99%? Who wants to be a part of the 100%?

reply to post by daskakik


Many of your points though have occurred because we have strayed so far from the intent and the protections of the Constitution. I have never heard of the Jefferson thing but that doesn't mean he didn't say it

I think both sides of our political *parties* do agree on a few things...the MAIN issue with the OWS protest, my opinion of course is to make any REAL change they need the support of the general public behind them, this is never and I mean NEVER going to happen with the current list of demands.

Another thing I am observing here at ATS is that many...not all but my perspective so far has been a majority of the protest supporters, not only pretty much refuse to discuss the constitution, they flat wont acknowledge it. I find this very foreign (probably cuz Im an old fuddy duddy) but my sincere observation is the majority of those supporting it are pretty anti constitution.....it leaves an impression even IF it is an incorrect one. It appears to me such people just want to collapse the country through revolution without a care or consideration to the dire CONSEQUENCE of not having something solid the public will enforce as well as support.... I mean REALLY do you think you can over throw the government and THEN think about what to do instead and hope the rest of us will abide it?

Im no politician but I have studied lots of history, not the junk we all learned in the public school system but the REAL history..it is out there.

I am also coming to realize that many of the hard core differences in the right and the left are more instigated by TPTB than true irreconcilable differences.

1. my generation has not watchdogged the government enough and while we pretty much all KNOW this country was founded as a Republic we have not taken issue when all the school books call it a Democracy. MOST people believe the word Democracy means what the gov and schools tell them it means, but what you are being told and taught is BS.

2. TPTB have made sure to demonize the Republican party (not that they don't deserve lots of it) and so most logical people hear Republic and think this is the Republicans dogma....that is BS too! I believe one reason the Pledge is under attack is not ONLY due to the line *One Nation under God* but ALSO *and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands* cuz see they got everyone to BELIEVE we are a Democracy.

3. Just as the Republican party has been hijacked by the Progressive agenda, so has the Democratic Party. This is a BIG problem as it makes both parties not true to their ideals.

4. TPTB KNOW that United we STAND, and divided we fall, why else are they so intend to create more and more divisions?? I'll tell you...it's because UNITED, they are TOAST and THEY know it!

5. this point is actually more of a question, please no attacks I REALLY want to know the answer to this question. How many of you supporting this protest have ever read The Federalist Papers, or any of the actual existing letters between the founders???

6. How many people have read and understand the articles in the Constitution these days? I KNOW the answer to this one.....and THIS is the number one problem to me.

I believe in order for the protest to actually bring about lasting and positive change people have to come to a place they understand our REAL history.....In such a setting I truly believe the left and right views can find a common ground and perhaps push through a new amendment that would stun TPTB.

The current generation, the ones feeling so displaced and protesting are the most educated generation on the planet...yet you are the most ignorant of the foundation of our country, thanks mostly to your education

I say put your heads together and stop the pie in the sky far left and even socialistic demands. Come up with an amendment that would at least correct SOME of the issues with the banks and wallstreet problems.

I am certain if young people use the education to get up to speed quickly on the TRUE foundation of our country you are certainly bright enough to come up with some decent solutions, draft an amendment or at least formulate the basic idea of one. I am not kidding when I say that right now I would not lift a finger to support this protest...you come up with a Constitutional solution I will show up and get arrested with you, hell I will show you how to get arrested the RIGHT way LOL and be a total PITA to the authorities. Not only would I get involved I would invest my money in such a cause

I believe most people like me would too cuz you see, we aren't against you, but right now you are so far left there is no way in hell we can be with you....The constitution MATTERS to us.

I guess my biggest fear is if it no longer matters to you, no reason for me to worry about supporting any protest or side. The country is toast if that is the reality...

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Honor93
and, as for its construct, it was not forced upon anyone. it was deeply and intensely negotiated for months with representatives of many persons / states / beliefs, before a final draft was produced. those representatives were chosen by the people they represented (not quite what happens today)

I'm not sure how true this is but I have read that Jefferson believed that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. I think it was so that every generation actually had a say. You say it wasn't forced upon anybody but I agree with Jefferson, it was forced on every generation after the generation of '76.

