Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Look what happened that got them there? Not represented to the king and were taxed other thean the fact citizens were brutally treated in that process. People banded together in agreement to do something about it, but fighting back was going to be pointless if british soldiers remain in any of the colonies. They had to go for an all or nothing stratagy which was the declaration of independance.

They were not heard by thier own leader , in this case the King. The King , is supposed to look over of the well being of it's citizens, which he failed to do.

It maybe meaningless words written on paper legally but it is a beacon to future generations to stand up when they had enough. When push comes to shove any government that does not look after thier citizens which they are mandated to do will eventually get toppled over when a criticle mass of population gets together and makes it so.

We seem to have it in our heads the the government is an entity on it's own, it is not . It is a representation of it's citizens point blank.
Another well said post. I see you've given this much thought. I'm actually impressed that a carpenter form Quebec, has a greater understanding and respect for this document then some people.

The American constitution created ,september 17 1787
ratified june 21 rst 1788
around 11 years after the declaration of independence
The importance of the Declaration is paramount in American growth. It was the birth of a new nation, with a set foundation of human freedom.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
My position is, the present form of gov't has become what they sought to break free of in the first place. Do you agree?


Disagree. They broke from a non represented Monarchy. They had no say what so ever in their own laws or how their tax money was spent or collected. americans are very quick to tell you how great a democracy they have. How they have control over who they elect to represent them.

They elect their own government. Elect a different one.

exactley

That really doesn't answer the question does it?

I take it you don't think the US gov't is pretty much the same, no matter who takes office.


I agree with the statement that there is basically no real difference between the 2 main american political party's. americans, on the other hand, would most likely not agree with that observation. Therefore there is no need for a major overhaul.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Disagree. They broke from a non represented Monarchy. They had no say what so ever in their own laws or how their tax money was spent or collected. americans are very quick to tell you how great a democracy they have. How they have control over who they elect to represent them.
And do you believe they are represented properly, fully at the Federal level? In other words, do you truly believe that the gov't actually runs on the will of the people?

I agree with the statement that there is basically no real difference between the 2 main american political party's. americans, on the other hand, would most likely not agree with that observation. Therefore there is no need for a major overhaul.
When put like that I would have to agree.

But from an outside perspective Gh, do you think American's are correct?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
And do you believe they are represented properly, fully at the Federal level? In other words, do you truly believe that the gov't actually runs on the will of the people?

When put like that I would have to agree.

But from an outside perspective Gh, do you think American's are correct?


Here it is Bear. Pointing out that americans are wrong about their government, how it is run, and how much say they have is considered "anti-american". Taking the other tact, when the americans tell you that they have a true representative democracy and ARE in control of their government, of blamimg the people for what their elected government does is also anti-american.

Unless you want to get down on your knees and suck some american dick...... you're anti-american.

So, in reality, it really doesn't matter what "I" think of america, americans, or their government.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Here it is Bear. Pointing out that americans are wrong about their government, how it is run, and how much say they have is considered "anti-american".
No it's not Gh. I have never condemned anyone for having an opinion based on something supportable. It's the vitriol I find contemptible.

Taking the other tact, when the americans tell you that they have a true representative democracy and ARE in control of their government, of blamimg the people for what their elected government does is also anti-american.
But you and I have blamed the people. I don't place all the blame upon them. They are in essence brainwashed in some degree. Then you have those American's that do see the problem, who are then branded criminals.

This is a discussion Gh. Not a witch hunt. If you won't start blaming people, lets go right back to the beginning and blame England, France and Spain. Then we can work forward from there.

If you want to discuss points and show support, I would love to have a long drawn out discussion with you, on the ails of America, and how those ails show that the gov't has failed the people.
Unless you want to get down on your knees and suck some american dick...... you're anti-american.
That's an excellent example of the vitriol Gh.
So, in reality, it really doesn't matter what "I" think of america, americans, or their government.
Again, Gh, on a level it does. It's the vitriol I don't care for. Despite some issues GH, I have always enjoyed our debates. I've said it before, people don't give you enough credit.
 
