Jump to content

Lincoln: "...revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."


Recommended Posts

In his first inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln said these words:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

I ran across this while reading a book and thought about how this statement applies today.  And I wondered if the seemingly treasonous actions of the far right might fall under this right. 

But the problem with applying this right, as defined by Lincoln, is the people who would benefit from dismembering or overthrowing our present government, Jan 6 style, would primarily be those at the top of the wealth pyramid.  And a few does not constitute "the people."

What would fall under an appropriate exercise of this right would be for the people to vote out all the incumbents, and continue to do so until those in public office truly acted on behalf of their constituents.  And should the incumbents tamper with free and fair elections to their benefit, then the people would be within their rights to overthrow the government.

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you bring forward to the present day and age what Lincoln wrote from back in his day and age, its now called, having an election.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jules said:

In his first inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln said these words:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

I ran across this while reading a book and thought about how this statement applies today.  And I wondered if the seemingly treasonous actions of the far right might fall under this right. 

But the problem with applying this right, as defined by Lincoln, is the people who would benefit from dismembering or overthrowing our present government, Jan 6 style, would primarily be those at the top of the wealth pyramid.  And a few does not constitute "the people."

What would fall under an appropriate exercise of this right would be for the people to vote out all the incumbents, and continue to do so until those in public office truly acted on behalf of their constituents.  And should the incumbents tamper with free and fair elections to their benefit, then the people would be within their rights to overthrow the government.

Thoughts?

If you can fool enough of the people enough of the time, doesn't that satisfy the requirement of it being "the people?"

There will never be 100% concensus on ANYthing. Look up coprophagia if you doubt. The question is, at one point does concensus reach a governable majority that -most- of the minority will go along with? Whatever that threshold is, I believe the USA has fallen below it, largely due to the incessant proseltyzing of the far-right on behalf of the 0.1%ers.

Nowhere does it say that the majority has to be provided with a substantive, quantifiable, set of benefits. All the wealth and all the privilege can be funneled to Just One Guy, if a sizable enough majority agree to the deal.

The problem is, without a governing concensus, how long can we hold off on settling things by shooting each other?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

easy isn't it.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jules said:

Thoughts?

Well actually, the framework of the constitution along with the amendments, is not too bad . . . 

the problem is that the courts and esp the SCOTUS have mangled its meaning almost beyond recognition. 

Corporate personhood, racial terror, gerrymandering, emoluments, Prez criminality and so on . . 

all of that should be outlawed by the constitution  ..  

but the courts have ruled otherwise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well actually, the framework of the constitution along with the amendments, is not too bad . . . 

the problem is that the courts and esp the SCOTUS have mangled its meaning almost beyond recognition. 

Corporate personhood, racial terror, gerrymandering, emoluments, Prez criminality and so on . . 

all of that should be outlawed by the constitution  ..  

but the courts have ruled otherwise. 

You are mixing court issues with enforcement issues. These two, emoluments, Prez criminality, seem to have been given a pass by Justice, they never seem get anywhere near a court the most part. Then we have Dredd Scott, that is on The Supremes along with some others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Keith said:

If you bring forward to the present day and age what Lincoln wrote from back in his day and age, its now called, having an election.

 

yep, that's what he was talking about, but now the nutters will say "see, even Lincoln says we need gunz!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

 These two, emoluments, Prez criminality, seem to have been given a pass by Justice, they never seem get anywhere near a court the most part. 

Respectfully but strongly disagree - both of those went to the courts and were given a big fat pass. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

You are mixing court issues with enforcement issues. These two, emoluments, Prez criminality, seem to have been given a pass by Justice, they never seem get anywhere near a court the most part. Then we have Dredd Scott, that is on The Supremes along with some others.

I can hardly wait to see what the SCOTUS comes up with in the next session. I'm guessing it will be a series of positions that are supported only by about 35% of the people, those being the hyper-religious right. At what point does the elected government step in and tell them they are so far off the mark they should be disbanded?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Respectfully but strongly disagree - both of those went to the courts and were given a big fat pass. 

The infamous Justice memo about not prosecuting a sitting president was from the Nixon-Agnew era. It was an offhand remark by a mid level employee with no constitutional scholarship behind it. They were wrestling with the issue of criminals as President and Vice President and what a huge mess putting both of them on trial at once would be.
AFAIK no court has ruled up or down on that one. I think emoluments got a half-ass try maybe? IIRC, it came from outside the AGs office. Was it a state?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

In his first inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln said these words:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

I ran across this while reading a book and thought about how this statement applies today.  And I wondered if the seemingly treasonous actions of the far right might fall under this right. 

