Bio not provided
For me, this has nothing to do with gay or straight. It has everything to do with "judicial supremacy" v "constitutional supremacy".
As Levin remarked, SCOTUS, as Thomas Jefferson presciently warned, has become an unaccountable, supreme Politburo. Think about it, folks: 5 lawyers v 300,000,000 Americans.
The Constitution is, indeed, dead.
Short of open rebellion, nullification and, yes, Secession appear to be the only remedies remaining for those of us who still cherish the Constitution and the Republic it created.
1 year, 5 months ago on “Just a matter of time” – Mark Levin says BOTH SCOTUS decisions TOGETHER have nationalized same-sex marriage
That may be true, but what the PRC says goes in HK. Snowden is safer in HK than anywhere else.
1 year, 6 months ago on Former CIA Operative: U.S. will NEVER get Edward Snowden from China, there’s not a chance…
Though anything is possible, I find the notion that Snowden is a spy for the Chinese a tad unbelievable.
As to why Snowden opted for HK over Iceland, the answer seems less nefarious than it might otherwise appear to some. If I feared for my life and wanted to reduce the risk of imprisonment by US authorities, I too would have opted for Hong Kong. Afterall is said and done, Iceland, with appropriate US pressure, might have proven to be more amenable to extraditing Snowden to the US than China would ever be.
As for Snowden's disclosure coinciding with Pres Si's visit with Obama, MAYBE there's something suspicious there. Maybe. However, while an interesting speculation, one would have to believe Snowden's a spy for China to see this as something more than a coincidence. Again, nothing I see (so far) suggests anything as nefarious as that.
And just what did Snowden disclose that was so injurious to America's national security, but, more importantly, to the security of Americans themselves?
Can't wait for the movie version. I swear, the things going on today in the US is the stuff of novels. Intensely interesting, but also very unsettling.
Exactly what secret documents did Snowden disclose?
Well done, Neil!
1 year, 6 months ago on “Cut his damn mic!” Cavuto slams liberal guest for denying reality
FINALLY, States with constitutional spines!
From a historical standpoint, folks, when you add up all the nullification/interposition activities currently underway, they exceed anything seen even before the so-called "Civil War", which, of course, is correctly described by the politically INcorrect as the "War of Northern Aggression" or the War of Southern Independence".
Am buoyed knowing that there are still patriots out there who really DO understand the Constitution and are willing to defend it and themselves from federal tyranny.
1 year, 7 months ago on Kansas to Eric Holder: We’re Not Backing Down!
l wonder if Roberts actually knew what he was doing when ruling the mandate a tax, knowing full well that all revenue bills must originate in the House. Either he was an unconscionably activist or didn't want to rule against a controversial bill passed by both houses. OR he placated the political powers to be, the Progressives, who held legislative sway, knowing that alert patriots would detect the procedural breach and bring it up again for SCOTUS ruling strictly on constitutional grounds. I'd like to believe the latter, and, if true, he's off the hook if the well-founded PLF suit succeeds. Frankly, I can't imagine how the PLF suit could fail-----IF there is at least a modicum of SCOTUS faithfulness to the Constitution remaining. That's the big question for me.
1 year, 8 months ago on The Supreme Court May Yet Rule Obamacare Unconstitutional
So 8 petitoners who object to Dr. Carson's biblical beliefs means he can't speak at the commencement? And what do the other medical students think about that? Have they been asked? Or are they so hobbled by political correctness they dare not speak. And if that's the case, then why would Dr. Carson even want to speak at their graduation.
1 year, 8 months ago on ***UPDATED WITH VIDEO*** Dr. Ben Carson apologizes, clarifies comments on ‘marriage’
Precisely. It isn't an issue about gay marriage or not gay marriage. It is a constitutional issue for me. The people have spoken and cannot be constitutionally overruled by the judiciary. It's really that simple.
1 year, 9 months ago on Mark Levin explains what the Supreme Court should do in gay marriage case
We've slipped so far from the pinnacle of exceptionalism our Founders so carefully crafted. Flynn is an unmitigated outrage, a painful reminder of just how far we've fallen. Frankly, I foresee disaster for this union. The Republic is long gone. It's an illusion, a product of wishful thinking. It's dead, folks. Best prepare for the worst. I pray States reassert their 10th amendment authority--and soon. Only this will restore constitutional order and prevent what could very well be a very messy collapse of the union. Also frankly, secession, peaceful if possible, may be patriots' only salvation. If we can't have liberty and constitutional order in ALL the States, we can at least enjoy the fruits of republicanism in some of the States.
1 year, 9 months ago on Police Chief Opposes Second Amendment; Gets Tank For His “Troops”
Can't wait 'til you come to NYS!!!! Wow!
1 year, 11 months ago on 2013: The Tenther Movement Hits its Stride
Your patriotic efforts are finally being rewarded, Michael. Thank you!
By the way, if you need an additional rep/contact in western NY, just say the word.
2 years ago on NDAA Nullification Bill Passes Michigan House, 107-0
@Michael Boldin @JamesP.Delaney
And interposition as well! Wow! God-willing, the nullification bill passes in the Senate as well. I am positively giddy.
Gives me hope there's still life in our shattered republic.
Hey! Even if it's only about marijuana, at least it's a start.
2 years ago on Tenther Radio Episode #74: A Nullification Domino Effect
Don't go nuts on us, Rick. Romney's eligibility was carefully vetted by "eligibility wonks". He was hands down eiligible.
2 years, 1 month ago on Will Marco Rubio be the Next GOP Presidential Candidate?
Well said, sir.
Got it. Sorry.
Actually, Arthur hid his ineligibility from the public. And to prevent disorder and a constitutional crisis, the politicians let it slide.
@Noble Owney @Don In Florida
Never say never in this "new order".
Because the courts dont' have jurisdiction. The States do, and the States have refused to "embarrass" themselves by adhering to constitutional eligibility requirements. As for the right, they are still hiding under their desks, now more than ever.
They were Legal Permanent Residents, not US Citizens. A constutiional problem to all but the willfully blind.
He was born here, but of Permanent Resident Aliens, not US Citizens.
I like Rubio a lot, but as a Senator, not as President or VP.
I am still sincerely concerned about his constitutional eligibility.
Obama's extremely questionable eligibility is troublesome enough, but no matter how I might "feel" about Rubio, in good conscience I cannot bring myself to objectively believe that a child born of Permanent Resident Aliens withint he jurisdiction of the USA is eligible.
Despite its notorious lack of credibility when it comes to faithfully upholding the Constitution, if SCOTUS would provide at least an advisory opinon (firmly grounded in the Constitution) that Rubio is eligible, then I might re-consider. Otherwise, I--like many millions of other Americans--cannot violate my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution no matter how I might "feel".
I absolutely couldn't agree more. We've established a privileged American aristocracy in DC and in most State capitals. They should all be "citizen representatives". The only perk should be the satisfaction of serving the country.
2 years, 1 month ago on No More Waiting. Nullify Now!
Sadly, you're probably right. Our entire system has been corrupted, and all levels of government have either abandoned or are ignorant of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. REMEDY: TPers and other patriotic organizations should immediately organize,. link up and march on your State capitals to press the point. By nature, politicians are cowards, cautious. Get in their face big time and they will "see the light" and take a principled, constitutional stance.
2 years, 1 month ago on Ten States Voting on Nullification Measures this Week
@Patrick Henry @LloydThomasSloan @FL10thAmendment
Well said, Patrick Henry.
ONLY after a lot of pushing and shoving did Madison, a hardcore centralist, finally come around. And for that accommodation and political change of heart he is referred to as the "Father of the Constitution". Forever self-contradictory and adaptable to the end, that honorarium was, for me, not fully earned.
@LloydThomasSloan @JamesP.Delaney @FL10thAmendment
No need to blow a gasket. I disagree with you and you're in error. No big deal. From time to time in my life I too have been in error. Never liked it either when I was called on it. Be that as it may...
RE 10th Amendment, what needs to be fixed?
Re#1: never said that no other forms of resistance should be attempted. Commonsense tells us that the path of least resistance is the best. That said, nullification, Secession, Rebellion, Civil Disobedience, marches on Washington, amending the Constitution etc. are perfectly acceptable forms of resisting tyranny. But, you seem to exclude all but the Art V remedy. And, again, none of these forms of resistance are UNconstitutional, unlawful, and do not require a new Amendment to sanction them. They are reserved/residual powers of the several States.
