04-19-2007, 06:05 PM
That would be fine, if these were powers not doled out by the consitution to the federal government. The authority for the state to supress insurrections and the responsibility for maintaining republican government are both explicitly granted to the Congress. If they fail in this, as in anything else, there is no legal remedy except the courts. If the courts interpret the constitution "wrong," then you're up the creek.
If the claim is that these powers devolve to the people themselves should the government fail in these responsibilities, then that's philosophy, not law, as there is no provision for where these powers go if the Congress and the courts collude to oppress.
My assumptions are that the constitutional powers the federal government has are its own to exercise, and that the only legal check is the constitution itself, as interpreted by courts. Nowhere does it say that the people have any right, within the law, to take these matters into their own hands through force. Except in New Hampshire.
Alright, that's enough going around in circles for one week. It's been nice chatting, as always.
-Jester
If the claim is that these powers devolve to the people themselves should the government fail in these responsibilities, then that's philosophy, not law, as there is no provision for where these powers go if the Congress and the courts collude to oppress.
My assumptions are that the constitutional powers the federal government has are its own to exercise, and that the only legal check is the constitution itself, as interpreted by courts. Nowhere does it say that the people have any right, within the law, to take these matters into their own hands through force. Except in New Hampshire.
Alright, that's enough going around in circles for one week. It's been nice chatting, as always.
-Jester