Is a new America civil war inevitable and unstopable at this point?

Do you not see the disparity between federal and state gun laws?

 

Where is it? Haven't seen anyone occupy anything for a while. Not much of a movement is it. I guess it's their fault for not having corporate backing like the Tea Party does.

 

Explain it to me.

 

Yes, you are correct about that.

 

That would have happened had they not been heavy weighted with anarchists, rapists, murders, drug dealers and cop-car poopers. Go figure, but Burger King or Toys 'R' Us probably don't want their companies linked with such people. Oh but they did have one money bags sponsor . . . Obama's big time socialist billionaire buddy, George Soros. I guess he had lower standards, eh?

 

No. It will be a war fought in the streets and states much like what happened after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

 

Here's a good example of how a constitutional crisis could get started.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/colorado-counties-secede-state-article-1.1368428

 

What does this have anything to do with anything?

 

The Tea Party is far more likely than OWS to be the source of a civil war.

 

It is not ok to advocate secession, this is still treason and inciting to riot. The central government is the authority for the entire nation.

 

But we were talking about Democratic Socialism in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I would agree that OWS has dwindled away, but can you point to any moment in modern day history that likens the Tea Party to revolutionaries hellbent on civil war? I can point to several moments in the history of OWS.

 

Treason: The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Advocating for secession is not an act of treason. It is protected under the 1st amendment to our Constitution.

 

Treason according to who?

 

Earlier I wrote, "The difference is that the ACA has no basis in the Constitution. And that is tyranny. It is growing. If we do not defeat the tyrants they shall assuredly defeat the citizens."

Our Masters, and their minions, are getting a special deal. Yes it is tyranny and we know who the tyrants are.

 

You say that, but you also refuse to have sufficient social morals for free to end poverty in our republic with existing legal and physical infrastructure.

 

In my opinion if it happens it will be a revolution to overthrow the existing government, not a civil war with one region fighting against another region.

Winning the Article V fight is essential. If we have a the opportunity to bypass the tyrants to regain control of our government we can avoid the revolution. If not some future generation will have to fight to regain their lost liberties. Once lost by any generation history shows that liberty will never be regained by that generation.

 

Earlier KevinVA wrote, "What we have, currently, is an activist SCOTUS. There are Republicans and Democrats sitting on the court... and unfortunately, they both show bias when ruling on the Constitutionality of laws. What we need are term limits for Congressional Reps and SC members. The members of the SCOTUS should be Constitutional scholars/lawyers, if it were even possible to accumulate 9 of them."

That is why the Article V fight must be won. The Congress and the Supreme Court need to be "turned" regularly.

 

Not only do I agree I have posted my opinion that all three lack a Constitutional basis and responsibility must be returned to the people and/or the states. Imagine that. We both agree that these three programs are representative of the problems that occur when a government oversteps its Constitutional bounds. You believe they are good programs where I believe they take liberty away from the citizens or usurp state prerogatives and must be halted.

We should stop ACA right now. It is already doing great damage and will sink the citizens and the nation, in time.
We should begin to privatize Social Security, starting with today's thirty-somethings and below immediately and with an opt-in provision for those in their 40s. Anyone in their 50s should be able to opt out with a one time payment from the government for whatever the government has been saying they have contributed into the program with some rate of return based on historical market averages for mutual funds.

Ditto for Medicare.

The Anti-Federalists, and the Federalists, along with the debates of the time along with our history will suggest appropriate amendments we can offer up for consideration at the Convention of States when it happens.

 

I agree with you that the war on drugs is really a war on citizens. Most, if not all drugs should be legal. If the government wants to be involved it should restrict itself to providing information to the states.

If it does not have a Constitutional basis, either directly or by function (the air force and cyber-forces are good examples of providing for the common defense) the we should closely examine the benefits and the costs then make a decision. If we believe it is a valuable program we should amend the Constitution to allow for it. If we are not able to muster the appropriate support we should phase it out as quickly as possible.

 

I went to Catholic school, thanks.

And my previous statement is based on this, etal

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

Now, to give your belief credit some sources do list the States as being a second check but I don't see how that can be. They do have considerable influence on the Fed as, in fact, they make it up, but they cannot "check" it in any way I can see. Massachusetts can't set speed limits for Montana and Colorado can't make recreational drugs legal in the rest of the US, (dammit)

Having a second and non-Constitutional check would break the symmetry which was so important to Montesquieu, the Enlightenment theorist who first proposed this type of thing.

The US has been through a lot worse than this, and survived stronger each time. My own prediction is that by 2016 we will wonder how we every got along without Universal Healthcare and very few of us will be inclined to vote for any Conservatard running on a platform of let's take it away.

 

Agreed.

reva

 

Interestingly I just commented on this. Providing for defense against external and internal threats is Constitutional. Granted the Air Force is not specifically identified. Does this pose a dilemma? If we decide that the common defense includes defense against attacks from the air or from the Internet do we agree that this is accounted for in providing for the common defense? None of the intelligence gathering agencies are mentioned either. And yet they do have a Constitutional basis even if they occasionally or even frequently violate the Constitution (Now Spying on Americans - NSA).

 

Potato, Potahto, redefining is within their power. It passes the duck test for a tax, and therefore is one. The Court does not exist to quibble legislation to death.

Not necessarily but it could be. Once you call a convention you are setting about to rewrite the whole thing, and anything goes.

Supreme Courts can legitimately be activist. Most have been for several decades. The Court's main duty is to help the Constitution deal with CHANGE, to enable it to change with it as much as is necessary to preserve its basic principles, and this is a very fast changing world.

I'm still unclear, could you give me an example of what you mean there?

 

Meanwhile the Tea Party prays to the Koch Brothers while pretending to be a broad based grass roots movement.

 

Socialism in the Soviet Union failed long before. Reagan ended their immediate threat to us. Why do you believe the two beliefs, that socialism always fails and Reagan compelled the Soviet Union's capitulation through defense spending (it was, in my opinion, the spending on stealth technologies that caused them to capitulate) require reconciliation?

I do not believe any Republican President has cut spending. They always have to begin to undo the damage to our military by their Democratic predecesors. And then there are occasional wars. With the exception of Reagan have we had a Conservative in the White House? All of the rest have been Establishment Republicans. They are statists and are nearly as bad as the Democrats who tend toward socialism.

The National Review is no longer Conservative. They have become status quo statists. They are the mouthpiece of the national Republican Party.

I see only one side here. Occasionally you might find a conservative viewpoint but that is no longer the way to bet.

One cannot avoid the leftist propaganda no matter how hard one tries. Fox cannot be counted on as even leaning conservative. Drudge is a collection of headlines and links from all over.

It is hard to find our side of the both sides. Levin, Limbaugh and Hannity are the only ones I know. Can you recommend any other Constitutional Conservative talk show hosts?