Shutting down a democracy

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Its unproductive to argue over a word like dissolve. My point is still valid.

[C1ay]

My point is still valid.

 

No, your point is categorically wrong. The Declaration of Independence doesn't even suggest that it is the duty of the people to dissolve, dismantle, overthrow, destroy, etc.. any government they feel is being destructive to their way of life. It was about declaring "independence" from the government of England.

 

BTW, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document that any of our laws are based on. It sets no policy for the people of today to do anything, the Constitution does that. The Declaration served only one purpose, to dissolve the authority of the English Monarchy over the settlers of the new world which would later become the United States.

[Qfwfq]

I think the whole argument is pointless and I disagree that:

In context that quote is about separating themselves from the British Government and does not literally mean to actually dissolve the government in reference but to dissolve the bond with that government. I know, it's a small nitpick but literal interpretation is important with such documents.

is a matter of literal interpretation. I call it a matter of specifying the purpose of who wrote that document. The literal meaning doesn't distinguish between throwing off a local government or one elsewhere. This goes for Buffy's point too, but much more could be said about the French revolution which hadn't started that way and took a far more complicated course and, yes, it would be for another thread.

 

Now when it's (still) a true democracy, it's possible for the people to vote choose a better alternative, without the need for a violent course of action. This is the real point, and to do it before elections are no longer enough to achieve the purpose.

 

The Declaration of Independence doesn't even suggest that it is the duty of the people to dissolve, dismantle, overthrow, destroy, etc.. any government they feel is being destructive to their way of life. It was about declaring "independence" from the government of England.

It was written to that purpose and justified it with those words, the literal meaning of them is exactly what you are denying it to be. The point isn't literal interpretation, it is that:

• They couldn't vote against King George according to British law, but they were a colony so the best option was secession.
  
• The opponents of a US president can vote for a better candidate, it shouldn't be necessary to fight a revolution.
  

If most people refuse to vote, complaining that the alternatives aren't much better, then it's a matter of whether the chicken or the egg comes first.

 

BTW, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document that any of our laws are based on. It sets no policy for the people of today to do anything, the Constitution does that.

This is not the point, any US citizen who supports that declaration and believes it was a just cause, should hold the exact same opinion concerning any case of a similarly unjust government. The spirit of those words is the reason a republic was set up and for which the constitution was later written specifying a democratic system. If it should come to pass that the nation is no longer a democracy (or not in practice), the same reasons behind those words would imply doing something about it.

 

Vote, before the time comes when it won't be enough. A piece of paper guarantees nothing without the people upholding it.

[Mike C]

VERY interesting lecture here:

 

Mussolini created the blueprint (with inspiration from Lenin), Hitler elaborated on it, Stalin studied Hitler...

 

Here's how it works (Every time)(notice how many Bush & Co. is using now.):

 

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

 

2. Create a gulag

 

3. Develop a thug caste

 

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

 

5. Harass citizens' groups

 

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

 

7. Target key individuals

 

8. Control the press

 

9. Dissent equals treason

 

10. Suspend the rule of law

 

 

 

Hear . . any . . echoes . .?

 

Our Constitution was created before the advent of communism, Hitler or Mussolini.

 

The Revolutionary war was sparked by the taxes imposed on the people by a SELF SERVING king.

That is why our Constitution is written to eliminate this type of 'self serving' government.

The bible is the source of this type of 'one god concept' type of individual.

The king George's and the Joe Stalin types.

 

This does not mean that we should be 'tax rebels' as the republicans typify.

In our Democracy, these taxes are used to serve the people, rather than the self serving types.

Unfortunately, the Latin church and capitalism have brainwashed our government to serve themselves and subsequently to serve them.

 

The PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS should do away with this corruption.

This, of course, pertains to the US.

 

Mike C

[Qfwfq]

Our Constitution was created before the advent of communism, Hitler or Mussolini.

Yes, of course, and it was done by the same movements that were battling against l'ancien regime in Europe, led mostly by the masonic lodges and argued on the philosophical principles of the enlightenment. The bourgeoisie had risen a lot financially but the aristocracy was clutching political power and restricting access to it. They had a lot less hold in North America and that's why the American revolution looks like a Sunday picnic compared to what happened in France and around Europe and yet succeeded more permanently.

