Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

If people are so twisted and bent about Trump being President, will any group have the moxie to try and implicate the rights granted by the Constitution? (Details inside)

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26840points) November 11th, 2016

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to (sic)effect their Safety and Happiness…]

We won’t venture into which Creator as that would spawn a bunch of foolishness, but the emphasized part about replacing a divisive, destructive government with a new one, if people believe that is now here because Trump is President, or come to believe so in the near future, will any group have the moxie to try and replace the government? According to the Constitution they can band together with their illegal back alley gats, their dear rifles, gator guns, etc. and storm the White House and toss Trump out, but do they have the guts, or they will just whine away?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

MrGrimm888's avatar

I don’t think Trump deserves to be hauled out and killed on the streets like a former Libyan leader was. But let’s revisit this after he’s been in office for a bit.

Besides , most people I think are mad and disappointed in their fellow Americans for voting for Trump ,more than they’re mad at Trump.

Without people voting for him, he’s just another ranting lunatic on a soap box.

cazzie's avatar

why is it always a soap box? It gives soap boxes a bad name. Why not an apple carton or something?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Agreed. Sorry soap boxes….

‘Orange ’ boxes?

Seek's avatar

I fully support the current push toward neutering the Electoral College. I believe that counts.

janbb's avatar

I don’t think you’re using the word “implicate” correctly, as a matter of fact, I’m sure of it.

And, as Obama pointed out, one of the strengths of our democracy – if there is any – is that leadership can change dramatically and the institutions still hold.

And there are a wide range of actions that can be taken between being a whiner and armed rebellion.

thorninmud's avatar

Also, that’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

LostInParadise's avatar

The Constitution was the solution to the problem posed by the Declaration of Independence. Trump was dutifully elected in accord with the Constitution, and people are accepting this, though many are exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech right to protest. Given that Trump has the highest disapproval ratings of anyone elected president, the protests are not that surprising. In accordance with the Constitution, Trump will face re-election in four years and is mercifully limited to at most two terms.

The only one who spoke of open insurrection was Trump, who said that he might not accept the election of anybody but himself. He also encouraged people to interfere with the election by sending in polling monitors to Democratic strongholds to intimidate voters. Fortunately, there was very little of such activity.

josie's avatar

He is not even president yet.

zenvelo's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You quote from the Declaration of Independence: ”...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

That in a nutshell describes the process of amending the Constitution. We the People may change our government if it does not serve us as a nation.

The sticking point is the protection of the minority built into the system. A proposed amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then must be ratified by ¾’s (38) States.

cinnamonk's avatar

As written, your question is nonsensical.

rojo's avatar

Let us see. I fear for our environment and the planet in general but my greatest fear is the next terrorist attack. I am not as confident as @josie in our future. The next attack, which will occur, will see your rights degraded even more than they have been usurped to date.

I would not be surprise to see the implementation of martial law should another attack occur on US soil.

Fundamentalism and Democracy cannot both survive.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The trouble with that supposition is that it is exactly the folks MOST prone to armed insurrection who put Trump in the cockpit.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Implementation of martial law would basically be a declaration of civil war. Nobody will cooperate , and things would go sideways fast. Americans are well armed. They don’t have anti tank , or antiaircraft weaponry. But some possess equal small arms, and munitions.

To enforce any such law would not be plausible in this country.

Martial Law would also have to be enforced by our own people. I doubt they would fire on fellow citizens. (Hopefully anyways. )

Would you kill your cousin because he/she was in a crowd you were ordered to open fire on?...

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Like so many things in life.

Education isn’t what it used to be.

kritiper's avatar

We have done exactly that which is written. The Civil War brought about major change(s). If anything happens to Trump, the law and himself will accomplish it.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther