CDZ Do you think that a revolution or uprising in America is inevitable in the future? Or incredibly unl

[buddhallah_the_christ]

I think the curious thing is that an uprising could come from either side - that is, it could come from disenfranchised leftists or disenfranchised rightists.
Especially in some communities I frequent there is a LOT of talk about revolution and armed revolt (especially with the possible re-election of Obama). Then again - there always is this kind of talk.

 

[|electric|foxy|]

Especially in some communities I frequent there is a LOT of talk about revolution and armed revolt (especially with the possible re-election of Obama).

Give links please if you have, it would be interesting to read. I wonder if some people really believe he will possibly be re-elected.
Revolution needs leaders and strong ideas that our society hasn't.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not likely at all. There is always a possibility of a very few idiots who think they are about to begin a revolution to do something really stupid. But that will be just another news day.

Funny thing about that. People who think they can change the world are usually a bit crazy. Except that it is the people who THINK they can change the world are the people who ACTUALLY do change the world.

Thinking you can start a revolution in a stable society (and this is a stable society) is a tad more than a bit crazy. The phrase "bat shit" comes to mind.

Its not a revolution. It is the free exercise of our liberty.

Free expression of ideas is exercising liberty. Armed revolt is treason. Of course, it's only treason if you lose.

??

Where exactly is it written that a revolution requires violence?

The OP refers to overthrowing the government. This nation has been involved in two such events, and both involved extensive violence. So, in answer to your question, it is written in history. Unless, of course, you see elections as a form of revolution.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think the curious thing is that an uprising could come from either side - that is, it could come from disenfranchised leftists or disenfranchised rightists.
Especially in some communities I frequent there is a LOT of talk about revolution and armed revolt (especially with the possible re-election of Obama). Then again - there always is this kind of talk.

There is no possibility Obama will be re-elected. His name will not be on any ballot. Even if the vast majority of the citizens wanted to re-elect him, it is not going to happen. While there may be a lot of talk of revolution and armed revolt, talk is all it is.

 

[PratchettFan]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

The push back is already underway.

Convention of States

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

 

[dcraelin]

The push back is already underway.

Convention of States

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

 

[Darkwind]

Funny thing about that. People who think they can change the world are usually a bit crazy. Except that it is the people who THINK they can change the world are the people who ACTUALLY do change the world.

Thinking you can start a revolution in a stable society (and this is a stable society) is a tad more than a bit crazy. The phrase "bat shit" comes to mind.

Its not a revolution. It is the free exercise of our liberty.

Free expression of ideas is exercising liberty. Armed revolt is treason. Of course, it's only treason if you lose.

??

Where exactly is it written that a revolution requires violence?

The OP refers to overthrowing the government. This nation has been involved in two such events, and both involved extensive violence. So, in answer to your question, it is written in history. Unless, of course, you see elections as a form of revolution.

The OP speaks of overthrowing the government, but I'm talking about reinstating it to its original intent.

Not a single shot needs be fired. When the States call for an Article V convention, the Congress has no recourse but to seat it.

How the various states elect delegates can be found in the various state constitutions.

 

[PratchettFan]

I like the idea of a constitutional convention but it has to be inclusive of all of society and all political points of view. I think the link provided has a decidedly right-wing bent.

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

 

[Darkwind]

It has a decidedly American bent. There is a reason the Founding Fathers provided Article V of the Constitution. We have come to the point where government is out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Clearly, our elected representatives have neither the vision or desire to do what is right by the country and our liberty. Their sole focus in on the acquisition of power, or retaining their existing power.

This is why US representation and the White House are not as important as control of the State Legislatures. With the majority of the States, the US Congress is powerless to stop the States from regaining their place in our government and they can return the Federal Government back to what it was intended to be. Our united front to the world, but leaving domestic policy to the States.

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

Most likely. I know that New Mexico has a state law that says their delegates MUST be state legislators.

I'm good with the state legislators of each calling state becoming delegates to an article 5 convention.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

Up until the US defaults on the National Debt, a nuclear detonation occurs on US soil, a big rock hits the planet, aliens arrive, or a supervolcano cooks off somewhere, no sort of uprising is going to happen. It'll take some kind of massive calamity to spur people into action.

 

[PratchettFan]

Thinking you can start a revolution in a stable society (and this is a stable society) is a tad more than a bit crazy. The phrase "bat shit" comes to mind.

Its not a revolution. It is the free exercise of our liberty.

Free expression of ideas is exercising liberty. Armed revolt is treason. Of course, it's only treason if you lose.

