ATTENTION Patriots / Birthers / Teabaggers / Whomever - If you did get your Revolution, Then What?

reply to post by endisnighe

Haven't lied. Is not the definition of a lie to present falsehood's?

You in a previous post manipulated what I had said in another comment about the original 13th amendment.

How is that not a lie? Must be your lack of moral fiber. Anything to get the reaction you so desire.

I did not lie, nor did I present a falsehood.

Did you or did you not write this?

The Original 13th Amendment will be researched and if found to be thrown out illegally, it will be reinstated along with the one they replaced it with. If you want an explanation-GOOGLE IT!

So:

1. We should research and find out if there was in fact an original 13th amendment, correct?

2. If it was found to have been thrown out illegally, it will be reinstated ALONG with the one they replaced it with, correct?

So therefore your new 13th Amendment would look like this:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So, if a person commits what is a crime by the standards of this old 13th Amendment they will loose their citizenship, and thus the current 13th amendment comes into play which states that slavery is illegal except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

So you are saying you want to bring back slavery.

I did not lie. Your words, from the link in YOUR signature. You are advocating bringing back slavery.



[edit on 1/4/2010 by whatukno]

I think that people often fail to mention just how hard it is to manage a country of 308 million people. Revolution for the sake of revolution can only surely lead to further tyranny. The Constitution is far from perfect, but the question I think we should be asking is " Are the politicians really failing us, failing the Constitution?" Our nation has never been a democracy, we're a republic based on a foundation of controlled expanding anarchy. Ideas and concepts like everyone is equal, thus we should be treated as such do us great disservice. We've combined religion, with capitalism, with "democracy", and tens of other styles of governing together and called it America. I expect there to be discourse. One can not solve the problem of corruption in government with out first solving man. The revolution has to take place in the sociological mentality of this country. People are the problem not government. You can't fight an idea with a bullet. At some point humanity as a whole will reach a fork in the road which will inexorably lead us to peace or extinction. A tax hike, a socialistic style of governing, a revolution to fix corruption in a bad leader doesn't qualify and any attempt at this point in time to fix America will do nothing more than flip the hour glass right side up.

reply to post by whatukno


First off, how would instituting the Original 13th amendment institute slavery of the ones found to be guilty of it?

Second, what I meant with along with; not replacing the existing 13th amendment.

As for the institution of law, I am still a follower of the Common Law. Meaning past offenses can not be punished by the implementation of new law. Hence; anyone currently in conflict of the 13th amendment would not be punished, but rather would have to follow the new amendment. Others of course might want to enforce it, I believe not that many though. Which it would not matter, they would be overruled by the LAW. Which is what I believe this whole situation is about.

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

And where in that does it state the people would become slaves?

Oh, I see, you thought I would institute the existing into the other. That is not what I meant. What I meant was not to replace it but to add the old to the list of Amendments.

You do notice that by our Constitution; Slavery is still possible? I wonder why that little mistake has never been rectified? I wonder if that is because you and everyone else in the US lives under the indentured servitude clause of the existing 13th Amendment. There are 4 requirements to be found guilty of forcing Indentured Servitude, and our government meets all 4 requirements.

That has been used in cases of the past against our government. The courts have always stated that the government is not a person and cannot be found guilty of forcing Indentured Servitude upon its people, because it is not a person. What do you think of a government that states it can make its citizens slaves? Only because it is not a person?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Then would you defend the rights of those who advocate change through peaceful means from the violence of government?

What violence?

Will you castigate the dubious violence used upon peaceful protesters by law enforcement officers?

Are you talking about the G-20 rioters? If you are, then, well, it's my opinion that the STATE officials should have used live rounds. I have no sympathy for Anarchists and rioters. They were rioting, and as such the state does have the right and duty to defend it's own citizens against the attacks of those who wish to do harm to the community. The G-20 rioters were in no way shape or form peaceful. But got an ass kicking as they so richly deserved.

Will you vocally and staunchly protest the unconstitutional methods of creating "free speech zones" or a governments prohibition of peaceful assembly?

While it's specifically written that Congress cannot make any law restricting free speech, it doesn't say that the states can't. See Amendment 10 for details.

Or would you simply demand that those who are angry about these long train of abuses and usurpation's just keep suffering the abuse no matter what the cost?

What abuse?

Do you advocate freedom or do you advocate disarming the people?

2nd Amendment pretty much spells that out.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by whatukno]

Exactly! As long as the violence is used by the state you advocate it by your own admission. Peace my foot. What utter arrogance and dis-ingenuousness. You are every bit as dangerous than any Tim Mcveigh. Just like Mcveigh you advocate violence against innocents to justify demonizing "anarchists". Thank you for finally being honest about your advocacy of violence against the people.

