At What Point Is The "Social Contract" Null & Void?

The headlines at this point in time are centered on the government takeover of the health-care system.  However, in the shadows government also continues to press hard for Cap & Trade, Amnesty for illegals, and other power grabs.  This is a massive transformation of our nation into a socialist state.  That is not hyperbole!  It IS happening and has been happening since the early 1900's.  Little by little over the past 100 years the collectivists have been chipping away at our Constitution and our freedom.  Today we are just seeing the culmination of the dreams of the collectivists.

I would venture a guess this is not the desire of most Americans.  Since the founding of the USA there has been a sort of "social contract".  We, the people, give up some of our freedom as individuals so the government can provide a basic, minimal framework for defense, commerce between states and a court system.  Some citizens do not abide by the contract, but most still do.

At what point has the government breached this contract?

Remember these words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — 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 effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

As it says in the Declaration Of Independence, "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes", and that people will put up with a lot rather than abolish the things to which they are accustomed. 

BUT, at some point the contract has been so destroyed by one party that it cannot be held to exist any longer.

I would say we have passed the point where this government has the consent of the governed.  They have become destructive towards our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).

We have a chance in November 2010 to attempt to institute a new government.  This may be our last chance to do so.  Make sure you a part of the fight.  Fight for constitutionalists in the primaries, then vote for them in November. 

We can restore our social contract as it was meant to be if we want to, but only if we really desire it.

Comments

[Suburban Survivalist]

You seem to be into Constitutional law type topics, so I have a question.

I was under the impression that the Bill of Rights were for citizens, individuals. But this morning on the radio I heard a story about a state supreme court someplace (MA?) ruling that the 2nd ammendment was for states.

OK, found it;
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/_in_a_victory_f.html

I am a bit confused... what's going on here?

[jjmurphy]

I am not by any means a constitutional "scholar". I read the document and take it pretty literally. I don't try and second guess that the Founders meant. If I am confused, I go to their other writings on the matter. I think lawyers and judges have twisted it beyond all recognition over the years, so I disregard most "decisions" and try and figure out what the Founders originally meant using my own brain.

I think the decisions in both those cases in the article you mentioned are wrong. The one where it says the "Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has never meant that an individual is free to own firearms" is particularly troubling. (Another reason I will never live in Massachusetts.)

From my reading of the Constitution, in this case the 2nd Amendment, and reading the arguments by the writers of the Constitution, it is clear to me that they were adamant that individual citizens are absolutely permitted to own firearms, without infringement. Both cases above do not fit with this thinking.

But that is just me, and average citizen, reading the U.S. Constitution. What am I compared to all those high and mighty legal scholars that spend decades studying the document trying to figure out what the meaning of "is" is?

I imagine you may have the same thinking. It is one of the reasons I got into prepping. I do not trust the powers-that-be to do anything right.

I hope these cases keep going to the US Supreme Court.