As for the civil war I was just pointing out that at least from that moment on the constitution has been forced upon the citizens of the confederate states.

Some have said that you could leave. I find it funny because americans abroad still have to pay income tax even if that income is earned in another country. Also, a couple of days I saw a thread about a new law that would make it illegal for american citizens to discuss or plan activities about things that are illegal in the US while standing on foreign soil. Even when you leave they are on you.

U.S. Drug Policy Would Be Imposed Globally By New House Bill

edit on 10-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

actually, no it wasn't. fact is, (at that time) all persons born in America were bound as subjects to the crown. (forced by birth) the Constitution eliminated said link to the crown and guaranteed all persons born to be sovereign, free and not subject to any authority greater than themselves. (including govt)

the Constitution does not establish a govt but a model for govt.
by the time the civil war occurred, the Constitution had been challenged, vilified, debated, usurped and was beginning to reflect the "mode of the day" rather the model of a nation.

if you really don't know, here are a few great resources ... learn
Jefferson / Constitutionality of a National Bank
Madison / Constitutional interpretation
Federalist Papers
Liberty Library
Constitution Society
each of the above links can be accessed directly via the last one (Constitution Society)
no middle-men needed ... dig in, enjoy and remember, history can be your friend.

i've never read or heard any such statement by Jefferson ... no link / no proof, i call BS
Jefferson was a fan of re-constituting the members of govt, not the Constitution.

No. The Constitution protected the rights of the ppl / states for nearly 100yrs before the civil war broke out. the war originated over state's rights (taxes, anyone?) and Lincoln wasn't about to suffer the stigma of secession occurring on his watch ... hence, the civil war.

It was Lincoln's Marxist policies that brought forth the secession presentations to Congress.
(kinda like the environment of today).
are you even aware that Lincoln was a self-professed communist ??
Lincoln / Marx
a good read
msm / Time

this is another reason why the left/right paradigm is no longer effective or useful.
You want to really piss off a Republican ??
remind them they were once RED ... as in communist ... as in Democrats ... as in the communist chameleon. It's been around almost as long as the US has been and switches parties almost as often as the candidates change underwear. they are representing IT, not us.

Communists want ppl to believe that communism is dead ... i would beg to differ.
IF it is sooooooo dead, why does Pelosi still invoke the words of Mao? Marx? Stalin?
it's all one big poker game exclusively dependent on who has the best "bluff".

what you are discussing at the end of your post are "laws" ... not the Constitution.
Restore the Constitution and said "stupid laws" eliminate themselves.

This is my argument ... start at the top and work our way down ... sweeping the streets only looks pretty ... it doesn't remove the dirt ground in. END the FED and the rest will fall into place, naturally.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Honor93

 

I guess saying I agree with the notion of abolishing the Fed isn't enough?

And to take further steps to reign in predatory and irresponsible banking practices?

I'm not getting your angle here.

Are you accusing me of something?

as for your first sentence, i would presume i missed it previously ... what i've read recently didn't say such a thing ... if you agree, fine ... even if you don't agree, fine ... i just want to understand why you are willing to cooperate with the industry that is destroying everything America is.

No fed = no banking practices as we know them ... a new model will evolve naturally.
(you know, cause & effect ... supply & demand)

ummmmm, accusing ??? since when is asking questions translate to accusing?
i thought we were having an open discussion on this thread, am i mistaken?

While good links are being shared I am going to reshare. I shared this before, maybe another thread but either way....I think especially those of you really curious about the communism thing listen to this man, his is a very interesting story. He was a disinformation agent for the KGB. He hated what he was doing and his gov and decided to defect, he formulated a plan and in India he disguised himself as an American Hippie and blended in with a tour group and got himself to Greece, where he sought Political Asylum. the links to youtube, are his series on Pyschological warfare and a bit of his personal story.

Very much worth a listen


www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Honor93


The fact that the revolutionary war liberated those subject to the crown doesnt mean it didn't place place upon them another form of government. They were not free to chose individually it was voted on and that is what many here keep calling mob rule.

Here is a link to Jeffersons quote:
Jefferson

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only.

Calling Lincoln a Marxist doesn't change the fact the the federal government forced itself upon the Confederate States and their citizens against their will by use of force.