But the problem with applying this right, as defined by Lincoln, is the people who would benefit from dismembering or overthrowing our present government, Jan 6 style, would primarily be those at the top of the wealth pyramid.  And a few does not constitute "the people."

What would fall under an appropriate exercise of this right would be for the people to vote out all the incumbents, and continue to do so until those in public office truly acted on behalf of their constituents.  And should the incumbents tamper with free and fair elections to their benefit, then the people would be within their rights to overthrow the government.

Thoughts?

His entire inaugural address is worth reading. However, keep in mind that it was given on March 4, 1861 after the southern states had seceded in January and February.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/confederate-states-of-america

Lincoln was careful as Buchanan had been before him not to provoke the South and I think he was being careful there. But before there was Fort Sumpter there was Fort Pensacola. The South had attacked the fort in January 1861 and the fort held out until it was relieved in April. Maybe Lincoln was maneuvering the South into attacking first. It really doesn't matter. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union which he did. I wouldn't use Lincoln's effort here as a contractual obligation to the January 6th insurrectionists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

 Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union which he did.

That brought to mind a comment by Shelby Foote (AKA Doc McCoy's twin brother :D) about the Civil War.

He said (paraphrased) that the main change resulting from the war was that prior to it people said "The United States are and after it they said The United States is".

I thought that was remarkably profound for a single word change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Voyageur said:

Honest Abe. Could we call TFG honest? Ever?

One of the only sentences in which "honest" could be used along with The Former Guy -

"I honestly see The Former Guy as one of the lowest forms of life."

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jules said:

In his first inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln said these words:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

I ran across this while reading a book and thought about how this statement applies today.  And I wondered if the seemingly treasonous actions of the far right might fall under this right. 

But the problem with applying this right, as defined by Lincoln, is the people who would benefit from dismembering or overthrowing our present government, Jan 6 style, would primarily be those at the top of the wealth pyramid.  And a few does not constitute "the people."

What would fall under an appropriate exercise of this right would be for the people to vote out all the incumbents, and continue to do so until those in public office truly acted on behalf of their constituents.  And should the incumbents tamper with free and fair elections to their benefit, then the people would be within their rights to overthrow the government.

Thoughts?

This concept is nothing new.  It's literally the very first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I think the 1/6 traitors failed to declare the causes which impel them to the separation.   

Without any intention of turning this into another gunz thread, I believe this ^^ is one of the main reasons the 2A was inscribed into the sacred Bill of Rights.   The Founders knew that no gov't or system of gov't was ever perfect and that their little experiment with democracy had as much or more chance of becoming worse than the last King they had just overthrown.  So they built in an "escape clause".  

It's an interesting topic and I'm glad you brought it up.  It's a bit of a sticky situation because it could go either way.  If a revolution fails, then the folks who started it are traitors and seditionists.  If it succeeds, they are patriots and hetros.  The winners ALWAYS get to right the history books for at least the next 100 years or so.  

The way I look at it is any actions by the current gov't that blatantly and egregiously violate the current Constitution, without going through the correct channels to amend it, are ripe for overthrow and replacement.  For instance if a sitting POTUS dissolves Congress and pits the 9 sitting SCOTUS Justices up against a firing squad wall.... that's a pretty good indication that it's time for THE PEOPLE/ the Militia to take back their country, through force if necessary.    This is where the 1/6 fuckwits failed..... the "cause" they were trying to fight for was nothing but a lie.  Keeping TFG shitstain in power was the opposite of what a righteous revolution looks like.  They may have "thought" they were doing the right thing because they had been brainwashed, but that doesn't give them a pass any more than the Nazis who helped HItler rise to power even if they thought they were doing the right thing.  

The BL is that our loyalty should be to the Constitution itself.  Not the gov't.  All of our oaths of office say exactly that for a reason.   kinda of think of whether a revolution or attempt to overthrow a sitting US gov't has just and legal is by applying the SCOTUS's interpretation of what constitutes porn.  "You'll know it when you see it".  If the current gov't is shitting all over the Big C, then they have to go.  Period. dot.

Just saying.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I can hardly wait to see what the SCOTUS comes up with in the next session. I'm guessing it will be a series of positions that are supported only by about 35% of the people, those being the hyper-religious right. At what point does the elected government step in and tell them they are so far off the mark they should be disbanded?

So you're saying the SCOTUS should bow to public opinion??  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

So you're saying the SCOTUS should bow to public opinion??  

