4 ms·

> because there's no higher authority to appeal to for enforcement Technically, that higher authority is the people themselves. Bear in mind that the Constitut

• benrbray 6y ago
  Violence is a last resort, but it shouldn't be the ONLY resort when government violates our rights.
  • ColanR 6y ago
    Absolutely agreed that it is a very last resort. The declaration of independence actually does a good job of outlining just how much of a last resort the american revolution actually was.
• krapp 6y ago
  >Bear in mind that the Constitution was written in a context where the governed people successfully held their government accountable at the business end of their hunting rifles. No they didn't, look up Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion as examples. The US government has never been successfully "held accountable" at gunpoint.
  • ColanR 6y ago
    I was referring to the American Revolution. The 'holding accountable' was the revocation of Britain's authority over the colonies.
    • joshuamorton 6y ago
      In what way was the British Government "held accountable"? British leaders in Britain weren't held accountable, and many of the eventual founders were high level bureaucrats in the British government of the American colonies.
      • mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
        They lost the territory and all of its resources that allowed those within it to eventually overtake their status as the world's most powerful nation.
        • joshuamorton 6y ago
          Note that in the broader context the claim was that we should throw politicians in prison, or face punishment for doing illegal things. Britain as an entity certainly faced consequences from US independence, but they didn't behead the queen (which *did happen 20 years later in france).
          • ColanR 6y ago
            It seemed pretty obvious to me when I wrote the original content that I was referring to the American revolution as the 'holding Britain accountable'.
            • joshuamorton 6y ago
              Perhaps, but I don't think that they were punished. The difference I'm getting at here is subtle, but it's the difference between declaring independence and replacing the existing government. Both happen through revolution of some form, but one breaks away from a government you dislike. THat's not punitive. One replaces it and usually punishes the old one. Declaring independence from a distant seat of government is vastly different and vastly easier than trying to overthrow the local government.
              • ColanR 6y ago
                "held accountable != "punished" or "punative". I'm not talking about punishment or punative action. I'm talking about accountability, where being 'held accountable' could be a synonym for 'held responsible'. In this case, the way I used the phrase, Britain was 'held responsible' by simply being told to 'go away'.
  • boogies 6y ago
    One terrorist at least disagreed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#Impact_according_to_McVeigh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#Impact_a..., and considering his arguments context (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge) I think there was a grain of truth to his claims (though they don’t justify killing babies of course). (The Oklahoma City bombing was the biggest terrorist attack next to 9/11 and yet never discussed in any history class I’ve taken, while the latter is discussed in virtually every class on any subject on its anniversary. Probably an interesting reflection of xenophobia (probably among other things) I think.)
    • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >The Oklahoma City bombing was the biggest terrorist attack next to 9/11 and yet never discussed in any history class I’ve taken No government sponsored curriculum is going to open the door to the very tough questions that the first two parts of that trilogy naturally raise. It's the same reason people are never taught about the Indian wars or Jim Crow south except that "they existed". If people learned about how many times the government straight up violated treaties it signed and how many times state governments intentionally used the forces at their disposal to disenfranchise blacks then people wouldn't trust the government. The career arcs of the kind of people who think these things should be learned don't tend to put them on the committees that set state curriculum.
  • srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Look up when those events happened vs when the Constitution was written.
• ardy42 6y ago
  >> because there's no higher authority to appeal to for enforcement > Technically, that higher authority is the people themselves. Bear in mind that the Constitution was written in a context where the governed people successfully held their government accountable at the business end of their hunting rifles. I should have probably said "there's no higher institutional authority to appeal to for enforcement." When you're talking about jail-time penalties, I think you're talking about something that's institutionally enforced. At this point, the only check is the people via elections; but I don't think unconstitutional laws are passed for some private purpose, but rather to satisfy some popular political demand (like "never again"). Such esoteric concepts like the unconstitutionality of some particular law aren't often at the top of voters minds, either. At least in the current climate, with the level of disunity and polarization, any attempt at a revolution would be a civil war where (in the end) half the country loses a good chunk of their civil rights.