Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,521 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
...the constitutional order breaks down:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/civil-war-begins-when-the-constitutional-order-breaks-down/

“... Today, two irreconcilable visions of American life believe that they can continue only if they own the whole order. Yet ours has been a shared constitutional order. As we witnessed from 1860-1876, it must proceed as a consensual and joint party system: It cannot exist through single party ownership. The single-minded drive toward this goal—especially now by Blue state Democrats—has embrittled our constitutional order, and is creating the basis for a full-scale legitimacy crackup...”

What say ye?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,378 Posts
It was about 80 years between the end of the War of Independence and the Civil War.
All this shows is that we a well past due for another "adjustment"
Usually things just seem to moderate themselves.
But with the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the social media outlets this is no longer the case.
There is no longer any moderation, just more fuel thrown on the fire
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,448 Posts
As political commentator Mark Levin has said, we are already in a civil war, the shooting just has not started yet. I believe we are in a low intensity conflict in certain locations in this country. All it will take is a catalyst event to push us over the edge. Trump's re-election, or non-re-election, or some other unforeseen event is all I think it may take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,483 Posts
When I look back on my younger years, there were spirited debates, and even animosity between the two major parties. But both parties saluted the flag, both parties rejected socialism/communism, both parties believed in a strong military and control of our borders. The new breed of far left politicians is so antagonistic to the values most of us grew up with, I don't see how a reconciliation between the left and right can ever happen in this political climate. Will our "cold" civil war go hot? I don't know, but there is an authoritarian mindset on the left that goes against the DNA of America. Somethings got to give.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
Our Constitution is the contract that seals the social construct of our nation. What some folks seem unwilling to accept that in the event of significant changes in the Constitution one of the effects is to release some or all dissenting states from the contract (effectively allowing immediate secession). A basic principle of law is that a contract may only be changed or modified when all parties agree to the proposed changes or modifications. We are a nation of self-government by consent, not a nation ruled by a government.

Over the past 30 years there has been a general abrogation by Congress of its fundamental responsibilities (legislation and budgeting). We have gone as long as 7 years at a time without a budget being passed, only "continuing resolutions" permitting everything to continue without any act of Congress. Congress has passed hundreds of laws relegating to non-elected bureaucrats the authority to pass regulations by decree, enforce bureaucratic orders with the force of law, administer fines and other penalties within each agency's own regulatory process, and generally act as plenipotentiary dictators.

The political process has become adversarial to the point of open warfare, each party acting primarily to prevent the opposing party to act in any way whatsoever. The focus of our representatives is always on re-election and permanent political power, rather than on the welfare of the nation.

Our courts, including the Supreme Court, have become political enforcement agencies of the respective parties. The clear language of the Constitution is given far less standing in judicial proceedings than the political goals of the judges (and their political parties).

We have allowed our public education system, from pre-school through university levels, to be co-opted by one far end of the spectrum of political thought, thus serving primarily as a means of social and political indoctrination rather than the intended purpose of educating our young and preparing them for responsible lives and citizenship.

Revolution begins with the soap box (oratory, speaking out publicly), then proceeds to the ballot box (democratic process), and ends with the bullet box (open resistance or warfare). For the time being we still actively engaged at the soap box level, with the ballot box heavily contested, and a lot of people stocking up on bullet boxes.

Solutions? I wish I had some to offer.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
To me it is just gobbeldygoook packaged as intellectual theory. I have studied a great deal of US History. From the before the Constitution was enacted we have had an adversarial system of governing. It reached a peak during the time before the Civil War. But that war was about one thing: slavery. For the slave states is was about economics for the abollishionist its ir was about morality. For the Confederacy it was about splitting the nation in two. For the Union is was about keeping the Nation as one. Once resolved ww were one nation, but divisions have always been part of the national fabric. Civil rights, abortion, states rights, federalism, imigration, welfare, etc are not Constitutional issues. They are legislative and judicial issues. Legislation making is a contest. Judicial precesses are also a contest. The adversarial nature of our system is evident today more than ever. That is because many whom we elect are turning adversarial into an demonization. It is not the contest. that will harm the US. It is the people who cannot compromise. The Constitution was drafted with compromises to bring it into law. We do not. have Constutional crisis. We have a crisis of opposing ideologies with the subscribers on each side unwilling to compromise.Allof that while over 60% of the People are unsubscribed to a specific ideology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
...the constitutional order breaks down:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/civil-war-begins-when-the-constitutional-order-breaks-down/

“... Today, two irreconcilable visions of American life believe that they can continue only if they own the whole order. Yet ours has been a shared constitutional order. As we witnessed from 1860-1876, it must proceed as a consensual and joint party system: It cannot exist through single party ownership. The single-minded drive toward this goal–especially now by Blue state Democrats–has embrittled our constitutional order, and is creating the basis for a full-scale legitimacy crackup...”

What say ye?
The conservative side have only reacted to the actions of the progressive side, and weakly at that, until Trump. He came in and like he had promised he was the bull in the china shop.

BUT the Dems/Left/Progressives have pushed so far and are pushing so hard that if the Republicans/Conservatives don't draw a line in the sand now it will be too late.

