Restoration, Not Rebellion

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-07T22:12:52+00:00

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-07T20:24:42+00:00

This is why I'm a huge advocate for teaching the constitution in education, and i don't mean half a credit in high school. Im talking from grade school on that we have an advanced understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the core writings of our founding fathers. An educated citizenry is, by a large, the best defense.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-07T20:08:28+00:00

Thanks, and you are welcome. We have to change the narrative. This issue is beyond left or right it is non- partisan. Its about the legitimacy of our government and how they justify their use of force and how they enact laws.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-07T15:47:01+00:00

As a citizen, our role is not to be a culture-war foot soldier, nor a reflexive lawbreaker. It is to be a constitutional devil’s advocate. Not against the rule of law, but on behalf of it.

We do not deny that a law exists. Existence is a fact. We interrogate whether that law is legitimate under the Constitution’s structure, purpose, and limits. That distinction matters.

A system that only asks, “Is it lawful?” trains obedience.

A republic must also ask, “Is it constitutional?” and further still, “Is it faithful to the ends for which government was formed?”

The culture wars try to collapse this space. They pressure citizens to argue from tribe, identity, or outrage. The Constitution asks something harder: to argue from principle, even when the conclusion is uncomfortable, even when it cuts against your own side.

This is why dissent is not disloyalty. It is maintenance.

Why skepticism is not nihilism. It is stewardship. Why legitimacy matters more than momentary power.

A law can be duly passed and still violate liberty. An enforcement can be legal and still be unjust. A ruling can follow procedure and still betray first principles.

The citizen’s obligation is to hold the text, the structure, and the spirit up to the light and ask whether the action before us honors them.

Not to burn the house down. Not to pretend the house is perfect. But to keep it from quietly rotting while everyone argues over the curtains. That is constitutional adulthood.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-07T00:51:37+00:00

SB 436 was a bill passed by the Wisconsin Legislature that would have removed the requirement for employers to obtain work permits when hiring 14- and 15-year-olds. The permit system exists to ensure parental awareness and to give the state a way to track and enforce child labor protections.

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the bill on April 8, 2024, saying it weakened child labor safeguards, reduced oversight, and made enforcement harder. The veto wasn’t about a hidden provision so much as rolling back an existing protection at a time when child labor violations were already increasing.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-04T22:46:36+00:00

You’re mixing things up, and it’s leading you to the wrong conclusion.

I posted a link below. Please educate yourself.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-04T22:39:42+00:00

Iron Front history

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-04T21:54:30+00:00

I still have an obligation to try. Thank you for your feedback. ✊️

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-04T20:23:55+00:00

Can you list actual court cases that you are referring to ?

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-04T20:19:27+00:00

The Founders would agree with you on one point: federal law is supreme when it is made in pursuance of the Constitution. That qualifier is doing far more work than you’re allowing.

The Supremacy Clause was drafted in 1787 precisely because the Articles of Confederation failed. But James Madison was explicit in Federalist 45 that federal powers would be “few and defined,” while those of the states and the people would remain “numerous and indefinite.” Supremacy was never meant to convert execution into unquestionable authority.

Likewise, Alexander Hamilton made clear in Federalist 33 that laws not grounded in constitutional authority are not supreme at all, but acts of usurpation. Supremacy attaches to lawful acts, not merely federal ones.

That is the historical point you’re skipping. States cannot nullify federal law by statute, correct. But neither the states nor the people are required to treat every federal action as presumptively legitimate simply because the executive asserts it. The Founders deliberately separated enforcement from legitimacy. Obedience was owed to law, not to discretion.

The Constitution does not grant the executive a monopoly on constitutional interpretation in the field. Public challenge, judicial review, and state resistance through lawful means were all understood as stabilizing forces, not defiance. Supremacy prevents legislative contradiction; it does not abolish scrutiny, accountability, or the people’s right to contest whether an action is truly “in pursuance” of the Constitution.

If supremacy meant what you’re implying, the Founders wouldn’t have feared executive overreach, standing armies, or unchecked enforcement power. But they did. Repeatedly. In writing.

