If this is a inappropriate topic for here - please don't hesitate to remove.

Not sure how to ask this question, but what must happen before our military can act within their oath and protect the Constitution?

If the people are fed-up with the lies & distortions, when can we REVOLT using force if necessary, to rid this government & country of the enemy within – socialists, communists, etc? The voters box is broken & rigged – they are actively attempting to fix that permanently to assure their return… So, voting them out will only remain possible in the near future.

When can the people ask their military to protect them and our constitution from its corrupt government leadership?

These are not intended as setup questions or baiting? I don't know how it works and if something does not happen before first blood is drawn, then the military and others such as the police departments, will be drawn in to protect the violators of the constitution, instead of the destroyers of it...?

If the progressives are not removed in peaceful times, sooner or later Americans will begin acting. Most likely individually at first, which plays into their scheme of labels & character assassination. Then eventually small groups, which will no doubt be labeled "cells" i.e. terrorists cells, rightwing extremists, the typical label task force spewing venom.. (btw – did you know the New Jersey school that was teaching children (praise songs) to worship Obama – also is the SAME school that held MOCK 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS a few years ago (2007 ?)and the TERRORISTS they used as examples were RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS - Christians, etc – in-other-words, the NON-KOOL-AID-drinkers… and just so you know - they have DEFENDED their acts in EACH CASE...? Sounds like an terrorist training camp to me...

Nevertheless, the violators of our constitution will arrogantly demand protection - sort-a like al Qaeda does now - they will demand protection from those (America citizens) "compelled" to act to protect their constitution - and our military/police will be forced to make a decision...?

This has already begun in specific ways already.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: GlassOnion,

From the tone of your post, I take it you are hoping that our country follows the Honduras example?

Not going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by GlassOnion:
If the people are fed-up with the lies & distortions, when can we REVOLT using force if necessary

See this thread.

The Right of Revolution has been criminalized.

To the extent that it was ever really a right to begin with...

And if you're serious about a legal revolution, you best live in NH because NH is the ONLY that state that truly guarantees this right in writing...

"Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. In the United States, for example, out of fifty state constitutions and one national constitution, only New Hampshire's guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's bill of rights:

"Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Tennessee Constitution, Article I, § 2: "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights, "3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Killswitch_Engage,

Here's another sticking point (and a confusing one since it's paradoxical):

The president can create laws simply by listing them in the Federal Register. At that point, "Executive Orders" become constitutional until they are proven to be otherwise. The Supreme Court can review these laws (and may do so... eventually) in order to determine whether or not they are constitutional - however, SCOTUS has never had the constitutional authority to review them, it's just an authority they gave themselves (and, thank God that they did, otherwise we probably would have gotten back to the revolutionary aspect of revamping our government more than a century ago). Also, in times of war, the president is given even more extraordinary authority "War Powers"... so, again, it gets even more difficult to say this or that is unconstitutional.

So... proving that the president gave an unconstitutional order is virtually impossible to do in the first place - the Supreme Court (since 1803) gets the first crack at it. Until they do, obeying the president's orders takes precedent for the military in the absence of any proof that his orders were "unconstitutional"; then, if SCOTUS does find that they were... the court merely rescinds that particular law and puts everything back to square one (no harm, no foul... supposedly). This process nullifies the need for anyone to step in and "protect the Constitution" since the check and balance for protecting it is already in place (supposedly).



http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#execord

Executive Orders - have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time. George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations, which are similar to EO's (Proclamations are still issued today). EO's and Proclamations are not law, but they have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor. Historically, they have had broader effect, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. A typical EO might instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. Today, EO's and Proclamations are sequentially numbered. The average president issues 58 EO's a year. As of March 13, 1936, all EO's must be published in the Federal Register. The first to have been so published was #7316, by President Roosevelt.

Judicial Review - We often hear about the Supreme Court striking down a law or a provision in a law, or, more often, reaffirming some law or provision. Take a look in the Constitution - judicial review, as this is known, is nowhere to be found. It seems like a perfectly normal action - after all, what kind of check does the Judicial Branch have on the other two branches if laws and orders cannot be declared unconstitutional. But judicial review is not specifically mentioned. So how did judicial review come to be? In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared a federal law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, to be unconstitutional, and thus null and void. This was the first time a Supreme Court ruling overturned a law.

