410
Comments (46)
sorted by:
24
Cardinalix 24 points ago +24 / -0

Hate to be that guy but the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. The meme reads: "The Constitution actually says..." and the proceeds with: It's in the Declaration of Independence..." They are both considered founding documents but they are definitely distinct from each other.

7
DextertheCat 7 points ago +7 / -0

Of course you are correct. I believe we have come to think of the founding principles of this country as a body of work and lumped it all together. Many have forgotten the scale of time that it took from the Declaration of Independence to the ratification of the Constitution/Bill of rights. It took nearly 20 years to codify an acceptable document that took thousands of hours of debate before it could be ratified. I believe everyone here are Patriots who firmly believe in the Principles of this Great Nation, even if we all hadn't fully studied the history, or have forgotten it. The spirit of this great nation is what we discuss, but perhaps it would be wise if we all studied it a bit more to ensure that we relay our message more accurately and to further appreciate how important these Principles are to not only ourselves, but to all of humanity.

6
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's in the constitution also (second amendment), but not as clearly worded:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Meaning the people can use arms against the State if it is no longer "free".

2
ABrainDisease 2 points ago +3 / -1

No. A free state refers to the individual states within the union. The 2A allows us to defend our state against a tyrannical federal govt (not a state) OR foreign invaders.

2
GaIIowBoob 2 points ago +2 / -0

New York Colony originally had the 2nd amendment verbiage, except it included the word tyranny to make sure no tyrant tried to claim it was about muskets, hunting, or sitting purpose.

1
OXRanger 1 point ago +1 / -0

Meaning the people have the responsibility to "regulate" the militia well.

1
GaIIowBoob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Regular means well equippd and maintained meaning the security of the country requires everyone well armed

2
TheAwakened 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah but doesnt the constitution say you got guns and to use them against both foreign and domestic theeats?

2
anon1138 2 points ago +3 / -1

Thank you for correcting the OP. I was about to be discouraged if no one caught that. That's the kind of shinanigans glowies use.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +4 / -3

The Declaration of Independence isn't a legally binding document as far as our government is concerned, anyways.

5
Wayshuba 5 points ago +5 / -0

Correct, it isn't. However, it is a document that reflects the consequences TO the government when the will of the people is violated.

Our Founding Fathers structured the order of power in our Republic as such:

God - who grants us the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and therefore is outside government authority AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON

People - who constructed the States for the purpose of protecting those God-given rights

States- who constructed the Federal Government via the Constitution to make sure the States remained at peace with one another, to protect the States from foreign powers and to negotiate for all the States with foreign entities.

Federal - who were constructed as the lowest and most limited form of government.

So while the Declaration of Independence is not a "legally binding" document, it does in fact spell out a right of the People when their governments no longer work in their best interest.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not disputing the tone of the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't make it a legally binding document.

The 2nd is more along the lines of what you're looking for, along with accompanying legislation/documentation.

3
Obvious 3 points ago +3 / -0

It is a law breaking document. It made the intention clear that we would be breaking unjust laws of the British empire.

1
c9AfEoF1StU7C2j2ZUv1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Correct. Are we still under British rule?

1
Thothbag 1 point ago +1 / -0

What is the declaration of independence, legally speaking?

3
TheAwakened 3 points ago +3 / -0

It was a 'hey this country is mine now, if you disagree fight me' letter to the british

1
Thothbag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is that all? Can it be used as something similar to the constitution or it was literally as simple as what you say?

4
TheAwakened 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thats what a declaration of independence is, when you remove all the fancy words and fluff

You cant use that in court, because its not like the constitution, which was an agreement between the newly funded government and their people.

A constitution is, in my eyes, a contract between government and the people that says: if we (government) follow these rules, you will obey

So when they stop following the contract, its just one option imo.

Anyways your right to topple government is in the second amendment

1
GaIIowBoob 1 point ago +1 / -0

The constitution is the basis of all USA law. When they disrespect it, they are saying they are overthrlowing the law itself

11
test_pattern 11 points ago +11 / -0

Right. How is it “insurrection” if the will of the people decide to abolish and institute new government?

