The US government is only the government of the Constitution so long as it stays within the boundaries and confines defined within the Constitution.  Once it exceeds those boundaries, it is no longer the government of the Constitution and those who have swore to protect it.

Our politicians would do well to remember this fact...

Article I, Section 8 - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

See that bit about execution?  That's the Executive's job.  Congress has the power to pass laws which aid in the execution of governmental powers.  Delegation of authority to the executive occurred through legislation.

So... there's nothing in my actual post that you disagree with?

FIFY

See how that works.

ETA - what you fail to realize is that if the government is operating outside of the bounds of the Constitution then IT IS THAT GOVERNMENT that has broken the 'contract' of the Constitution and as I understand it under contract law that neither party is obligated under a contract after the other party violates their part of the agreement.

it helps if you highlight or show what changes you made. Otherwise it gets confusing and people can't what I said vs what you said.

Sorry, but that's retarded. The Brits didn't start the Revolution.  The Colonials did when they declared their secession.

Fair enough. Especially when our posts were on different pages.

This should clarify:

No. I just read and reference the Charters Of Freedom when necessary.

Plus I use an 1828 dictionary to get the proper reference to meanings of the words/terms of that time period.

The Colonials rebelled. End of story.

You think the Federal Government is operating within its constitutional bounds?

Irrelevant.  Overthrowing the government is unconstitutional, regardless of how the government is operating.

Definitely relevant.  How can it be unconstitutional to over throw something not protected under the constitution.

At that point you might as well burn the document.

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'unconstitutional'?  Overthrow of the government is not a method listed in the Constitution as a means of regime change. That means it is not constitutional...

Sure.  A government or entity that is operating outside the constitution is NOT protected by it, meaning, the constitutional laws needed to change it are not in effect.  How can it be "unconstitutional" to overthrow something that is not operating within the constitutional boundaries.

Just because something has  U.S gov stamp on it does not mean it is tied in any way shape or form to the constitution.  The government IS NOT the constitution.  The government is the entity that operates under the constitution...in most cases...

You want the government to have all the leeway it wants in the way they act yet you want those oppressed by those action to operate in a very narrow scope.

You are either playing ignorant or not playing.

So what alphabet agency do you work for?

:facepalm:

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.  You're talking about taking extra-constitutional measures to enact change against the organization set up by the Constitution.  Extra-constitutional = unconstitutional.

Do you have "constitutional == good, unconstitutional == bad" stuck in your head, or something?  Are you trying to resolve some strange dichotomy that this is causing?

He never had one to begin with, just derp, derp, and more derp.
Stop giving him the attention he is obviously looking for.

The fuck are you talking about?  Overthrow of the government is unconstitutional.  Barring an amendment which says otherwise, there's no way around that.

Do you suffer form the same self-induced problem as joebob?  Here, let me help.

Snips (Page 10) - There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional.

9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Some states actually have a right to revolution under their bill of rights.

For example:

Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution: That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

New Hampshire Bill of Rights [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Kentucky Bill of Rights: All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.


Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 2: All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Constitution of Texas Article 1, Sect 2: All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

There are a few other states with similar amendments in their constitutions and the states that don't have amendments like that could always add one.

The United States Constitution has no such language. The Constitution lays out procedures for changing the government.  Under the 10th, that would qualify as being delegated to the US and the States, for those not paying attention.  Methods outside those procedures are unconstitutional.

Please quote them.

And just to clarify, you acknowledge that our government is acting outside the scope of the Constitution yet you want those being oppressed by those action to work inside the boundaries of the Constitution to stop the oppression.

 

Quoting would take up too much space.

- Elections for Executive and Legislature.
- Amendments, proposed by either the Legislature or the States themselves.  The States can even completely bypass the Federal government in the process if they feel that the elections aren't working so well.

For your clarification, I have made no comments on whether the government is acting outside the scope or not.  Nor will I.  My opinion on that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


You may want to brush up on theCharters Of Freedom before you continue to talk out of your a$$.

