Add your 'John Hancock' to the Second Declaration Of Independence

[crackyflipside]

This is probably the best way I've seen so far to get put in a federal prison for doing nothing.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in a Spirit of Liberty and Responsibility, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Moral Standard of nature and/or the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of this land, solemnly publish and declare, that these People are, and of right ought to be free and independent People; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the United States federal government, and that all political connection between them and the United States federal government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent People, guaranteed by our Forefathers the right to abolish any form of government that is destructive of their liberties, they have full power to defend their person, their family, and their property, to live at peace with one another, to contract with voluntary firms for their defense, legal recourse, and other services necessary to the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent and free People may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor once again.


What's wrong with this?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

20th signature. Step up folks.

"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

 

[Razmear]

20th signature. Step up folks.

"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

I guess you were #13. I think the site is counting folks who don't confirm the email addy on the front page, but all the verified sigs are seen here:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/AbolishtheUSGovt/signatures/

eb

 

[AbolishTheGovt]

Hosted at ronpauliswrong.angelfire.com ?

I snagged the "ronpauliswrong" URL back during the primaries to prevent an actual opponent of Ron Paul from getting it, and I used the site as an informational page on why "Ron Paul is right." Since I had already paid all the fees to run the site under the "ronpauliswrong" URL, I decided to get another cheap URL ("11-05.com") and mask it to save money. Sorry, but I'm tight on cash.

 

[rational thinker]

bump

 

[Vote Waterman 2028]

I think the constitution we have now is just fine. We need to focus more on educating the rest of the people of the united states about our cause, and not sitting on a website signing a meaningless document that has no chance in hell of getting any recognition other than from the NSA and the Homeland Security Dept. People on here are say that americans are lazy and they just are sheep and dont pay attention. Most of us on here might pay attention but i dont see anyone trying to become a shepard to lead the flock elsewhere other than down a dead ending path. Everyone here seems to be dependent on ron paul and his people to get the job done while we support him. How does this make us any better than the rest of the sheep, and how will you explain to them that he is the shepard that we should be following. I'm starting to get sick of this forum. You all are great people, with good intentions (most of you), its sad to see that you all spend more time talking about the issues, and money bombs, rather than reading books and trying to get involved in politics yourself. I think that is what ron paul would want.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess you were #13. I think the site is counting folks who don't confirm the email addy on the front page, but all the verified sigs are seen here:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/AbolishtheUSGovt/signatures/

eb

Well I'm #12 on that list.

 

[cien750hp]

theres no strong introduction like thomas jeffersons declaration has, introdudicing that they are formally declaring independence and stating the natural born rights people have and how if the government violates these rights it is their duty to alter or abolish it.

 

[AbolishTheGovt]

theres no strong introduction like thomas jeffersons declaration has, introdudicing that they are formally declaring independence and stating the natural born rights people have and how if the government violates these rights it is their duty to alter or abolish it.

Point taken. We'll see if we can reword it a bit. Thank you.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[AbolishTheGovt]

The document is all fine and dandy... but we need a commitment to take up arms and overthrow the government on 11/5/2009.

Until there is that type of commitment... the document is hollow.

We want to follow, as meticulously as possible, our belief in the principle that it is wrong to initiate aggression against any person or property. If the government decides to physically attack us, we have every right to act in self defense, but we want to avoid that type of conflict at all cost.

 

[Carole]

Title - Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention


http://www.lessonplanspage.com/SSInfoDiscAct-DoWeNeedANewConstConvention912.htm



"The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments."

"Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.

Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.

Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Unconstitutionally erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

What?

The document is all fine and dandy... but we need a commitment to take up arms and overthrow the government on 11/5/2009.

Until there is that type of commitment... the document is hollow.

If this document were to be that explicit, anyone even remotely associated has a one-way ticket to secret prison. As it stands now, just calling for the abolition of the federal government is asking to be put on a watch list.

 

[AbolishTheGovt]

What?

It's a repetition from the original Declaration.

 

[tmosley]

Hmm, by signing this document, you essentially renounce your citizenship and declare war upon the United States of America.

Of course, electronic "signatures" almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court.

If you want to do this for real, call for a convention. If possible, involve state officials. If a convention is called for, I will be there, even if there are troops at the door. I'm tired of the violations of rights that persist in this country without redress.

 

[Dequeant]

Do not sign this document.

I'm am probably the most militant individual here, and I won't be signing this. It's stupid. This means nothing and amounts to nothing more than any easy list to find people to put on a watch list.

When the shit hits the fan your only solace will be in anonymity, which you won't have. Even if you agree in principal, which I'm sure most do, DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Title - Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention


http://www.lessonplanspage.com/SSInfoDiscAct-DoWeNeedANewConstConvention912.htm

Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."

That guy led a tax revolt? And said something like that?