I suppose, but I can't imagine anything egregious enough to require a revolution to correct. I'd imagine you wouldn't see that until a sitting POTUS or legislative body begins successfully extending its state in power or drastically expanding the scope of its own authority. Bush tried to give himself unprecedented power, and the beauty of the governing system of checks and balances prevented him from doing pretty effectively. Obama doesn't strike me as nearly as cocky/ballsy as Bush, nor would his support base be as given to authoritarianism, so I really don't see this happening. Worst case scenario that I can imagine is that he passes a bunch of feel-good, do nothing government expansion crap.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It's not as if they strayed from that path for frivolous reasons. It's because that path took us over a cliff and required a change of course.

The founders created a federal union with strong states and a weak federal government, to the extent that each state maintained its own military forces that the federal government could nationalize in time of war. The result of this was a horrible civil war that killed off almost a whole generation of Southern white men, and a comparably large number of Northerners as well. Consequently, the federal government was strengthened at the expense of the states, and the militia military system was abandoned in favor of a small professional army with wartime conscription and emergency training.

The founders also created a system in which the government pretty much kept its hands off the economy, except for setting tariffs, collecting taxes, and building infrastructure. This worked fine in an economy that mostly consisted of small independent farmers, but as the country industrialized, it resulted in severe maldistribution of wealth that led to periodic economic panics and depressions, as well as great economic injustice. Consequently, the Constitution was reinterpreted by the Supreme Court to allow government regulation of the economy and protection of workers' rights.

And finally, the founders created a nation that kept to this side of the globe and didn't interfere abroad, with a very small professional army. But it could do this only because the British Empire protected us from overseas invasion or attack. World War II ended that cozy relationship, and required the U.S. to assume a great-power presence abroad, maintain a larger standing military, and strengthen the executive branch of government at the expense of the legislative.

None of those changes were optional. If we'd stayed on the path the founders set for us, it's doubtful we'd even exist as a nation today.

In my opinion, we're in the early stages of a similarly severe crisis requiring another revision of our institutions and the way we do things, not necessarily in the same direction but certainly we will end up further from Jefferson's dream of a free nation of small yeoman farmers than ever. But would we really want to live in that nation? I would not. As circumstances change, freedom requires different laws and tactics to protect it. Hopefully, we will remain a free country even as we become a different one. We shall see.

So, basically, you're advocating for armed insurrection if Obama wins?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

[quote=TSGracchus;1220176]It's not as if they strayed from that path for frivolous reasons. It's because that path took us over a cliff and required a change of course.

the only reason the path approached the 'cliff' in the first place was because of government interference.

Each state still maintaines its own military. Also, a federal military existed before the American Civil War. All the Civil War decided was that the Constitution, as written, would be followed.

The Founders created a just system, no matter the industry. I fully believe the SC was totally outside of their bounds by 'reinterpreting' the Constitution, as if it is some sort of living document open to interpretation.


The Brits protected us? Tell me; what threat of invasion were they protecting us from? Besides, we hardly kept to our side of the globe before WW2.

However, you will not get any argument from me on the need to maintain a strong military that is capable of intervening on behalf of American interests abroad.

No, these changes were optional. I believe if we had stayed on the path intended we would exist as an even stronger nation.

I, too, believe we are at a crossroads so to speak. Down one road we have a country of laws, not of men and their feelings. Down the other, we have a nation with an overpowering federal government enforcing it socialist/collective policies down the throat of its citizens.

we shall indeed.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Not at all. As I have stated before, his election will not be the spark.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Yeah, I posted without reading the rest of the posts (sorry 'bout that).

But, are you saying that you believe that an armed insurrection could be necessary and successful?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Could be necessary? Yes. Successful? That is complicated and may require a seperate thread. There are many differeny variables that would effect the outcome.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Interesting.

Thank you for your honesty.


Hope I don't have to shoot you to defend my country!

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

And I hope I don't have to shoot you to defend mine either.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Me too!



I've seen shootings; they look like they hurt!

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Really? So what government interference resulted in the Civil War?

What are you referring to, the National Guard? Certainly no institution similar to the pre-Civil War militias still exists in any state in the U.S.

Now wait a minute.

First off, yes, there was a federal military, but it was tiny. (And Robert E. Lee was an officer serving in it. That worked well, didn't it?) The national defense concept revolved around the militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to be available for militia service was protected in the Constitution, and each state maintained its own militia forces under a training regime prescribed by Congress. The state could call up its militia to meet a local emergency, and in times of national emergency or major war, such as the War of 1812 or the Mexican-American War, Congress could call upon the states to raise militia regiments and put them under federal authority.