Ok,

Rather than continue with a hop-scotch dissection, analysis, rebuttal, and defense,of every point. I suggest that we go back on topic according to the OP.

What was asked for in the OP now exists in one embodiment, only it has not been posted here as the OP asked. It is a refined version of the 16 original points that Eendisnighe drafted here.

The contributors on the thread started by Endisnighe worked very hard to produce their document outlining what the Patriots would do once they prevailed.

I suggest that this should be posted here as Endisnighes's response t the OP, which is what it is a redraft or at least presented as a new finished draft.

This way we can read all the new rules, policies, changes if any to the Constitution and our Country.

The argument as to what the States would/will do were a plan like this is implemented is a separate but relevant discussion.

However, I suggest that we discuss that once we have had the opportunity to read it.

Once we do that we can then debate it's pros, and cons in full regalia.

This thread was never intended to become a firefight, it was intended to present all the sides of the argument with rational examples of what those that wish to have a violent or non-violent Revolution would do if the Revolution actually cam to pass, and they prevailed.

So what say we get back on topic and save the debate for after we have read the thing we are debating.

I see the difference of opinions regarding the 13th amendment and the impact and or relevance that the 13th amendment that was not ratified, or was buried, is a valid discussion. But I suggest we have it in the context of the document that has been produced.

I realize that this is polarizing subject, and tempers will heat up, along with the rhetoric, but let's try to stop making magnanimous statement declaring that yo have won the argument, etc.. I plead guilt to having done that myself in the course of this discussion.

As to civility, let's be frank about this, this is not a civil bunch so let's not pretend that every response will or should be civil.

We are all human (no offense to self identified ET's) here, so people will get angry and go off. But let's try to do it if provoked, and commensurate with the transgression/perceived transgression, not as an individuals M.O. as this is immature and transparent.

If we can't stay on topic in the majority of the posts, then this thread will have outlived it's usefulness and should be stopped. However I can envision a relevant discussion that is better informed.

There many intelligent individuals here, and in the other thread. Let's do it the right way and try our best to stay withing T & C.

There are always going to be "pissing contest" but he entire thread should not degenerate into solely that.

I personally have a lot I want to say here about the proposals that are presented, but I feel we should be discussing specifics, and only if the discussion of the specifics leads into a discussion of a component of a point in the proposal, then we should go off on that tangent.

If we don;t have a debate that has some sort of intended structure then all it will be is willy nilly flame war.

That is not what the OP asked. The OP asks for what would be done and how.

If we can't do this in a sensible fashion then it's just grandstanding and vitriol.

I can be as nasty as anyone here, and the same goes for the rest of is, but let's save it for when it's about something ON TOPIC, otherwise U2U is available, and members can start threads that focus on their individual gripe or point of disagreement.

No matter what we say, or feel attacks will either be personal, or perceived as personal, we all know that. But let's do our best not to call each other names. We all or most of us are guilty of this myself included.

Writing style, ability, and emotions flavor what we write, we are all different, but equal.

Please, let's do it right or not at all.

To the more excitable people, save it for the real thing, or at least until we have read the thing we are now fighting about.

Best regards
Ziggy

reply to post by ziggystrange


Damn Ziggy, that was quite magnanimous of you.

On my part, I can be vitriolic and an ***. Those being my good qualities.

I feel apologies on my part are necessary and are proffered.

I feel my original 16 points were written too quickly and I had started a thread on it. As of now the initial points have been modified. Not by much but slightly.

This is of course just a web site and one cannot expect language written quickly,not to be both misunderstood but also put down incorrectly.

We cannot be expected to write exactly what we profess to mean, as if we were professional diplomacy gurus.

edit to fix to>too

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Damn Ziggy, that was quite magnanimous of you.

On my part, I can be vitriolic and an ***. Those being my good qualities.

I feel apologies on my part are necessary and are proffered.

I feel my original 16 points were written too quickly and I had started a thread on it. As of now the initial points have been modified. Not by much but slightly.

This is of course just a web site and one cannot expect language written quickly,not to be both misunderstood but also put down incorrectly.

We cannot be expected to write exactly what we profess to mean, as if we were professional diplomacy gurus.

edit to fix to>too

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

I'll overlook the insult for now, and ask you specifically. will you post your OP for review, otherwise you are contributing nothing.

Ziggy

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Damn Ziggy, that was quite magnanimous of you.

On my part, I can be vitriolic and an ***. Those being my good qualities.

