U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: The Next American Revolution
Source:
PP
URL Source: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/201 ... /the-next-american-revolution/
Published: Aug 7, 2011
Author: Mark Alexander
Post Date: 2011-08-07 18:21:33 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 15597
Comments: 31
The Next American Revolution By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 4, 2011 What is the Authority for Rebellion? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson (PUBLISHER'S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety." But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they "deserve neither liberty nor safety." For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.) I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: "What is the authority to rebel against the central government?" That question is most often asked by those who have taken their oath of allegiance to our Constitution, particularly active duty, reserve and veteran military personnel. Typical is this note from a disabled combat Patriot this week: "Please clarify for me when my solemn oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND [his emphasis] domestic,' kicks in." Such questions were once deemed too radical and discordant for consideration in civil discourse. However, as Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution has been all but completely usurped by the rule of men through the Left's so-called living constitution, the frequency and tenor of questions about the future of Essential Liberty for our once-great Republic is propelling them into mainstream debate. The unfortunate ascension of Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist cadres had a silver lining: It revitalized the spirit of American Patriotism in tens of millions of our countrymen. The imminent threat to Liberty posed by Democratic Socialism is the catalyst driving this great awakening and it is spreading. To the question of the authority to rebel against government, we turn to the Constitution's guiding document, our Declaration of Independence. It clearly affirms the "unalienable rights" upon which our Constitution was instituted, and those rights supersede the authority of the Constitution itself as they are the inherent rights of man. This authorizing language reads as follows: "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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." So, is it time for another American Revolution? The answer to that question depends upon the answer to a more fundamental question: Is it too late to restore authority of our Constitution? Moreover, will the current dire circumstances result in a sunset or sunrise on Liberty? In my enthusiastic analysis, the degraded state of the union presents a great opportunity for restoration of Rule of Law, and this sunrise on Liberty is already in progress under the broad heading of the Tea Party movement. Further, having been in close proximity to revolutions on foreign soil, I am intimately aware that restoration (or revolution without shots fired) is a far more desirable path than the violent one -- not that the latter must ever be excluded as an option. But behind every sunrise is a sunset. As Ronald Reagan warned thirty years ago, when the "Reagan Revolution" temporarily restored our nation's course toward Liberty, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free." Make no mistake; there are formidable obstacles to the restoration of Liberty. The most daunting of these impediments is complacency, the result of either a false sense of comfort, institutionalized ignorance or both. The votes of some 43 percent of Americans have already been co-opted Barack Obama socialist programs and policies. Nonetheless, I still believe that the ballot box is a viable alternative to the bullet box at this juncture. Every effort to work within what remains of our Constitution's framework to restore its Rule of Law, as outlined in The Patriot Declaration must be exhausted. If the 2012 election cycle does not provide sufficient momentum toward the goal of restored Liberty, there are substantial measures of civil disobedience that can ratchet up the pressure -- measures which will find support among true conservatives in both the House and Senate. Either way, we face a long, uphill battle. It has taken many years to degrade Rule of Law, and it will take many years to fully restore it. As for timing, Obama has already dropped a debt bomb on our economy, the goal of which is to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." The greatest systemic risk to Liberty that this act of economic violence poses is the destruction of free enterprise by way of taxation, regulation and insurmountable debt. Accelerating the Left's effort to crush free enterprise, Obama and his Senate majority rejected the House's Balanced Budget Amendment as part of the recent "budget deal" to increase U.S. debt. The result: As of this date, our nation's total outstanding debt is now in excess of our total annual gross domestic product (economic output), for the first time since 1947. Then, most of the debt was associated with WWII. Now most of the debt is associated with socialist spending programs for which there is no constitutional authority. It should, of course, be the highest aspiration of every Patriot to restore our Constitution's Rule of Law, a fundamental principle of which is the separation of economy and state. But is there still time, and are we sufficiently resolute? Leading the forces arrayed against us are the statist extremists, the "useful idiots" on the Left who now vilify as "terrorists" those seeking to restore Rule of Law. In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting this week hosted by Veep Joe Biden, Demo Rep. Mike Doyle said of the recent budget negotiations, "We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money." Biden, to his everlasting shame, concurred: "They have acted like terrorists." Biden, Doyle, and the Kool-Aid-drinking legions of the Left are formidable. But history shows that Barack Obama's model for prosperity, is a blueprint for economic collapse, a model that is antithetical to prosperity and ultimately at odds with Liberty. Patriots, we have an obligation to