Incumbents to be First Against the Wall

[digitaldiscipline]

"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."

Every incumbent who voted for this legislation, every bureaucrat and politician who advocated or allowed it, and every military man who endorsed it, should be removed from office, bodily and by use of force if necessary, and subjected to the treatment they have thus authorized, during which time, it will be repealed, and all such persons mentioned above will be barred from public office unto the end of their days.

That's what I fucking well propose we do about it.

Comments

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

AS it is the duty of the citizens of the Republic to stand for and support the principles and liberties outlined in the Constitution of the Republic and it Amendments,

AND AS the present federal government as outlined by the Constitution of the Republic has failed to uphold these same principles and liberties, promoting legislation and methodology that are anathema to the foundation of the Republic,

AND AS the present governments of the states comprising the Republic have also failed in their duties in providing restraint and promoting these same aforementioned principles and liberties,

AND AS we, as citizens of the Republic, abhor and reject the creation of illegal legislation that undermines the rule of law in favor of dread tyranny and personal rule,

IT IS HEREBY the recommendation of this citizen that a consensus be formed as to the dissolving of the current Governments and their replacement with Government more suitable to the administering of the principles and liberties embodied in the present Constitution of the Republic that are, by reason and grace, the rights of all humanity.

Submitted This Day of October First of the Year Two Thousand And Six of the Common Era,

A. Stallings

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!!!

I'd sign that and send it to my reps!

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I did. Go for it, and spread the word.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

A concatenation of my comments and your own has been sent to both Florida Senators, as well as District 11 Rep Jim Davis.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Well and good.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

we'll see if angry men in suits are in the rocking chairs on my front porch when i get home.

[ivy]

Yep. I'd vote for that. Between that and this, it really is fundamental government change time.

[sharkskitten.livejournal.com]

$%*#*()%!!

i'd missed THAT article. Whatinthehell is wrong with our government?!

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Pure Debate Point With No Meaning Whatsoever!

Interestingly enough, there is no separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment. That's actually a misnomer that has been passed down through the years...what the 1st Amendment does say is that no law may be made establishing a state religion or preventing the practice of religion.

So, the federal government can support religions and express faith all it wants...BUT, it must do so without showing favoritism towards one or another. Thus, if the government wants to support Baptists, it must also support Catholics, Islamics, and Satanists too.

Attacking the legislation on -that- point would be much more effective than trying to verify 'separation of church and state'; it could instead be insinuated that they are trying to make a state religion by not providing equal support...

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Change the word "support" to "allow on an equitable basis", and I'll agree. "Support" is either a nice slide into "tyranny of the majority" (which is exactly what the Amendment is constructed to prevent), or an exploitable loophole of demands for support from every crank and crackpot messiah out there.

The problem is that most of gets blocked by the mythic wall is a use of a limited resource. Can we put the Ten Commandments on a plaque courthouse lawn? Sure. Are we then obligated to allow choice bits of the Koran on a plaque too? Pretty much. How about something appropriate to Vishnu? Yep. An important Buddist Koan? Probably. Martian Ceremonial Drinking Fountain? Okay. LaVey's Nine Statanic Statements. First Amendment says we can't say no. So far, our courthouse lawn is beginning to resemble a cemetary and we've not even heard from the Jedi, the Erisians, the SubGenius (who insist on a 100 square meters for a ritual garden railway layout and snack bar), the Shinto, and fifty thousand others demanding their own brick bench or whathaveyou. And the government is not allowed to preferentially treat ANY of them.

The Wall of Separation doesn't have a legal basis but it has a unquestionable practical basis. Respecting that Wall as real makes all of this chaos manageable, because nobody's god gets space on public property, or public recognition.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

The Wall of Separation doesn't have a legal basis but it has a unquestionable practical basis. Respecting that Wall as real makes all of this chaos manageable, because nobody's god gets space on public property, or public recognition.

I am actually in perfect agreement with you, which is why I labelled this the Pure Debate Point With No Meaning Whatsoever. I hold to a view that law, and thus government, must be an impartial entity without being beholden to religion, yadda, yadda, insert stuff you've heard before here.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Yup, I wasn't looking at it as a disagreement, but (obviously) this is stuff I've been mulling for a while, and Rafe's usually tickled to see an idea get actually hashed out a bit. Your Pure Debate Point is one that's hauled out on a regular basis and it's taken me a while to work up an actual understanding of the ramifications enough to really comprehend why Jefferson was so insistant on the idea, and his understanding of how Madison's Amendment would actually be able to be implemented.

Math may be hard, but government's worse, and it's even harder to get other people to think cooperatively about it. Yet this is exactly what the whole Constitution is based on, and some really smart guys spent a lot of time on it. In a lot of ways, that's a bit of a drawback, because the average knucklehead off the street may be able to parrot parts he likes, but he probably won't understand them really well, nor will he likely understand the parts he doesn't like at all. Hell, Our Esteemed Host's point is that a good portion of our government doesn't understand the very thing they're sworn to uphold. And that's a tragic thing for all of us.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

I've been an "anti-encumbent" for most of my conscious life. I believe we ought to regularly oust encumbents simply because, if they all know that they can't make a career out of the job, we are more likely to get people in there who care about doing the job, and not the power/prestige/$$ involved.

But, in light of the stoopidity in recent years, I am even *more* against re-elcting those who are currently in office than I ever was before.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Two-term limits should be enforced for all elected officials, period. And financial contributions from private interests should not exceed $100 per person or entity, annually.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm not going to agree with that one. Two terms as a hard limit would mean WI would have to get rid of Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl. And they're doing exactly what I want them to, now that Herb's got someone to listen to. And probably pretty darned close to what you would want your Senators to do.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

*nods* I like Feingold. But the good politicians seem to be such a sharp minority that throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems to be an acceptable level of casualties, if you'll pardon a shaken (not stirred) metaphor.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

While the contributions I am fine with, I must admit that I think a problem with the current governmental structure is that no one is in it enough to come up with a long view.

[roaster.livejournal.com]

Well my creators were my Mum and Dad, and they gave me the power to be rude and unemployed... the bastards.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

but... you're our favorite chav! ;-)

[roaster.livejournal.com]

CHAV!?! Crivens Sir! I hope you have a suitable second, to deal with your impending wounds Sir when I demand satisfaction for that unforgivable slur!

Signed

Grumpy of England.

[queencallipygos.livejournal.com]

This is what those of us who live in New York can be pleased about -- not one of my representatives voted in favor of this bill.

I do, though, largely realize that's a luck-of-the-draw thing at this point, which is disturbing in and of itself. (And, I've also just moved, and have heard some other unsavory things about my new house of Representatives member...)