??

Where exactly is it written that a revolution requires violence?

The OP refers to overthrowing the government. This nation has been involved in two such events, and both involved extensive violence. So, in answer to your question, it is written in history. Unless, of course, you see elections as a form of revolution.

The OP speaks of overthrowing the government, but I'm talking about reinstating it to its original intent.

Not a single shot needs be fired. When the States call for an Article V convention, the Congress has no recourse but to seat it.

How the various states elect delegates can be found in the various state constitutions.

I think you are making an assumption as to the various state constitutions. I can tell you there is nothing in the Virginia constitution which covers the election of such delegates.

Yes, if 2/3's of the states call for a convention, Congress must seat it. It then takes 3/4's of the states to ratify any amendments.

As to the original intent, I think that intent was to form a government which worked. The amendment process itself was designed to accommodate changes in our society. We are no longer a small agrarian society operating on animal power and the idea a government set up for that environment would work for us is absurd. I also think there is an invalid assumption about the concept of freedom the Founders had. I would point out the first president to send armed troops against American citizens over a tax dispute was George Washington. The intent was to form a strong, stable government which would endure. It is alive and well, and does not require reinstating.

 

[Moonglow]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

When whites run out of bologna sandwiches with mayo, then the fight is on...

 

[Darkwind]

Its not a revolution. It is the free exercise of our liberty.

Free expression of ideas is exercising liberty. Armed revolt is treason. Of course, it's only treason if you lose.

??

Where exactly is it written that a revolution requires violence?

The OP refers to overthrowing the government. This nation has been involved in two such events, and both involved extensive violence. So, in answer to your question, it is written in history. Unless, of course, you see elections as a form of revolution.

The OP speaks of overthrowing the government, but I'm talking about reinstating it to its original intent.

Not a single shot needs be fired. When the States call for an Article V convention, the Congress has no recourse but to seat it.

How the various states elect delegates can be found in the various state constitutions.

I think you are making an assumption as to the various state constitutions. I can tell you there is nothing in the Virginia constitution which covers the election of such delegates.

Yes, if 2/3's of the states call for a convention, Congress must seat it. It then takes 3/4's of the states to ratify any amendments.

As to the original intent, I think that intent was to form a government which worked. The amendment process itself was designed to accommodate changes in our society. We are no longer a small agrarian society operating on animal power and the idea a government set up for that environment would work for us is absurd. I also think there is an invalid assumption about the concept of freedom the Founders had. I would point out the first president to send armed troops against American citizens over a tax dispute was George Washington. The intent was to form a strong, stable government which would endure. It is alive and well, and does not require reinstating.

True, but the whiskey rebellion fiasco was more Hamilton than Washington. That is really a different discussion, however.

The fact remains that congress has set up a system in which they cannot be required to do the will of the people, nor follow the letter of the Constitution. Because the money is too good, and the people we elect severely flawed, it falls to the States to amend the Constitution to regain some form of balance.

I realize that a large portion of the population has been coddled and brainwashed into thinking that the government is working, and working for them. But it is not. The Congress and the President need to be reigned back in.

The only authority that remains to the States that has not be usurped by the Federal government is Article V.

I support its invocation for the purpose of proposing a few amendments to the Constitution.

 

[PratchettFan]

You do realize that Article V is being pushed by ALEC. It is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

Most likely. I know that New Mexico has a state law that says their delegates MUST be state legislators.

I'm good with the state legislators of each calling state becoming delegates to an article 5 convention.

I am as well, but it does nothing for those who think this will relieve runaway government.

Let's take the big proposal - a balanced budget amendment. If that were to pass, there would need to be a huge tax increase to pay for it. Do you really think professional politicians are going to do that?

 

[PratchettFan]

Free expression of ideas is exercising liberty. Armed revolt is treason. Of course, it's only treason if you lose.

??

Where exactly is it written that a revolution requires violence?

The OP refers to overthrowing the government. This nation has been involved in two such events, and both involved extensive violence. So, in answer to your question, it is written in history. Unless, of course, you see elections as a form of revolution.

The OP speaks of overthrowing the government, but I'm talking about reinstating it to its original intent.

Not a single shot needs be fired. When the States call for an Article V convention, the Congress has no recourse but to seat it.

How the various states elect delegates can be found in the various state constitutions.

I think you are making an assumption as to the various state constitutions. I can tell you there is nothing in the Virginia constitution which covers the election of such delegates.