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:

quote:

Originally posted by GlassOnion:
If the people are fed-up with the lies & distortions, when can we REVOLT using force if necessary

See this thread.

The Right of Revolution has been criminalized.

To the extent that it was ever really a right to begin with...

And if you're serious about a legal revolution, you best live in NH because NH is the ONLY that state that truly guarantees this right in writing...

"Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. In the United States, for example, out of fifty state constitutions and one national constitution, only New Hampshire's guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's bill of rights:

"Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Tennessee Constitution, Article I, § 2: "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights, "3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."

Our own Declaration of Independence states:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the constent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such for, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariablly the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....

Note that I'm not advocating revolution.. that is a LAST resort!!!! Just stating what our own Declaration of Independence said on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:

quote:

Originally posted by GlassOnion:
If the people are fed-up with the lies & distortions, when can we REVOLT using force if necessary

See this thread.

The Right of Revolution has been criminalized.

To the extent that it was ever really a right to begin with...

And if you're serious about a legal revolution, you best live in NH because NH is the ONLY that state that truly guarantees this right in writing...

"Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. In the United States, for example, out of fifty state constitutions and one national constitution, only New Hampshire's guarantees its citizens the right to rebellion, in Article 10 of the constitution's bill of rights:

"Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Tennessee Constitution, Article I, § 2: "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights, "3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."

Our own Declaration of Independence states:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the constent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such for, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariablly the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....

Note that I'm not advocating revolution.. that is a LAST resort!!!! Just stating what our own Declaration of Independence said on the subject.

Maybe this will help as to what some of the Founders thought about Constitutional interpatation. It may lead to the original posters answer and this poster.

Hamilton, Alexander Alexander Hamilton
Federalist No. 81, 1788
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution.



Wilson, James Of the Study of Law in the United States
Circa, 1790
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.



Jefferson, Thomas Opinion on National Bank
1791
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.



Jefferson, Thomas Opinion on a National Bank
February 15, 1791
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given to them. It was intended to lace them up straitly with in the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.



Jefferson, Thomas Draft Kentucky Resolutions
1798
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The construction applied...to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate Congress a power...ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.



Jefferson, Thomas letter to Mesrs. Eddy, Russel, Thurber, Wheaton and Smith
March 27, 1801
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible.



Jefferson, Thomas letter to Wilson Nicholas
1803
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.



Jefferson, Thomas letter to Wilson Nicholas
September 7, 1803
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.



Jefferson, Thomas letter to Albert Gallatin
May 20, 1808
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.



Jefferson, Thomas letter to William Johnson
1823
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.



Jefferson, Thomas letter to William Johnson
June 12, 1823
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.



Madison, James letter to Henry Lee
June 25, 1824
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founder, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.



Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution
1833
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.



Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution
1833
Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Note that I'm not advocating revolution.. that is a LAST resort!!!! Just stating what our own Declaration of Independence said on the subject.

That question however was settled on April 9th, 1865 at Appomattox Court House.

Marine5711,

Read through that thread I linked, it's very instructive on this subject matter.

The Declaration is just that, a Declaration. Nothing more. Your rights are found in the Constitution, your individual State Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, try to find your right to revolt in there, anywhere, you will not, only in the NH State Constitution will you find it. Furthermore, sedition is the criminalization of that so called "right" you only think you have because it's found in the Declaration. Your "right" to revolution (existing in spirit only) has been criminalized, except in NH where it's live free or die.

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

Maybe this will help as to what some of the Founders thought about Constitutional interpatation. It may lead to the original posters answer and this poster.

It doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

Maybe this will help as to what some of the Founders thought about Constitutional interpatation. It may lead to the original posters answer and this poster.

It doesn't.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:

quote:

Originally posted by The_Bonesaw:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

Maybe this will help as to what some of the Founders thought about Constitutional interpatation. It may lead to the original posters answer and this poster.

It doesn't.

+1

+2

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" with republican meaning representative, not the political party.

Our Constitution provides for a representative government, not a revolutionary government like you find in many Central and South American countries.

If you don't think that your representatives or any of their opponents do a good job of representing you, then convince your fellow citizens to elect you. If you're not willing and able to get your fellow citizens to elect you to office, then you'll be represented by someone who is.

That's what our Constitution says, and that's what our military is sworn to support and defend.

