Can we sue politicians for violating our state constitution??

[levergun]

I have to wonder how long we'll have this venue to discuss such matters before it's banned in the name of safety. Our 1rst Amendment rights will surely be in their way. I see many feel the same way I do and we'll never hear about any of this from the mainstream media. If Illinois is allowed to go ahead with the gun ban that's being planned by their State Representatives, they will have violated not only their 2nd Amendment rights, but also the seizure of property from them will be in direct violation of their 5th Amendment rights. How long can we as Americans stand by and allow this to go on. It's not a matter of elections, it's a matter of the government openly violating the rights of the citizens. When our right to express these ideas gets taken from us, then we'll have little recourse.

[GunLawyer001]

I have to wonder how long we'll have this venue to discuss such matters before it's banned in the name of safety. Our 1rst Amendment rights will surely be in their way. I see many feel the same way I do and we'll never hear about any of this from the mainstream media. If Illinois is allowed to go ahead with the gun ban that's being planned by their State Representatives, they will have violated not only their 2nd Amendment rights, but also the seizure of property from them will be in direct violation of their 5th Amendment rights. How long can we as Americans stand by and allow this to go on. It's not a matter of elections, it's a matter of the government openly violating the rights of the citizens. When our right to express these ideas gets taken from us, then we'll have little recourse.

As I mentioned earlier, Abe Lincoln was not such a nice guy after all, and among his less-publicized acts was having his opponents arrested and tossed in jail for publicly criticizing him. Look on this page, under "Arrest and military trial", for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham

[levergun]

We need not look as far back in history as Lincoln. Have you been following the case of ex-marine Brandon Raub? Cuffed and dragged from his home without an arrest and no Miranda rights in the name of security. Taken for a 30 day psychiatric evaluation because of his anti-government rantings in a Facebook posting. He made no threats and had violated no law. Is this our equivalent of reeducation camp? I remember thinking when Homeland Security was given their unconstitutional powers that these will surely be misused at some point. I think I'd rather face down terrorists than allow our government this much power in the name of security.

[truecrimson]

But you really should look at Lincoln. There is a lot of truth in the old saws that the victors write the history, and that those who do not study hsitory are doomed to repeatit.

Everyone is a patriot at the time. The red coats were quite certain they were doing their patriotic duty, just like Roger's Rangers. It is later that the people get assigned to the title that future generations will associate with them.

Every rebellion in American history (and there have been more than two) began over taxes and guns.

[TaePo]

I agree, the response was a legal answer. IMO when government sets the rules so that it can't be challenged and those wrong doers in government can't be held accountable, what choice do the people have but to revolt. The damage may be done before the next election and there is no guarantee that the next group of people will be any better. How much punishment do we suffer before we respond? Should we be like the English "subjects" who are now left to only protest since they have lost all viable means of forceful defiance? It's too late when the boot is on your neck and the muzzle is resting on your head.

This is partly answered (though perhaps not satisfactorily) in the Declaration of Independence:

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration

The founders then begin a list of their grievances with the Crown.

[newman attack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberty556

I agree, the response was a legal answer. IMO when government sets the rules so that it can't be challenged and those wrong doers in government can't be held accountable, what choice do the people have but to revolt. The damage may be done before the next election and there is no guarantee that the next group of people will be any better. How much punishment do we suffer before we respond? Should we be like the English "subjects" who are now left to only protest since they have lost all viable means of forceful defiance? It's too late when the boot is on your neck and the muzzle is resting on your head.

This is partly answered (though perhaps not satisfactorily) in the Declaration of Independence:

Quote:

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpatxions, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration

The founders then begin a list of their grievances with the Crown.

A valid argument for all!



Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android

[ImminentDanger]

How did our country ever get so confused about right and wrong, following the Constitution or following a trend, honoring our oath or taking the easy way?

It began when "these truths" were no longer self-evident ---

"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."

When a vocal minority (perhaps now a true majority) of the populace of the United States of America stopped believing there was any reason besides our own personal choices (or votes) that afforded anyone's RIGHTS, that's when the purposeful destruction of the Constitutionally-recognized RIGHTS began in earnest and they became privileges granted by the majority or the powerful. Once enough people denied they are God-given RIGHTS, they simply became privileges tolerated by the popular vote.

The basis of our Constitution has been under attack for a long time. The Supreme Court, tasked with protecting that Constitution and the RIGHTS it recognizes, has shirked its duties in this regard. In fact, a case can be made that the Warren Court of the 1960's deliberately sought to destroy the restraints of that document.

...