Quote:
ericsp said:
That doesn't really answer my question though. As a revolutionary leader you would be in a position to define what is against your Constitution, which could be just about anything.
|
The Constitution is written, as is the Bill of Rights. The amendmendts are what are in question (to some) and it is the issue of "context" and "definition" being argued as the method of subversion of the texts.
If I were that leader, and it was my cause, it would be about implementing the limits in the Bill of Rights, on the government. The leaders of the government, have failed to recognize, or respect those checks on the ability of the government to abridge the rights of individuals. The "imprisonable" crime would be the crime of "ignoring, misconstruing, or maliciously circumventing" the original intent and context of the role of the individual in relation to the ability of the government to regulate in relation to those rights, while serving to protect same said rights, under oath.
Quote:
ericsp said:
Would you tolerate organized dissent, or would you use force to impose your belief on those who disagree with you?
|
Of course I would tolerate organized descent, to the point of force, and/or self defense. I have no problem with this union dividing over "irreconcileable differences", and I don't see the sanctity of the union taking precedent over the rights of individuals. Lincoln, FDR, saw it another way.