It is our Constitutional duty, isn’t it?

7
Eph612 7 points ago +7 / -0

You have to look at who is calling it an “insurrection”. We are in a war of words (among other things) and right now it’s a war fought in the realm of public opinion. One group is trying to influence the masses to their side; they want it to seem that they are in the right, and that they have all the power. So, it stands to reason. What else would they call us but insurrectionists - a threat to democracy. They certainly aren’t going to admit they sent tear gas and pellet grenades into a group of peaceful protestors that included seniors and children. They’re not going to admit they have imprisoned people without charging them, violating their Constitutional rights for the “crime” of being present to show support for a cause they believe in. We don’t do this in America - and yet here we are. So who are the “insurrectionists” really? Ever notice how the Left constantly accuses others of what they do themselves? From “Russia, Russia, Russia” to “quid-pro-quo”, they make their accusations sound legit because they know what they do is wrong so they just accuse based on their own actions. They can’t make this stuff up. They hold up a mirror to themselves and we’d be wise to pay careful attention. They are so arrogant they can’t help but broadcast what they think they’re getting away with.

2
Obvious 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ever notice how the Left constantly accuses others of what they do themselves?

Once you start noticing this, you see it everywhere

2
test_pattern 2 points ago +2 / -0

very well said.

4
TheAwakened 4 points ago +4 / -0

Its insurrection if you lose, revolution if you win

4
Wayshuba 4 points ago +4 / -0

Technically the difference is that it would be an insurrection if a group tried to overthrow a legitimately placed government by the people. Once the proof of the fraud is released, the Federal Government will no be shown as the illegitimate entity it is.

How will the people handle it when they know that the Feds are now an enemy organization not put in place by the American People?

6
Eph612 6 points ago +6 / -0

It doesn’t just say you “can” - it says you should. In fact the language is much stronger than “should”. It is our “DUTY, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security”. I would say “future security” is a pretty big deal and not something we should take lightly.

3
skyehye808 3 points ago +4 / -1

Europe is protesting in the thousands all over their countries, will that ever happen in our country? We need massive protests too but that hasnt happened so far. How much more can this country take? When is the breaking point?

2
Fatality 2 points ago +2 / -0

I've been telling people this for a good 20 years.

"But what is the alternative?" they kept asking, to keep things the same.

Well hopefully now they see anything is better than what we have.

2
Rhinomyte 2 points ago +2 / -0

Obliged*

2
MAG768720 2 points ago +3 / -1

That's why Abe Lincoln was a bad guy.

He didn't agree with this fundamental principle.

3
CirclebackGinger 3 points ago +3 / -0

This! ☝🏻 So many people have no idea that the civil war was about states rights and the South’s right to secede and start their own government. Slavery wasn’t the number one reason the South wanted to secede, but it was a great talking point and the North made sure that was the narrative that was fed to the masses and as usual, that’s the part that “prevailed” in the history books. I think the civil war was the catalyst that allowed too much federal overreach and the turning point in our history where the federal government became emboldened to get bigger than our founders ever intended it to be. IMHO. 🤷🏼‍♀️

4
DextertheCat 4 points ago +4 / -0

The Federal government amassed power over a long period of time. It is like a cancer that only grows. It never shrinks unless it has portions cut out of it. It is time for some surgery. We have allowed too many institutions to form as new organizations within the Fed. We need to eliminate some and cut to the bone in some others and limit "mandates" and intrusive Regulations. All Government agencies should trim at least 50% of their employees. Keep only the most productive and useful employees who place their Oath to this country, to the People and to the Principles of what this country stands for first and foremost when they perform their duties. I say all of this as a Federal employee.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

All Government agencies should trim at least 50% of their employees.

...Add to that cut 50% of the agencies, and I'd say it's a good start...