If there is one thing I'm sure of. To implement laws which interferes with the Constitution will require the Supreme Court to rule. However, as many has found there has been many judges in various courts in the U.S. that do not necessarily follow the rule of law. Example Sotomayor defeating the Fire Fighters case with not such much of a wink. Then the supreme court blasted her ruling to the stars. Then she makes it on the supreme court; strange. Bottom line: The military took an oath and it is that document that bears the greatest rule of law and authority above all men. IMO to simply think the military will set back if the government as a whole corrupts/changes the Constitution without due process as outlined in the Constitution for the States is pure folly; especially unconstitutional oppression.

Maybe more time is needed to mold the minds of our children with lies and ideological propaganda in direct contrast of the Constitution through the public school system. Then everyone will agree to the changes.

quote:

Originally posted by GlassOnion:
If this is a inappropriate topic for here - please don't hesitate to remove.


If the people are fed-up with the lies & distortions, when can we REVOLT using force if necessary, to rid this government & country of the enemy within – socialists, communists, etc? The voters box is broken & rigged – they are actively attempting to fix that permanently to assure their return… So, voting them out will only remain possible in the near future.

When can the people ask their military to protect them and our constitution from its corrupt government leadership?

For the military to step in and “protect the Constitution” there would first have to be a real violation of the Constitution – not just that Rush and Hannity have told you that there has been a violation.

Then there is a Constitutional process that must be followed where those who violated the Constitution would be brought to trial, or impeachment.

If those who were accused of violating the Constitution were convicted, they would be removed from office or sent to jail.

If those convicted of violating the Constitution were to use force to stay in office, then the police or military could be called in to enforce the legal decision.

But if that were to happen to President Obama, then Vice-President Biden would take over. If President Obama and Vice-President Biden were ousted, then Nancy Pelosi would take over. And if you got all of them convicted Hillary Clinton would become President – according to the Constitution.

Is that what you had in mind?

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
Marine5711,

Read through that thread I linked, it's very instructive on this subject matter.

The Declaration is just that, a Declaration. Nothing more. Your rights are found in the Constitution, your individual State Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, try to find your right to revolt in there, anywhere, you will not, only in the NH State Constitution will you find it. Furthermore, sedition is the criminalization of that so called "right" you only think you have because it's found in the Declaration. Your "right" to revolution (existing in spirit only) has been criminalized, except in NH where it's live free or die.

Thank you Killswitch. Let me clarify that I wasn't stating that it was a right given by the Constitution. Simply stating how our founders felt about the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Note that I'm not advocating revolution.. that is a LAST resort!!!! Just stating what our own Declaration of Independence said on the subject.

That question however was settled on April 9th, 1865 at Appomattox Court House.

It most certainly should have settled it! But for some, even the Lost Cause has not been completely settled yet.

Where were these threads for the last 4-6 years; and, more to the point, what would your reaction have been to them when your guy was in office?

I am for rule of law, and the law provides for a correct method of deeming something unconsitutional - the courts. Some hack in the media or Joe the neighbor/plumber/mover/whatever complaining that he would interpret the constitution differently from the courts does not make a thing constitutional or not: judicial review does.

This kind of talk is just people who are unable - or too lazy - to win victories for their viewpoints through the normal accepted (and legal) political process, so they set out to subvert our nation's laws. What is astounding to me is that they can keep a straight face while claiming they want to subvert our rule of law in the name of protecting our highest law. It is a whole new level of self delusion, chutzpah, or both.

quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixDark:
From the tone of your post, I take it you are hoping that our country follows the Honduras example?

Not going to happen.

Actually, no I don't - but I believe things are heading in a direction we haven't seen in a very, very, long time.

Obama & Progressives are on a mission to make permanent changes to our country. IMHO - MOST decent Americans do not know about nor would they SUPPORT these changes, which is why they are done so subvert. Many of Obama’s appointees are radically ant-American and are committed to a socialist cause! They are NOT merely democrats who are decent Americans who may hold liberal views! The Progressive Caucus is a radical group of Socialists and have determined it’s time for America to surrender her sovereignty and join with the other Socialist countries.