It's funny that people say that by the time of the civil war the constitution had been usurped. Then what good is it. The Constitution is only going to restrain a government when the people stand behind it. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper.

What I'm talking about at the end of the post is in response to those that say "If you don't like it leave". It's not that simple.

Originally posted by Cinaed
reply to post by daskakik

 

Many of your points though have occurred because we have strayed so far from the intent and the protections of the Constitution.

Actually my point was that the constitution even in it's original form was discussed voted on and the majority won. Those that did not agree had to suck it up. The later generations had even less say.

As to the rest of your post what is the point of proposing an amendment if the constitution has been usurped for 150 years.

reply to post by daskakik


Edit...too much cold medicine and lack of sleep, will repost later when brain engaged ...

reply to post by daskakik

So you want to just toss it and do what, exactly?

reply to post by daskakik


Actually I would beg to differ that one. I agree it was all voted on and the majority won in the beginning but to say others had less to say I disagree with. I admit it took a long time, but some of the issues sucked up in the beginning were later addressed...such as slavery! Yes it took a long time but it did happen and to me that is the beauty of the Document. It can be changed, not only that if we change it and see over time it was a mistake we can even FIX our mistake and repeal things. We have power still and we had more in the past; it's not too late to take it back. The Constitution allows for the people to over rule Congress, the rub is...it takes the will of the general public to do it...If it was EASY then the minorities would always pay the price.

Many things can be done if we find a common ground to unite on. If we don't the country is going down, simple as that and likely there will be civil war rather than revolution. Either way the USA will become a thing of the past.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

The fact that the revolutionary war liberated those subject to the crown doesnt mean it didn't place place upon them another form of government. They were not free to chose individually it was voted on and that is what many here keep calling mob rule.

Calling Lincoln a Marxist doesn't change the fact the the federal government forced itself upon the Confederate States and their citizens against their will.

It's funny that people say that by the time of the civil war the constitution had been userped. Then what good is it. The Constitution is only going to restrain a government when the people stand behind it. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper.

What I'm talking about at the end of the post is in response to those that say "If you don't like it leave". It's not that simple.

edit on 10-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

wrong ... the revolutionary war did not "liberate" anything ... the acceptance and application of the DOCUMENT did.

sure it does as no "form" of unified govt appeared until later (1787 ??) ... but don't take my word for the date, i'm dyslexic and i gave you quality reference material ... look it up.

government was established colony by colony with the monarchy as final rule.
you chose to live in the state, you were subject to the govt structure of that state.
you chose to live in a territory, it was pretty much anarchist rule.
you chose a socialist / plantation type state, you were subject to their rules.
point is, until the Constitution, the only unified govt structure was that of the English monarchy.

and just what kind of wild goose chase is this you recommend ???
you refer a segment of a letter written a decade+ after the Constitution ???
what kind of baloney are you serving?

this was not part of the construct or the conversations leading to it.

It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

your source

He does not refer to any such "expiration date" ... how do you get that from his words above?
what he does relay is the "coincidence" that since each generation has the authority to change it, or perhaps even begin anew, one should consider the ramifications of such an endeavor and not enter into it lightly ... and when said authority was exercised during Lincoln's administration, what happened?

no one is suggesting we leave the Constitution stand as it is written today (+ all amendments) however, it is a good and solid foundation, why scrap it?

also, what Jefferson goes on to explain in detail is this ... (ie OWS) ... "But the power of repeal is not an equivalent." ... which is exactly what Cinaed, myself and others have been repeating over and over again ... simply taking a stand that the system is broke is NOT enough ... an equivalent must be ready and available ... OWS has yet to produce anything but complaints.

also, toward the end of this excerpt he mentions the "life of a law" not the foundation of a country.

personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal

now, shame on me for not reading the entire letter so i may form proper context but i've read plenty of his works and i do believe you are mistaken in your representation of his intent, his commentary and his reference.

as we have many more "laws" which are more difficult to repeal than the Constitution itself, i clearly understand what he meant. do you?
need a reference, see the Federal Reserve

out of space ... to be cont'd

reply to post by Cinaed

My point was directed at those saying that socialism strips away freedoms while Americans are the most free when in the real world there is far more control, in certain areas, in the US than in some "socialist" countries.