I can't see how anyone can expect to negotiate, or act in a bi-partisan way, with a side that claims you are evil and must be destroyed. Conservatives have been pushed into the corner and there just is no more room to give.

Except for the radical fringe I've rarely seen the conservative side tell others how to live. They do expect you to have consequences for your actions/behaviors/choices but again that's reactive not proactive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,001 Posts
I say both sides have a right to their opinions, yet neither side has the right to force those opinions onto the other. I have the right to keep and bear arms; they have the right not to. I cannot/will not force my right into them. They should agree likewise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
I say both sides have a right to their opinions, yet neither side has the right to force those opinions onto the other. I have the right to keep and bear arms; they have the right not to. I cannot/will not force my right into them. They should agree likewise.
But there's the rub. The left/progressive/dems won't accept that you have rights they don't agree with. And they are well down that path and I don't believe, as a party/ideology, they can ever return to a place that can be trusted. It may very well be the only chance is for the Democratic Party to be replaced as the major 2nd party with something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,001 Posts
But there's the rub. The left/progressive/dems won't accept that you have rights they don't agree with. And they are well down that path and I don't believe, as a party/ideology, they can ever return to a place that can be trusted. It may very well be the only chance is for the Democratic Party to be replaced as the major 2nd party with something else.
They can have their opinion forever, I don't really care about changing it, but if they persist in forcing it upon me, my reply will be:

download (1).jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,860 Posts
Our Constitution is the contract that seals the social construct of our nation. What some folks seem unwilling to accept that in the event of significant changes in the Constitution one of the effects is to release some or all dissenting states from the contract (effectively allowing immediate secession). A basic principle of law is that a contract may only be changed or modified when all parties agree to the proposed changes or modifications. We are a nation of self-government by consent, not a nation ruled by a government.

Over the past 30 years there has been a general abrogation by Congress of its fundamental responsibilities (legislation and budgeting). We have gone as long as 7 years at a time without a budget being passed, only "continuing resolutions" permitting everything to continue without any act of Congress. Congress has passed hundreds of laws relegating to non-elected bureaucrats the authority to pass regulations by decree, enforce bureaucratic orders with the force of law, administer fines and other penalties within each agency's own regulatory process, and generally act as plenipotentiary dictators.

The political process has become adversarial to the point of open warfare, each party acting primarily to prevent the opposing party to act in any way whatsoever. The focus of our representatives is always on re-election and permanent political power, rather than on the welfare of the nation.

Our courts, including the Supreme Court, have become political enforcement agencies of the respective parties. The clear language of the Constitution is given far less standing in judicial proceedings than the political goals of the judges (and their political parties).

We have allowed our public education system, from pre-school through university levels, to be co-opted by one far end of the spectrum of political thought, thus serving primarily as a means of social and political indoctrination rather than the intended purpose of educating our young and preparing them for responsible lives and citizenship.

Revolution begins with the soap box (oratory, speaking out publicly), then proceeds to the ballot box (democratic process), and ends with the bullet box (open resistance or warfare). For the time being we still actively engaged at the soap box level, with the ballot box heavily contested, and a lot of people stocking up on bullet boxes.

Solutions? I wish I had some to offer.
We must show the Democrats that we won't stand for the kind of conduct that we disagree with by voting them out of office at election time. That is the only peaceful way to resolve the issue. When people in our area start complaining because the Democrats are going against the wishes of the people I get on social media and tell them that it is because we keep voting for a name instead of looking at the candidates voting record. Around here we have been guilty of apathy for way too long and so we stew in our troubles but I intend to get the word out. I have learned that it takes years to provide a feasible candidate and to get the kind of support for them that will win an election.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,448 Posts
I think we have a very clear situation that is easy to understand. On the one hand, we have progressives who want to change the fabric of our country by adopting socialism/communism, throwing out our constitution, and dictating social morays. On the other hand, we have conservatives who want to keep this country according to the principles it was founded on. You have a federal government populated with people who want to eliminate a duly elected president. This is a clash that will not end well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,756 Posts
An interesting read but saying sanctuary states/cities are "nullifying federal law" is ridiculous. They are not nullifying anything. They are simply not allowing their own resources to be used by the federal government to perform a mission that has time and again been held to be exclusively federal.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,377 Posts
Should Trump win...we will see the social communist radical faction go ballistic as never before.
If we end up with a radical leftist in the oval office then normal Americans will not tolerate certain rights being negated.
The only answer will be a physical separation of states or potential civil war.

