Ours is a government of checks and balances. The framers so designed it to be awkward, contentious and cumbersome. They did so to make it difficult for any one man or group to seize so much control that another bloody revolution would be needed to free the people from tyranny or domination. Whenever someone supposes that winning elections gives them the right to entirely determine the direction the country moves misunderstands the nature of our nation and the representation due even to losing voters, and to the complacent non-voters. We do not elect a King or a dictator… we do not elect rulers at all, we elect servants and representatives. When they fail to represent us, when they fail to serve us, there may come a time when we need to do the job ourselves.<\/p>\n
There was a time when people marched for civil rights. There was a time when people marched against an unjust war. They were not restrained by what some might call “the law of the land”, it was that law they sought to change. They did not flinch at defunding the war in Viet Nam, any tactic was acceptable to end that conflict. People get older, and suddenly the anti-establishment youth have become pro-government elitists. They are outraged at the idea that others might choose to march or throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of the massive government with which they are now so enamored. …Man, what happened to you?<\/p>\n
The new rebels are as hated by the establishment as the old ones were. They are cast as racists, anarchists, and terrorists; though they have proven to be none of those things. Unlike their predecessors, there has been no victimization of the innocent, no rioting, no terrorist wing or bombing, just ordinary citizens who have had enough. They may or may not represent a majority of the citizenry. If they are a minority they are a large one, despite the disinformation campaign against them. And like any other group they have the right to be represented and to speak truth to power. That establishment types don’t like them, that not playing the game sometimes means losing the game, is not likely to deter them from what they came to do.<\/p>\n
IMHO: Time and again vocal minorities have proven that winning elections is not the only way to bring change. We can try to work within the establishment, replace people who do not represent us, get rid of people who lie, fold, or play games with our future as a nation. Beyond that though, the rule of law requires our cooperation. When a law is unjust, or even just unpopular, a majority, or even a significant minority can nullify it. That’s why the intrusion of law should be reserved for where there is a general consensus of the represented. You can disparage us, threaten us, minimize us, criminalize us; but you cannot take our free will, you cannot make us comply. When law becomes stupid, people will organize to exercise the ultimate veto… we refuse.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ours is a government of checks and balances. The framers so designed it to be awkward, contentious and cumbersome. They did so to make it difficult for any one man or group to seize so much control that another bloody revolution…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":149,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\r\n