Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 06:13:49 PM
Well this thread took a turn to the weeds. I haven't read through this tangled pastiche because after a few posts I got a headache. But I'll add my two-penneth anyway. No plan, civil war, protest, election, usurpation etc will be meaningful without a good solid foundation. And plan to put to return a small, constitutional government will only be temporary unless we have already addressed the local, state and federal seats. That is the only way and it is going to be a long frustrating slog. The Tea Party began that long suffering slog in 2009 and made major strides in 2010. They have proven it's possible and it's working. It will get worse before it gets better. But it will get better if we stay the course...

If the tea party is relying on elections, then how are we going to establish what the Constitution actually indicates as "law of the land"?

That only serves to validate the voting process and populist opinion, which is what got us to the corruption of the Constitution in the first place.

Baring the alternatives of 1) nullification 2) Grand Jury, and 3) civil disobedience, the only think that can restore the Constitution, and even its place before the Supreme Court, is revolution.

If we don't reject government as it now is, then we are undeniably validating it.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 07:35:07 PM

If the tea party is relying on elections, then how are we going to establish what the Constitution actually indicates as "law of the land"?

That only serves to validate the voting process and populist opinion, which is what got us to the corruption of the Constitution in the first place.

Baring the alternatives of 1) nullification 2) Grand Jury, and 3) civil disobedience, the only think that can restore the Constitution, and even its place before the Supreme Court, is revolution.

If we don't reject government as it now is, then we are undeniably validating it.

You answered your own question.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 07:56:37 PM
You answered your own question.

Unfortunately the application of the  Constitution  is not contingent upon populist elections.


Can you point me to where in the Constitution it indicates its application is dependent upon election results?

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:22:26 PM
Unfortunately the application of the  Constitution  is not contingent upon populist elections.


Can you point me to where in the Constitution it indicates its application is dependent upon election results?

Who enforces the constitution?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:26:20 PM
Who enforces the constitution?

The same authority that created the Constitution and brought the fiction of the federal government into existence.

The people do.

And we have been lax for about a century.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:29:55 PM
The same authority that created the Constitution and brought the fiction of the federal government into existence.

The people do.

And we have been lax for about a century.

If that were specifically true we wouldn't have a government...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:33:45 PM
If that were specifically true we wouldn't have a government...

What exactly do you mean by that?

"Specifically true"? It is specifically true, and we don't have a legitimate government because we've not been doing our job.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:36:07 PM
What exactly do you mean by that?

"Specifically true"? It is specifically true, and we don't have a legitimate government because we've not been doing our job.

We the people attempt to enforce the constitution by electing  political figures...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:38:06 PM
We the people attempt to enforce the constitution by electing  political figures...

Again, where exactly is that concept described in the Constitution, or even by the founders someplace like the Federalist papers?

"A vote" is not done in order to 'attempt to enforce the constitution",  and such an inherently involves the perverse idea is that that constitution might be overthrown by a mere election.   Where does the Constitution indicate that?

It's beliefs such as this that are why Republicans are fetid, inept and destined for failure.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:44:59 PM

Again, where exactly is that concept described in the Constitution, or even by the founders someplace like the Federalist papers?

"A vote" is not done in order to 'attempt to enforce the constitution",  and such an inherently involves the perverse idea is that that constitution might be overthrown by a mere election.   Where does the Constitution indicate that?

It's beliefs such as this that are why Republicans are fetid, inept and destined for failure.

Does the Constitution describe the the separation and powers of government?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:50:50 PM
Does the Constitution describe the the separation and powers of government?

That has nothing whatsoever do with voting being an  'attempt to enforce the constitution", and we should not even try to use an election to restore the Constitution, nor shore it up.

And neither arguments nor answers end with a question mark.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:57:21 PM
That has nothing whatsoever do with voting being an  'attempt to enforce the constitution", and we should not even try to use an election to restore the Constitution, nor shore it up.

And neither arguments nor answers end with a question mark.

Alright then. Explain how we without elections and a government achieve a constitutional government...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
Alright then. Explain how we without elections and a government achieve a constitutional government...

I've already explained that a constitutional government cannot be achieved by, and is not contingent upon, any sort of election.

Are you actually trying to assert (by a question, without a question mark)  that a constitutional government therefore needs to be achieved by government itself?

REALLY?  Seriously?

No problem can ever be remedied by the same means that resulted in its creation.   

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 09:06:07 PM
I've already explained that a constitutional government cannot be achieved by, and is not contingent upon, any sort of election.

Are you actually trying to assert (by a question, without a question mark)  that a constitutional government therefore needs to be achieved by government itself?

REALLY?  Seriously?

No problem can ever be remedied by the same means that resulted in its creation.

I am simply saying a Constitutional government is only possible and will only be lasting if the people vote into power constitutional minded people on all levels...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 09:12:56 PM
I am simply saying a Constitutional government is only possible and will only be lasting if the people vote into power constitutional minded people on all levels...

What you're saying is ... the form of government we are guaranteed, and which is not contingent upon populist will,  needs to be restored with populist will and elections?

That's blithering nonsense, and can only result in failure.

If this nation's founders operated in this fashion, we'd end up like France, with one revolution after another and bodies piled up.

Did it ever occur to you why the Constitution was not put in place with populace elections in the first place?  How was it they were able to refer as "we, the people"?