Does the US Constitution allow overthrow of the government?

If it does allow it, does it allow violent overthrow?

If it does NOT allow violent overthrow, when is violent overthrow of a domestic government justified? You know, like the American Revolution.
:dilemma:

Look there, not the Constitution.

Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy

based on Lockean Philosophy (you know, what the founders used to create the constitution), the government gets it's power to govern from the consent of the governed. Furthermore, we have the right and obligation to withdraw that consent when the government no longer does what we feel it should.

The only problem with this line of thought is that without a government that has a head vested with our executive power in nature, we slide back into the perpetual state of war until and unless a new form of government is instituted.

It's called an election.

must be exposed. Martial law only works if people act like sheep.

When the word gets out, how do you expect martial law to work without 'fear' as the 'enforcer' ?

Think about it, how does enacting martial law 'preserve, protect, defend' the Constitution ? It doesn't. So far, only bloggers and websters are in on the secret. Pass it along. You don't have to comply.

This is going to be one of those threads.

They never thought that our government could be overthrown and run by murderous thieves.

They should have made a provision to allow the people to 'impeach' anybody in government.

Elections are pointless if 'they' count the ballots.

For the first time in our history, a revolution is needed to 'form a more perfect union".

Our government is literally destroying our country - environmentally, financially, Constitutionally, and its people.

Maybe you have some create definition of "overthrow" but no, there
is no mechanism by which you can usurp the power of the functioning branches of government and then somehow be hauled into the court of that government and be found "not guilty".

There is the Constitutional Convention where representatives of the States could choose to do a modification or a wholesale replacement of the federal government.

Now, with respect to violent overthrow, our Declaration of Independence outlines a series of situations in which it claims people are justified in violently opposing their own governments. But most revolutions are self justifying anyway so there is little need to concern oneself with "legalities".

It all boils down to the issue of "self determination". The western concept of government at this point is theoretically a population has the right to any form of government they so create, as long as we approve.

we have tanks, fighter jets, and bombs that can be dropped from the sky, I doubt anyone has much of a chance of a violent revolution against the state.

And with those computers running the vote, who knows if you can even not vote them in.

But even without the machines, we still get to choose between 2 people to lead us. Depending on who has the most money, obviously. And the primary system leaves me, in PA, really no choice as to who to vote for before the summer conventions.

But I guess we have to keep the show going. Although it would be interesting if nobody, anywhere, showed up to vote on election day. What would happen?

which will hurt bushco more that anything else...

STOP
GIVING
THEM
YOUR
MONEY!

Stop supporting these sociopaths through the corporations that support them!!!

Stop stimulating the economy. It will be over real fast...

Tough to accomplish, but there's no question that you're right.

Individually it's not too difficult, but on a scale large enough to actually hurt the multi-national corporations that support them is a different game.

It's the same problem that labor has. In a global economy, these corporations have access to billions of people. Unions can work, and be successful, if capital isn't able to cross borders around the planet as freely as the wind. Corporations don't see those borders though, but use them wisely. Actual human beings still see those arbitrary lines drawn long ago, and are divided by them, along with everything else that is easily exploited by power(race, religion, gender, age, etc). There is always someone, somewhere, that will do what they need to do for their kids to eat. Even if it's for $0.35 a day, it's something.

If we could stop the economy to have our voices heard, that would be great. But there will be someone, somewhere, willing to shop at Wal-Mart.

It's a shame we all have to waste our lives fighting these same battles over and over through time. Again, and again. And then again, again, and yet again.

That's all that you can do.

Frame the message in ways that people can understand.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


If the state is no longer free, then it is the right of the people to make it as such.



Then theres this other gem of enlightenment thought:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Gratefully borrowed from the guys who wrote it...


"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
2.5 Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.....We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
5.1
Summation We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Also the founding fathers based much of their ideology on John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government.

Read Chapter 19.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Locke0154/TwoTreatises/0057_Bk.html#hd_lf057.head.037

There is A LOT there about revolution. Note just this part:
But if they, who say it lays a foundation for rebellion, mean that it may occasion civil wars, or intestine broils, to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates, when they invade their properties contrary to the trust put in them; and that therefore this doctrine is not to be allowed, being so destructive to the peace of the world: they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but on him that invades his neighbours. If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has, for peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered, what a kind of peace there will be in the world, which consists only in violence and rapine; and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors. Who would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? Polyphemus’s den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace, and such a government, wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do, but quietly to suffer themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission, by representing to them of what concernment peace was to mankind; and by shewing the inconveniences might happen, if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power over them.

I don't support revolution.

I just wanted to make that clear to anyone who might be listening...such as federal agents who may be utilizing new tools available through the Patriot Act to view my ISP connections without warrant and use it in a court of law...or totally not use a court of law at all...since habeas corpus is also overridden by the Patriot Act.

Yes, I am a Patriot. I am not a revolutionary. Please don't imprison me.

Thank you.