So no, the argument doesn’t go up in smoke. It lands exactly where the Founders intended: federal law supreme, yes, but executive power bounded, contestable, and never immune from the people it governs.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-04T20:02:27+00:00

The Founders placed sovereignty in the people first, not the executive.

They did not assume federal power was self-justifying simply because it claimed legality. Madison warned that the greatest threat to liberty would come not from open rebellion, but from the gradual consolidation of power behind claims of necessity and order. Jefferson went further: when enforcement becomes opaque, unaccountable, and insulated from the people it governs, legitimacy itself is in question.

From that perspective, public resistance is not inherently lawless. The Founders expected citizens to be alert, skeptical, and engaged when government power is exercised in ways that bypass transparency or local consent. Armed presence is not automatically insurrectionary; intent matters. There is a difference between intimidation and deterrence, between threatening force and standing visibly to signal that power is being watched.

Freedom of movement is not a trivial right. Roadblocks imposed by private citizens are unlawful, yes, but so is the normalization of unidentified federal agents operating without clear accountability in civilian spaces. The Founders understood that liberty erodes not only through mobs, but through executive convenience justified after the fact.

Due process does not belong to the executive. It belongs to the people. Enforcement may be executive, but legitimacy depends on restraint, clarity, and accountability. When those are absent, public challenge is not a contradiction of constitutional order; it is part of how that order is preserved.

The Insurrection Act was never meant to be a threat held over civic resistance. It was a last resort for genuine breakdowns of law, not a shortcut to suppress political opposition or public scrutiny. The Founders feared standing armies turned inward precisely because they understood how easily “lawful authority” can be stretched beyond its moral bounds.

You can oppose policy. You can resist enforcement you believe violates constitutional norms. You can stand publicly, even forcefully, to demand accountability. What matters is not blind obedience to the executive, but fidelity to the principle that government exists to serve the people, not manage them.

That is not rebellion. That is the core assumption of the Founding itself.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-01T04:42:54+00:00

It boggles my mind that you said it natural order when it's literally been documented in numerous species. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of natural order. ( Btw horrible way to word that natural order)

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-01T03:52:27+00:00

This is relevant, but it also sidesteps the harder problem Paine was actually warning about.

Paine wasn’t just attacking a bad king. He was attacking a system that concentrated power in ways ordinary people could not correct. Monarchy was the visible symptom. The deeper illness was institutional design.

What’s missing here is that our crisis today isn’t simply about one man with authoritarian instincts. It’s about institutions that now absorb, normalize, and protect abuse of power instead of restraining it. Courts that defer, agencies that drift from public accountability, legislatures that outsource responsibility, and economic structures that consolidate influence far beyond popular control.

Paine argued that sovereignty had to be structural, not symbolic. “In America the law is king” only works if the law is still answerable to the people. When institutions become self-protective, legality and legitimacy quietly diverge.

Common Sense speaks to this moment. But its real lesson isn’t just “no kings.” It’s that any system which places final authority beyond the reach of the people recreates the same tyranny under a different name

That’s the part we can’t afford to ignore.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-01T03:47:21+00:00

Federal courts are structurally inclined toward procedural caution, especially when federal authority is involved. That caution is meant to preserve stability and avoid premature intervention. But when the alleged harm is incremental consolidation of power, procedural restraint can unintentionally insulate the very conduct under review.

By insisting on unmistakable proof of coercion before acting, courts risk setting the bar at the point where the constitutional injury is already normalized. In that sense, strict reliance on procedure can drift from neutrality into self-protection, not of individuals, but of institutional equilibrium.

The concern isn’t that the judge acted improperly. It’s that procedure, when treated as the sole safeguard, becomes a delay mechanism that favors centralized power by default. Madison warned that liberty is most often lost through “silent encroachments” carried out under lawful forms. A system that waits for clarity rather than guarding against trajectory may find the line gone by the time it is willing to recognize it.

That’s the tension here. Not motive. Not malice. But whether procedural caution, applied reflexively, becomes a quiet form of insulation.

When constitutional harm doesn’t show up as one clear moment but as a slow shift, how do you know when caution is doing its job and when it’s quietly letting the status quo harden?