Yes, if 2/3's of the states call for a convention, Congress must seat it. It then takes 3/4's of the states to ratify any amendments.

As to the original intent, I think that intent was to form a government which worked. The amendment process itself was designed to accommodate changes in our society. We are no longer a small agrarian society operating on animal power and the idea a government set up for that environment would work for us is absurd. I also think there is an invalid assumption about the concept of freedom the Founders had. I would point out the first president to send armed troops against American citizens over a tax dispute was George Washington. The intent was to form a strong, stable government which would endure. It is alive and well, and does not require reinstating.

True, but the whiskey rebellion fiasco was more Hamilton than Washington. That is really a different discussion, however.

The fact remains that congress has set up a system in which they cannot be required to do the will of the people, nor follow the letter of the Constitution. Because the money is too good, and the people we elect severely flawed, it falls to the States to amend the Constitution to regain some form of balance.

I realize that a large portion of the population has been coddled and brainwashed into thinking that the government is working, and working for them. But it is not. The Congress and the President need to be reigned back in.

The only authority that remains to the States that has not be usurped by the Federal government is Article V.

I support its invocation for the purpose of proposing a few amendments to the Constitution.

What amendments?

 

[Darkwind]

This is what I'm talking about...a fairly initiated article V convention is needed.....but if you show a bias right off the bat...you sow mistrust.

Change must be focused on structural issues.....rather than left or right policy wishes.

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

Most likely. I know that New Mexico has a state law that says their delegates MUST be state legislators.

I'm good with the state legislators of each calling state becoming delegates to an article 5 convention.

I am as well, but it does nothing for those who think this will relieve runaway government.

Let's take the big proposal - a balanced budget amendment. If that were to pass, there would need to be a huge tax increase to pay for it. Do you really think professional politicians are going to do that?

Not necessarily a tax increase. Spending is and should be the focus of a balanced budget amendment. However, a convention should have only a few specific items for discussion. Make the convention to broad and it will fail.

Here is what the Convention of the States says:

Our Solution is Big Enough to Solve the Problem
Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.

The Strategy - Convention of States

This makes sense to Me. The problem with many movements in this country is that they try to bite off more than is necessary. Go slow, start with small steps. Teach the lesson and then watch to see if it strikes home. If not, continue. If it does, then additional measures will need to be taken.

 

[Darkwind]

I personally think that we could curb 80% of the excesses of Congress by requiring a "Single Subject" amendment that would limit congress to passing laws based upon single subjects only.

An example. A bill to secure the borders of the United States. It would be a law about the border and how it is to be secured (however that would work) but it would not be permitted to have addendums, riders, ad-dons, or other 'perks' meant to poison political opposition, or bribe other members into voting for it.

Single subject means just that.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm curious as to who people think will be attending an Article V convention? Do you think the representatives will be randomly selected from the population to get a true voice from the citizenry?

You know that would be a good method, but I think it will be special elections within states.

I think the representatives will be selected by the state governments. There has only been one convention in our history and those delegates were selected by the state legislatures, not by election. So I would offer that the people who would be attending a convention would either be members of or selected by the very governments people say are out of control.

Most likely. I know that New Mexico has a state law that says their delegates MUST be state legislators.

I'm good with the state legislators of each calling state becoming delegates to an article 5 convention.

I am as well, but it does nothing for those who think this will relieve runaway government.

Let's take the big proposal - a balanced budget amendment. If that were to pass, there would need to be a huge tax increase to pay for it. Do you really think professional politicians are going to do that?

Not necessarily a tax increase. Spending is and should be the focus of a balanced budget amendment. However, a convention should have only a few specific items for discussion. Make the convention to broad and it will fail.

Here is what the Convention of the States says:

Our Solution is Big Enough to Solve the Problem
Rather than calling a convention for a specific amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for an individual amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.

The Strategy - Convention of States

This makes sense to Me. The problem with many movements in this country is that they try to bite off more than is necessary. Go slow, start with small steps. Teach the lesson and then watch to see if it strikes home. If not, continue. If it does, then additional measures will need to be taken.

Except that doesn't even begin to address the issues. The bulk of spending is in three areas - social security, medicare and defense. That's a little over 3/4's of federal spending. If we are not willing to do major cuts in those, then significant increases in tax revenue is the only way to balance the budget. Do you think professional politicians would be willing to do either? More importantly, do you think we could get 3/4's for those politicians to agree to it?

 

[Josf]

"The OP refers to overthrowing the government. This nation has been involved in two such events, and both involved extensive violence. So, in answer to your question, it is written in history. Unless, of course, you see elections as a form of revolution."