No, I do not live in a black and white world.  That is the intriguing thing about the constitution.  Interpretation is important, or else there wouldn't be a third of the government set up to do just that.

Why in every response do you just assume that whatever organization labeled "government" is constitutional in the first place? Was the NSA given its current powers under the constitution, and does it fall under government?

Did you only read the bolded part of the 10th?  Here, I'll help.

Your opinion is that the government is operating within the constitution, you have made that clear.

A group of like-minded shooters from various backgrounds (Civilian, Law Enforcement, Military)

Are you on any mind altering substances or suffer from lack of reading comprehension skills? The title of this thread is:

UN Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

Or do you think that will pass constitutional muster?

It doesn't matter if the government is operating within the bounds of the Constitution.  The Constitution allows for certain ways to change the government.  Overthrow is not one of them.  No amount of interpreting will change that.

He seems to insinuate that it is wrong to think that unconstitutional things are bad.

Says a lot about him.


He pretends to give a shit about the constitution when it comes to putting the government back in its place, but he couldn't care less about their arbitrary powers.

Or maybe that's something you're just inferring.  Here, I'll post it again since you seem to have such trouble reading.

Snips (Page 10) - There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional.

OK. Lets say the government unconstitutionally took away any constitutional means to change that government, how would we then constitutionally change that government?

You haven't answered the question about unconstitutional entities and government.  Do you need to adhere to the constitution to get rid of something that isn't operating under the constitution to begin with?

What I am reading from you is "slap the label government on anything and it is automatically constitutional and benefits from all constitutional protections".

How? Did they unilaterally change the constitution such that the amendment process no longer exists and elected officials are now appointed by SCOTUS?

Let's go with something like that. Let me know if you had something more specific in mind.

There would be no constitutional way to change such a government if the constitution has been changed.  If the constitution has not been changed, then the States are still free to call a convention and propose and pass amendments.

How did I miss this thread?!?!?!?!?

GD awesomeness!





John

Obviously you don't.  That's what I've been saying this entire thread...     There are plenty of ways to change a government that aren't in the Constitution.  It's just that, by virtue of them not being in the Constitution, they're... wait for it.... unconstitutional.

Please answer my question and then I will answer yours.

I did.  That post is my answer.  You didn't lay out enough details so I was forced to fill some in.  I even gave different answers based on different details.

I'm really starting to worry about your reading ability now.  

Not necessarily:

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

From the DOI -  it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

10th says that the people/states only have powers not delegated to the government.  Changing the government is spelled out in the Constitution. That makes it a power delegated to the government.

How, just how are we supposed to have a valid, authentic, legitimate, Kosher, election when our own so called government has brought in foreign mercenaries to suppress our Constitutional and Natural rights? Any, and I mean any government that suppresses our Constitutional and Natural rights by use of UN troops, or UN oversight of our nation has abrogated it's primary responsibility to it's citizens and it is then subject to as our founders stated:

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.


Our founders understood why and how government was founded and established and what to do when government over stepped it's bounds:

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.

No extra Constitutional fiddling with the laws can be a justification for us to stand by and allow ourselves, and our progeny to be sold into servitude. At the point in time where the administration allows, requests, desires, the entrance of foreign troops into the country we have no Constitution, so all the arguing whether it is Constitutional to revolt is moot.

Pardon me. I took out the extraneous language and highlighted the common language so it is a little more clear now.

Now, how would someone go about changing that government if they couldn't do it constitutionally?

Your wording is incorrect.  Getting rid of something that is not constitutional by not following constitutional guidelines is not "unconstitutional", it is "not subject to the constitution".  Meaning plain ole human nature.

The Constitution refers to them as 'our Posterity'.

Yep.

+1

Therein lies the problem: the government has changed from the form spelled out in the Constitution and has done it unconstitutionally. Now what?

The first ones to jump get squashed.   In the long run history is written by the victors.  If they win they're heroes/patriots.  if they lose, they're criminals/traitors/terrorists, or just forgotten.