Then in that case our country is at an end. Now I just hope to survive the up coming meltdown.
I believe it will be more violent that the collapse of Rome was.
As long as people live here, our country will not end. But, the fedgov might.
You see, I do not equate the government with the country, nation, or society.
Separately, I recently read an article about the fedgov. The gist was that the constitution must have been written to allow the expansion of the government. This aligns with Lysander Spooner's comment that the constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Part of the article was a long quote from someone else pointing out that the federal courts are really just part of that system, designed less to protect the rest of us than to ratify the expansions (usurpations) of the other two branches. That is to say, the federal courts legitimize the usurpations of the other two branches. Been going on since practically day one. And, a little bit of thinking/remembering will come close to justifying that view. Just think of all the times the federal courts sided with freedom on substantial questions, and then think of all the times they sided with the fed gov. Just compare the weight and long-range effects of the liberty decisions with the anti-liberty decisions. Its not hard at all to see if you think about it for a bit.*
Shoot, just a few cases is enough to stand your hair on end. Take for example
Wickard vs Filburn, the case in the 1940s where SCOTUS said the fedgov could regulate farmers' grain that does not move in interstate commerce because using his own means he won't buy grain thus affecting interstate commerce. Conventional wisdom says it wasn't until the Gun Free School Zone Act decision of 1992 that SCOTUS finally said "no" to a commerce clause violation. The fedgov tried to justify the overturned law on the spurious premise that students who have to worry about guns in schools won't do as well academically and thus won't contribute as much to the economy when they grow up. SCOTUS said congress had no power to regulate that. Some 30 to 40 years of opportunity to put the brakes on government expansion, and they toss us a little bone like that. I say a little bone because not too many years ago, SCOTUS ruled that a Ms. Raich could not grow her own marijuana even for her own medical necessity** because, among other things
Wickard v Filburn meant growing her own did indeed affect interstate commerce and that the fedgov could make it illegal even if states made it legal.
*It helps to have read two books:
Who Killed the Constitution by Tom Woods, and
It Is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano. Plenty of examples in those two books.
**I once supported the War on Drugs, but even her list of symptoms and the lack of relief from medical drugs would have made me support her. I think her name is Angel Raich (if you want to google her). The case is
Gonzales vs Raich.