quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Dear xssve: You are saying too many things. :) For this thread, which is not about that. I do not dare to enter on them.
But you are not saying that the majority cannot legally change or dismantle the republican system, or that the minority can dismantle democracy, so I guess this point is cleared.
For a deeper analysis I would pledge you to establish a "Thesis" and open a new thread. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

If they dismantle it, it is no more, and in abrogating it, abrogate any authority they derived from it - at that point they are no longer legitimate authority, they're just a bunch of dudes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

If they dismantle it, it is no more, and in abrogating it, abrogate any authority they derived from it - at that point they are no longer legitimate authority, they're just a bunch of dudes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

If they dismantle it, it is no more, and in abrogating it, abrogate any authority they derived from it - at that point they are no longer legitimate authority, they're just a bunch of dudes.

My point is, there is nothing intrinsically illegal on that process.
I hope that your opinion on the resulting system would depend on which system they would establish, but even if not, this is not my point :) .
My point is: a sustained majority of the population, kept over years, can legaly dismantle the republican system in the USA - democracy rules over republic.
And a sustained minority of the population, kept over years, cannot legally dismantle the democracy in the USA with democratic means - republic does not rule over democracy.
That was my only point, no matter which system they would introduce, its effects, authority, etc, etc, etc.
Can we please try to close that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

If they dismantle it, it is no more, and in abrogating it, abrogate any authority they derived from it - at that point they are no longer legitimate authority, they're just a bunch of dudes.

in most cases they are not a legitimate authority now.

to be legitimate they are required to operate off of consent and as they lose consent they in practice use deceptive contract strategies and trusts to pull you in and make the claim.  In fact that will never become an adjudicable matter as everyone will talk around it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

In spite of the words "endowed by their creator", the signers of the DoI and the framers of the constitution, understood that rights themselves can derive in theory from any damnfool thing, but that rights in praxis must be secured through human action - rights are only rights if you can exercise them, true even down to your right to walk down the street unmolested - true they are granted by consensus: Then they become a privilege, and require jurisdiction of the grantor(s). by others recognition of your right to walk down the street unmolested, which they grant you in praxis  by not molesting you, and they are guaranteed by force: recognition of your right to defend yourself, and state applied force if this proves insufficient, which can be and is applied ex post facto, even if you successfully defend yourself, because in principle, if the rights of one are violated without reprisal, the rights of all are equally insecure.

I have the right to non-consent......

In recognizing and enforcing your rights, I am in principle and effect, defending my own.

To do this people need to understand what a right is and differentiate them from their "feelings".

Hence, rights period, derive from consensus, period - otherwise, it defaults to arbitrary force alone, which is not right, but force, and at that point the bus is broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

It goes directly to FHKY's inclusion of the phrase "general consensus of morality"to qualify "obey the laws", and raises soem consensus of morality to the same level as law - it creates a lot of confusion, since evangelicals, Christian reconstructionists and dominionists in particular, are openly and aggressively in favor of establishing a theocratic regime based on "gods law" which is whatever they say it is, rather then the body of accumulated statutes, precedents and common that make up the Anglo-Saxon legal system - i.e., "activist judges" etc., and their clearly stated intention is to dismantle the laws, while referring to their fiat system as "law" - it isn't law, no matter what you call it, it's public opinion and the opinion of a minority consensus.

i.e., were they to come out and say this in a public forum, they'd be run out of town on a rail, so it's cloaked in euphemisms and code words, but it is effectively an attempt to overthrow the constitution, and it's the constitution that protects their freedom of religion to begin with - on the condition that they uphold the rights of others.

There are no unconditional rights, all individual rights essentially derive from upholding the rights of others, that is rule of law.

quote:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Not really, Black Americans are something like 15% of the population and yet their rights are enforced just like any other - i.e., in an often less than perfect manner, with plenty of swirls and eddies of abuse and neglect, but you can't just cart them off into slavery any more, or lynch them after you've had a few too many without consequences.

Because, if you can enslave or lynch a Black person because you can muster the force to do so, nobody else is safe from it either, including you should the worm happen to turn.

Democracy is by definition, participatory, and the first step in participation is understanding and applying the principle of consensus rights and rule of law: any right you deny others, in principle or praxis, you can no longer claim for yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

You're the righty, this is what you've been fighting for - not what you expected?

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Yeah, and who's in jail? It ain't mortgage brokers or investment bankers - the latter own stock in the privatized prisons system, they have quotas to meet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

You're problem RO, is that you're an ideologue, and when ideals and money clash, money usually wins - it's human nature to put ones own self interest above the self interest of everybody else: why ride the bus if you can rent a Limousine?

The second you put social politics above the principle of rule of law, this becomes inevitable.

You opened the box, and all they had to do is promise the impossible,

The problem is that people, as in the general public who unlike people 200 years ago have unlimited distractions in life and do not understand where the lines are for those promises and if they are possible and worst the rights they give up in the ocntract.  All of which gets right back to full disclosure.

they don't give a shit if gay marry, or anything else, with enough money they can do anything they want, it's the American dream, the big easy, it's the guiding principle of aristocracies throughout time.

i.e., there is principle, and there are principles - they aren't all created equal, so you have to make a choice which ones are the wheat and which are the chaff - man doesn't live by bread alone, but it helps.