Comment: Ok, I'll bite!

(See in situ)

Ok, I'll bite!

The following is just my opinion from a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

Claim: Any American citizen who actively supports changing these united States of America from a Republic to a Democracy, without amending the Constitution, is guilty of treason.

Grounds in support of claim: Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution guarantees to every state in the union a Republican form of government.

Warrants: What warrants the grounds to my claim is evidence that a rebellion has already taken place, and the people went along with it in the 1930's, without defending the Constitution from this rebellion. Article 3 Section 3 states that "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." If people are attempting to transform our country from a Republic into a Democracy without amending the Constitution, then they are levying war against it. Maybe It's not a shooting war, but certainly at minimum it is a form of social warfare, just like purposefully allowing people from more socialist countries to flood across our borders in hopes of gaining citizenship through amnesty, resulting in a Democratic party that can more easily dominate all elections and win and hold all 3 branches of government without challenge at best, La Reconquista at worst. Levying war against the Constitution, attempting to subvert it, even if it's social warfare and non violent, is still committing treason. Those who support this effort by joining political parties in furtherance of this goal, and/or donate money towards organizations who further this goal, are lending aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution, and are also guilty of treason. This is why I believe that we can better maintain the moral high ground in our revolution by remaining "Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America" just like it says at the top of the Daily Paul! (Thank you Michael for keeping that mission statement intact after all these years! It's what reminds me that Constitutionalists are welcome here too. I hope Libertarians know we are pro-liberty too, well, I am at least!)

Backing in support of warrants: Please see the Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, pg. 6, which states "These original studies of "the public interest" disclosed that during the four years, 1933 - 1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a "revolution". They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this "revolution" had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate."

Also see a DP thread on this topic:


Ok, there you have it. I did the best I could. I'm sure someone smarter than I can help pick it apart and point out any fallacies or red herrings or anything like that. I also want to point out that the Dodd Report calls this a "revolution". I believe the word "rebellion" more accurately describes this, but that is only my opinion, and yeah, I am probably resorting to semantics, lol!

For the record, I got a D in Elementary Reasoning, mainly because back when I took it in the '90's it was my 1st class in the morning, so my attendance wasn't good, however, I really did like the class, and I sincerely tried to learn as much as I could on structuring arguments. I did good in my assignments, but poor attendance killed my grade. I'm not sure that I'm doing it right though and I request constructive criticism from my DP peers more knowledgeable than I. My hope is to learn from you how to do a better job of making a water-tight argument.

Thanks for reading my long reply. I hope that I gave a good shot at answering your question HVACtech.


P.S. No, I don't think anyone should be offended. Every individual is responsible for their own emotional well being and if either of our posts offends someone then that's on them and they should seek help from a professional for their emotional problems. No, I do not believe you deserve 30 days in the hole.

However, our Republic is dying. I want to stop this from happening. If each of us as individuals choose to join together to "Rise Up to Define Freedom", yes, we may die, but what life, I ask you, is worth living if it's lived without liberty and only in tyranny?