Independence Day? Another Revolution Absolutely Necessary

If those "means for interaction" were/are blocked, the founders in my mind, would have expected civil disobedience. Aside from elections, the only means for either the States or their people to make change is via demonstrations (civil or not) and somehow getting Congress to authorize a National Convention of States (37 now required), hold that convention and then act on the results. Today, this is near impossible, and even if it could be held, there are too many different groups that would infiltrate any meaningful session.

I've offered my definition, where the founders inferred armed rebellion if necessary. I'll ask you at what point would you agree or not, that the Federal had or is violating their rights over the States. Nationalizing the Banking Industry, the Oil Industry, all retail markets, maybe an Executive Order with an unlimited tenure for the President/VP or simply letting the current person, pick the next. None of this is unprecedented, but where does your limit tell you it's time for rebellion....

 

We haven't even attempted to hold a Constitutional Convention and you want to jump straight to armed rebellion. You are far from a supporter of the Constitution. You stand in direct opposition to it.

 

J.P. Morgan was not a Rothchild agent.

The agent for the Rothchild bank in the United States was August Belmont.

Morgan was the principal financier of one Thomas Edison, who wired the first home with electricity for William K Vanderbilt, at his mansion on Fifth Ave and 51st street, where Rockefeller Center now stands.

Tesla was one of Edison's employees at the time.

 

Yes and Tesla and Edison were well at odds over the profit motive and electricity.

 

Then you better get on the people on Berkeley when Bush was in office.

 

Actually, Tesla and Edison went at odds because Edison promised Tesla a fat bonus if he could straighten out Edison's faulty wiring layout for a well known ocean liner.

Tesla did the job. Edison stiffed him.

 

I hope you do realize that there are 3 types of powers given to the states, one of them is impleaded. There is also another important document that you might want to read, The Declaration of Independence. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably 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" Notice how it doesn't say anything about armed rebellion, but how it also doesn't saying anything about it. That is kind of important thing you need to take note off.

 

Does it say that that? Because if it doesn't, then it isn't illegal.

 

Are you calling for revolution against the U.S. or against the Rothschilds?

 

The Declaration of Independence is not law in America.

 

Like a lot of revolutions, the far right knows it want one. It just doesn't know who it wants to revolt against and it doesn't know what it wants if it wins.

 

Its principles still govern the US Government.

 

Yet the body of law that governs how that government is set up and may be changed only defines two ways to legally change it: elections and Constitutional Conventions.

 

George Washington wanted a commission in the British Army. When they turned him down, he wanted a commission in the Colonial Army. All he wanted was a commission in somebody's army. Point is, it is a tough thing knowing who to follow these days. And since the leaders can't get it together, I sure as hell don't feel like following.

 

Does it specifically say you can't have a armed rebellion? http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html there is a copy of it show me.

 

That isn't the way the Constitution works. It spells out specific means of changing the government. It doesn't spell out all the ways you can't change it.

If your standard worked, then I could spontaneously organized a national referendum to get rid of the President and it would be legal because the Constitution doesn't say I can't.

 

Does it say you can or can't do that way? That is a very simple question As far your example goes, What does Article II cover????????????

 

Could be. He stiffed him more than once however and I think the problem was far bigger than Edison's chiseling... it was the Tesla Generator and the profit motive.

"The Tesla generator gives us the best of Tesla’s knowledge. His plans and blueprints contain easy to follow and very detailed descriptions of the building process and they provide clear explanation of the theoretical background as well. With his generator, he wanted to offer free, unlimited electricity to humanity, and now we can benefit from his inventions by creating our own devices at home and powering our household appliances with the free green energy produced this way." http://www.teslagenerator.com/tesla-vs-edison/

 

The Constitution defines the government and the way it is constructed as well as its powers. The way it is constructed is very important because no where does it say anything about armed rebellion as a means of constructing or changing it.

Furthermore, if you had a right to armed rebellion, the Founders would have put an amendment in the Constitution prohibiting making any laws restricting that right.

 

"They" meaning a or some number of States have often tried to hold an "Article 5" Convention, never reaching he required 2/3rd's, the point of my comments. It's simply not going to happen, that 37 States will agree on a single issue matter, then the US Congress to schedule that Convention (could be any time in the future) or act on whatever could be agreed to. They do not now or is it likely ever will let their power go elsewhere...

Again, at what point would you admit the American Constitution has been voided and must be returned to it's original intent or do you feel it's a living document fitting the MOOD of the society?

 

Odd that one of the signatories of the Constitution suggests otherwise:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

 

In simple terms the constitution details the limitations on government. It would be unconstitutional for the government to revolt against itself for change.
As for the citizenry? That's an entirely different circumstance.

 

Yes it is. It was incorporated into US Code as an Organic Law in 1878.

http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim

 

That's a pretty serious allegation to make; can you provide solid evidence that this is true? Perhaps a link to a credible news source??

 

Where exactly did Thomas Jefferson sign the Constitution?

- - - Updated - - -

It is no more binding than the Articles of Confederation that are listed below it.