FUCK THE USA

[noobs]

Spoiler: background songs

The thirteen colonies had independent governments, without a unified government structure and never formally removed their sovereignty to be a country.

The significance of the US Constitution diminishes significantly after the Southern states seceded. Upon reviewing the Constitution, it's obvious that most of its provisions hold little to no power in the government.

First Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first amendment imposes the restriction on the people to disallow the very religion America was founded on from the fruits it created, stealing the very fruits from god we bore.

2nd Amendment

"The Second Amendment, which states, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

The initial intent of the first point of the Second Amendment, to empower individuals to form militias for the defence of the nation, regardless of state authority, has been rendered obsolete. With the erosion of states' rights, the practical application of this principle has diminished. Furthermore, the second point of the Second Amendment has been effectively nullified. In the context of the time of its drafting, firearms possessed by individuals were equivalent to military-grade weaponry. However, with the advancement of technology and the proliferation of regulations, the contemporary firearm is no longer on par with its historical counterpart. The imposition of governmental restrictions on gun ownership further diminishes the relevance of this aspect of the amendment.

3rd Amendment

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

In numerous instances, federal agents have conducted searches within private residences without securing consent, thereby violating the foundational principles of individual liberty upon which the government derives its legitimacy. Technological advancements have facilitated widespread surveillance activities by government agencies, conducted against the 3rd amendment in its entirety. One such notable occurrence is the events at Waco, where citizens sought to exercise their Second Amendment rights in full, only to have their rights under the Second and Third Amendments curtailed by governmental action.

Fourth Amendment

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The requirement of probable cause for obtaining search warrants has been stretched to obsolescence, leading to warrantless searches and seizures under the guise of the manufactured and false necessity for national security of which also comes from the erosion of American neutrality. Courts have also expanded exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, allowing law enforcement greater leeway in conducting searches without warrants. Civil asset forfeiture practices about property rights and due process, while the application of qualified immunity has made it impossible for individuals to hold law enforcement accountable for Fourth Amendment violations from the externally infiltrated autocracy of the courts.

Sixth Amendment

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Legal representation, particularly concerning access to public defenders, is fraught with challenges that render the constitutional right to counsel obsolete. Individuals facing legal proceedings often encounter financial impossibilities stemming from exorbitant legal fees associated with spurious legal claims. As a result, individuals of limited means find themselves unable to mount a robust defense, leading to disproportionate vulnerabilities within the criminal justice system. Instances arise where individuals, despite lacking culpability, are coerced into incarceration under the guise of national security imperatives or purported risks of flight from prosecution.

Fourteenth Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The construct of naturalization initially emerged within the framework of immigration regulation. However, evolving circumstances have rendered this amendment ineffectual, transforming it into a mechanism utilized in contravention of the intentions of its framers.

Fifteenth Amendment

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude–”

This law was written under the northern colonization after the civil war which forced laws onto unwilling populations.

Sixtieth Amendment

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

This legislation was enacted during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), comprising influential individuals of substantial means. President Roosevelt's candidacy was as a means to obscure an agenda aimed at advancing governmental control, ultimately facilitating the consolidation of power among the aristocratic class.

the list just goes on



The Confederacy is the rightful successor to the governance established by the thirteen colonies. The 13 colonies fought for independance, not to be subjuated by another. The formation of the original government was marred by the British, resulting in a document that was written without a lot of debate and thought in haste.

The Jews owned all the slaves to in the south and used to for pretext to oppress and control the US

 

[BitchBoy]

Make niggers slaves again

 

[noobs]

 

[Michael Myers]

DEATH TO AMERICA!

 

[MaghrebGator]

Constitutions and amendments are completely irrelevant if people don't know them and don't believe wholeheartedly in them

The only way a constitution can survive is if people are able to impose it somehow always in their personal life even if the elite of the state doesn't want it

People who would sacrifice their life for a man made constitution or laws drafted by politicians like some military do are the cringiest kind i have ever seen

Everytime i read the history of how such and such constitution of such and such country was written/drafted whatnot i can't believe how so many people hold it so sacred when they don't even hold any religious value or significant religious claim like the Qur'an or Bible actually do. There are a lot of countries constitutions whose people have lost millions of lifes for them and they were literally written and drafted in some random café by 5 or 6 fat politician slobs who never suffered anything in life or never had gone through wars, poverty, etc

Best you can usually find is "Muh we adhere to christian values" or "Muh sharia is a source of legislation". Why would a person like the military or a politician sacrifice himself for such a bogus claim like "christian values" after half of the articles contradict or add unnecesarily to such values or "One of the sources of legislation" when he can grow balls one day and go straight to the main source instead of relying on a constitution that contradicts or merely quotes and picks and chooses those values and sources whenever it fits the politicians who drafted it?? This is why no constitution, man made laws, empire or nation state concept will ever substitute a religion in regards to building loyalty from a population whether be it politicians, military or any random citizen.