What act would be justification

for a revolution in the United States?

Be creative, please. From their writings, our forefathers clearly realized that it was a possibility the fledgling government they were nurturing into existence could at some future time be vulnerable to control by nefarious parties. My question is at what point it becomes acceptable and even necessary for the people to take up arms and do some proverbial housecleaning.

For the past several decades our representatives and top leaders, including the various past Presidents, have become ever more and more inaccessible to the people they represent. Instead, powerful, monied interests have ursurped that access, buying their way into every political and governmental nook and cranny their money can allow them access to. In this way, our democracy has begun to fall.

The companion poll to this thread is located at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1315463 .

but apparently not. I think that any attempt by the government to place U.S. citizens under UN or other foreign control would certainly do it.

actually, I will write something:

How blatant was Florida? The Cleland smear? 18181???

Come on.

The problem is that it's blatant, but we're swimming against a literal river of information. There are so many bad things about this maladministration that we could point out, it's difficult to find any one thing that rises up through the putrid waters of betrayal and incompetance to float on the surface long enough for it to be noticed and reported on.

I'm not talking about the * admin specifically here, though, I'm talking about in general, as was provided for in the Declaration of Independence.

(Yes, I know that that document has no legal force. Just as clearly, however, our founders knew such action by the people could, unfortunately, become necessary.)

Let's pretend an election was REALLY close but, before all of the recounts and verifications could take place, the Supreme Court steps in and declares a winner. Not that that could ever happen in America, right?

2000 was just a bad dream any day Ill wake up and the twin towers will still be there and I will see President Gore on the TV doing his SOTU braging about another great economic year.

A successful revolution will not involve "taking up arms."

Our voices are weapons, our will a fortress.

Their voices did a shit load of good at Tianamen Square.

And who knows, maybe we set an example for them to follow.

Only if we use our heads...

and it was a clearly transparent ploy?

What then?

What if shots are fired? What if they come for you?

I grab my loaded duffle bag, ammunition, and carbine to head out for the hills around my apartment. Otherwise, I stay and fire back. There's three stages of political reaction: the soap box, ballot box, and cartridge box. Thanks to the Bill of Rights, I have all three as options.

They clearly wished for all options to be open to the people.

My question is, where's the line? What's the straw that breaks the camel's back?

It can happen here. We all know Freeper types who'd love to see us all rounded up. By "us", I mean anyone of any political stripe who opposes the Chimp in Chief. North of Chattanooga is Rhea county, where a couple of weeks ago a commission vote passed to ban gays from living in their jurisdiction. Sounds silly? Well, these people would kill any non-fundamentalist Xtians if they had half the chance.

"They may beat me, they might even shoot and kill me. Then they will have my bloody, lifeless body. But never my obedience."

-- Gandhi

I would like to live to see a society that's truly free. We're headed in the opposite direction.

Where's the line? Again: what's the straw that breaks the camel's back?

Historically speaking, revolution is overdue.

How we go about it is entirely up to us, the people of this troubled nation. Violence is defeat. The first to resort to it, has lost.

How very true. Revolution could occur without a single drop of blood spilled. I, and I would guess the vast majority of us, would prefer a nonviolent, legalistic revolution to corpses in the streets.

The line that you refer to is probably defined by the sudden realization that our everyday concerns about material goods, salaries, and gas prices (to name just a few) are trivial, and that the issue has become one of survival. I don't believe for one moment that we are close to that realization yet. I still see people getting flamed left and right for suggesting that we need to suffer before we can get better. I guess I will join the ranks now, but that's OK with me. The big picture, looking at it through a historical lens, suggests that we will continue to complain about the political machine of the RW until our neighbors and friends have been taken away and the crowd is coming for us. Martin Niemoller had a very good point. Lastly, I would ask the question, what is more important, the uniterrupted pursuit of material wealth, or the future of a once great nation?

The acquisition of material wealth has indeed blinded many, if not most, of our fellow Americans to the importance of participation in our democracy. As a result, those who value material wealth and monetar4y wealth above and beyond all else have gained power and are in the process of reping all of us of our lives, futures, and general free will.

provide one legitimate example of non violent revolution? or even non violent significant political change.

People tend to throw up Ghandi but most historians recognise that without the economic and political conditions becoming impossible for the British to sustain the tactics of non violence would have been totally overlooked.

unfortunately non violence hasn't really been to successful in promoting change throughout history

East Germany. Unless, of course, you count the government's violent supression of the pro-democracy folks in the 30+ years before it fell.

It's a rarity, but it can happen. Just not often.

...who do these people think they are? Rig the 2004 election like they did in 2000, appoint a fraud for president, wipe their feet on the constitution, steal trillions of dollars from the American people, allow corporations and their executives to rape this country economically, send millions of jobs overseas, take away social security, provide tax payer dollars to religious groups, not feeding children in this country who need food, openly advocating the elimination of an opposition party. Those are a few acts that would justify open revolution in my opinion if the normal channels to put a stop to them are not allowed.

what are the grounds you would say were valid justification for open revolution? Quite clearly, We The People have that option available to us.

Where's the line?

Somewhere along the line, our nation was taken away from the people. It should be obvious.

they want their country back?

What specific action taken by our government is ground for armed revolt; i.e., revolution?

What atrocity causes The People to say, enough is enough?

My apologies, but your insistance on framing as such, shows a genuine lack of imagination.

There is definitely the possibility that we could initiate a revolution which would remove the current powers from office without shedding a single drop of blood. That would involve legal processes, which would require those on 'our side' who are currently in office to take a stand.

That may be what's beginning to happen now; it's possible, although unlikely, that * may not make it to November. Some of it hinges on Condi's testimony to the 9/11 committe; some hinges on whether that committee agrees to demands that her testimony precludes the White House or anyone else from testifying. Time will tell. You're absolutely right, though; there isn't a need for armed revolt. Ultimately, I must say that's not what I'm talking about, necessarily.

Refusing to give up office such as insisting on a third term "because of the war on terror" Using martial law to suppress decent, closing down the polls to prevent voting, there are many but I think it is important that we respond with boycotts and work shutdowns like they do in Europe instead of armed insurrection. If we pull a non violent work stoppage etc. europe would support us and also boycott the government by stopping trade etc. They know more about this than we do. they have had to do it more often.

From the Declaration of Independence:
"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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

Notice the reference to "a long train of abuses and usupations" in a long established government like ours. That sets the bar pretty high.

An attempt to fundamentally change our form of government permanently by extra-legal or dubiously legal means would remove that hurdle--since the usurpers would be making a new government--not one long established.

So, that's my answer. Any attempt to radically change our form of government for the long haul without a legitimate amending process would be grounds for rebellion. Stealing an election or two would not.

is a pretty goddamned revolutionary document. It still holds true today. You ALL should find a copy and read it, NOW. Then go through the list of greivances, and see how many still apply. Most of them do.

"If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately."

Time was I would have thought the Supreme Court selecting a chimpanzee as President would be justification enough, but it seems I was mistaken.

The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
---Frank Zappa

When a critical mass of people perceive the blood-stained brick wall at the back of Zappa's theater, then revolution is possible. The precise line crossed varies that has an individual suddenly see the brick wall. For some (myself), it was the 5-4 decision of December 12, 2000 that did it -- everything since just focuses a sharper light on the wall. I imagine for others it was when GWB LIHOPed his way into Iraq, or the Niger Yellow Cake imbroglio, or the Wilson/Plame scandal, or the SOTU-declared yet never found 53,000 liters of bioagent precursors, 500 tons of chemical precursors, and 29,984 prohibited munitions.

However we get there, are numbers are growing.

The problem is, still so few go to the theater these days; instead, they stay at home and watch TV, and we all know -- given ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/CNBC/MSNBC/FOX -- the Revolution will not be televised! So who knows when that critical mass of radicalized individuals will coalesce into any kind of Revolution -- with soapbox, ballot box, or cartridge box. One or two Kent States might do it...

"Get off the internet; I'll see you in the streets!"

1) The Constitution - The convention was formed, and the constitution enacted by basically going around the prior Government based on the Articles of Confederation. Fixed lots of things, changed us from a Confederation to a Republic. Movement started at a trade/commerce convention in Annapolis which didn't work out. Constitution was signed by 39 of the 70 delegates appointed to the Convention, with like 53 or 55 actually showing up. Main concerns were getting a Government that would pay off some bad bond investments, fix some bad land investments and generally be really good for people interested in trade/commerce. We the People = We the Lords of Commerce in these Colonies ;)

2) The Civil War - basically the Rebels lost, so ...

3) The Reconstruction - Lincoln essentially lets the slave states back into the Union but gets assassinated. The Republicans had nominated a Democrat(!) - a southerner(!) from N.C. and Tennessee - Andrew Johnson as Vice President. He begins reconstruction. Congress, including the Southern states, passes the 13th amendment in 1865 abolishing slavery. But the Southern states are making "Black Code" laws and basically making life hell for the freed slaves.

The "Radical Republicans" control congress and basically impose martial law on the South and kick the southerners out of congress. Johnson fights them all the way seeing as how depriving states of representation is unconstitutional among other tactics. But they get enough majority to override his veto's. They brought 11 different impeachment counts against him and one of those failed by a single vote.

They let the Southern states back in basically contingent on they're ratifying the 14th amendment. Some claim it's never been fully ratified. This requires due process, lets the feds override states on issues concerning citizens rights, and forgives Union debts while upholding Confederate debts. It's revolution because they break the constitution in order to pass the amendment and the amendment basically moves a bunch of power from the individual states to the Federal government.

4) Revolution or Coup? The Aldrich group expedition to Jekyll Island, 1910

America had fought hard to avoid a central bank, and had pinned banking scares in 1873, 1893 and 1907 on International Bankers in London. So Congress formed the National Monetary Commission to come up with a plan to prevent banking scares in the future and keep the International Bankers and wall-street types away from control of the nations money and credit. The commission evidently took a 2-year holiday in Europe and then a Cartel of nameless banking barons snuck off to Jeykl Island and devised the whole plan in super-secret, in 9 days. They didn't use names so that even the participants would not know who exactly had participated. They came up with the "Aldrich Plan". They eventually got it pushed through as the "Federal Reserve Bank" and sold the country to 8 International bankers AND gave them the right to create money and make it a U.S. Government obligation.

A good read and lecture on it here - http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm


What other revolutions have I missed ?

With the Internet we have a lot more access to foreign and alternative news sources. People can also easily distribute books on-line without needing to get them approved by publishing houses.

Now with the 2000 election scam we have opportunity to reform the election process, but the outrage faded too fast (!) maybe someone will get caught messing with the new computerized voting and we can go after the election process instead of just the vote tallying.

Perhaps someday we'll have a congress that actually represents the people. The next time we have a Perot or similar X party movement that takes 10% of the vote, they will actually get 10% of the congress instead of loosing 100 races by repub 45%, Dem 45%, X 10%
I like the instant-runoff voting on Nader's platform.

I don't want 50 parties and coalitions that break up constantly like Israel or Italy. But say 5-8 parties would be nice. Give candidates and voters some real choices.

Would need to fix the Senate up. Instead of 2 Senators per state, how about 300 (one per million citizens) nationally elected senators with an election method like "pick your top 5 choices for Senator" The house would continue to be regionally elected, but without the funky jigsaw-puzzle districting we get now.