secure Liberty for our posterity, and in the words of John Adams, "Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison dated January 30, 1787: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. ... An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." Today, Tea Party "terrorists" should expect no such accommodation, as "honest republican governors" are few and far between. That same year, Jefferson famously wrote more pointedly to John Adams's son-in-law, William Smith, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Short of the bullet box, it is my fervent prayer that on 6 November 2012, an unprecedented army of American Patriots will use the ballot box to further alter the course of our nation toward Liberty and Rule of Law. That notwithstanding, American Patriots remain well aware of both the authority for rebellion and more importantly the obligation to overcome tyranny, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. There may come a time to fight, and our Founders wisely extended to us the means for rebellion. We also fully understand the cost outlined in its closing: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." We do.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
Here's the challenge: The Constitution doesn't provide a mechanism for secession and/or rebellion. The Declaration of Independence does, as do many writings that led to the Declaration. Federal Judges largely ignore the history that led to the Constitution. They look at the Constitution and federal court rulings that occurred after the Constitution was ratified. In my view, this is why so many judges lack the historic context to interpret the Constitution correctly. An analogy is how Fundamentalist Protestants interpret the Bible versus Catholics and the Orthodox. The New Testament didn't fall out of the sky. The Church fathers assembled the New Testament over the course of nearly 100 years in the 4th century. There were many writings on why the specific books were chosen to be included in the New Testament and why other books were rejected. Unfortunately, Fundamentalist Protestants only look at the words in the New Testament and refuse to look at the context surrounding why those books are there. This is why, in my view, they misinterpret things. It's no different than why judges misinterpret the Constitution. For example, if anyone would have bothered to read the writings of Madison, they would know that the Interstate Commerce Clause was there for one reason -- to prevent states from erecting trade barriers against each other. For the last 100 years, the Interstate Commerce Clause has been the primary vehicle for violating our economic rights. The courts haven't done a thing about it, because they ignore Madison's writings on his intent for putting this into the Constitution. This is why I oppose "strict constructionists" like Judge Bork, who only look at the words in the Constitution, rather than the context. Bork called the 9th Amendment an "ink blot", when it's actually one of the most powerful vehicles for protecting our fundamental rights that aren't listed in the Constitution, from government tyrants. Things like our rights to be left alone, privacy, marriage, procreate, travel, vote, to have a fair trial, trial by jury of our peers, be innocent until proven guilty... None of these things are enumerated in the Constitution. But they are protected nevertheless if one looks at the 9th amendment in the context of the writings of the founding. Anyone who looks at the history of how America came to exist understands that we have a right (and duty) to rebel and overthrow and oppressive government. Jefferson thought this should be done once a generation. What are we waiting for?
Some believe that a new constitutional convention is in order..........
As do I. I've advocated for this for 5 or 6 years now.
As do I. I've advocated for this for 5 or 6 years now. It's risky, but not as risky as continuing along the path we're on. I favor a CC too. If it goes badly, that just adds more fuel to the fire.
It's not risky at all. 2/3rds of the States are needed to call a convention. Each state gets one vote. Think about that. Idaho and New York each get one vote. This is a good thing. The states are in charge. Are they going to give more power to the federal government or take back the power that the federal government has taken from them? Anything the Constitutional Convention passes has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Again, each state gets one vote. The people who claim a Constitutional Convention is risky are either: A.) uninformed or B.) people who want to keep the status quo. The status quo is unacceptable.
The status quo is unacceptable. It is completely risky. The constitution can be specifically amended by the same process you mention without risking losing all the great stuff in it. To say that your choices of A and B are the only answers is a silly notion. It is kind of like a pollster who ass suggestive questions for a formulated outcome.
NO ITS NOT. 34 states (each having ONE vote) would have to propose an amendment in a Constitutional Convention. 38 states (each having ONE vote) would have to approve whatever the Constitutional Convention proposed. Anyone who thinks this is "risky" is either uniformed or is a leftist propagandist trying to prevent reform.
It is not necessary. Any proposed change to the constitution has the exact same process. You could do the exact same thing. I think there are more then 38 Governors that are piece of shit traitors to the constitution.
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: jwpegler (#1)
What are we waiting for?
#6. To: Jameson (#4)
(Edited)
Some believe that a new constitutional convention is in order..........
#7. To: jwpegler, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#6)
a new constitutional convention is in order..........
#9. To: hondo68 (#7)
It's risky, but not as risky as continuing along the path we're on.
#14. To: jwpegler (#9)
The people who claim a Constitutional Convention is risky are either: A.) uninformed or B.) people who want to keep the status quo.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
(Edited)
It is completely risky.
#16. To: jwpegler (#15)
Replies to Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]