2
DextertheCat 2 points ago +2 / -0

We have a saying in government service, "20% of the fed employees do 80% of the work, the other 80% do the remaining 20%" of course out of the remaining 80% some of them don't do any work at all. It makes me 😔, because we can't get rid of them. Government employees are the most protected working class in the world.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

Any guesstimate how many of that 80% are working on things that the government isn't even supposed to be involved in? lol

2
DextertheCat 2 points ago +2 / -0

They don't work on much of anything. Very unproductive, work maybe 2 hours a day, if we are lucky. No black bag ops for these idiots, they are like welfare recipients. Ask any government person, they can point at a bunch of these people, as long as it's confidential, no one wants to say it aloud, because you can be accused of all kinds of discrimination. That is the only thing we ever have to worry about, any discrimination for any reason, even if its made-up crap, its a big bag of worms

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

Makes sense when you hire people based purely on a demographic checkbox...

Hell, thomas sowell spent a semester with milton friedman and even then, it was working for the government that convinced him to abandon socialism...lmao.

1
ABrainDisease 1 point ago +1 / -0

It was a main talking point for confederate politicians too. Thats why Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech was a hit.

It takes two sides to tango and southern politicians were as guilty as northerners for stoking the flames of war.

1
SpoonySmalls 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jesus people. This shit is why nobody takes us seriously. Completely different documents. This makes us look stupid, and should be taken down or edited.

1
Merica1779 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, but how would the people accomplish this feat now?

2
Eph612 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you don’t know the answer to that question, you must not have been around here very long or you haven’t been “listening”. Hint: it doesn’t involve taking to the streets and behaving like BLM/AntiFa crazies. What “we” do is being done. That’s what GA is all about.

1
DextertheCat 1 point ago +1 / -0

Our government has been sliding further and further into tyranny. We have been lax in our vigilance and have allowed ourselves to concede too much for safety and security. It is time to remake our government in line with our founding principles and to restore the proper perspective to our government. The government was formed to serve the people. It must be the first words from the lips of any agent that represents us every single day and in every action that they take on our behalf. The people must also take responsibility and accountability for our own actions. We must never let the letter of the law interfere with the Spirit of the law. We must remake the entire legal profession and hold them accountable for being "agents" of the Court. Lawyers should be universally excluded from holding any Legislative role of elected positions. It is a direct conflict of interest to write the rules of your own profession because it directly affects how you make a living. I believe that much of the Tyranny allowed to occur has been at the self-serving hands of lawyers writing laws.

1
UncleHooly 1 point ago +1 / -0

Victorian State Law Actually says you can arrest a police officer for attempting to unlawfully detain someone (sect 458 crimes act) and if his mate tries to stop it, you can arrest them too (Perversion of Justice - Summary Offences Act) and you can even shoot them with their own firearm if you have to (Sect 462a Crimes Act)

Human Rights and Responsibilites Act 2006 Sect 14 states you cannot be limited to a '5km travelling radius around your home' and that same act states you have the right to assemble in public, live a public life, peacefully protest, and refuse unnessecary medical treatment.

Victoria Police are the biggest criminal organisation in australia.

1
TheAwakened 1 point ago +1 / -0

So gather 10 mates, walk alone without mask, kgb comes to fuck you, your mates jump 'em and you win in court. Be sure to film it so that you can show the other Victorians how to deal with shit.

Or you can be a bitch and not use the laws that were made to protect you, to protect yourself.

1
bluewhiteandred 1 point ago +1 / -0

essentially there is legal and illegal secession

the legal way is by vote and mutual agreement (as there have been some motions by various states in recent years to secede from the U.S. Federal Government)

the illegal way is by revolution (how the U.S. was started) which, if a war is won or the initially illegitimate secession becomes tolerated or enforced, may become somewhat legitimate (or may continue to be contested by exist)

The U.S. Civil War seems to be an example of legal secession which was then illegally fought but then, upon winning, seemed to reinforce an idea of legitimacy of the Union that existed prior

-1
deleted -1 points ago +2 / -3