 

No, they should be at least somewhat aligned to the values of 65% of the citizens, and not pushing their own agenda through regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

No, they should be at least somewhat aligned to the values of 65% of the citizens, and not pushing their own agenda through regardless.

So back when more than 65% of folks still wanted Slavery, segregation and Jim Crow - you're saying the SCOTUS should have been more aligned with the values of those citizens???

Edit to add:  If that were the case, then all kinds of civil rights stuff would never have happened.  Brown v Board of Education, etc would never have happened and Dredd Scott and Plessy would have been just decisions for the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

So back when more than 65% of folks still wanted Slavery, segregation and Jim Crow - you're saying the SCOTUS should have been more aligned with the values of those citizens???

When would that have been?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So back when more than 65% of folks still wanted Slavery, segregation and Jim Crow - you're saying the SCOTUS should have been more aligned with the values of those citizens???

When would that have been?

Pretty much everything before the mid 60s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

That brought to mind a comment by Shelby Foote (AKA Doc McCoy's twin brother :D) about the Civil War.

He said (paraphrased) that the main change resulting from the war was that prior to it people said "The United States are and after it they said The United States is".

I thought that was remarkably profound for a single word change.

I think what Foote said was that before the CW, it was common to refer to 'these United States', afterward 'the United States' - a critical two letter distinction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

I believe this ^^ is one of the main reasons the 2A was inscribed into the sacred Bill of Rights. 

No, it was about catching escaped slaves and squashing their rebellions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So back when more than 65% of folks still wanted Slavery, segregation and Jim Crow - you're saying the SCOTUS should have been more aligned with the values of those citizens???

Seriously dumb comment

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

This concept is nothing new.  It's literally the very first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I think the 1/6 traitors failed to declare the causes which impel them to the separation.   

Without any intention of turning this into another gunz thread, I believe this ^^ is one of the main reasons the 2A was inscribed into the sacred Bill of Rights.   The Founders knew that no gov't or system of gov't was ever perfect and that their little experiment with democracy had as much or more chance of becoming worse than the last King they had just overthrown.  So they built in an "escape clause".  

It's an interesting topic and I'm glad you brought it up.  It's a bit of a sticky situation because it could go either way.  If a revolution fails, then the folks who started it are traitors and seditionists.  If it succeeds, they are patriots and hetros.  The winners ALWAYS get to right the history books for at least the next 100 years or so.  

The way I look at it is any actions by the current gov't that blatantly and egregiously violate the current Constitution, without going through the correct channels to amend it, are ripe for overthrow and replacement.  For instance if a sitting POTUS dissolves Congress and pits the 9 sitting SCOTUS Justices up against a firing squad wall.... that's a pretty good indication that it's time for THE PEOPLE/ the Militia to take back their country, through force if necessary.    This is where the 1/6 fuckwits failed..... the "cause" they were trying to fight for was nothing but a lie.  Keeping TFG shitstain in power was the opposite of what a righteous revolution looks like.  They may have "thought" they were doing the right thing because they had been brainwashed, but that doesn't give them a pass any more than the Nazis who helped HItler rise to power even if they thought they were doing the right thing.  

The BL is that our loyalty should be to the Constitution itself.  Not the gov't.  All of our oaths of office say exactly that for a reason.   kinda of think of whether a revolution or attempt to overthrow a sitting US gov't has just and legal is by applying the SCOTUS's interpretation of what constitutes porn.  "You'll know it when you see it".  If the current gov't is shitting all over the Big C, then they have to go.  Period. dot.

Just saying.  

Nice fiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The infamous Justice memo about not prosecuting a sitting president was from the Nixon-Agnew era. It was an offhand remark by a mid level employee

Well, yeah, but the SCOTUS treats it as sacred script. 

10 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I think emoluments got a half-ass try maybe?

SCOTUS declined even to hear a solid case. As usual, they blew off crystal clear language in the Constitution. 

What is ambiguous about this ???  "And no Person holding any Office . . . shall . . . accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." 

Hey, I thought you had me on ignore  . .. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think what Foote said was that before the CW, it was common to refer to 'these United States', afterward 'the United States' - a critical two letter distinction.

In the interview I watched he said it like I posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 11:53 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Nowhere does it say that the majority has to be provided with a substantive, quantifiable, set of benefits. All the wealth and all the privilege can be funneled to Just One Guy, if a sizable enough majority agree to the deal.

I agree with the first part of your statement here but there is a general belief about who "the people" includes.  I would think most would not define that term to include only the fat cats. 