Last edited:

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
Just a little wikipedia here....

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of AmericaIndependence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress.
After finalizing the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The most famous version of the Declaration, a signed copy that is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its signing has been disputed. Most historians have concluded that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed.
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of human rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.


Ok , now the right to revolution link...

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the subjects of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

More on the back ground
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775[5]
By the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year. Relations between the colonies and the mother country had been deteriorating since the end of the Seven Years' War in 1763. The war had plunged the British government deep into debt, and so Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies. Parliament believed that these acts, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767, were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep the colonies in the British Empire.[6]
Many colonists, however, had developed a different conception of the empire. Because the colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, colonists argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them. This tax dispute was part of a larger divergence between British and American interpretations of the British Constitution and the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies.[7] The orthodox British view, dating from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was that Parliament was the supreme authority throughout the empire, and so by definition anything Parliament did was constitutional.[8] In the colonies, however, the idea had developed that the British Constitution recognized certain fundamental rights that no government—not even Parliament—could violate.[9] After the Townshend Acts, some essayists even began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all.[10] Anticipating the arrangement of the British Commonwealth,[11] by 1774 American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson were arguing that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown.[12]

this caught my eye

the Glorious revolution...




The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (VII of Scotland and II of Ireland) in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians with an invading army led by the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange) who, as a result, ascended the English throne as William III of England together with his wife Mary II of England.
The crisis besetting King James II came to a head in 1688, when the King fathered a son, James Francis Edward Stuart on 10 June (Julian calendar).[1] Until then the throne would have passed to his daughter Mary, a Protestant, the wife of William. The prospect of a Roman Catholic dynasty in the kingdoms was now likely. Already troubled by the King's Catholicism and his close ties with France, key leaders of the Tories united with members of the opposition Whigs and set out to resolve the crisis by inviting William of Orange to England.[2]
The expression "Glorious Revolution" was first used by John Hampden in late 1689,[3] and is an expression that is still used by the British Parliament.[4] The Glorious Revolution is also occasionally termed the Bloodless Revolution, albeit inaccurately. In England there were two significant clashes between the two armies, and anti-Catholic riots in several towns.[5] There was also the Williamite War in Ireland and serious fighting in Scotland (notably the Battles of Killicrankie and the Dunkeld).[6] The revolution also led to the collapse of the Dominion of New England and the overthrow of Maryland's government.
The Revolution is closely tied in with the events of the War of the Grand Alliance on mainland Europe, and may be seen as the last successful invasion of England.[7] It can be argued that James's overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: never since has the monarch held absolute power, and the Bill of Rights has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain. The deposition of the Roman Catholic James II ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England, and also led to limited toleration for nonconformist Protestants — it would be some time before they had full political rights. For Catholics, however, it was disastrous both socially and politically. Catholics were denied the right to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament for over 100 years afterwards. They were also denied commissions in the army and the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or marry a Catholic, thus ensuring a Protestant succession.
The invasion ended all attempts by England, in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century, to subdue the Dutch Republic by military force. However, the personal union, the common market and the co-operation between the English and Dutch navies shifted the dominance in world trade from the Republic to England (and then to the United Kingdom of Great Britain).


look! Bart is researching and reading and being sarcastic all at once :D
 
Last edited:

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
My position is, the present form of gov't has become what they sought to break free of in the first place. Do you agree?

It might not be what they want but what better way is there to unwind it than by doing so at an election booth?
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Two that I know of. Their rebellion against British rule created a profound change in the way government functioned.
The war between the states that was essentially a power struggle to see who would rule. Destroyed the economy and to a large extent the way of life in the south. Not that this was all bad but it did change a lot of things, at least on paper.