We have not used that system of national defense since the Civil War, precisely because it led to disaster. One reason for using it was to obviate the necessity of a large standing army, which was believed (with some justification) to be a threat to liberty. Another reason was so that the states could defend themselves against a federal government which became tyrannical. Some states did exactly that, or at least claimed to be doing so. The result was 600,000 casualties. Because of this unfortunate result, the militia system was abandoned, initially in favor of a system of direct federal conscription in wartime together with that same small professional core, and after World War II in favor of a large professional military.

Secondly, to say that the Civil War decided "that the Constitution, as written, would be followed," is to say that there was no right of secession, when that is a matter of some dispute. I would tend to agree there was not, but you can't say the issue is clear-cut. Also, the Constitution was in part RE-written after the Civil War, with three far-ranging amendments, directly as a result of that war.

Well, your concept of "justice" clearly is different from mine, since mine does not encompass downtrodden sweatshop workers locked in their factories dying in droves when they catch fire, or union organizers clubbed or murdered by Pinkerton thugs, or wages kept so low across the board that consumer demand regularly failed and plunged the economy into deep panics.

You're entitled to that opinion but it isn't a very practical one. The more rigidly we interpret the Constitution, the less useful it becomes. It's clear to me on reading through the document that in many places, Mr. Madison & Co. deliberately included general and somewhat vague language that could be interpreted to fit changing circumstances.

The clause in question is the one from Article I, Section 8 that reads: "Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate commerce among the several States . . ." What exactly does this mean? That Congress can regulate one state government trading with another? That Congress can regulate the movement of goods from one state to another for commercial purposes? That Congress can regulate any business which operates in more than one state? That Congress can regulate any economic activity which has an impact in more than one state? All of those are plausible, arguable meanings of the clause in question. None of them is self-evidently what it means, nor any of them self-evidently what it doesn't. That's why we have courts.

Prior to the 1930s, the Court interpreted this clause narrowly, so that much of the first New Deal was struck down as unconstitutional. During the Depression, though, for various reasons, it overturned this practice, and began to interpret the clause broadly, allowing Congress authority to regulate business in many ways that it previously had not. The constitutionality of this, whether Congress is authorized to do it by that vague clause, is a matter of interpretation; the Court was not obviously wrong in either interpretation. Practically, the current interpretation works and the old one no longer does.

They protected us from any European power that might have wanted to invade the U.S. Any such power would have had to get past the Royal Navy first, a formidable task.

We began to interfere abroad in the early 20th century; however, we did so tentatively and in a rather dilettantish manner, and always had the option of staying in the western hemisphere. Today, we do not, alas.

Very well, but can you not see that doing so is going against the traditions established by the founders, from keeping a small military, to avoiding entangling alliances, to the Monroe Doctrine?

Why?

It is a fact that staying on the intended political and military path resulted in the Civil War, and we have been off that path ever since. Do you believe we would have been better off if the secession had been allowed to prevail? Or if, after the war, we had returned to the militia system of self-defense and kept a weak federal government, inviting a recurrence on some other issue years later? Do you think we have no regional divisions left in this country, that might result in catastrophe if they were backed by independent military forces?

It is a fact that staying on the intended economic path resulted in massive injustices and the Great Depression, and we have been off that path ever since. Do you believe that, in view of the malfunctioning of a laissez-faire economy, we would have nonetheless been better off maintaining it and enduring the sweatshops, the head-breaking, the periodic panics, and the massive imbalances of wealth, in dedication to some theoretical principle?

For God's sake, WHY???

Remember what took Kerry down.

Kerry, a decorated war hero was targeted by Karl Rove. Kerry's honorable service was put into question after that poll by the Neocon Rove and his fictitous antics -despite the fact that bush fled service in Nam via the Air National Guard and went AWOL on his full commitment with the Guard and Cheney avoided Nam with 5 deferments. Not to mention Rove himself escaped the draft for three year via deferments

Just another Neocon victory - this really sums up what the GOP has become.

__________________

Really? I always thought it was due to Kerry just being a pretty terrible Presidential candidate...

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

What - leading in the polls? I would think leading in polls means your doing well. Go figure.

__________________

not aplicable in

florida
new mexico
ohio