|  IP: Logged

It is difficult to understand that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, people thought of themselves as "Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, Virginians, etc." There really was no concept of a united country as we know it today.

Now attempting to control something like guns, most would say that the second ammendment is a throwback from the days of king george. Fair and just citezens of USA are entiteled to take protection into thier own hands if necessary, sometimes in areas where police are powerless to stop crime. In the USA, in cities that have overwhelming numbers carrying concealed guns, the crime rates are low. In cities where those numbers carying are small, the rates are up. The only other answer is to allow a total police state, but the constitution does not allow for that either.

The whole thing is just dumb anyway. What the hell do I care, I live in Utah, where we all are going to heaven because we are all mormon.

Using this as a core theory, it isn't difficult at all to understand the concept of a confederation of autonomous states banded together for common defense. NATO was a modern example of a confederation of independent country/states. The result of the forced political interchange within NATO during the cold war was a precursor to a unified europe, as much as England fighting against the colonies eventually led to a strong Federal government in the U.S.; a government which didn't include loyalist Canada.

When viewed from this perspective, it becomes readily apparent why the lower and middle classes relate so well to revolutionary documents and ideas, and why the upper classes are more likely to claim "we've grown beyond the Constitution."

Revolutionary documents generalize the concepts of "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" and "The people have rights!" into a form that the common people are willing to support to the death, even though the intent of the documents is less to give rights to ALL the people (eg: slaves) and more aimed at lopping off the governmental head and elevating the larger group of disenfranchised patricians into that position.

AFAICT, there never is a distinct right or wrong in politics, but only an uneasy truce between the haves and have-nots, which politicians play for personal gain and power.

Simplisticly, revolt generally comes when the have-nots are feeling particularly stressed, but revolts are usually unsuccessful. Successful revolutions come when a large portion of the "haves" begin to feel disinfranchised or overtaxed by power and wealth converging to an ever smaller and more exclusive group of people.

quote:

---

So...Don't go disobeying any federal laws because you think they infringe on the rights of the states

---

quote:

---

My parting comment that you quoted is not applicable to Great Britain, or for that matter, any of the other European Nations.

---

Sorry, maybe I should have explained that comment a little more. The European Union is a different matter at present, but the political leadership of certain key member countries (the ones which either have an ideological axe to grind and/or are heavily subsidised by other member countries via the European financial system) would very much like to pursue a United States of Europe model whereby EU legislation takes direct precedence over ours, and our parliament has no say over the matter.

John, about all I can add is that when one references "The French Revolution" it can be important to qualify "Which one?"

Leo, You are correct about the "very real danger." Britain will soon come to a choice point where it has to choose between direct and formal alliance with the U.S. or the same with the E.U. I do not envy the people of Britain or their elected leaders.

There is no question in my mind that the current crop of merchant princes want at least a partial world government. To paraphrase the Irish curse, until that time I think "our days will be interesting."

Jerry: French Revolution of 1789.