We had many revolutions, the hippies who helped bring an end to the Vietnam war, race riots that ended segregation. There are big ones as some small revolutions going on all the time. Giving gays their rights is another. The U.S. is constantly evolving, something is found that is wrong ad sooner or later the people do the right thing and change it. The American Revolution and Civil was were obviously the bigger revolutions, and some times one happens so quietly that it is hardly noticed by mainstream America. Like the American With Disabilities Act.
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
The U.S. , the holds the world highest debt, on the verge of bankruptcy. One day the creditors will ask to be paid, or china having bought into the U.S. dollar dicides to seel it all make the American dollar worthless, You will get serious finger pointing towards the government that let them there and did nothing to change it. When people are just more that angry but starving or can't support their famillies in masses , I seriously doubt, voting for the same ol same ol will help. I seriously doubt America will be immune to revolution when the conditions will be at it's door.



Conditions Precedent to a Revolution

Before an armed insurrection takes place, three conditions must exist:
1. Socio-economic conditions of the masses must decline to the point substantial numbers must resort to violence just to meet subsistance needs.
2. There must be no hope that the political system is capable of addressing grievances.
3. There must be some hope that armed insurrection will achieve some measure of relief.
The nature of manunkind is such that those in power will naturally seek to accomplish #1. As more and more wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, living conditions for the masses must of necessity decline.
Those in power, in order to remain in power, must maintain at least the illusion that the political system addresses the grievances of the masses.
Failing that, those in power must maintain at least the illusion that armed insurrection has no hope of success.
However, the greater the success in accumulating wealth, the greater the despair of the masses. The more the masses are repressed, the less likely they are to preceive that the political system is addressing their needs. Therefore, in order to maintain power, while maintaining the illusion that the political system is working, those in power must also lay the foundation for the inevitable collapse of hope in the political system. At that point, power is maintained solely by preventing any hope of improvement in the conditions of the masses. Thus repressive regimes are born.
We are in a unique position of witnessing the birth of a repressive regime in our lifetime.

Conditions Precedent to a Revolution TheZoo


How many of you hating the current administration think this is closer to reality now?

14 SYMPTOMS OF A FASCIST STATE
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF HERE IN AMERICA?
[FONT=verdana,geneva]Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva][/FONT]
  1. [SIZE=+0]Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. [/SIZE]
  2. [SIZE=+0]Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of [/SIZE]torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
  3. [SIZE=+0]Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying [/SIZE]patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
  4. [SIZE=+0]Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are [/SIZE]widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
  5. [SIZE=+0]Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. [/SIZE]
  6. [SIZE=+0]Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople (Like Bill O'Reilly) and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. [/SIZE]
  7. [SIZE=+0]Obsession with National Security - [/SIZE]Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
  8. [SIZE=+0]Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions. [/SIZE]
  9. [SIZE=+0]Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. [/SIZE]
  10. [SIZE=+0]Limiting and surpressing organizing powers- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. [/SIZE]
  11. [SIZE=+0]Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to [/SIZE]promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
  12. [SIZE=+0]Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even [/SIZE]forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
  13. [SIZE=+0]Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to [/SIZE]protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
  14. [SIZE=+0]Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are [/SIZE]a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


Hmmm wonder how many feel they were asleep now?
Scarey stuff here.

SYMPTOMS OF FASCISM
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Just a little wikipedia here....
Excellent addition EB, you just spawned the thought of Arizona breaking away from the States, to form it's own country, after being let down by the Feds. Using, of all things, the Declaration as their reasoning.

IMHO, I think they would be justified.

Ok , now the right to revolution link...

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the subjects of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

More on the back ground
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775[5]
How poignant. How true, and what an excellent example of why and how, Arizona should/could legitimize seceding from the Union.

look! Bart is researching and reading and being sarcastic all at once :D
You old multitasker you, lol.

It might not be what they want but what better way is there to unwind it than by doing so at an election booth?
Because from where I sit, I don't see it being unwound. I see the same old same old time and time again. Sure this one or that throw a little window dressing in the Oval Office. But by and large, I thinj the American people are being let down by their leaders, no matter what strip hits the highest Office.

