Bio not provided
"It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not possess. The could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals... And government has no rightful existence, except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals...
... but it is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government, claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed, to claim any such power; because everybody knows that the governed never would grant it." ~ Lysander Spooner
1 year ago on Is the Federal Government Supreme?
Too bad the Judge keeps speaking of these "Judeo-Christian values" in his writings, which are nothing but a myth. A bit of research on his part might make him more credible as to the roots of this term. The Founders, Drafters and Ratifiers were mostly deists and unitarians. Those who adhere to Judaism don't refer to "christian values" nor the term "judeo-christian" in their conversations as christianity has no place in their worldview.
1 year ago on Obama’s Secret Court for Killing – Tenth Amendment Center
Determining whether a federal law is supreme simply requires that it be found as an enumerated power within the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution was to act as a set of by-laws to limit the power of the corporation known as the 'United States of America' (see Preamble as opposed to the "united States") created by the several States to handle those tasks that extend beyond what the individual states felt was worthy of their time to address in confederation. Sadly, most folks forget that there is also a Preamble to the Bill of Rights (strict limits of power against the individual). The current Progressive movement seeks to destroy Federalism and the rights of the sovereigns... the individual.
1 year ago on An important introduction to Nullification. http:/...
As an Oklahoman, my concern is with the terminolgy of using firearms instead of "arms". I've contact my Oklahoma state senator (Holt) and state rep (Echols). I sent the following to both:
In light of the recent events, I would like to raise a point of consideration in the event the Oklahoma state legislature moves forward with legislation protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
The word "arms" in the Second Amendment is critical in the current debate. In many pieces of legislation introduced in other state legislatures and assemblies to support the right to keep or bear arms, (or to restrict the right), I am hard pressed to find the word "arms". The term "firearm(s)" and/or "weapon(s)" is used most often, neither of which is used in the text of the Second Amendment. And thus, theoretically, legislation purported to support the right to keep and bear "arms" would in effect by useless. And legislation purported to infringe on "firearms & weapons" would be effective.
By using the term "arms" in place of the common terms "firearms & weapons" in legislation designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms, such legislation is in complete accord with the Second Amendment in protecting the right to keep and bear "arms". Any legislation thereafter that seeks to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms that uses the terms "firearms & weapons" would be null and void as they would not be describing that which the Second Amendment protects from infringement... "arms".
I encourage you therefore to consider this point when introducing or supporting any legislation that seeks to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Although it many seem a matter of semantics, it is quite important in acknowledging that words in the English language, especially in the arena of legal terminology, unequivocally protect our rights from infringement by government. The Second Amendment protects from infringement upon "arms". It is essential in my opinion that legislation use the exact same term of "arms" in order to protect the right."
Thank you very much for your email. Second Amendment protection is of the utmost importance to me and I will be co-authoring at least one major piece of legislation regarding it that will be offered by Representative Dan Fisher. While I have studied the issue, I have never thought about the exact issue you have raised. I think you are completely correct. Semantics do matter and as a legislator I should strive to be as exact as possible.
I am very grateful for all constituent contact, but this particular email was one of the most helpful I have received. I will take this advise into consideration when making drafting decisions on all future second amendment issues. Thank you for the thoughts.
If you ever have any further questions or concerns of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Representative Jon Echols
1 year, 1 month ago on 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Introduced in Oklahoma – Tenth Amendment Center Blog