Any major "Black Swan" event will disrupt our debt/credit "just in time delivery" food supply chain and that will be yet another riot creation event.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
sad thing is for every American that champions liberty and personal rights and freedoms via the Constitution, there is one or more, that would give those rights away 100% for a few grubby rooms and a few pounds of free fake cheese and a bag of rice along with promises of FREE medical care/FREE college for their kids/FREE condoms ,pills or diaphrams etc, and FREE xxxxxxx if those fail.. I really and truly fear where we are at as a nation.

yet right here on this very forum, I have seen members in good standing defending their left wing politics and voting records, and truly believing that the leftists don't want confiscation, just "better enforcement of existing laws".. Indeed,, ""common sense regulations pertaining to gun ownership""... bob

minor one word edit. QKS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,133 Posts
It seems to me that one topic pundits can use to get attention nowadays is talk about civil war. But this author, like a lot of others, glosses over some glaring details. To have any kind of war, you have to have at least two sides, each of which has some chance of winning. If you don't have two sides, there is no conflict. If either side has no chance, it is not a war, it is an insurrection at best, easily put down. One side in a civil war would have to be the government. That is the 900 pound gorilla. Whoever controls the executive branch controls that combatant. For the other combatant, there are two possibilities: The left or the right.
  • If conservatives have the White House, the left can't fight a shooting war. They all fancy themselves as Che' Guevara, but they wouldn't make a good pimple on Che's backside. They don't have the guns, the guts or the training. They can cause trouble, but not anything that can't be handled.
  • If the left has the White House, the right can't get organized. I have said it before: American gun owners outnumber the most optimistic prediction of how many gun confiscators the government could field about 80 to one. But since we are always disagreeing more than we are agreeing and we have no central organization, that "one" can pick off the "80," one at a time. Yes, there will be shootouts. Yes, there will be patriots dying in "piles of brass." But that won't carry the day. To paraphrase Patton, the job is not to die for your cause. It is to get the other guy to die for his.
In our two "civil wars," the War of Independence and the War Between the States, both sides could fight, both sides had organization, more specifically full-on C3I, and therefore both sides had a chance at winning. We don't have that this time around. So I am still not seeing who can fight the US government and win in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
The left has waged war on America for quite some time, its just now getting ramped up with more division lately.

Here's another good read on the subject:

How a Civil War Happens


By Daniel Greenfield
This is a civil war.

There aren’t any soldiers marching on Charleston… or Myrtle Beach. Nobody’s getting shot in the streets. Except in Chicago… and Baltimore, Detroit and Washington D.C.

But that’s not a civil war. It’s just what happens when Democrats run a city into the ground. And then they dig a hole in the ground so they can bury it even deeper.

If you look deep enough into that great big Democrat hole, you might even see where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

But it’s not guns that make a civil war. It’s politics.

Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.


How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.

That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.



The rrrrrrrrrest of the story:

Doug Ross @ Journal: How a Civil War Happens
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
An interesting read but saying sanctuary states/cities are "nullifying federal law" is ridiculous. They are not nullifying anything. They are simply not allowing their own resources to be used by the federal government to perform a mission that has time and again been held to be exclusively federal.
Right, they are not allowing their law enforcement officers to enforce the law. The courts have upheld multiple times that State law enforcement officers can arrest people for illegal immigration. Are these sanctuary states/cities also instructing their officers to not enforce other federal laws? If they have taken someone into custody for something minor and they find they have a warrant for a federal crime (say espionage), do they release them when they are done with booking or hold them for federal authorities? It's only a federal crime, right? Let's not be naive and think that this is anything other than trying to subvert the laws of our nation.

Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F.2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Gonzalez case examined the city's policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324). The defendants argued that federal law prohibited state and local police officers from making such arrests. The court held that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that they have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.

People v. Barajas. Likewise, in People v. Barajas, the California Court of Appeal upheld the authority of California local police officers to make arrests for violations of two provisions of the INA, 8 USC § 1325 (the illegal entry misdemeanor) and § 1326 (felony for alien to re-enter United States after deportation) (81 Cal. App.3d 999, (1978)). The court rejected the defendant's argument that the arrest was illegal under INA warrant requirements, (8 USC § 1357).

United States v. Salinas-Calderon. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations and to make arrests for violation of federal law (United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F. 2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984)). In this case, a state trooper pulled over the defendant for driving erratically. He found six people in the back of the defendant's truck. After questing the passenger he learned that the driver and the others were in the country illegally. The court determined that the trooper had probable cause to detain and arrest all the individuals.

United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez. In a subsequent case, the Tenth Circuit considered the arrest by an Oklahoma police officer of a person suspected of drug dealing because he was an “illegal alien” (United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999)). The arresting officer did not know when he made the arrest whether the defendant had committed a civil or criminal violation of INA. A specific provision in the INA (8 USC § 1252c) authorizes state officers to pick up and hold for deportation a previously deported alien who had been convicted of a crime in the United States and reentered illegally. The law requires state officers to obtain confirmation from the INS before making such an arrest. It was only after the arrest that it was discovered that the alien had a history of prior criminal convictions and deportations.

The defendant argued that the state police could only arrest him in compliance with the restrictions detailed in 8 USC § 1252c. Since his arrest did not meet the requirements of that provision, the defendant argued the arrest was unauthorized. The court held that § 1252c does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of the INA.

United States v. Santana-Garcia. The Tenth Circuit again considered the role of local law enforcement of immigration laws in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2001)). A Utah police officer stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. The driver didn't speak English or have a driver's license. The officer learned that the driver and his passenger were traveling from Mexico to Colorado and that they were not legally in the country. The court held that the officer had probable cause to arrest both defendants for suspected violation of federal immigration law and concluded that state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests for violations of immigration law.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top