The U.S. , the holds the world highest debt, on the verge of bankruptcy. One day the creditors will ask to be paid, or china having bought into the U.S. dollar dicides to seel it all make the American dollar worthless, You will get serious finger pointing towards the government that let them there and did nothing to change it. When people are just more that angry but starving or can't support their famillies in masses , I seriously doubt, voting for the same ol same ol will help. I seriously doubt America will be immune to revolution when the conditions will be at it's door.
This is when it becomes dangerous. This is when you get leadership struggle under adverse conditions, much like what we saw in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. In these conditions you will find that more oft then not, the most brutal and totalitarian force rises to the top. By violent means.

Whereas a revolutionary movement, has time to become founded, and sell their policy to the people.

Of course that does not in any way shape or form, mean the US will come out of another revolution, with something better then.

Conditions Precedent to a Revolution
It would seem we're on a path as it is.

How many of you hating the current administration think this is closer to reality now?
I don't hate the present administration, I didn't hate the last either. But I believe we're on the path.

Hmmm wonder how many feel they were asleep now?
I bet no one admits it.
Scarey stuff here.
I agree, which is why I put forth the thought.

That's your democracy for you. The preceding president wasn't any better.

Your country really does need a Ron Paul to win, just to shake things up. Though Congress would still have it's Corporate shills, and that's where you can begin to see the problem. Corporations have far too much influence on your politics. And they're not making America a better place for Americans, they're making America a better place for the ultra-wealthy.
BINGO!!!

My point exactly!

I mean it's pervasive, more than half of the Federal judges in the Gulf Coast states have ties to energy firms...whose interests are being protected when they have to balance the environmental degradation, loss of income, property values, and the revenue needs of the oil companies?
This is pretty much the basis of my belief that America has become what she sought to secede from.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
If you look at the health care reform, financial reform...it's clear that the talking points are related to the corporate ties. Maybe Ron Paul and the Tea Party should run on a reform campaign. Electoral reform, campaign finance. In Canada the law limits contributions.

Though I'm not sure how much finance for the Tea Party candidates that have given conventional Republicans a hard time in the primaries has come from corporate donations.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
If you look at the health care reform, financial reform...it's clear that the talking points are related to the corporate ties. Maybe Ron Paul and the Tea Party should run on a reform campaign. Electoral reform, campaign finance.
There's a start.

In Canada the law limits contributions.
But I still am not of the thought that it doesn't happen here either.

Though I'm not sure how much finance for the Tea Party candidates that have given conventional Republicans a hard time in the primaries has come from corporate donations.
I think corporations hedge their bets.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Sure it happens here, it's just not as easy. I don't think we can or should eliminate corporate influence. It does need to be limited, that's for sure. I mean if they don't really want to pack up and move somewhere else. That's expensive. And then jobs are lost. That's lose-lose, but then we still need to consider how much leverage...
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Edited, Never Mind.

Added:

The question is, while the above "Right" is a decent and good idea to allow the public to have some control over the government and shape the direction their country heads..... exactly when was the last time you ever saw anybody exercise this right in US history?

As far as I know, Never.

And since the wording is very vague and doesn't exactly explain how one can exercise this right, all the government can do is call anybody who opposes them as isolated wing nuts who don't represent the majority of the population...... or call the home grown terrorists and send the military/police after them to either gun them down or send them to prison for the rest of their lives, thus continuing with their old ways with very little opposition.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
American history begins with putting that right into practice...the United States of America was borne from that right of independence from tyrannical rule...
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Edited, Never Mind.

Added:

The question is, while the above "Right" is a decent and good idea to allow the public to have some control over the government and shape the direction their country heads..... exactly when was the last time you ever saw anybody exercise this right in US history?

As far as I know, Never.
In the US? The American Civil War was a biggie. A large chhunk of people disagreed with the gov't's view and rebelled. A couple prez's have been booted out.