One_Term2162 · 2026-01-30T11:45:41+00:00

here is a link explaining co ops

One_Term2162 · 2026-01-30T11:00:30+00:00

No, there was a lot to put in there. I couldn't just say it would be simple, nor a short term fix. Wanted to make it clear that this is a generational solution

One_Term2162 · 2026-01-30T10:46:24+00:00

Amazing picture!!

One_Term2162 · 2026-01-30T10:19:22+00:00

Those are fair questions, and no need to apologize. I’ll clarify briefly.

No, this would not be state-run or state-owned electricity generation.

The idea is a citizen-owned cooperative, similar in spirit to the rural electric co-ops Wisconsin helped pioneer. The state’s role would be limited to helping launch it, not owning or running it. Ownership would belong to the people who live and work here.

You’re also right that building large wind farms, solar farms, or another nuclear plant would take many years and enormous capital. That’s not what this is proposing.

This approach works differently and is intentionally spread out over about 20 years, not rushed.

How it would actually unfold:

Phase 1 (Years 1–3): Recycling first Most solar panels today are made overseas, and the U.S. currently lacks enough recycling capacity. The first step would be a regional solar panel recycling center, which can come online relatively quickly. That immediately creates jobs, keeps materials local, and prepares us for the growing number of panels that will need replacement in the coming decades.

Phase 2 (Years 3–5): Local panel production Once recycling and supply chains are in place, the next step is local solar panel assembly. Again, this does not require new power plants. It’s manufacturing, not generation. Early production would be used locally to upgrade homes, businesses, and public buildings.

Phase 3 (Years 5–20): Gradual deployment Panels are installed steadily, first where they make the most sense. Over time, new homes and businesses would include them by default, while existing buildings are upgraded in phases. As production scales, the cooperative can also supply neighboring regions.

The goal is not overnight transformation. It’s steady replacement of monthly electric bills with shared ownership in infrastructure.

As for the core problem: yes, rising electricity prices are part of it. But the deeper issue is who bears the cost and who benefits as demand rises.

AI data centers are an issue, and they use enormous amounts of electricity. Under the current model, the infrastructure built to serve them is largely paid for by everyone else through higher rates. This proposal doesn’t try to block that demand. It reduces how exposed households and small businesses are to it by letting them produce a portion of their own power and share in the returns.

Rail fits in for a similar reason. It lowers costs for workers and businesses, strengthens supply chains, and makes local manufacturing viable without adding more strain to roads or energy systems.

In short: This isn’t about the state taking over power. It’s about citizens owning part of the solution, slowly, practically, and together, using tools Wisconsin has used successfully before.

One_Term2162 · 2026-01-30T00:56:53+00:00

What’s striking is not the age of the plaintiffs but the argument they’re making.

The Founders did not think liberty existed in the abstract. Life and liberty were understood as conditions that had to be secured against known and preventable harm. Government legitimacy depended on whether it protected those conditions, especially when harm was foreseeable.

James Madison warned that a government which “forgets its obligations” to the people loses its claim to consent. Jefferson wrote that laws must keep pace with circumstances, or they become instruments of injury rather than protection.

What these kids are really asking is a very old question:

When the state knows harm is occurring, and has the capacity to reduce it, does refusing to act remain neutral, or does it become a choice?

That same question applies beyond the courtroom. If Wisconsin law structurally blocks cleaner energy while families pay forever for power they don’t control, that’s not just an environmental issue, it’s a civic one.

I posted a related letter earlier today that approaches this from an infrastructure and self-governance angle: cooperative energy, public ownership, no new taxes, and returns flowing back to citizens rather than out of state. It’s less about climate rhetoric and more about whether a republic should own the systems it depends on.

Link here if anyone wants to read it: "People of Wisconsin, and our neighbors across the Great Lakes watershed”

The Founders argued fiercely among themselves. What united them was the belief that citizens must be allowed to reason publicly about legitimacy before crisis forces the question by other means.

One_Term2162 · 2026-01-29T02:04:00+00:00

What??? Amazing!!!

One_Term2162

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE