They might even have conceived of.. periods of fainthearted uninvolved people / or ravening Yahoos administering the Republic (with trepidation, we can assume). The point was for the Republic to survive but NOT...

under ANY condition imaginable! ergo: the stated condition(s) for revolution.

If we accept that today, persons of the calibre of the founders are *not* the ones in charge [is that even debatable?] then this Sterling document still applies even unto the dissolution of a present administration, one which trends toward an Authoritarian Theological state - thus may even lead to a need for this extreme action.

In this present environment, it is reasonable to expect that which you are disappointed to see - a more formatory, more rigid interpretation rather than the more flexible one we would expect and would choose: were this a nation of informed, participating citizens whose leaders are capable of leadership and wise restraint simultaneously.

More simply: we can survive fucked leadership.. to some (unknown) degree, for a time - even with non-participating sheep. But 'Rights' during an arid period must be asserted more forcibly and described more simply - in opposition to the banal cant of the Authoritarians and opportunists (who are ever amongst us in any age).


My take,

Ashton