As to the rest all I can say is I hear you but how are you going to loosen the grip of the fed to restore the republic. You said it yourself you have to have the numbers but if the MSM could convince older citizens that the protesters only stand for socialism and want to burn the constitution then the numbers wont build.

As for the constitution I don't care if it stays or goes. The people are what protects the people. The constitution just helps them focus and reminds them where the governments boundries are. If they let the government overstep them then the constitution isn't going to jump out of it's glass case and beat the government back.

reply to post by Honor93

Look at it however you want. My interpretation is mine.

The quote that I posted appears right above the text you quoted in the link I provided. He also said the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time. Seems like the same sentiment to me. Just because it was a decade after the constitution doesn't mean that the man didn't hold those beliefs.

Again a snippet of the text I quoted earlier. It's in plain english. The rest is him just talking about the mechanics of it.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

Here is a bit more from that link:

Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

Calling Lincoln a Marxist doesn't change the fact the the federal government forced itself upon the Confederate States and their citizens against their will by use of force.

why would use such inflammatory rhetoric to make your point?
i did not "call" anyone a name, Lincoln referred to himself as such ... i am simply quoting fact.
all i did was ask you a question, sorry if it ruffles your feathers.

i never disagreed with the obvious, what is your point ??
did any generation change it afterwards ??
have any states proceeded with secession since ??
so, why a revolution rather a new effort at secession?

It's funny that people say that by the time of the civil war the constitution had been usurped. Then what good is it. The Constitution is only going to restrain a government when the people stand behind it. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper.

so, is that really "when the people", "when the majority of people", "when the right people" or "when the people with the money" stand behind it ??

not being facetious here, it actually matters cause this is where we've gone wrong.
why not take a step back and fix it ?

personally, i could never perceive the Constitution as "just a piece of paper", no matter how bad it gets.
That one, single document has created the environment of opportunity most seek.
none other has and i seriously doubt any other could.
(at least i've not seen a good example or been able to craft one better)

What I'm talking about at the end of the post is in response to those that say "If you don't like it leave". It's not that simple.

not sure if you mean leave you current location or leave the country ... i wouldn't suggest you leave the country unless you desire culture more common in foreign lands, however, i am a firm believer that if your two legs function, you have no excuse to not move as needed or required to survive.
the decision not to is just that, a decision. Cinaed previously mentioned her 3000 mile journey and i had to go nearly 2000 myself, so we do understand

reply to post by daskakik

As to the rest of your post what is the point of proposing an amendment if the constitution has been usurped for 150 years.

for the frequency it has been usurped, it has also been restored ... it wears its scars, have a look.
did it ever occur to you that the only way it could be successfully usurped was facilitated by public ignorance? doesn't make it right but it doesn't make it wrong, either.

why not change it? we are a new generation aren't we?
personally, i doubt anyone in this movement has the capability of a concise creation, hence they flounder.

reply to post by daskakik


It isn't just the media painting a bad pic of the protest. The Protest Demands are your downfall...they are VERY socialistic in nature. NO ONE to the right of socialist or far left will ever get behind those demands.

How to take back the power you ask??? HOW is to UNITE, plain and simple....I mean seriously if there were to evolve from this protest or some one in the near future a movement that had an amendment or maybe not even that, maybe all they need is a list of demands but it has to appeal to MOST Americans...not just a small wedge of us. That's why I keep saying if you want the support of the older generation you are going to have to do it with and through the constitution.

Nothing else will unite this nation again.

A dictator might control it but that is not the same as being united. I do not want to lose the way of life Americans have enjoyed, messed up as it is it is a good life. And while I would agree there are some socialist countries with less regulation I would put to you to really look at their culture...what DON'T they have? Most countries in Europe are in a worse financial mess than we are and ours is BAD

Honestly though when I try to think of the best way to take back power it would be in the 10th Amendment and nullification

If there was a poll and you picked say the 5 most unconstitutional laws in the minds of the majority and started a movement to nullify them.... If people in every state were to petition the state governments in large enough numbers to propose nullification....how can the federal gov come down on every state???? They would have to show their cards and begin to fight the people....something they sure don't want to do, not while we are UNITED....

