Politics & Government » Politics » What if the government that lacked the true & knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed?

What if the government that lacked the true & knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed?

What if the government that lacked the true & knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed?

That is what the Second Amendment is for. We are supposed to kill the fvckers.

Too many love living in a police state, will only get worse with time.

Well, it can be. The dismissal process is called an election -- there's one coming up.

Perhaps you've heard about it.

If it was, we would never get another one. Most American voters don't know what the three branches of government are, even the most basic knowledge of the Constitution, and believe anything the propagandists tell them without any basis in fact.

How to govern those who govern when it is they who make the rules?
If the people had the power of initiative, referendum, and recall, those powers would no doubt be abused as well by the same people who corrupt the current government using their wealth to manipulate.
In theory, the representatives derive their power from the people whom they represent. Just as you can fire an attorney whom you had hired to represent you, it would stand to reason that the people should be able to dismiss their representative. But the reason this is not the case is because that would require a lot of expense, plus the representative represents even those who voted against him. He is more like a court appointed attorney whom you cannot fire because the law mandates him to be next to you annoying you and distracting you to prevent you from making your case heard. Imagine what a stymie this country would be in if after every election an opposition group called for a recall election almost immediately. How many names would you need to have on a petition in order to conduct the election? You would almost need to have enough to elect the replacement before you could make a showing that the majority of the people did not want that person to represent them.

There are better ways of handling the situation. In theory, the representative represents even those who voted against him. Why not have more representation? The candidate who loses the election would represent only those who voted for him, and thus have less political power, but would still be allowed to speak and thus to represent those voters.

The concept of government that operates with the consent of the people is a fallacy. People are always the ones who are required to gain the consent of the government. Our so called democratic elections are only a sham to fool the people into thinking they have a say in any part of government. As long as long as people believe that a majority of other people feel differently, they are more willing to accept and tolerate not getting their way. If they realized that less than a thousand people are actually being represented, then they might rise up and cause some chaos, but the government would simply declare martial law and use federal troops against the people as it has done in several cases already, such as with the Occupy protesters.
"What if" scenarios such as this are difficult to answer because it requires one to imagine human nature itself to be rewritten. What if people in power that acted selfishly in secret could have their power removed? Someone else would replace them, and they would learn from their predecessor. What would they learn? Most likely, how not to get caught!
There is a law that just about every politician has violated at one time or another. They are all guilty of treason because they have all participated in giving away U.S. assets to multinational companies. Treason could result in the death penalty. If the people had a way to prosecute the treasonous officials for their actions and the convictions resulted in death 100% of the time, then people who took office would be too afraid to risk getting caught.
Unfortunately, it is the people in office who appoint the prosecutors, and the prosecutors don't have enough power to take on their boss. People who are not in power are the only ones that ever get prosecuted for treason. President Lincoln prosecuted a Congressman for treason using an unconstitutional military tribunal. We so adore President Lincoln today that no one ever realizes how many people's constitutional rights he violated.