Going Way Too Far, Ok Tea Party Wants Own Militia

1. It must be passed by constitutionally elected congress and signed by President
2. It must withstand all court challenges, up to the supreme court if it goes that far
3. If it does that, it is constitutional no matter what your opinion may be. That is what the constitution says, not my opinion, not what I want, but what the constitution says is the legal process.

At the moment, the law people are upset about has not gone through the judicial process yet, but everything is on track as dictated by the constitution. Suits have been filed that will be heard. If your constitutionally elected congress passes it and your constitutionally elected president signs it and your constitutionally appointed supreme court approves it, then it is constitutional.

Given those circumstances, then no, there is no instance where armed rebellion is justified. Show me something that has been done where the process (not the bill, that is for the court to decide) was not constitutional. Everything has been done by the book. You and a lot of other people may not like it, but it is according to the constitution. Now if the elections in November totally turn about congress, then the new congress may change the law, if they want to. If that happens, I may be upset, but it will still be by the book.

The last step in number one should be the most important step and you forgot it. After passage by congress it MUST then be "ratified by a majority of the states" to become an actual amendment to the Constitution. Then all other challenges can take place. I have taken a number of classes in Constitutional Law as it helps considerably when in discussions with legislators. Most of them have no clue as to what their limitations are and I can accurately predict in advance which are clueless.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Our forefathers eloquently put their reasoning for rebelling against the King on paper for posterity. They were willing to risk life, limb and property for these beliefs.

We should not take their actions lightly or dismiss them and can find further documentation in their other writings/letters of that time.

The Founders letters re: the second amendment also allude to the American people replacing their government if it should become necessary due to that govt surpassing it's Constitutional limitations and oppressing it's people. I would pray that never becomes necessary but I do not believe God expects the American people to be oppressed either. I am certain our forefathers did not!

My thinking would be that should any insurrection take place, it will be done by the military, not the people. The Generals are politically inclined but their support comes from below and obama does not have it now. That may be why no real troop reductions have taken place overseas. Just an observation there.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

You would be right had I been speaking of an amendment, but I was not. I was speaking of laws. There has been no admendment passed. There has been a law passed that has sparked all this protest. The passage of that law was done in a coonstitutionaal manner.

I would still like an answer to my question, do you disavow the people contemplating an armed resistance to the federal government or do you in fact support them and the idea of armed insurection?

That's my point exactly, the people were and are represented by the congress they elected. That is government of and by the people. There may be a lot of people who disagree, but they have not been short changed in any way. The dissenters will have there chance to change that representation at the ballot box, a rebellion is not needed nor is justified in any way shape or form.

You would be right had I been speaking of an amendment, but I was not. I was speaking of laws. There has been no admendment passed. There has been a law passed that has sparked all this protest. The passage of that law was done in a coonstitutionaal manner.

I would still like an answer to my question, do you disavow the people contemplating an armed resistance to the federal government or do you in fact support them and the idea of armed insurection?

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution explains it all. I never had any intent of answering our question as you are on a fishing expedition. When the information is available to you it is your responsibility to find it. I and others tried to help in that respect, but you refuse that help. The letters written by the founders would also be of assistance.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

First, thank you for finally responding to my question. Even refusing to answer is an answer.

Secondly, I never needed any help with the constitution or the Declaration of Independence. You assumed I was speaking about one thing when I was speaking about something else. If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have correctly stated all the facts. I think you will find that misdirection is a very old trick and seldom works anymore.

This thread is specifically talking about the groups in Oklahoma who want to form an armed militia to resist the government and any that may be of similar purpose. It is those people who are coming very close to what I call treason. There are legal avenues to take to work on changing the system. Armed resistance is not an acceptable method of protest.

In Oklahoma the people speaking of forming an armed militia were described as Tea Party leaders. If the general Tea Party movement wants any credibility as a legitimate political movement, then it needs to loudly disavow any association with these people and make sure that the national media covers that disavowal. And take legal action to prevent these people from identifying themselves with the Tea Party. Failure to do that implies tacit approval of their agenda and that is unacceptable.

Equivacations telling us that many people are upset or angry are not disavowals of that element wanting violent confrontation. There needs to be specific language that says these people are wrong and are not part of your movement.

on page one of this topic we have a video where obama asks for a "citizens national security force". And you feel states are over reacting?! The federal govt has passed it's limitations and the quickest way to get this to the SC now is for the states to refuse to follow the federal requirements.

No matter what you call it we have seen these "forces" in history. None worked out too well!!!!

As for the govt using troops, the NG is a force available to the federal govt and the govt has, in the past, been willing to use them in violation of the Posse Comitatus law.

I am done with this topic. You can find someone else to "discuss" (?) this with.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

OK, I've always loved Jefferson as both a thinker and as one of the maybe 5 best writers ever born, anywhere. It seems to me that you are tending to place disproportionate weight on some of his words, and a bit too little on others, according to your own convictions at the moment. I'm not much concerned for Jefferson's sake -- if the Bible has survived this intellectual cherry-picking process, so will he.

But look at part 1. that I pulled out of the chunk you decided to use as authority. It carries, or should carry, just as much weight in actually judging the necessity of this declaration as anything else. And in part 2., consider what "absolute Despotism" means, and what he knew and understood it to mean. There is no such thing here in our time -- or, OK, if you can define anything going on in this country as absolute despotism, including the experiences of the people you are talking about in support of militia formation, let's hear it now in lots of detail.

You wouldn't be posting this stuff here if there were even relative despotism, much less absolute. Unless you think your sacred founding father here is just flinging around the accusation of absolute despotism as hyperbolic nonsense for the sake of getting his own way, like some pig-headed colonial proto-libertarian who didn't want to suffer any legal limitations to his own designs, and it really means nothing very important in this document.

Sir, I salute your tenacity in the art of obfustication.

And, taking note not only of the clip but the poster, I ask what context this carefully shaved sound morsel was taken from.

Unless I see proof to the contrary, in the form of the whole statement from which this clip was extracted or a substantial run-up to the byte in the actual video, I am going to assume that the president is referring to the need for greater internal protection and vigilance against either state-sponsored or individual terrorism as being everyone's responsibility, not just the military's job. If that also includes domestic terrorism, it actually seem appropriate enough.

Would you care to explain what you mean by this?

Would you care to explain what you mean by this?

Certainly. I am interested in the fuller content of the clip and in why it is edited to include exactly what it does -- no less and no more -- and also I'd like to hear more on how you see the clip, so edited, to support the point you are making in the post in which it appears.

Let me be sure I understand this.

Reductions in troop deployment in the two main foreign theaters of war active at this time are possibly being delayed, to keep the number of available troops in the States at a small enough level to prevent a military coup?

How do you figure that the Generals are politically inclined to actually initiate such a thing, by the way?

First, I am not cherry picking so much as bowing to my lack of tech. knowledge.
I can build your house or even your office building, but my computer skills have limits, and I cannot spend the time to go through the whole text and highlight the parts we need to address.
Second(Antwn) I feel no need to post a link, since if I can find it, my granddaughter can find it. Not to pick you out, but YOU seem to want a link to every reference. Do your own work. I've done mine.
Okay Lynn, you seem to want details, more than I am willing to go into. So, I will
give you as much as I can.
YES!!! I do belive that armed rebellion is a viable option. Without the possibility of being overthrown by the people, there is NOTHING to keep ANY government in check. We have all seen how much the Constitution means to pelosi, reid and their ilk. And this was not really a truly major issue. If the thought of facing their fellow countrymen waving guns in their face was not a TRUE reality, do you think they would give a "diddley goddamn" for the constraints placed upon them by the Const. ?
We, The People keep this country what it is, and if our Govt. gets in the way of our doing that, THEN, YES BY THE GODS, REBELLION IS THE ONLY OPTION!!!!!!!!!!

According to FactCheck.org, Obama's use of the words "Civilian National Security Force" was deliberately misinterpreted to mean he wanted a....well....civilian national security force. From FactCheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_o...n_national.html

Why would any organized group of people formed by the US which operates on foreign lands be referred to as a "national" anything? Secondly, which of these organizations could be aptly referred to as a "force"? Thirdly, explain how in the hell these benevolent organizations could be justifiably "as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded" as our military? The answers...they wouldn't, none, and they couldn't. Obama simply let it slip. He didn't mean to do it, but he let the cat out of the bag. He did, however, on a number of other occasions allude to the notion of having our youth conscripted into service. This is easily verified.

How this is pertinent is in the use of the term force. The citizens of this great land need not be enrolled in the federally sanctioned, traditional military service in order to defend and preserve their rights under the Constitution. In fact, every citizen should find it their duty to defend against their government should it forcibly go beyond its bounds and infringe on the rights of the people. Under this belief, the idea of forming a militia then becomes the purest form of patriotism. And it is my firmly held belief that patriotism is NOT simply swallowing the flavor of the week as handed down from Washington. When the duly elected officers of this country use the legal process to pass law that goes beyond the intended reach of government, then their actions are unconstitutional and we the people have a duty to resist it.