Re Wallace: the 14th & 15th Amendments specifically disallow slavery, servitude. Thus, Wallace cannot nullify "the supreme law of the land", that being the Constitution. Why on earth would you think that any of my argumentation would have upheld his right to violate the Constitution?
Clearly, you are a strong detractor of both the 9th and 10th. Fine. Then, do an Art V and repeal them. Until then, you'll need to live with them, as should we all.
EVERY contract entered into by any one or any entity is, by definition, CONditional. The fact that the dissenting States conditioned their ratification on the successful adoption of the 9th and 10th Amendments proves that point.
Again, simply becasue a residual power is not explicitly stated in the constitution DOES NOT render it unconstitutional. Commonsense meaning of the 9th adn 10th.
The founders hoped to prevent dissolution. But never once did they place unity-at-any-price on a pedestal. They relied on English common law and a clear understanding of the nature of man to fashion their commonsense thinking on this subject. One isn't expected to ask permission of a tyrant to resist him. What form that justifiable resistance takes should be least violent as possible. But, if violence is unavoidable to protect freedom and the founding principles of our revolution, then so be it.
@LloydThomasSloan @ThePainefulTruth @FL10thAmendment
If the union dissolves, it merely reaffirms the 10th Amendment and the common law right to resist tyranny whatever form it may take.
Look, Lloyd, the founders wanted to avoid disunion for all the obvious reasons. Commn defense being the big one. But, union, in and of itself, was not considered sacrosanct or insuperably supreme. The "people in convention" in the several States are supreme and may determine their course action with respect to membership in that union. Period.
You're so bloody wrong, Lloyd. What have you been reading? The ceiling?
Extremely well said. I don't understand why there remain doubts about the unalienable, inherent right to rebel, nullify and secede. Some--even here--seem to believe that we must seek permission from tyrants in order to lawfully resist them?
Let the founders and the Constitution be our guide. Not revisionist interpretations or scholarly-sounding rhetoric to the contrary.
@ThePainefulTruth @JamesP.Delaney @LloydThomasSloan @FL10thAmendment
My guess is that the "indivisible" union's dissolution is inevitable anyway. Indivisibility is a myth perpetrated by apologists for the so-called "civil war". For a host of well-founded reasons, the founders viewed dissolution as inevitable. To them "in perpetuity" with respect to the life of the union/contract was predicated upon the efficaciousness of the union and the ability of the parties to that contract to faithfully and fully abide by the terms and conditions of that compact, thus ensuring domestic tranquility, a more perfect and republican union. Masterful students of history, our founders were amazingly prescient men of keen intellect, clarity and integrity. Going forward, our founders--not parochial politicians and one-dimensional lawyers--should always be our guide.
OF COURSE ratification was conditional. It was a compact among sovereign states. Do you enter a contract UNconditionally. IF you do, then it's not a contract/compact. It's fundamental tenet of contract law. Don't make nullification confusing. It isn't.
Oh, sure. They know about nullification, but were taught that it is silly, unlawful, reckless and that it doesn't properly honor the "supremacy of the federal government" and the need for the States and the people to be subservient to the national government. Lawyers are filled with gibberish. LIke I said, WE know more about the Constitution, as understood by the framers and ratifiers alike, than 99% of the lawyer class.
Dependency, by people or State governments, always breeds servitude.
Not sure what your point is here? Re "Do the research so you'll know where to stand." Was that directed at me?
@LloydThomasSloan @FL10thAmendment Secession can be acted upon by a State either unilaterally or in league with other sovereign States. As a practical matter, while there may be strength and confidence in numbers, to secede, a State, an individual sovereign and voluntary party to the original compact, is completely within its inherent constituional right to nullify or to secede. An amendment which explicitly authorizes secession would be redundant, since, according to the Founders (and particularly the ratifiers), it is an inherent residual power of the several States. Remeber that as a condition of their ratifying the Constitution, NY, Virginia and Rhode Island reserved their right to secede and NONE of the Founders raised any objections.