Revolution happens first in the minds of the people who shed the old lies and then act upon a more accurate viewpoint. The idea where a few very powerful people can protect everyone else was once called Divine Right of Kings and that lie ended when the American Revolution started, and then people formed voluntary defensive associations called States, and then people found representatives to figure out how to form a Federation, and then those representatives acted in a Revolutionary manner when those representatives formed a voluntary Federation of people in States, and then as employees of the Federation those representatives wrote and published Federal Statute #1 which was, is, and can still be the Declaration of Independence. So the idea that the fraudulent Constitution of 1787, which happened much later than the original, organic, federal formation/founding, is valid, and therefore absolute rule by a few people over everyone else is valid, is another lie.

If people buy into those lies, then that is not Revolutionary; that is the same old story where the criminals take over governments and the criminals turn everyone into fellow criminals.

Here is a very good article on why the criminals took over with a fraudulent Constitutional Convention, and this explains the move from a voluntary association into a slave state, or prison state, or involuntary association, or despotism, or tyranny, all of which is based upon immoral, criminal, lies, threats of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence raining down upon anyone failing to obey without question any order no matter how immoral the order will be when the orders are issued from criminals.

George Washington s Take On The Constitution

Here is an explanation of how a true (voluntary) federation is designed to work (before the criminals took over and "consolidated" the voluntary government into an involuntary association = slavery):
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
Here is an example of revolutionary thinking:
Reseat our Republic

The criminals know that they must go for the Central Bank Fraud when they take over governments, and many Revolutionary thinkers know this too, as explained in the next to sources and quotes:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Am...s/dp/1403963037/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt&tag=ff0d01-20

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

Benjamin Tucker - State Socialism and Anarchism

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly."

 

[PratchettFan]

I personally think that we could curb 80% of the excesses of Congress by requiring a "Single Subject" amendment that would limit congress to passing laws based upon single subjects only.

An example. A bill to secure the borders of the United States. It would be a law about the border and how it is to be secured (however that would work) but it would not be permitted to have addendums, riders, ad-dons, or other 'perks' meant to poison political opposition, or bribe other members into voting for it.

Single subject means just that.

The problem is that none of those words apply. They are amendments and do you want to make amendments unconstitutional? If not, then exactly what does "single subject" mean - especially when the phrase it is being read by several hundred lawyers? And, given who the delegates are going to be, how do you get 3/4's of them to agree to restricting their own power?

"The OP refers to overthrowing the government. This nation has been involved in two such events, and both involved extensive violence. So, in answer to your question, it is written in history. Unless, of course, you see elections as a form of revolution."

Revolution happens first in the minds of the people who shed the old lies and then act upon a more accurate viewpoint. The idea where a few very powerful people can protect everyone else was once called Divine Right of Kings and that lie ended when the American Revolution started, and then people formed voluntary defensive associations called States, and then people found representatives to figure out how to form a Federation, and then those representatives acted in a Revolutionary manner when those representatives formed a voluntary Federation of people in States, and then as employees of the Federation those representatives wrote and published Federal Statute #1 which was, is, and can still be the Declaration of Independence. So the idea that the fraudulent Constitution of 1787, which happened much later than the original, organic, federal formation/founding, is valid, and therefore absolute rule by a few people over everyone else is valid, is another lie.

If people buy into those lies, then that is not Revolutionary; that is the same old story where the criminals take over governments and the criminals turn everyone into fellow criminals.

Here is a very good article on why the criminals took over with a fraudulent Constitutional Convention, and this explains the move from a voluntary association into a slave state, or prison state, or involuntary association, or despotism, or tyranny, all of which is based upon immoral, criminal, lies, threats of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence raining down upon anyone failing to obey without question any order no matter how immoral the order will be when the orders are issued from criminals.

George Washington s Take On The Constitution

Here is an explanation of how a true (voluntary) federation is designed to work (before the criminals took over and "consolidated" the voluntary government into an involuntary association = slavery):
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
Here is an example of revolutionary thinking:
Reseat our Republic

The criminals know that they must go for the Central Bank Fraud when they take over governments, and many Revolutionary thinkers know this too, as explained in the next to sources and quotes:

Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

Benjamin Tucker - State Socialism and Anarchism

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly."

All very nice, with absolutely no relevance to the real world. People revolt because the idea of blood in the streets is preferable to the way they live. We are not even vaguely in that situation. So revolution remains in the realm of talk, not action.