Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
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.
You have a right to abolish it if you win a civil war. Good luck with that.
The declaration of independence is a historic artifact that prefaced the constitution. But yes, it isn't the constitution and nor does it hold much legal water. It's basically a vision statement.
Hmmmmmmmmm did anyone mention Impeachment?
I didn't see it anywhere in the posts. There are legal procedures if the majority of the population do not wish to continue with an incumbent for the full term.
I didn't see it anywhere in the posts. There are legal procedures if the majority of the population do not wish to continue with an incumbent for the full term.
Are you suggesting that is better than anarchy?
That isn't abolishing a form of government, is it?
If you need a piece of paper to inform you that you have the right to revolt you're in big trouble.
The US constitution is an antiquated rag not fit to wipe bottoms with.
Rights cannot be protected by being defined. Definition serves only to limit them.
The US constitution derives a warrant from "inalienable truths" which its authors no doubt believed, however, the modern ethicist (of any worth) knows such wish thinking is worthless except to warrant ancient power structures.
The US constitution is an antiquated rag not fit to wipe bottoms with.
Rights cannot be protected by being defined. Definition serves only to limit them.
The US constitution derives a warrant from "inalienable truths" which its authors no doubt believed, however, the modern ethicist (of any worth) knows such wish thinking is worthless except to warrant ancient power structures.
I wonder if there were people that had that same sentiment at the on set of the American Revolution?
Which is held in great esteem and was the heart of the creation of the United States of America.
Not inform to to legitimize, justify or protect your right to do so.
That's funny, absurd, but funny. And again, it would best serve you to aquate yourself with some facts, like the fact that the quote in the OP is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.
:roll:
How are Americans not independent? They elect their own government and are not a colony to a foreign power. What is there to abolish, independence?
I don't know, which is likely why I never said anything of the sort.
Their present form of Gov't, which for all intents and purposes, is the same old same old, no matter who is elected.
From what I understand when they wrote the declaration of independence it was in protest of the treatement of a foriegn government . They also had the forethought to put in words that if a domestic government , the one they will be creating at the time , that it turns corrupt have a right to revolt. Sounds a little lame but it also open a door for the right to critisize thier own government openly and freely , which also open the door to freedom of speech.
Well put EB, but I highly suspect that some people aren't taking the conversation seriously. Fore the flip side is, they have serious issues with comprehension and or a woeful lack of knowledge of the US.
Which I find funny, given all the smug "American's are stupid/ignorant" commentary that goes on around here, because American's are well acquainted with Canada.
I may have been inspired by the John Adams hbo miniseries, which launched me a bit into some research. I seem to find that era in American politics very interesting , as much as it opened doors to idealistic views it also opened doors to modern problems we see in our times.
Hopefully i will get off my perverbial ass and research some more , we can learn something valuable here. For that i would not turn my nose on.
Why? I realize that it is not law. But that does not negate the context of it.
It's not a dream Kreskin, it's a conversation.
Of all people Kreskin, I thought you would have been of the mindset that it would be well worth the effort to abolish the present form of Gov't within the US. Given that it has failed to provide the people that it meant to protect and provide happiness and safety to. As was outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Fair enough. Thanx for sharing your opinion.
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.