This whole-thing about health-care is nothing more than Obama’s typical “community organizing” tactics to “divide & conquer.” This is exactly how the socialists operate – create classes and create the handles/labels for people to grab hold of – i.e. bumper-sticker slogans – to create tension & division. The more divisive – the better for them so they can keep on pumping the labeling machines taking out there opponents via the character assassination – regardless what the cost. They’ve honed this skill to precision over the years. That was the purpose of their “other” controversial issues and that was only practice runs. They know very well how to deliberately polarize an issue – locking into a societal community virus so the system continues maintains the polarizing eternal loop – just like a computer when the infamously DREADED BLUE SCREEN used to pop-up…

Agree-Disagree – watch as this puppy starts to unravel. All I’m trying to ask is – how does it work – what invokes the Oath for our military. Obama is merely temporary – they aren’t concerned about him. To those pushing the Progressive agenda – Obama is a disposable commodity. That may sound crude but the truth of the matter – they only need him for his signature. If he screws up their agenda and/or his signature is no longer valuable – he’s shelved. The question then becomes – can his ego take such a hit?

Just rambling thoughts – but NO I do not want to see our country smack the edge of chaos because there will be consequences… I simply think Obama clicked on the afterburners without checking his fuel gauge…

quote:

Obama & Progressives are on a mission to make permanent changes to our country. IMHO - MOST decent Americans do not know about nor would they SUPPORT these changes, which is why they are done so subvert. Many of Obama’s appointees are radically ant-American and are committed to a socialist cause! They are NOT merely democrats who are decent Americans who may hold liberal views! The Progressive Caucus is a radical group of Socialists and have determined it’s time for America to surrender her sovereignty and join with the other Socialist countries.

Oh NOES!!!11!! Teh Boogeymans!!!!1!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Where were these threads for the last 4-6 years; and, more to the point, what would your reaction have been to them when your guy was in office?

I am for rule of law, and the law provides for a correct method of deeming something unconsitutional - the courts. Some hack in the media or Joe the neighbor/plumber/mover/whatever complaining that he would interpret the constitution differently from the courts does not make a thing constitutional or not: judicial review does.

This kind of talk is just people who are unable - or too lazy - to win victories for their viewpoints through the normal accepted (and legal) political process, so they set out to subvert our nation's laws. What is astounding to me is that they can keep a straight face while claiming they want to subvert our rule of law in the name of protecting our highest law. It is a whole new level of self delusion, chutzpah, or both.

"The judiciary today behaves in the manner of an ongoing constitutional convention, unilaterally amending the Constitution almost at will. a majority of Supreme Court justices have, on occasion, even justified the use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution. The application of customs, traditions, and values that attach to foreign cultures and laws provides no legitimate insight into America's Constitution and diminishes the contemporary role of the state and federal representative branches in writing America's laws and amending (or not) the Constitution. The arbitrary application of foreign law--which provides an activist justice with an infinite smorgasbord of legal options--is a rejection of the predicate for America's governmental system. And it lasts only as long as the next opinion."

In 1850 French philosopher Frederic Bastiat, wrting about the law sumed it up well:
When the law has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this: it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. Amd it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, “Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,” and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."...Michele Bachmann

Wonder how many people take her seriously

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Where were these threads for the last 4-6 years; and, more to the point, what would your reaction have been to them when your guy was in office?

I am for rule of law, and the law provides for a correct method of deeming something unconsitutional - the courts. Some hack in the media or Joe the neighbor/plumber/mover/whatever complaining that he would interpret the constitution differently from the courts does not make a thing constitutional or not: judicial review does.

This kind of talk is just people who are unable - or too lazy - to win victories for their viewpoints through the normal accepted (and legal) political process, so they set out to subvert our nation's laws. What is astounding to me is that they can keep a straight face while claiming they want to subvert our rule of law in the name of protecting our highest law. It is a whole new level of self delusion, chutzpah, or both.

I sent "scathing" letters to BOTH Democrat & Republican. The Republican Posers abandoned the President and WORSE they abandoned our soldiers.

I sent them MANY scathing letters. I'm sure they have me in their NUT-CASE files but oh-well.

MY QUESTION is: Why are so many of Obama's appointees "anti-American" socialists?

Heather Higginbottom Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, formerly with the Obama for America campaign.