@picnicphones @JamesP.Delaney @ThePainefulTruth
You're right. Ulltimately, It comes down to whether or not the States are WILLING to assert their lawful powers under the Constitution. It's our job to persuade them, one way or the other, to assert that authority. PROBLEM: Over the years, States have been bought off and cowed. Their leaders--and far too many of their citizens--have been driven by ignorance of or fear of exercising their constitutional authority. They need to be re-educated, pushed and energized. Only that can save the nation, failing which more energetic resistance may be unavoidable.
Except for constitutional lawyers, and they are few and far between, don't count on lawyers knowing anything about the Constitution. Relying on revisioinist case law and errant precedents, they are trained to win their arguments/cases. Nothing more. Frankly, and tragically, we know more about the The Constitution than 99% of them.
Let me give it a humble try. First, I would strongly recommend that you devote some time to reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constution". Very pertinent and extremely readable. An excellent primer. From there, you could expand your research to other publications. The book I highly recommend (always no more that a arms-length from me) Is Skousen's "The Making of America". Also, of course, "Nullification...How to Resist Federal Tyranny" by Tom Woods.
Basically, the US Constitution is THE supreme law of the land to which we are all subordinate inclusive of ALL federal and state branches and levels of government. The powers of Congress were carefully and deliberately enumerated in Art 1 Sec 8 in order to clearly limit its power. This also applies to the Executive Branch and the Judiciary.
The 10th Amendment is very much part and parcel of that Constitution and was added to the original Constitution to ensure that the powers of those sovereign States which voluntarily joined the union in 1787-1790 would not be abridged/violated by the federal authority. The short of it is that any power not specfically delegated by the Founders to the federal government devolved upon the States or the People. All powers, implicit, implied or unstated, not specifically delegated to the federal government belong to the States and the People. Pretty straightforward stuff.
Without the 9th and 10th Amendments, most States would NOT have ratified the Constitution. They insisted that their powers be protected from any encroachments by the feds. Ever since, the feds have pushed the envelope in a predictable effort to increase their authority beyond those bounds granted to them by the Founders. To restore the balance of power, it's up to the States to faithfully and courageously reassert their 9th and 10th Amendment authority, thus reinstating the Constitution's restraints on the federal governement and to prevent tyranny.
Yes, Congress can tax and the Courts can "rule", BUT if those acts violate the meaning, intent and spirit of the ratified Constitution, they violate the Supremacy Clause (Clause VI)and both the meaning and intent of the 9th and 10th Amendments, in which case those acts are null and void and of no authority. They are nothing more than unlawful usurpations.
I applaud your interest in learning more. Wish there were more Americans with the same commitment.
You're describing s-e-c-e-s-s-i-o-n. Nothing unconstitutional or abhorent about that approach. But, I think, for a start, we should direct our efforts to working on nullification with teeth. In short, if the several States reassert their 10th Amendment authority, thus restoring the balance of power envisioned by the Founders, the dictatorial federal leviathan will be stopped cold. The States is where our focus must be.
The Supremacy Clause stipulates that federal laws are supreme so long as those laws fully comport with the US Constitution, THE supreme law of the land.
As long as we continue to deify the nine unaccountable, unelected, activist oligarchs pompously occupying the Supreme Court, and ignore what the Constitution of the United States actually says, we will remain subservient, helpless and hopeless.
Fully agree, and fully committed to taking action.
Did Prop 120 actually pass? Is it now part of the AZ Constitution? it merely a resolution without the force of law? When will Az actually and officially fully and legally restore federally controlled lands in the State to State control?
2 years, 1 month ago on Will Arizona Voters Take Their Land Back?
AZ's nullification effort is far and away the most consequential. Imagine a State asserting its sovereign control over its land and resources. Amazing. Sure hope AZ doesn't back off. The fed's control over American real estate is grossly unconstitutional. Finally, fed lawlessness is being challenged! FINALLY! OH, and don't forget AZ, you are in charge, not any unelected, unaccountable, federal court. Don't let the courts undo your fine efforts!
For whatever good it does, couldn't have stated it more clearly, Tex. If folks like the good governor of Wisconsin won't put the judges in their place, who will? Ultimately, of course, it's up to us, but are they enough of us, and will enough us actually DO something about it. At this point, I honestly don't know what it will take before We the People push back--full force.
2 years, 3 months ago on One Judge Overturns the Wishes of the Voters in Wisconsin