Maybe someone can explain to me how and or why it is now legal for US military to fight and or harm the US people who may be demonstrating and or protesting against government actions and or inactions ...and violations of the principles laid out in the Constitution. Who has the authority without the consent of of the majority to change the interpretation of the Constitution? Don't tell ma all about the SCOTUS that I did NOT vote for. IMO all 3 branches are to represent the majority of the US people and if they don't then they should be forcibly removed from office since they have clearly violated the principles laid out in our Constitution to which they swore a moral oath to uphold. I submit that only the majority of the represented US people have the real authority to change the Constitution through elected representatives when those said representative actually do represent the will of the majority of the US people. While they do represent a majority of the voters who voted for them those said voters are not the all inclusive population of the majority to which they are to represent. So in actuality they do not represent the majority if they should pass any bill or amendment that clearly does not represent the majority of the voting and non voting people of the USA. You want an example? Most recent is the national gun background check. There was and still is a majority of the US people who want this and our facade of representatives would not follow the will of the majority. If they do not represent the majority then they have no right to govern over us. They were elected to serve our interests, not corporate or military interests. They don't represent us and they will not really represent us unless the money is removed from their cold dead hearts! You want to see a militarized US ...just try and stop the 1%!
= new reply since forum marked as read
