National We The People Congress to be held in Philadelphia, PA in February, 2009

I hate to break it to them but "we the people" did give permission to fund private institutions and many of the other things on the list because Congress approved it. The U.S. is a representative republic. We voted for the Congressmen, they voted for the pork.

Also, there is a standing militia. Any person that is in the National Guard and is not on active status (like serving in Iraq, etc.) is considered to be part of the state's standing militia.


These folks need to do a little research before they start asking prople to spend hard-earned travel money for nothing.


[edit on 21-1-2009 by fnIrish]

[edit on 21-1-2009 by fnIrish]

Hate to break it to you guys, but you won't have Obama's support, either. He voted in favor of the second Patriot Act or did you forget that?

I hope to attend this...but i hope that it will be done in the name of peace and love. for if we are going to change anyones mind we must love them first. change must happen in non violent ways...I believe a different change is coming not the one that obama speaks of but a greater spiritual change...if the moon rules the seas what does that tell you about the rest?

Originally posted by cognoscente

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I'm constantly amazed that most Americans don't even know that we have a constitutional republican form of government - not a democracy. Anyway... I guess I'll chalk it up to the public school system, or more likely as in my case, not paying attention in civics class.

There's nothing to be amazed about. America is a Democracy. When people generally think of the word Democracy they don't think of any specific governmental institution abiding by particular legal regulations. Whatever form of government was once used by the Greeks can only possibly describe whatever sort of government was once used by the Greeks... What does providing definitions actually add to your argument? By telling people that our government is nothing like that of the direct democracy practiced by the ancient Greeks you have only stated the obvious. So we are a Constitutional Republic. But we practice Democracy. You realize we could have picked a King and still be labeled a Constitutional Republic?

[edit on 21-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Please show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says the word democracy. You cant.

The founding fathers despised democracy as a form of goverment.

Shame on you for spreading more BS

reply to post by cognoscente


You come off as a pretty arrogant fellow, and judging by your first post sound kind of like the so-called "centrist" ex-presidents who have been criticizing the outdatedness of the constitution for at least a couple of decades. Are you an agent?

Originally posted by alchemicalbrother
reply to post by cognoscente

 

You come off as a pretty arrogant fellow, and judging by your first post sound kind of like the so-called "centrist" ex-presidents who have been criticizing the outdatedness of the constitution for at least a couple of decades. Are you an agent?

I concur with alchemicalbrother...cognoscente should change his name to "condescende"...your tone on here is very arrogant.

Originally posted by WSPfan
I can get behind most of their issues, but are y'all still on the Obama birth certificate thing? Really? That is the dumbest issue EVER. That in and of itself makes them seem like a stupid and ridiculous body. Good luck with that.

I would have to agree that this is the stupidest issue. It clearly shows, by the position of those who maintain that BO is a citizen without proof, and very real doubts advanced, that those people really are not malicious, just stupid. It would seem that the Afro-American, or AFRICAN penchant for putting one over on 'whitey' has seen its fantastic zenith. Next election, perhaps we can elect Osama bin Laden? Why not? That would promote 'good feelings' in the Muslim community. EVERY bill signed into 'law' by BO is fated to be contested in court now, on the basis of his non-vetting. It is also interesting that he has taken to using his 15% black blood, to get the support, and not his 35% Arab, or 50% white.
Again, I respectfully as I can, maintain that you are certainly not of a higher IQ, so should understand something about stupid.

reply to post by PhoenixDemon


Naturally, I'm going to appear condescending when my opponents refuse to at least acknowledge the obvious fallacies in their logic. Then I have to go into teaching mode, because I honestly don't know if they know what they're talking about.

reply to post by admriker444


It is even apparent in this last reply to me that he didn't bother comprehending my initial post. There is a clear distinction between a Constitutional Republic and a democracy, but they have nothing to do with the legal traditions of their respective governmental institutions.

When I refer to Democracy, I'm speaking of a political philosophy, which encompasses all forms of government derived from the people, as opposed to the aristocracy or some arbitrarily select group or organization. There are two universal principles of Democracy. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. It was the lower-case "democracy" that the Founding Fathers despised so much. They were weary of any system, which enabled majoritarianist elements to usurp power based on random fluctuations in popular sentiment.

I'm sorry for my condescending tone, but if that's all it takes to end a discussion then I'd rather not be here. We're not here to balance novelty and inquiry in some effort to maximize enjoyment, while engaging in intellectual and even casual discussions on serious issues. We're here to learn. There I go again...

www.perseus.tufts.edu...://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cg i-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058;query=section%3D%23137;layout=;loc=6.1318a

Now back to the thread topic. There's too much philosophizing going on and not enough History. The President clause was produced out of a fear of losing the Republic in its early years. It was a measure to enhance solidarity in the foreseeable future. Only two decades after the signing of the Constitution there was already widespread fear that the Republic would split in two. Those predictions were correct, and manifested in what History calls the "Civil War". Had a British sympathizer been in Office in the North, the Republic could have been lost forever by such a President appealing to the British in exchange for capitulation or something similar. You can romanticize it all you want, but it was very clear why it was first introduced as such, and it is very clear, especially today where the principles of isonomia and American patriotism are so widespread, that such a clause does not serve any positive function in a modern society, where popular diversity is great and the propensity to embrace those born outside the country as American citizens is expanding. Second, the right to bear arms. This "right" is largely derived out of English common law, where it was acceptable for lords to arm themselves so that they might defend themselves in times of revolution. During the period of the English Civil Wars, there were constant regime changes. You could feel safe as a Protestant one day and revel in the riches granted to you by the monarchy, and the next be executed after a rival King came to power. This is the type of "democracy" that the Founding Fathers, once again, despised: blatantly volatile, arbitrary shifts in power. There should be ZERO fear of tyranny in a Republic. It's actually supposed to be technically impossible. If the Republic appears to be failing, the citizens are failing to protect it, and deserve to lose their freedoms. Maintaining the Republic is an active process. You don't let everything go to crap, then pull out your guns to defeat the "Tyrants", which you all would have helped to gain power. It is highly sentimental, but honestly this whole notion that arms should be used to "defend yourself from Tyranny" was only really introduced in the 1960's during the American Militia Movement, possibly as a response to popular perception that the country was heading toward more severe foreign and domestic policy, almost as if they were adopting the ideologies of the defeated Authoritarian dictators after World War II. People's homes were being invaded without warrant, for suspicion of involvement or sympathy for Communism in general. We have to admit that gun control is only a measure to reduce criminality.

If the people truly believe they have no other tools to defend their rights but the use of weapons, this system is fundamentally and ultimately flawed. There should be other Democratic processes, which help citizens protect their rights. Perhaps adding another branch of government would be prudent thinking. Executive, Judicial, Legislative, Protective. There could be regular Constitutional conferences, with members from all groups, which discuss common issues and decide upon mutual policies. This fourth branch would not have any of the tools of the other branches, keeping in the tradition of separation of powers. This council, however, would have the ability to outright reject laws that infringe upon their civil liberties. Civil liberties would be the extent of this Council's purview.

That being said, I have just become utterly dumbfounded with myself... halfway through writing my post I've come to agree with the thread's topic. I must apologize. Nevertheless, I still disagree with the First and Second amendments outright.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


Well cognoscente, there is an update just in time for your revelation, lol, but it's not funny. It's just that as soon as you realized the need for such a group, the government sticks it in the eye (but just slowed it down). The government's audacity amazes me, but certainly doesn't surprise me, that they wouldn't want this to happen. See my new post National Congress 2009 Thwarted by Government Contractor.