While we know our government representatives have long acted in a way that gives the loudest voice to those who have the most, I would think most Americans today would say "the people" means the majority of Americans.  And if that is true, then Lincoln's quote above would not apply to the far right anarchy we are seeing today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

I agree with the first part of your statement here but there is a general belief about who "the people" includes.  I would think most would not define that term to include only the fat cats.   ...

I'd bet a lot that you're right, but we also have somehow grown a culture that has reverted to adulation of a largely self-appointed upper class. Look at the people in the lowest income bracket who will loudly proclaim that rich people should not be taxed more.

 

1 hour ago, Jules said:

....  ...

While we know our government representatives have long acted in a way that gives the loudest voice to those who have the most, I would think most Americans today would say "the people" means the majority of Americans.  And if that is true, then Lincoln's quote above would not apply to the far right anarchy we are seeing today.

Yes, but look at how the RWNJs are utterly convinced that they're the majority. The Jan 6th insurrectionists were screaming that nobody voted for Joe Biden.

Lincoln was above all else, a practical man. He practiced the art of the possible, the politically feasible. He was a great persuader, and seems to have had a knack for building a concensus out of thin air when he didn't seem to be doing anything in particular.

I think Lincoln would be appalled at what America has become, especially the far-right nihilists and trumpalos.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 7:01 PM, Bus Driver said:

Shirley, you can come up with a cite to support that claim of a time "when more than 65% of folks still wanted Slavery, segregation and Jim Crow".

Sorry, shoulda said "or Jim Crow".  I doubt even the most die hard rednecks wanted to bother with slavery again.  But the other two..... most definitely popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Raz'r said:

This concept is nothing new.  It's literally the very first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I think the 1/6 traitors failed to declare the causes which impel them to the separation.   

Without any intention of turning this into another gunz thread, I believe this ^^ is one of the main reasons the 2A was inscribed into the sacred Bill of Rights.   The Founders knew that no gov't or system of gov't was ever perfect and that their little experiment with democracy had as much or more chance of becoming worse than the last King they had just overthrown.  So they built in an "escape clause".  

It's an interesting topic and I'm glad you brought it up.  It's a bit of a sticky situation because it could go either way.  If a revolution fails, then the folks who started it are traitors and seditionists.  If it succeeds, they are patriots and hetros.  The winners ALWAYS get to right the history books for at least the next 100 years or so.  

The way I look at it is any actions by the current gov't that blatantly and egregiously violate the current Constitution, without going through the correct channels to amend it, are ripe for overthrow and replacement.  For instance if a sitting POTUS dissolves Congress and pits the 9 sitting SCOTUS Justices up against a firing squad wall.... that's a pretty good indication that it's time for THE PEOPLE/ the Militia to take back their country, through force if necessary.    This is where the 1/6 fuckwits failed..... the "cause" they were trying to fight for was nothing but a lie.  Keeping TFG shitstain in power was the opposite of what a righteous revolution looks like.  They may have "thought" they were doing the right thing because they had been brainwashed, but that doesn't give them a pass any more than the Nazis who helped HItler rise to power even if they thought they were doing the right thing.  

The BL is that our loyalty should be to the Constitution itself.  Not the gov't.  All of our oaths of office say exactly that for a reason.   kinda of think of whether a revolution or attempt to overthrow a sitting US gov't has just and legal is by applying the SCOTUS's interpretation of what constitutes porn.  "You'll know it when you see it".  If the current gov't is shitting all over the Big C, then they have to go.  Period. dot.

Just saying.  

Which part?  The part where the FF's said that it the people's right to dissolve the political bands when their gov't is no longer responsive to or represents them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Which part?  The part where the FF's said that it the people's right to dissolve the political bands when their gov't is no longer responsive to or represents them?

That's weird, that's not my quote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 12:12 PM, AJ Oliver said:

the problem is that the courts and esp the SCOTUS have mangled its meaning almost beyond recognition. 

Corporate personhood

This is terrible!
 

Quote

 

Held: The activities of petitioner, its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Pp. 371 U. S. 417-445.

(a) Although petitioner is a corporation, it may assert its right and that of its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 

People have been denouncing the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights since that was decided in 1963 but to little effect.

No doubt in your long career you've spoken out about it plenty of times prior to 2010. Can we see some examples?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

NAACP's corporate first amendment rights

Sure, social justice non-profits are just the same as EXXON. 

You seem to only have several posts, each of which you repeat endlessly. 

Go back to the Gunz humping thread 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 6:41 PM, Burning Man said:

So back when more than 65% of folks still wanted Slavery, segregation and Jim Crow - you're saying the SCOTUS should have been more aligned with the values of those citizens???

