Hacker News Reader

Comment by defen | Hacker News Reader

It makes sense if you think about it. If Party A sues Party B and wins, the federal government is the ultimate top-level "enforcer" who makes sure that B pays up. Now, let's say that party B is the federal government. They get told to pay up, and say "no". What are you going to do about it? Appeal to a higher authority?

View on HN

What kind of legal recourse does the UN have?

Somewhere in the constitution you can infer that dismantling and reassembling a government that doesn't serve the people is SOP.

The South tried that argument 152 years ago and look where it got them.

> Appeal to a higher authority?

Some would say they have you there as well. Romans 13, specifically 3-5[1]. Maybe too many of our politicians are bible students.

[1]http://biblehub.com/romans/13.htm

The USA has three branches of government, intend to help solve this problem. The federal government is not the top-level enforcer. The govt is for the people. The people are the top-level enforcer.

"The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Every time I see that quote I'm forced to wonder whether the person making it is really willing to take a gun and a rope and go out into the streets and start shooting representatives and hanging their corpses from lampposts as an example to the others, until their demands are met.

This is not addressed to, or accusing you, specifically. I'm just sick of hearing the bloody rhetoric.

No, shoot them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com