For what it’s worth my policy is Victory! I’m long and strong (or possibly long and wrong, if an even fouler crap sandwich gets enacted) mining and building materials from this morning. Best is complete failure of the Bill To……

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

It’s been occasionally mistaken as a quote from Jefferson pertaining to the French Revolution (hence the misquote, a little revolution now and then), but it was actually from “a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, expressing justification for the series of protests led by Daniel Shay and a group of 1,200 farmers.” [i.e. Shay's Rebellion]

Not sure if I’d want to advocate an armed rebellion like Shay’s, but I think the principle applies, that when the government becomes oppressive, the governed have the right to seek redress.

On September 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, Flyoverman said

I am sorry, but I disagree with your assessment…

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I believe that we are losing our freedoms and with it our security. I believe that we have a right to ensure that the government does not become so large that it impedes upon our abilities to be protected in ownership and possessions. I believe with the changes in eminent domain and now this unconstitutional piece of legislature we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Constitition backed Republic Democracy. An inch at a time and they won’t notice we are taking away these fundamental rights. An inch at a time and we will own their mortgages and their land we (the government) will be the master and they (the people) our slaves. It is closer than you think; and, I daresay, it is time to stop.

You would think that regular elections would have prevented this day, but they didn’t. Those elections were supposed to be the method by which we can prevent the government from becoming the master. Well, it didn’t and now we are screwed unless we do something to stop it as the federal government has gotten to large and to powerful and is over stepping its bounds beyond what is permitted by the constitution. That is not stopping them, now is it? So what will stop them? I suggest, there will be a revolt maybe not for 20 years, but alas one is coming. The longer it takes the bloodier it will be, but it is coming.

Flyoverman, taking up arms to defend the Constitution is what I think was meant.

Yes.

We have few, if any, defenders in the government,now.
Jefferson advocated the need for a Revolution every 20 years or so and we may be past due.

I think it was Franklin, and I believe he said 200 years. But yes we are probably overdue, the rats have taken over the ship for a while now.

Bush, as it turned out, was demonstrably the lesser of two evils…

More like the evil of two lessers.

On September 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, Flyoverman said:

One other thought: while I do not think the time is now, I am sad that the time is probably coming soon.

The American Revolution did not happen overnight, and I am sure Franklin, Madison, Washington, Jefferson, et. al. were terribly distraught at the prospect of taking up arms against England.

But freedom is more important than the workings of this government.

Was it this oath? Note carefully what it says and doesn’t say.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

…Founding Father’s…

Eep! That should be Founding Fathers.

This is a patriot….

On September 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, vickisoup said:

As one of only two people (out of 100+) who stood lonely in opposition to my own City’s efforts to socialize our community, I am pleased to say that we were able to convince the others that we must say, “No” to government handouts because the cost is far too high in the end.
We told them that we were being lied to, the City was preying on their fears, and we were correct.
Instead, the community members rebuffed the City’s help, we rallied together, raised the money we needed and we left the process free and clear, owing nobody anything. I was bloody and broken, but it was worth it.

Hear, hear!

Right or wrong the people who put them the weasels in D.C. are the majority.

If this were a democracy, you’d be correct.

But the USA is not a democracy; it is a Constitutional republic. There is a huge difference, one that the Founding Father’s recognized.

That’s why, whenever a minority group seeks some sort of “protection” under law, they appeal to the Constitution.

What is going on now in the halls of Congress may well be un-Constitutional, as Todd F. Gaziano and Andrew M. Grossman write at The Heritage Foundation:

As many have come to realize this week, there are some fundamental constitutional values at stake in the present debate. The Paulson proposal, and the several congressional proposals based upon it, raise substantial constitutional questions regarding: (1) Congress’s enumerated power—or lack thereof—to intervene with private markets in the manner contemplated, (2) the lack of meaningful standards to guide the extremely broad grant of discretion to the Treasury secretary (the “legislative delegation” problem), (3) limitations on judicial review over the exercise of that almost limitless discretion, and (4) related separation of powers concerns.

From a constitutional standpoint, the current versions of the legislation are different in scope, and especially in kind, from almost any federal legislation that has come before. In short, many analogies to past emergency economic powers, such as those exercised in response to the thrift failures of the 1980s, are not on point with regard to these central constitutional concerns. Rather than rely on these precedents, Congress must take the time to work through these constitutional concerns.

And these concerns are serious, regardless of how the courts might resolve them. Some would treat the Constitution as a legalistic document and employ narrow legalistic arguments to circumvent its strictures and protections. The substance of this debate, however, should not turn on what provisions might or might not pass muster with the courts under a pinched conception of our fundamental law. Rather, it is the principles the Constitution embodies, which have served us well through so many crises, that should be the focus of debate. In short, Americans should take little comfort that legislation might barely pass muster in the courts if the legislation does serious damage to the underlying constitutional principles that were designed to protect our individual rights against governmental usurpations.

*emphasis mine.

We will be forced to take up arms, and by opposing end them all.

I am conservative somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun. However, having taken an oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, “taking up arms” is a no go.

Tell me where this bailout (and all of the other collectivist atrocities past, present, and future) are allowed in the Constitution.

Show me where Statist enslavement to causes contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in spirit with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

If you can point it out to me, I’m with you. Otherwise, you may want to consider the possibility that your oath forces you into my line of thinking.