I am not saying just use the same old methods of the past few decades.... Get a solid plan the people will back and THEN protest..... if We The People all insist our state gov nullify all 5 chosen laws and protest with boots on the ground in every state.... people flooding all the state agencies with phone calls and emails.... I mean really, what are they gonna do?? If they are aggressive, all that will do is increase the ranks of people willing to get involved.... Not many will risk what all the founders risked though, which was their lives, goods and families....for the demands of OWS If you want the backing of the people you must represent EVERYONE'S interests not just your idea of whats groovy.

Whatever happens, unless we are united....any movement is doomed to fail, or worse bring about unintended and undesired results

wiki link to Nullification Crisis of 1832

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Honor93
why would use such inflammatory rhetoric to make your point?
i did not "call" anyone a name, Lincoln referred to himself as such ... i am simply quoting fact.
all i did was ask you a question, sorry if it ruffles your feathers.

i never disagreed with the obvious, what is your point ??
did any generation change it afterwards ??
have any states proceeded with secession since ??
so, why a revolution rather a new effort at secession?

If he was a communist as well as the first republican president and a federalist then all labels are just that.

Getting your rear handed to you is probably a good reason why secession has not been tried by the states again. The people don't have that venue.

so, is that really "when the people", "when the majority of people", "when the right people" or "when the people with the money" stand behind it ??

not being facetious here, it actually matters cause this is where we've gone wrong.
why not take a step back and fix it ?

personally, i could never perceive the Constitution as "just a piece of paper", no matter how bad it gets.

See that is where you have gone wrong. It is just a piece of paper. I know you said you were not being facetious but if you don't know who the people are then who's rights is the document protecting? Sorry to say it but the people are the majority. That is how it was put in place.

not sure if you mean leave you current location or leave the country ...

You have never heard the phrase "America love it or leave it" whenever somebody criticizes the US?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

Look at it however you want. My interpretation is mine.

The quote that I posted appears right above the text you quoted in the link I provided. He also said the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time. Seems like the same sentiment to me. Just because it was a decade after the constitution doesn't mean that the man didn't hold those beliefs.

Again a snippet of the text I quoted earlier. It's in plain english. The rest is him just talking about the mechanics of it.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

Here is a bit more from that link:

Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

edit on 10-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

tip ... i only edited the link because i PASTED the commentary into my post ... touchy are ya?
yes, interpretation is up to the individual but context is not.
and seldom does a snipit convey context.

yes, i am well aware of the Tree of Liberty and have replenished it more times than i'd like already ... are you volunteering?
it does seem to me that you are more in favor of donations to the Tree of Liberty rather the Tree of Life.

for the record, opinions are NOT beliefs, they are opinions (and subject to change frequently)
what you linked is an opinion rather a belief, please learn the difference.

reply to post by Honor93


So the amendment that permits the Federal Reserve un unlimited charter has been repealed?

Your wrong the document is manipulated and whatever tweaks that have been made are mearly cosmetic.

reply to post by daskakik


Have you ever checked out the history of how the meaning of the party names changed over the yrs??? It's pretty interesting.......

several flip flops.... The UK parties have done it too

This Party use to be That Party but now the Party of the This and That are changing sides so no one knows who is who, if anyone starts to get it just take This Party and make it That Party again, works everytime

Originally posted by Honor93
i only edited the link because i PASTED the commentary into my post ... touchy are ya?
yes, interpretation is up to the individual but context is not. and seldom does a snipit convey context.

You said it was a wild goose chase. I posted the quote with the main idea right there.

yes, i am well aware of the Tree of Liberty and have replenished it more times than i'd like already ... are you volunteering?
it does seem to me that you are more in favor of donations to the Tree of Liberty rather the Tree of Life.

I'm quoting Thomas Jefferson on his idea that the constitution should be revised every 19 years. Nothing more nothing less.

for the record, opinions are NOT beliefs, they are opinions (and subject to change frequently) what you linked is an opinion rather a belief, please learn the difference.

Opinions are the product of beliefs. If he didn't believe that to be the best way to do things he would not have expressed that opinion.