2007-02-12 13:26:10 · 14 answers · asked by wicked6string 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
If it has, then the Constitution provided for it. Our fore-fathers described armed rebellion as a civic duty. Personally I do not think we are there yet.
2007-02-12 13:33:07 · answer #1 · answered by Don 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it hasn't, it's getting close. The only Constitutional check on the size of the federal government is the power of the states (note: not the same as checks on the relative power between the branches) and that was taken away by the 14th Amendment. There were three administrations that were the primary catalysts for this usually slow change: the Lincoln, Wilson, and F. Roosevelt. Short of some huge disaster in the US like (respectively to the admins) the Civil War, end of a global economy (1914), or the great depression, I doubt this trend will be stopped. It's in essence a change from the liberal republic envisioned by the framers of the Constitution to socialism.
2007-02-12 22:10:37 · answer #2 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The pattern is as old as human life. The new rulers use more and more force, more police, more soldiers, trying to enforce more efficient control, trying to make the planned economy work by piling regulations on regulations, decree on decree.
The people are hungry and hungrier. And how does a man on this earth get butter? Doesn't the government give butter? But government does not produce food from the earth; Government is guns.
It is one common distinction of all civilized peoples, that they give their guns to the Government. Men in Government monopolize the necessary use of force; they are not using their energies productively; they are not milking cows. To get butter, they must use guns; they have nothing else to use.
2007-02-12 21:31:03 · answer #3 · answered by big-brother 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but it's nothing new.
The Confederate rebellion was an attempt to stop the growth of an overwhelming federal government. When the CS was crushed in 1865, the government now had absolute power over its citizens.
2007-02-12 21:31:43 · answer #4 · answered by usarocketman 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hell yeah it has, the current government is not for the ppl. If you want to bring it closer to home than the white house, look at your Representative, take a look at House Bills going on in your state and see what the response of the representative in your area is. most of the time the ppl are ignored and their agenda comes into play, its all about money and how to benifit the political party and never the ppl. Few times you get a rep. that actualy serves the ppl but they never seem to last.
A revolution is needed.
2007-02-12 22:14:33 · answer #5 · answered by Wreckless 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has been for years. It's not always the President's fault either. There have been some good ones in the past but they couldn't fight the House and Senate both. There is where the problem lies. Corruption and greed has been the norm for decades. If a President came along and fought it too hard, he ended up dead...
2007-02-12 21:31:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Look at the evolution of the political parties. The Republicans and Democrats leading our nation today are solely to blame. They place advancing their own party's interests over the interests of the American people.
2007-02-12 21:28:54 · answer #7 · answered by hobbitgonewild 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
yes, completely. I wonder how long our government will continue to call itself a Democratic Republic before someone calls it out for what it really has become.
2007-02-12 21:32:08 · answer #8 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a system for whoever can donate the most $$$ to the campaign.
2007-02-12 21:28:42 · answer #9 · answered by private 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2007-02-12 21:29:26 · answer #10 · answered by Hawkeye 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