing. It was saying if the call for a national convention continues to be illegally ignored, there may be the need to resort to violence.
| ontheway wrote: |
| It could be that calling a national constitutional convention as mentioned would obviate the need for a violent revolution by allowing for a peaceful revolution through constitutional change. |
At least someone comprehends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The idea of a revolution in America is dumb. What group could revolt against the army? Revolutions don't happen in democracies, because if a group really did have popular support they would be in power anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Join the Rally to Restore Sanity. 10.30.10. in Washington, D.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| El Exigente wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| A national convention established through force or on violent acts would be illegitimate. |
No, that is not what the article was saying. Apparently you did not read the whole thing. It was saying if the call for a national convention continues to be illegally ignored, there may be the need to resort to violence.
|
Yes, its advocating a violent overthrow under certain circumstances. I read it. It would be illegitimate.
The 10th Amendment argument is also juvenile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The idea of a revolution in America is dumb. What group could revolt against the army? |
The US military would provide a much higher percentage of revolutionaries than the general public. They would already be well trained, ready to lead, and in many cases well armed. Whole units would defect. Entire state national guards would join the revolt lead by their state governors. To avoid catastrophy in a real Second American revolution, it is likely that the US military led by the Pentagon would not participate.
We are not yet at the tipping point. But if we don't stop the fascist-socialist US government and the dollar collapses from hyerinflation ... then there will be an unstoppable revolt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
The 10th Amendment argument is also juvenile. |
What? You're saying our Founding Fathers went to TJ's mama's basement, fired up a spliff, and tacked on just one more for sh*ts and giggles? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
The 10th Amendment argument is also juvenile. |
What? You're saying our Founding Fathers went to TJ's mama's basement, fired up a spliff, and tacked on just one more for sh*ts and giggles? |
No, no, don't misunderstand me. I'm a believer in a robust 10th Amendment. But here's what the author says:
| Quote: |
| The Tenth Amendment allows a state the right to nullify a federal law by refusing to comply with the law or permit its enforcement within state boundaries. After all, the states created the national government when they joined together to form a union and not the other way around. Thus, the states retained their supreme power to judge for themselves the constitutionality of federal laws and their absolute right of sovereignty over their soil. But the ultimate power, not lost in that clause, was reserved to the people who created the states. |
The 10th doesn't allow the state the right to unilaterally nullify a Federal law or determine the constitutionality of Federal laws. The 10th Amendment is a basis allowing the States to challenge Federal law in the Supreme Court.
Additionally, states do not have absolute rights of sovereignty, because states' rights are tempered by the supremacy clause.
| Quote: |
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. |
As for the "or to the people" language, this is assuredly Madison's way of expressing that the Constitution preserves and does not alter common law rights. Madison at first opposed the Bill of Rights for three reasons.
| Quote: |
1. It was unnecessary, since it purported to protect against powers that the federal government had not been granted;
2. It was dangerous, since enumeration of some rights might be taken to imply the absence of other rights; and
3. At the state level, bills of rights had proven to be useless paper barriers against government powers. |
The 10th Amendment's "or to the people" language means that enumeration of certain rights did not strip the people of other rights not specifically mentioned therein. It does not empower the people to overthrow the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