Boston Democratic Socialists of America Forum

The panel (from left to right): Heather Higginbottom (legislative assistant to Sen. John Kerry), William Julius Wilson (Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor, and Director of the Joblessness and Urban Poverty Research Program at Harvard University), Dottie Stevens (low-income activist and Communications Coordinator of Survival News), moderator (and Boston DSA Chair) Jack Clark, and Robert J. Haynes (President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO).
Event Sponsors:
Democratic Socialists of America, Northeastern University Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Survival News, Boston Workforce Development Coalition, Massachusetts Neighbor to Neighbor, Low-Income Welfare Organizing Collective (LIWOC)

>>>http://www.dsaboston.org/2001Wilson.htm
------------------------------------

Here's another one...
Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar. A socialist since his teens!

He writes an entire article for the DSA...

Here's a glimpse of his Socialist views "...In today’s world the blather about free trade, free-markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pablum for the suckers..."

>>>http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Fall_2006.pdf
-----------------------------------

David Bonior Member of the Obama Economic Transition Team-now delegated by president Obama to negotiate the unification of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations. David Bonior, Detroit DSA chair David Green, Douglass-Debs Dinner November 8th 2008

Detroit DSA celebrated the 10th Annual Douglass-Debs Dinner November 8th 2008 Co-chairs were United Auto Workers official Rory Gamble and International Union of Operating Engineers Business Manager Phillip Schloop. The Douglass-Debs Award winners were David and Judy Bonior...
------------------------

How many would you like to discuss - or doesn't none of that matter much... these are just folks participating within their communities like good citizens..?

The Train Obama has convinced everyone to jump on board is NOT GOING through the typical stations and stops some might think it is going... He is on a ONE WAY TICKET to turn this country up-side-down - in-side-out and WELCOME to the NEW American Socialist experiment - the quasi-republic...

Hey, but maybe folks don't really care...? I just don't understand if everyone supports this stuff then WHY doesn't the emperor with no clothes TELL EVERYONE about the destination before they start figuring it out by READING THE SIGNS on streets he seems to be BLOWING PAST...

Just my thoughts..

quote:

Originally posted by GlassOnion:

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Where were these threads for the last 4-6 years; and, more to the point, what would your reaction have been to them when your guy was in office?

I am for rule of law, and the law provides for a correct method of deeming something unconsitutional - the courts. Some hack in the media or Joe the neighbor/plumber/mover/whatever complaining that he would interpret the constitution differently from the courts does not make a thing constitutional or not: judicial review does.

This kind of talk is just people who are unable - or too lazy - to win victories for their viewpoints through the normal accepted (and legal) political process, so they set out to subvert our nation's laws. What is astounding to me is that they can keep a straight face while claiming they want to subvert our rule of law in the name of protecting our highest law. It is a whole new level of self delusion, chutzpah, or both.

I sent "scathing" letters to BOTH Democrat & Republican. The Republican Posers abandoned the President and WORSE they abandoned our soldiers.

I sent them MANY scathing letters. I'm sure they have me in their NUT-CASE files but oh-well.

MY QUESTION is: Why are so many of Obama's appointees "anti-American" socialists?

Heather Higginbottom Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, formerly with the Obama for America campaign.

Boston Democratic Socialists of America Forum

The panel (from left to right): Heather Higginbottom (legislative assistant to Sen. John Kerry), William Julius Wilson (Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor, and Director of the Joblessness and Urban Poverty Research Program at Harvard University), Dottie Stevens (low-income activist and Communications Coordinator of Survival News), moderator (and Boston DSA Chair) Jack Clark, and Robert J. Haynes (President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO).
Event Sponsors:
Democratic Socialists of America, Northeastern University Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Survival News, Boston Workforce Development Coalition, Massachusetts Neighbor to Neighbor, Low-Income Welfare Organizing Collective (LIWOC)

>>>http://www.dsaboston.org/2001Wilson.htm
------------------------------------

Here's another one...
Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar. A socialist since his teens!

He writes an entire article for the DSA...

Here's a glimpse of his Socialist views "...In today’s world the blather about free trade, free-markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pablum for the suckers..."

>>>http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Fall_2006.pdf
-----------------------------------

David Bonior Member of the Obama Economic Transition Team-now delegated by president Obama to negotiate the unification of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations. David Bonior, Detroit DSA chair David Green, Douglass-Debs Dinner November 8th 2008

Detroit DSA celebrated the 10th Annual Douglass-Debs Dinner November 8th 2008 Co-chairs were United Auto Workers official Rory Gamble and International Union of Operating Engineers Business Manager Phillip Schloop. The Douglass-Debs Award winners were David and Judy Bonior...
------------------------

How many would you like to discuss - or doesn't none of that matter much... these are just folks participating within their communities like good citizens..?

