Hopefully, no one here feels that such a "radical" change in government that would require "bloodshed" is even remotely required, nor would such a radical change be "acceptable" to our founding fathers.
The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence:...
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of
America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted
to a candid world.
Most certainly, today's situation fails to meet the criteria for 'bloodshed' or that even a radical change is necessary. While the "king" has usurped power issuing a flurry of executive orders as an end run around the duly elected legislative representatives of the people, it is not necessary to change governmewnt....only to change the "King"....and until that ability is lost, you cannot justify (to a candid world) a radical change that would cause incredible suffering amongst its people.
But we will continue to suffer while the evils are sufferable because we have some recourse. Even if it is the cost of just a little greater than or less than nothing.
We have plenty of recourse, of which, the recent elections are but a first step.
Repubs and Dems may ultimately not be that different, but when they are completely polarized it's most likely because it's a bad idea. Good ideas/legislation have always found people willing to cross the aisle.
This.