Edit to add:  If that were the case, then all kinds of civil rights stuff would never have happened.  Brown v Board of Education, etc would never have happened and Dredd Scott and Plessy would have been just decisions for the time.

Yes, Dred Scott was popular, in the South, well except amongst the slaves in the South, and then nowhere else. Hello? Anybody home? Think McFly, think! The Civil War was fought less than 10 years later over slavery (or if y'all prefer, Stites Rahts). A lot of people in the North didn't like it. Indeed Lincoln campaigned against, at the time, which is sorta why he's on Rushmore. Popularity aside, its legal 'reasoning' is generally ranked as the worst decision in Supreme Court history although Citizens United is up there on the list.

Plessy is more difficult. Brown is more difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 8:43 AM, Jules said:

In his first inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln said these words:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

I ran across this while reading a book and thought about how this statement applies today.  And I wondered if the seemingly treasonous actions of the far right might fall under this right. 

But the problem with applying this right, as defined by Lincoln, is the people who would benefit from dismembering or overthrowing our present government, Jan 6 style, would primarily be those at the top of the wealth pyramid.  And a few does not constitute "the people."

What would fall under an appropriate exercise of this right would be for the people to vote out all the incumbents, and continue to do so until those in public office truly acted on behalf of their constituents.  And should the incumbents tamper with free and fair elections to their benefit, then the people would be within their rights to overthrow the government.

Thoughts?

Lincoln draws from the declaration of independence.  However that document spells out the reasons. They considered the government to be a foreign government, essentially. Our government, elected by the American people, can not be so labeled. In addition the Constitution grants, nay, demands, that government officials defend the republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

 Bottom line, whether or not insurrectionists seek to destroy the republic for good reason the government has the right, indeed is sworn to, crush violent insurrection in all cases.  A moral right and a legal right are not necessarily the same things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Lincoln draws from the declaration of independence.  However that document spells out the reasons. They considered the government to be a foreign government, essentially. Our government, elected by the American people, can not be so labeled. In addition the Constitution grants, nay, demands, that government officials defend the republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

 Bottom line, whether or not insurrectionists seek to destroy the republic for good reason the government has the right, indeed is sworn to, crush violent insurrection in all cases.  A moral right and a legal right are not necessarily the same things.

Jeffreaux, as former military, will be along to agree due to his oath, damnit!  (and disagree, cause you need to have gunz for something, damnit!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:
13 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

NAACP's corporate first amendment rights

Sure, social justice non-profits are just the same as EXXON. 

You seem to only have several posts, each of which you repeat endlessly. 

Go back to the Gunz humping thread 

I never said that social justice non-profits like the NAACP and CItizens United are the same as Exxon. Why did you make that up?

As with every issue, it's important to recognize when considering corporate first amendment rights that I do sometimes say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs, so thanks for bringing that into the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

I never said that social justice non-profits like the NAACP and CItizens United are the same as Exxon. Why did you make that up?

As with every issue, it's important to recognize when considering corporate first amendment rights that I do sometimes say bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs, so thanks for bringing that into the discussion.

and your answer is always the same "Of it can't be done perfectly, don't do anything"

whether it's guns or corp speech, etc, that's always your answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2021 at 5:31 PM, Mark K said:

Lincoln draws from the declaration of independence.  However that document spells out the reasons. They considered the government to be a foreign government, essentially. Our government, elected by the American people, can not be so labeled. In addition the Constitution grants, nay, demands, that government officials defend the republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

 Bottom line, whether or not insurrectionists seek to destroy the republic for good reason the government has the right, indeed is sworn to, crush violent insurrection in all cases.  A moral right and a legal right are not necessarily the same things.

Under the US Constitution, we are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  That doesn't exist anymore.  Our politicians have clearly shown they work for those who contribute the most to their campaigns.  We have an entire political party seemingly hell bent on destroying any semblance of democracy while the other party does little more than say, "Gee whiz, guys!  Cut it out!"

The Jan 6 mob was and is rightfully angry at the government.  It no longer represents them, or most Americans, and for this reason a revolt is justifiable.  But the problem with the Jan 6 mob is they were revolting against an imaginary force at the behest of a fascist wannabe dictator.  They worship and fear the Great and Powerful Oz but refuse to look at the man behind the curtain, all the while following orders like brainwashed robots.

Until the voters divorce themselves from their party loyalty, I fear there will never be a rising up against those who are destroying the government established under the Charters of Freedom.  Our willful ignorance is what will destroy the once shining city on the hill of democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...