The Train Obama has convinced everyone to jump on board is NOT GOING through the typical stations and stops some might think it is going... He is on a ONE WAY TICKET to turn this country up-side-down - in-side-out and WELCOME to the NEW American Socialist experiment - the quasi-republic...

Hey, but maybe folks don't really care...? I just don't understand if everyone supports this stuff then WHY doesn't the emperor with no clothes TELL EVERYONE about the destination before they start figuring it out by READING THE SIGNS on streets he seems to be BLOWING PAST...

Just my thoughts..

Because people are so conditioned to believe that something that large could not possibly be hidden right in front of their faces, so therefore it doesn't exist.

The problem with that is.. they will only believe it after the fact and by then, it's too late to do anything about it.

Who believed Bush when he stated that Iran was a threat with nukes? Yet today, they know of not one but a second 'secret' facility, and test launching mid-range missiles. All of a sudden, Iran is a threat.

GlassOnion, you apparently don't read your own drivel. Ron Bloom didn't write anything for the DSA. Right at the bottom of the article:

Ron Bloom is special assistant to the president, United Steelworkers of America. This article is based on remarks he delivered to the metal industry’s Steel Success Strategies XXI conference in New York in June 2006.

These events are sponsored by several prominent union groups, community activist groups, and university organizations. You have no proof these people are associated with the DSA, or even have a clue who they are.

You and your internet brethren's obsession with this group is doing nothing but elevating them to a celebrity status they wouldn't otherwise deserve.

quote:

Agree-Disagree – watch as this puppy starts to unravel. All I’m trying to ask is – how does it work – what invokes the Oath for our military.

If you're honestly asking the question with a sincere desire for an answer based in constitutional law, why don't you try a polite letter to Tony Scalia...

...or Generals Odierno or McChrystal...

...or to the Chairman of the JCS?

If the authority you seek to invoke is set in Constitutional or Military Law, one of those fellows might point you to the appropriate citation and offer a practical context in which it might be applied.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by GlassOnion:
If this is a inappropriate topic for here - please don't hesitate to remove.


If the people are fed-up with the lies & distortions, when can we REVOLT using force if necessary, to rid this government & country of the enemy within – socialists, communists, etc? The voters box is broken & rigged – they are actively attempting to fix that permanently to assure their return… So, voting them out will only remain possible in the near future.

When can the people ask their military to protect them and our constitution from its corrupt government leadership?

For the military to step in and “protect the Constitution” there would first have to be a real violation of the Constitution – not just that Rush and Hannity have told you that there has been a violation.

Then there is a Constitutional process that must be followed where those who violated the Constitution would be brought to trial, or impeachment.

If those who were accused of violating the Constitution were convicted, they would be removed from office or sent to jail.

If those convicted of violating the Constitution were to use force to stay in office, then the police or military could be called in to enforce the legal decision.

But if that were to happen to President Obama, then Vice-President Biden would take over. If President Obama and Vice-President Biden were ousted, then Nancy Pelosi would take over. And if you got all of them convicted Hillary Clinton would become President – according to the Constitution.

Is that what you had in mind?

You can do better than that… I hope… btw – I never listened to Rush – couldn’t tell a station he is on and I don’t watch Hannity because I think he WHINES too much…and I say you can do better than that because I’ve read your posts…

Let me make this a bit more simplistic for ya… The Oath taken by our Military is to Protect the Constitution – not necessarily any particular individual – though one would expect that includes the President and sadly the real malcontents – the Dome seekers – and it does include American citizens as a generalization…

Clarifier – I’m not baiting – I simply don’t know the limits to where the military must invoke its Oath above a presidential order – of sorts.. From what I’m gathering that may not be a possibility because essentially whatever the President does – is constitutional… however, isn’t that what Nixon attempted to use…?

If certain factions within our government are using subversive methods to make major changes to the nation – without allowing the American people to even KNOW what those changes are – then we are NO LONGER being represented – they are no longer representing the republic but have unilaterally decided what the people want & need!

