I think i'm onto something here

So wait, bear with me. What if like, we think about the origins of forming a state, a government, and we consider what the people forming it and its constitution would be thinking. Wouldn't it be true to agree that the founders would be smart people like us? I mean, it's our country, we are living in it and it exists so obvioulsy the founders would be smart and rational people because otherwise it would be crap and we would dissolve it. And we think what would they be thinking about the possibility that sometime in the future the state would not want to exist. If they thought that, then they would think of people like us, people in the future, their descendents, and that we would be smart. Because otherwise they would not have wanted to form the state, because it would be crap in a few hundred years. So what if we are in such a situation where the people of the state would not want it to exist anymore. And they are in the situation where they can't do anything about it because the constitution doesn't allow for it the self-dissolution of the state. Now obviously if the founders were smart, they would want to help us in the situation because we are their descendants, and they love us. Now then if we are unhappy, they would want us to be able to undo the founding structure of the state, for the good of the people. And it would have been unconstitutional to disallow us from doing so, had the founders had time during their meetings to declare so before the constitution was finalized. And we could say that since, had the founders had time, the provision allowing us to do that would have been provided in the constitution. And so if we did want to break the state then the constitution would allow for it, because the founders would have wanted it that way. Wouldn't it then be well within our constitution rights to break the state up? For its constitution to be shattered for it own good, forming new states, or lots of different ones in its place. So technically I could legally justify forming my own country with my own citizens, and it would be unlawful under international law for any other country to try to dissolve me? I'm thinking "Walsh Democratic Repulic" or "United States of Walsh" (i'm thinking of having about 4-5 states, no more). I have yet to select a cabinet or vice-leader yet but I'll let you know.

 

What if, bare with me, someone created a "state" with a constitution that could be changed in part whenever the people become unhappy with certain provisions? Kinda like America did. Then you wouldn't have to dismantle the entire thing to make a few changes.

.

 

Actually, it's a reference to the writing of the U.S. constitution, which did nothing to change property rights, only to insure them.

.

 

I love this sort of thing.. When people dance around a radical issue..
I'm not much of a dancer personally..

I think the original constitution of the united states was sufficient then as it is now..
The decoration of independence has relevance that rings true to this very day..

That we need is a fundamentalist revolution..

 

This "revolution" as you call it has come to my neighborhood via the Oath Keepers. If it keeps escalating as it has been, someone(s) is going to die. Is this the revolution you desire? A blood-bath maybe. I don't see a revolution, I see terrorists carrying tea bags full of death.

I'm not much of a dancer either.

.

 

Revolutions don't need to be bloody...
Anything that unites enough people to make a substantial change is a revolution..

Unfortunately violence is one of the most affective catalysts in stirring up enough passion in people to unite them in a cause.. Severe headship of any sort for that matter.. I don't advocate it (just accept it as real)

Personally I would rather see activism, petitions being circulated (and taken seriously enough to be signed) that call for the changes we need..
Impeachments of career politicians and lobbyists (anyone that places money or power over public interest).
More power and authority given to localized government with less interference from the federal level..
Oh yeah and the kind of freedom described in the original Constitution.

All i would like to see the the decentralization of power and wealth..
An atmosphere of equality, freedom, and sustainability.

I quick web-search for "Oath Keepers" turns up a group of public servants (and veterans) that refuse to violate the basic human rights as established by the constitution of the United States.. Non Violently...
As a Veteran myself it looks like I might be eligible for inclusion and will likely look further into it..

Have you read their mission statement or oath? Seriously? Check it out

What are they involved in over your way that someone might find concerning?

 

How about making a land with no law, just humand minds in control, nothing but independent and open-minded thinkers in control of the land, no "representative" making any decision, the ppl as a whole

 

I think we are too social for that to work, we need companionship so communities are just a necessity.. To live together peacefully and productively we will need some ground rules but they should be agreed upon by the community as a whole..

 

This one is going to be if it hasn't already. Here's a good read:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers
3 pages

And one guy who has already tried to "START THE KILLING NOW!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/26/tea-party-twitter-arrest_n_191527.html

.

 

Unanimous consent is near impossible in any community.

 

Well the nice thing about small locally governed communities is that they are likely be plentiful and diverse. If you cant accept the compromises required to participate in one.. the world would be full of other options... Or you could become a hermit....

 

A small local community is in fact less likely to have diversity vs a large broad spectrum.

 

I happen to be a veteran myself. I have studied them extensively and I have them living in my neighborhood, automatic weapons and all. The FBI is watching them and they are a very violent and dangerous group of misfits. They have already tried to take over a small town in Tennessee by serving arrest warrants on some of the leaders, including a judge. One of my neighbors was involved in that and is being watched by the FBI as a result. Their public web site is a farce compared to their real agenda.

Read the first article I linked to in my last post and you will see what I mean.

They're trying to take over the neighborhood and kick out the people they don't like, so much for Constitutional rights. And the oath of enlistment they misquote is this:

The part they leave out is this: "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"

They are nothing more than an army of wingnuts who are at the disposal of the Tea Party.

.

 

That's not only bull shit, it's unAmerican. Who the hell are you to tell me that I have to move in order to live as I choose. What you espouse here is not freedom, but tyranny. This is the reason people were burned, stoned and pressed to death in Salem Mass.

.

 

I can see how the media representation of these "Oath Keepers" as militant right wing extremists can come across as off putting.. But it seems to me that they are quite the opposite.. They are refusing to strip people of their rights and Peacefully standing up in resistance (pretty liberal of them)..

Granted you may find individuals associated the the organization that are in fact some sort of extremist (like in the article you posted) does that make the whole organization guilty by association? (that's a little right wing) Its like saying that every Christin is a terrorist biased on the great number of them on death row awaiting excitation for murder..

 

See below (was figuring out the quote thing)...

 

what i meant was that there would be many small communities, and each is likely to be a little different than others..

I do agree with you, each small community will likely be predominantly comprised of like minded individuals. Severally reducing diversity but increasing individual contribution and social cohesion (but that's kind of the idea of the thing)

 

It is not OK for a police officer to pick and choose the laws he enforces. It is not OK for a militia group to arrest public officials. It is not OK for any group to take over a neighborhood and force some of it's residents out. And it certainly is not OK for the Oath Keepers to tell military personnel to disobey orders from their commanding officers, this is treason, and these people are traitors to America.

How many weapons and how much ammunition are these 2 young men in that article stashing away? These "boys" are going to end up being charged with treason by the army and their lives are going to be lost because they followed the advice of the oath keepers.

Change is made in the voting booth in this country, not at the point of a gun. If your side looses you don't throw a temper tantrum, gather an army and start a civil war, you suck it up and support the leaders who were elected by the majority. That's the American Way.

.

 

hes lucky, they killed 2pac for saying the same things, in a different way..

 

I can appreciate your concerns about unit cohesion in military and law-enforcement.. But it seems that we are arguing the plot of that movie "A Few Good Men" It's as much the reproducibility of a soldier to ignore an illegal order as it is for him to follow a legal one.. The constitution is clear and an order in violation of it would be illegal..

It looks like that is all these "Oath Keepers" are about..

I am not advocating violence here.. or supporting anyone that does. There are better ways

I do support the right to own and bare arms, I support gay marriage too... They are our rights...
I find it offensive that there the government is allowed to create new ordinances to prohibit the building of mosques in New York yet we take on oath on the bible whenever we make a statement in court.