 

The PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS should do away with this corruption.

This, of course, pertains to the US.

Most of what's being discussed in this thread pertains to the US but the fundamental principles don't, including the importance of transparence in financing political parties and hence also their election campaigns. There are laws about it over here, in Italy.

[HydrogenBond]

Examples of the ten step plan to shut down a democracy can be projected into either political party. It is easier to see this in the other side. For example, Dick Chaney has worked hard to increase the power of the presidency. I had never realized that until I saw a PBS documentary. But PBS has a liberal bias, so I would have to assume it is partially true, but made more dramatic for political affect. But on the other hand, the AG trials by the Democrats to investigate the firing of justices, was an attempt to take away a power from the president, which is defined in the constitution. That is suppose to be up the president to decide. Clinton fired them all, but that is the right of the president.

 

Create a gulag. The only thing that comes close is connected to the anti-drug mentality. In many cases, it is a victimless crime. The state can seize property. One is guilty until proven innocent with random drug testing. It creates a class of people that becomes the scapegoat. The republicans have turned up the heat, and the Demos go along.

 

The terrifying internal enemy for the Demo's is Bush. He is suppose to be a nice person, in person, but one would think he has horns. If gas goes up it is Bush pulling strings. Global warming is an another terror. The Republicans have their terrorist everywhere mentality.

 

Engage is arbitrary detentions. Many Democrats believe club gitmo in Cuba was an example of this. But if you look at this logically, it would have been easier, politically, to detain the prisoners in the Middle East. Once they brought them to American soil, it created a limitation. I tend to think the cushy digs was originally used to coax information. Being nice didn't work. They had to go crank up the pressure before the Democrats got them lawyers so they could get back into the terrorist game. Maybe that push led to getting extreme. It is sort of like cornering a rat and then complaining that he attacked you.

 

Control the press This is the Democratic strong suit. Al Gore's flick on global warming became sort of a forced indoctrination in schools. In some towns, even parents were pressured to take part in the mind wash. The Republicans can't force schools to do anything.

 

Suspend the rule of law The Republicans walk the fence, but all the Democratic witch trials tend to keep them from falling. The Democrats go in the other direction trying to add laws for their nanny state. The nanny is trying to inforce all types of rules for proper social edicate. But when it comes to traditional moral laws, these are suspended. I am not sure how it all adds up. I think they have made more laws.

 

Target key individuals If we restrict this to only political leaders and not private citizens, the Democrats win this one. They tried to fish the Bush administration to see how big of a fish they could catch. They got a little fish on perjury, even though he was not the leaker of the spy's name, which had been the reason for the investigation. Nothing happened to the name leaker, because he was not a person targeted. They were really hoping to trap the elusive Chaney, but he wouldnt bite.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I was obviously stating that the Declaration of Indepedence was just a piece of paper, so back off. I was only claiming that we the people do not have the right to dissmantle our government even if we wanted to..

 

Which is wrong! The people should have that right if the government gets out of hand. And if you think differently, remember, there were plenty of people who considered the seperation from England to be treason. I don't believe the people would overthrow the government everytime they felt they lost control, but the option should be there. And it was that option that allowed for the creation of this country. If you are trying to say that the Declaration of Independence has no relevance on this topic, you are being ignorant.

[IDMclean]

I would like to offer that despite a lack of "legal" precedence, the Declaration of Independence set a social president that operates outside of our established government. Weather some people like it or not, we can point to that declaration, it's underlying principles and the events that followed as precedent for our own declaration of dissension or succession.

[Kayra]

The people should have that right if the government gets out of hand. And if you think differently, remember, there were plenty of people who considered the separation from England to be treason.

 

Was the separation from England not an act of treason?

 

Treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

 

If you have the right to dismantle your own government, an act inherently detrimental to that government, would that not mean you have the right to commit treason? The destruction of a government MUST come from without the government, as the Declaration did.

 

Secondly, the Declaration of Independence had absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing any government.