This is fairly simple – if public notice were given to ALL US citizens – explaining exactly what the Progressive Socialists want to do with our rights – our country – etc, would the citizens be FOR or AGAINST?

If the people are supportive, then subversion is unnecessary, so let the people SEE & HEAR for themselves.

DO YOU SUPPORT A NEW REPUBLIC – the United Socialist States of America… YES or NO..?

If NO, then WHY is Obama appointing so many SOCIALISTS – anti-Americans to so many positions within our government? What constitutional right did Obama have taking away the majority private property ownership of those in GM and GIVE IT – FREE of CHARGE – GAVE it to “HIS” socialist union…? The Fed STOLE their property – and GAVE IT TO the freaking UNION…? You don’t see anything wrong with that picture…? Let’s lay it a little clearer – Ron Bloom – a DEVOUT SOCIALIST – LEFTIST – member of the DSA – anti-Capitalist - is APPOINTED AS CZAR of manufacturing - -

Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar. Using his CZAR-SHIP authority – ordained by the President – exercises his ANTI-Capitalist views and STEAL the private property of citizens – who PURCHASED that property – and GAVE IT TO his socialist – compadre’s and fellow members of the DSA – the UNION..?

I just want to be sure about that it’s fine and okay – because when someone else takes the Captain seat and appoints their czars – say a Moral Majority member over the TEACHERS UNION to change some of their standards – and along with the Educational czar – Dobson or someone like that – so we change the school curriculums to better reflect a PRO-American history and value system… YOU won’t mind, right? That’s all I’m trying to figure out…

xerello: minor point. Before you got to Hillary as President, you'd get Robert Byrd. Right after Nancy Pelosi.

The order of presidential succession makes me earnestly hopeful for Obama's continued good health. Though I wish he'd DO something besides just TALK about doing something.

quote:

But if that were to happen to President Obama, then Vice-President Biden would take over. If President Obama and Vice-President Biden were ousted, then Nancy Pelosi would take over. And if you got all of them convicted Hillary Clinton would become President – according to the Constitution.

Is that what you had in mind?

If it comes down to it, I'd rather have HRC in charge then ANY of those above her in the chain.

(Yes I know I can't believe I just said that either.)

quote:

Originally posted by Esample1:
GlassOnion, you apparently don't read your own drivel. Ron Bloom didn't write anything for the DSA. Right at the bottom of the article:

Ron Bloom is special assistant to the president, United Steelworkers of America. This article is based on remarks he delivered to the metal industry’s Steel Success Strategies XXI conference in New York in June 2006.

These events are sponsored by several prominent union groups, community activist groups, and university organizations. You have no proof these people are associated with the DSA, or even have a clue who they are.

You and your internet brethren's obsession with this group is doing nothing but elevating them to a celebrity status they wouldn't otherwise deserve.

You mean this article - titled - If I Ran the Zoo: A Win-Win Solution for the Steel Industry By Ron Bloom

Here's the blub.. "...Ron Bloom is special assistant to the president, United Steelworkers of America. This article is based on remarks he delivered to the metal industry’s Steel Success Strategies XXI conference in New York in June 2006....".

The Article is CLEARLY stating BY RON BLOOM - the blurb you are referring is NOT stating that Bloom did NOT write the article – the blurb is merely saying “…this article is based on remarks he delivered…” I admit it is confusing because HE WROTE the article – for DSA – unless you can point to another “author” somewhere – it clearly states – BY Ron Bloom…

Now - about that PROOF - well this is a periodical PRODUCED BY THE DSA - for fellow SOCIALISTS…. On page 2 of the publication it states – “inside (meaning the publication) on “pg 6, Win-Win in the Steel Industry Ron Bloom”

It should be noted that Bloom is now the GREEN czar as well..!

Bloom is NO slouch – and comes with a good resume – but has been a socialist his entire life – since 10 yrs old…

Again – Esample1 – I’m not doing your homework for ya… All you want to do is shoot the messengers – learn about the issues – then debate them – then the messenger goes away…

quote:

Originally posted by Cider33_Alpha:
xerello: minor point. Before you got to Hillary as President, you'd get Robert Byrd. Right after Nancy Pelosi.

The order of presidential succession makes me earnestly hopeful for Obama's continued good health. Though I wish he'd DO something besides just TALK about doing something.

I stand corrected.