[stainednapkin]

You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will. Cutting off or significantly curtailing their revenue would have a similar effect.

EDIT: There would need to be a concomitant cultural change as well. As it stands folks are not aware of or engaged with what their government is doing.

Even if we replaced every government official today, it could quickly devolve back to its current state.

[freehunter]

>You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will.

Theoretically. First you would need someone with these beliefs to run for office. You would need them to win office, in a position where they have the power to change the laws. Then you would need them to resist the temptation to listen to lobbyists trying to change their mind. Then you would need a vote to pass. Then you would need the government agencies to agree (just because the law says something, doesn't mean everyone agrees). Generally this would take going to a high court who forces the government to comply. Hopefully that court is public and not a private rubber stamp committee.

Theoretically, we can revoke government positions. But we need politicians to do it on our behalf, and we don't really have politicians who are willing to do that.

[mch82]

What's needed is a team of 51 people winning Senate seats and a team of 218 people winning House seats. Getting that team in place will require a sustained, 4-6 year effort since a 3rd of representatives are elected each year.

Pulling off such a takeover is possible, though it would be a lot of work. Voter turnout for Senate and House has been between 36% and 53%.[0],[1] Traditionally campaign finance has been considered a barrier to electing good representatives; however, the hold campaign advertising has over our election process may be weakening. People under 35 spend less time consuming traditional media where campaign ads run and more time on YouTube and social media. A campaign focused on voters under 35 might be enough to create significant change. In California, for example, there are almost enough people between the ages of 18-35 to make a win possible if those people voted as a team.[2]

[0]: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0397.p...

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_Sta...

[2]: http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/california/demograp...

[stainednapkin]

Nope. These are rights granted by the Constitution. The difficulty would be in getting people to care.

[freehunter]

You're not wrong. The problem, though, is that I'm still right. Yes, theoretically we can change things. The way this happens is through our elected officials, not via us directly. If our elected officials are unwilling to change, there's not much we can do to force it. Literally the only way the Constitution allows for us to change things is if we vote someone into office who will change it, and then it still hinges on them actually changing things, which historically hasn't happened.

You can repeat the Constitution until you're blue in the face, but just because something sounds easy on paper doesn't mean it's easy or even plausible in reality.

[Torgo]

Texas tried to make TSA gate-groping unambiguously illegal, and the federal government credibly threatened to end all flights to and from Texas, causing Texas to back down.