I feel apologies on my part are necessary and are proffered.

I feel my original 16 points were written too quickly and I had started a thread on it. As of now the initial points have been modified. Not by much but slightly.

This is of course just a web site and one cannot expect language written quickly,not to be both misunderstood but also put down incorrectly.

We cannot be expected to write exactly what we profess to mean, as if we were professional diplomacy gurus.

edit to fix to>too

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

I'll overlook the insult for now, and ask you specifically. will you post your OP for review, otherwise you are contributing nothing.

Ziggy

Ok maybe I snapped to quickly, I apologize.

I really want to do this right, and I apologize to anyone I have offended including you.

Let's hit the reset button and try.

Ziggy

[edit on 4-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

[edit on 4-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Well here it is. 21 points. It will take two comments. Here is 1-11.

1 Reinstate the Constitution; any and all statutes that restrict or go against the given rights of the States or the Citizens are removed. This to be fazed in as fast as possible. Presidential Orders that do not have Constitutional backing to be removed. Any and all following ideas refer back to THIS ONE, if there are any discrepancies. Items such as the War on Drugs, licensing for beauticians, or alternative medicine are direct causal problems due to this. There are already protections from injury due to being injured. As I said, all following and questions refer back to this one.

2 Banking System-Federal Reserve to be abolished. Congress will be required to follow the Constitutional requirements to return to a commodity based monetary system. Be it Gold/Silver, or another conglomerate of commodities such as oil, corn etc. Nationalizing banks is an argument fought over many times in our past and I am sure into the future. I feel that something needs to regulate the out of control loss of value of our money. This may be repaired by reinstituting a commodity backed monetary system. Also a possible restricting of usury rates can be investigated. All assets of the Federal Reserve and any and all banks and individuals that have stolen money from the American People (e.g. Paulson with his sale of GS stock at a value of $300 million) to be used to pay off as much of the debt as possible. All of this to be determined by a trial of all involved in the fleecing of the American People. Barter and the like in no way will be infringed upon.

3 Institute and keep the regulations required to maintain the functionality of our stock market. I believe a time based regulation is required here. Economists need to hash out controls, that in no way are a detriment to a free market but are necessary to stop manipulations in said market. No mass manipulation of stocks, like the Goldman Sachs computer software allowed even near the stock market.

4 Instant removal of all Federal Agencies that are null and void in a Constitutional Government. Example Given-IRS, with the Fair Tax to be instated; ATF-all three things that are legal, why do we need an agency to enforce it? All contracts that exist right now, between the Fed and Private Corps to be reassessed and open bidding will be reinstituted. No favoritism allowed. Any contracts that are for things that are required for the Federal Government to do, will be dismissed, if it is the job of the government-do it.

5 Removal of all our troops from all foreign soil except where they want us to stay. If they want us to stay, they will pay us 75% of all operational costs. This to be phased out over a 5 year period. We will set up a strategic plan for the defense of our country. Bases that are necessary to remain open for our defense. State Militias and National Guards are sufficient for our protection in country, but a necessary defensive posture in strategic locations around the world is still a viable necessisity. A necessary, non interference and retaliation for attacks Treaty will be written and signed by our country. Any and all countries wanting to join can. Our involvement in the UN will fall back to just a member nation, we will slowly completely pull out. Any involvement in any multi-national governing body is un-Constitutional. Any treaties that are now in effect that have ANY limitations on the American People, are henceforth abolished.

6 All illegal immigrants will be given a 6 month window to sell all assets they do not want to take with them; they will be required to return to their own nation of origin. They will be allowed to hold their current positions, as long as that window remains open. We will pass a law that will give a fine of .5% of value of the business for hiring an illegal after this time. Also for each illegal hired, the corporate owner and board will be given a 60 day minimum sentence. For each additional offense, the punishment will be tripled. The illegal immigrants that are sent back to their nations of origin will be allowed to immediately request return and citizenship status, if they have never broken any laws except for illegal entry and have employment availability upon their return. All future immigration will be only allowed as our ability to absorb them. Exemptions such as for marriage, political refugees, and other such legitimate reasons on a per case basis. The ability to absorb, referring to unemployment statistics and other factors. Limited visas and the like need to be assessed and any nation where terrorist organizations exist, no visas are allowed to be given.

7 All economic treaties, such as NAFTA that are, in direct violation or detriment to our countries sovereignty and economic well being, are hereby null and void. Regulations that are placed on our businesses that do not include safety or toxicity concerns need to be removed so that we can compete in the global economy. If these are not removed, than a tariff system necessary to make up for these detriments to our competitiveness needs to be installed. I feel just the removal of the regulations would free us up to become the masters of our own domain again.

8 Energy exploration will be allowed unabated but all energy profits originally going to the Fed, will go to the people instead. Unabated in no way means unsafely or allowing rampant pollution. All avenues of alternative energy will be explored.

9 All secrets not directly necessary for the absolute safety of the nation will be released immediately. Total transparency will be required and any and all attempts to circumnavigate this will end in jail time and expulsion from the country. FINAL.

10 Corporate laws and regulations will be completely reassessed. And ALL CORPORATE LAWS PERTAINING TO CITIZEN'S WILL BE REMOVED! Removal of all Corporate Personhood. Corporations are not people; they will not be given the same rights as people. This is in reference to organizations that are allowed to lobby our government. Also with this removal, land cannot be owned by a corporation. This has to be researched and all necessary adjustments necessary made.

11 Complete idiocy like the Monsanto’s killer gene GMO's, fluoride in our water, and other totally blatant idiocy will be outlawed. All the crazy agricultural regulations will be reassessed. Any and all collusion that caused these insufferable detriments to us shall be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of our Constitution.



[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
Would you like my latest list? It is quite large, but I have had a chance to modify it and to clarify it.

Please, and I for one will promise, that I won't try to jump down your throat for any grammatically induced perceived meaning, but rather point it out and at least attempt to discuss, what you meant, not what it sounds like.

I'm sure there will be points of contention, but it would not be fair to indict you or anyone else over a mis-understanding.

So please to everyone, probe before you shoot. Don't shoot from the hip if you are going to launch a rant try to make it be based on a fact, or a clarified position.


Thank you Endisnighe.

Ziggy

12-21

12 Term limits, balanced budget, lobbyists, P.A.C. removal and OTHER control measures will be installed to stop the out of control career politicians (criminals).

13 The Original 13th Amendment will be researched and if found to be thrown out illegally, it will be reinstated. This is in regards to the holding of Titles of Nobility and the holding of dual citizenship. Anyone with dual citizenship shall not be allowed to hold ANY office in our country.

14 Any and all future laws will be required to be; posted on line 7 days prior to any vote. required to be in final form and will be required to written in common sense and common law verbiage, No pork will be allowed to be attached to any bill, constitutional justification necessary , no justification-no law, there is a limit to the length of a bill of 250 pages, if at anytime it becomes necessary to exceed this limit, the display period will be extended another 7 days for each and every additional 50 pages.

15 A Fair Tax will be the only allowed form of tax to be implemented EVER. A use tax, per se, something that is applied for all purchases. Their will not and cannot be a luxury or sin type tax to be installed. It will only be allowed to be across the board rates. Allowance for removal of products is a possibility, like food, clothing or possibly rental of basic living quarters. All transactions other than this need to be enforced, including such items as the transfer of stocks and the like. What I am getting at here is a consumption tax. Something that cannot be avoided by the ELITE of our country. The more you spend, the more you pay. I suggest the removal of the food and such for the benefit of the poorer of us. Their purchases are more in line with their sustenance.

16 All yearly property taxes will be eliminated. When you purchase your item, you own it! The government is not allowed to continually tax you forever on something. See Fair Tax proposal. This is in regards to the Allodial Title. This is not a State issue, any detriment to completely owning property hence having to pay future taxes on said property, is a detriment to our rights of ownership. Allodium Title-"land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud." No more illegal use of Eminent Domain to take private land, if the land is needed for the use of the government that is allowed, no more better tax base bull.

17 The current income tax amendment will be repealed.

18 All federal licensing, regulations, permitting will be abolished if not directly related to interstate commerce.

19 Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social systems will need to become opt in/opt out. A necessary transition phase needs to be instated to remove the PONZEII scheme from our necks. This right here will be the most important, behind reinstating the Constitution, for our survival as a nation.

20. Our current NATION’s debt will be removed as quickly as humanly possible. I feel everyone currently involved in government should be assessed a 95% tax rate on all current assets and future earnings until this debt is paid off. Other asset seizure should be implemented on companies involved in the Military Industrial Complex including all of the main stockholders and corporate officers.

21. A fourth branch of government needs to be introduced. The sole purpose of this fourth branch of government is to be the watchdog of the other three. If any member of any of the other three branches breaks any of the laws of the Constitution, this third branch will instruct a Federal Court to begin immediate proceedings of trial. Examples of violations-a holder of an office breaking their oath of office or a branch of federal government seizing property illegally. This branch will have the full authority to request investigation of any member of the government including the President. This kind of brings us to a quandary of its enforcement strength. Some kinks would need to be worked out. I know the Constitution has in it this provision, but we can see it has failed us. Choosing this fourth branch’s members should be in no way involved with anything that can be manipulated. Also it should not do any of the investigation or judgment, which should be left to the existing court system. It would need to only have appointment authority to start the proceedings against the individual or individuals. This branch could be the location of the start of the Petition for Grievances component. A member on ATS has some brilliant ideas behind this.

It is quite extensive I know. Just something worked on for the past 36 hours by me and others. These are mainly my decisions but it gives an idea of where I am coming from anyway.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by ziggystrange


Please everyone give Endisnighe some time to post his list it will be long and best if not broken up by others posts.

reply to post by ziggystrange


Mainly, I would like to see many of the laws that infringe on our freedoms and over tax us repelled.

I belive we should keep the basic government, but get rid of social security, welfare, affirmative action, and income tax.

The biggest change that I would like to see made would be to make funding of political parties by the federal government illegal. These are private institutions they want to move a political agenda. They are not actually part of the government. There also needs to be controls placed to make sure they do not gain as much power as they currently have.

We also need to ban lobbieist, to ensure that laws are passed for the good of the population, not special interest groups.

States Rights need to be returned to the states.

reply to post by endisnighe


Looks very good so far but let's not ignore the absolute and final litmus test for the contemporary conservative.

Abortion.....

Homosexual Marriage ............

for me a definitive test of a true conservative is their response to those two issues.

reply to post by whaaa


As you will notice, neither of those are anywhere in there.

Any true Christian does not enforce their will upon another.

They are false Christians. I being one, would never enforce my will upon another.

Of course I would annoy the hell out of you and preach to you to try to save your soul, but I would not try to legislate your soul. That does not work. Anyone that thinks it does is an idiot.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Exactly! As long as the violence is used by the state you advocate it by your own admission. Peace my foot. What utter arrogance and dis-ingenuousness. You are every bit as dangerous than any Tim Mcveigh. Just like Mcveigh you advocate violence against innocents to justify demonizing "anarchists". Thank you for finally being honest about your advocacy of violence against the people.

See the 10th Amendment for more details.

What you don't like the the state having more authority than the federal government? In this case that state would be Pennsylvania. Oh, but I guess to you states shouldn't have the right to defend themselves against angry rioting anarchists who are hell bent on destroying property.

So to reiterate my point, while Congress can make no law restricting freedom of speech, the sovereign rights of the state does give them that right. See, the state is different from the federal government because the state can make and enforce their own laws. See if it were up to me, I would have had business owners down there with shotguns protecting their private property from those rioters. I think that things would have went much better if a few of those anarchists lost their heads. Don't you agree?

Or is it better that they got hit with pepper spray, sonic cannons and bean bag rounds?

Just a thought, I mean would it have been better if the owners of the property these rioters were destroying decided to instead just start blowing these anarchists away? I mean there is the right to defend yourself and your property isn't there? They break my window, I blow their brains all over the sidewalk. Sounds about right.

reply to post by endisnighe


Thank you Endisnighe.

I will read it a few times before I make any comments about it.

A personal comment:

Regardless of what I conclusion I come to on this, I thank you for doing it.
While I at first was not happy when you started your thread, I now feel differently.

It would have been impossible for you to have done this here.

To that end, if anyone here wishes to draft their own version, by all means the best way to do it is on a separate thread, once completed, the OP can do as Endisnighe did and present it for review by everyone.

There are many people on ATS that have educated themselves, or have a formal education that has given them in depth knowledge of the Constitution.
I'm not one of them, I only know what I learned in Civics and History at school ad have not focused on it. I have already learned some from reading the debates, and suggestions.

Thank You
Ziggy

reply to post by endisnighe




Well you say you want a revolution...............non violent or otherwise

then you say

Any true Christian does not enforce their will upon another.

How can you have a revolution without enforcing your will on people.
Otherwise it's just a circle jerk.

See the disconnect?





[edit on 4-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


C'mon whaaa.

Post something that means something. Not something illusory.

I do not want to force my will on anyone. As you can see by my points I want the US government to be what they by law are supposed to be.

Of course our government wants us to follow the laws they pass but not follow the law themselves.

Kind of circular logic is it not?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whaaa

 

I do not want to force my will on anyone. As you can see by my points I want the US government to be what they by law are supposed to be.

And how do you propose to enforce the government to abide by their laws and what you want them to be, without kicking some ass?

This thread has boiled down to academic rhetoric and BS. It was more fun when the wingnuts were locking and loading.

Are you working on a term paper by any chance?