Sheriff Arpaio says he'll enforce unconstitutional laws, Mack and Judge remind him of

[jbombelli]

The price of freedom is blood. It always has been, and always will be. The moment we are no longer willing to pay that price, we are no longer free.

I guess some of us aren't willing to pay that price. Some are willing to trade their freedoms, AND MINE, for the illusion of safety and security. It saddens me to no end.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

The price of freedom is blood. It always has been, and always will be. The moment we are no longer willing to pay that price, we are no longer free.

I guess some of us aren't willing to pay that price. Some are willing to trade their freedoms, AND MINE, for the illusion of safety and security. It saddens me to no end.

If this is directly related to my post, may I remind you that I never stated with my price for liberty, freedom, and my inalienable human rights is. I simply stated that the Constitution does not afford that same price.

Why?

Because the Constitution is a document held to be the founding of this government, it has no truthful bearing in any sort of revolution. By raising the black flag, you toss out everything in the current government, including what you agree with. The end result, if you are victorious, is a redesigning of the regime. And what comes with that is a new foundation which may or may not include a document similar to the Constitution. But it will not be the Constitution.

Another reason I withhold my support is that, again, if there was a revolution on multiple fronts. There's no saying what the new leaders will decide to do. We may believe that the fight would be for the good of the people, and that a document of similar fundamentals will be established. However, unless you're the leader (of one of the leaders) you will end with no say in the new government.

And lastly, I value the Constitution, truly. However, to hold it at any means will eventually mean going against the Constitution, and thus to go against my beliefs. It's important to remember what the Constitution is and what it is not. It is a document of legal representation, it outlines the duties of this government. It is not a document of beliefs. That is the Declaration of Independence, which holds no real legal bearing except to state secession from Britain. I may believe in the message of the DoI, and I may believe in the BoR, and the Constitution. And I may hold the spirit of their creation dear to my heart. But if this government goes, so too do all of those papers. The spirit will remain, but the letter of the law would be defunct.

Bear in mind, this is simply a conjecture on the ideologies of the Founding of the Union, and if there was a new foundation. In no way am I stating that a revolution is necessary. On the contrary, I stress we must do our best to work within the system at hand until it is no longer possible.

 

[downzero]

I'm sure you mean specifically that the Constitution should be preserved at any cost that does not destroy our society. I would like to point out that, in the event of some sort of revolution, there's no guarantee that the Constitution would be revitalized at the end of it. I think the stipulations for maintaining the Constitution are based specifically on the preservation of the nation. If we are going to attempt to hold the Constitution at the cost of the nation, then it's time we start looking at other solutions.

I think you're utterly wrong. My loyalty is to our founding document and its principles, not our "society" which is as malleable as clay.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I think you're utterly wrong. My loyalty is to our founding document and its principles, not our "society" which is as malleable as clay.

Hence my later reply. I understand the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And I would not condone following the letter of the law to the defeat of the spirit. Nor would I condone animating a false spirit at the cost of the actual letter. But at the point where the law is no longer followed in spirit or in letter, and at the point that a new government need arise. Then all that will be left is the spirit, and the hope that the foundation of the new government will follow the spirit.

To say that you believe in the Constitution and that it must be upheld at any cost is to open up many potential tyrannies in the name of the Constitution, by explicitly attempting to enforce merely the letter.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[downzero]

I hope that makes sense.

Actually, it makes no sense to me at all. The Constitution is a document that spends a lot of words protecting you from your fellow citizens.

 

[mrjarrell]

Actually, it makes no sense to me at all. The Constitution is a document that spends a lot of words protecting you from your fellow citizens.

It protects you from the government and only affords a modicum of protection from "fellow citizens".

 

[MinuteMan47]

Actually, it makes no sense to me at all. The Constitution is a document that spends a lot of words protecting you from your fellow citizens....AND THE GOVERNMENT

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Actually, it makes no sense to me at all. The Constitution is a document that spends a lot of words protecting you from your fellow citizens.

mrjarrell is correct that the primary objective is to protect the people from the government, but not from fellow citizens.

And, for the most part, the Constitution is written to tell the government exactly which each office is designed and designated to do. A stress on how many Senators, ages, and so forth. It is a document designed to protect the people particularly by the design of the government, but not necessarily by the words written within the document. The BoRs was specifically designed for that reason.

But to clarify what I'm saying. The phrase 'by any means possible' is ridiculously inclusive of many things that are in direct confrontation of the Constitution. The rights to secession were decided by the loss of the South in the Civil War as defunct. And that was the major discourse provided by the Constitution in case of tyranny within the government. The Founding Fathers understood that the necessity for secession as a threat to keep the government in check was real. The government, I agree, has decided to disregard the Constitution by and large for its own gain. But would the Founding Fathers approve of, say, political assassinations to further the cause of the Constitution? Or would they approve of psychological and terroristic warfare on the people of the nation to further the means of the Constitution? Because that could be construed as a possibility considered and approved in the phrase 'by any means possible.' And, if those weapons were brought to bear, would the spirit of the law remain the same knowing that, instead of the threat of law-abiding and good men keeping the government in check, it is some sort of sinister organization operating under the banner of 'Freedom Fighters' or something similar?

That's where my hesitation draws. I would rather work within the system, broken as it may be, to get back to the basics than jeopardize the truth behind the ideals for the simple enforcement. And if the system no longer works, then is a time for a realized and true revolution of secession--precedent be damned. Only by fighting this government with the mindset of freedom and justice and the understanding of fundamental rights can what needs to be accomplished be so. The second you abandon humanity for the goal is the second you abandon the point of the goal in the first place.

I realize that you may not have actually been attempting to sweep what I stated into your circle of possibilities by your statement, I was simply stating what I consider your statement to potentially mean.