 

And it was that option that allowed for the creation of this country. If you are trying to say that the Declaration of Independence has no relevance on this topic, you are being ignorant.

 

There was no such option in England. Strictly speaking it was an illegal course of action.

 

I believe they are saying that the Declaration has no relevance in the type of government set up, only on their justification for the secession from the existing one. The founding fathers could very well have attempted to create a republic after secession.

 

Calling people ignorant and telling them to back off after they correct you or try to help you frame your discussion more clearly is unlikely to garner any support for your position here. Please understand that they are not attacking you, only the justification you used to support the position you took in this discussion.

 

KAC, you nailed it, and used considerably fewer words 

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Treason may not be relative, but its moral standing is. Also, I didn't begin posting in this thread with the intention of making any arguement accept that the Declaration of Independence isn't grounds for an arguement. Read farther back and you would see that. My arguement for the overthrow of a government wasn't geared towards England or the US, but rather a general statement that I find true: the people should have the right to change their government if it isn't serving their needs. So back off;)

[Queso]

I agree....nowadays things are a bit different.

Due to the massive population, and the control of authority those dominators have (with police, army, etc)

it's fairly impossible to overthrow our government.

I see absolutely no possible way to do it. Do you? This is the way they want it.

 

At this point I don't want to overthrow the government.

At this point I simply ignore them. But I can't...I find myself very involved in politics nowadays. It's just so fascinating. All the power + the stupidity = this strange brew of paranoia and distrust. (from my eyes)

 

If the USA is really evil enough to try and make america a police state, THEN I'm going to be angry.

And if it comes to this, then many things will change.

 

Just because it appears that the USA is heading in that direction...will they?

I watched CNN for a bit yesterday and was happy to see that even those dumb news casters are protesting all of the lies. Yet no matter what we do or say they push on and on with their war....

 

So....will a new administration fix this corruption, or will they just be better at hiding the iniquity?

 

We'll see.

 

One thing I think about often is how America is getting away with all the crap it's doing.

Karma.

When is hell going to reach your doorstep?

[Qfwfq]

If you are trying to say that the Declaration of Independence has no relevance on this topic, you are being ignorant.

Who are you saying this to? You quoted nobody. If you want to borderline on offensive posting, then you should take the responsibility and specify who you mean by "you".

 

In any case, you are being offensive so stop it.

[C1ay]

They couldn't vote against King George according to British law, but they were a colony so the best option was secession.

 

And that's exactly why it no longer applies, secession is unconstitutional under the very Constitution written by the separatists.

 

My point remains the same, "The Declaration of Independence does not call on anyone to 'dissolve' any government, then or now." It was simply a document of secession of the era and carries no weight as a legal document today. It was not even a basis or foundation of the U.S. Constitution to follow.

[Qfwfq]

My point remains the same

So does mine. :confused:

 

"This is not the point, any US citizen who supports that declaration and believes it was a just cause, should hold the exact same opinion concerning any case of a similarly unjust government. The spirit of those words is the reason a republic was set up and for which the constitution was later written specifying a democratic system. If it should come to pass that the nation is no longer a democracy (or not in practice), the same reasons behind those words would imply doing something about it."

 

I was not upholding the idea of that document being a part of US law; it certainly wasn't part of the law of king George either. I was only reasoning outside the closed box. Don't you see that there would be no point in arguing on grounds of current US law and constitution, in the event in which the people replaced them?

 

One thing that comes to mind is Ceauşescu in front the revolutionary courtroom, arguing that it wasn't a legally valid court and telling his wife not to be afraid because that court had no power. Not much doubt it was a kangaroo court, but even less doubt Iliescu became the president of the new state.

[Queso]

Do we write a new doctrine and manifest it into existence?

[Qfwfq]

No, you levitate your arse from that chair when it's time to vote, and you do so as long as you're still in a country where the people can choose who represents them, and you do it to avoid it becoming a country where the people can't any longer.

[Queso]

Excuse me sir but I represent myself and my ideas that harmonize with many people in this country I was born in.

I have a choice to stay out of it, or influence it any way that I can.

(in other words, I see past the bullshit :confused: )

 

Take your hand off that bible Mr. President.