If you’re applying the law as it is written, there isn’t a way to square a dictator within the framework of the constitution. ALL federal power is vested in the elected positions, and ALL remaining powers are reserved to the states. It’s not possible for a non-elected official to have more power than an elected official.
The constitution would have to die for a dictator to exist- as in, people would have to willingly stop enforcing it.
Ah, like our elected officials are currently doing. Got it.
I have often argued that the Declaration of Independence is the true foundational document of the United States, and very few people have ever countered my claim.
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.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
For the idea and shaping of the united states yes but the USA came into being when the constitution was ratified as the framework for law and government.
Yes, but former governments claimed to derive their authority from some sort of divine being, or noble birth, whereas the United States rebuked that, and said no, it is the people who give the government power.
Prior to that moment, rebelling against the government was rebellion against God or against your genetic betters.
After that moment, rebelling against the government is the people saying, “You have gone off track. It is time to put you back on track.”
And in a way that is important, because since American government derives from the consent of the governed, it is vital for the people currently in power to keep the American people distracted from what is happening so that they do not align together in strong enough numbers to overthrow them.
Therefore we have continuous circuses.
The moment they stop dancing and distracting us from what is happening is the moment they lose everything.
oh im in no way arguing against its importance.
laws are not made for revolution. Its more by having a policty of violating the consitution takes away an legitamacy a government has. The USA came into being with ratification of the constitution and if its not being followed it effectively does not exist. Now the declaration of independence basic is an outline of when its ok to revolt which is really a list of stuff the bill of rights does not allow. The bill of rights pretty much comes from the greivences in the declaration of independence.
2nd amendment, but in america this is used to shoot kids.
Take those wannabe kings/dictators out while they’re young!
In America, rights aren’t “given”, they are “respected”. This is the same distinction made about the right-of-way while driving. Nobody ever has the right-of-way, but there are times when right-of-way must be yielded to others.
The US Constitution and its amendments declares all of the rights that the US Government must not infringe upon. Nothing declares what rights Americans have. [1] There is no external authority that “gives” Americans rights. They are inherent within us from birth. It is up to our systems of government to recognize and respect what has always been there.
The Second Amendment declares a right to self-defense that extends to defense against any threat including government agents. A modernizing of the 2A language would be, approximately - A free state is a critically important feature of civilization, therefore the people of that state possess the right to self-defense using the same level of technology as the state’s agents.
The offensive use of arms is not a basic human right, but the defensive use is.
[1] The “privileges and immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment has a lot of interesting legal history around it. The main point of argument has been how broadly to read new rights into that phrase. Most reasonable people can observe that the ambiguity in that clause is likely to have been intentionally broad because of this “natural rights” interpretation that is embedded deeply within US law all over the place.
heck it even states anything not talked about in the doc is reserved for the people and the states.
