FL10thAmendment
- 16 comments
- 2 likes given
- 2 likes received
Bio not provided
@LloydThomasSloan TAC has covered the fallacy of nullification as a tool by "slave apologists" for over two years now. Tom Woods has addressed this as well. TAC's own Mike Maharrey and written and spoken extensively on this. I would offer for your consideration Mr. Maharrey's "Moral High Ground" explanation on nullification at http://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/07/tenther-radio-episode-57-mike-maharrey-the-moral-high-ground/. This site contains numerous other refutations of your observation. As for "dead end failed methods,"nullification is at work against REAL ID in more than twenty states, in practice with medical marijuana in at least 16 states and as of Tuesday, recreational use approval in Colorado and Washington has nullified federal marijuana law. There is also a state non compliance bill in Virginia against the indefinite detention section of the NDAA. This is not a dead end method by any measure. It is alive, well and remains the rightful remedy.
@RedTulie @Michael Boldin States are different in the wording. Hawaii uses the federal wording. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1921#stateconst
@Michael Boldin Didn't catch that anywhere. Now, not arguing for gun control of any kind. We should all be armed as well at the least as our rapidly federalized local LEO. However, if the Bill of Rights is a constraint of the federal government as postulated in Gunning Down the Constitution (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/05/gunning-down-the-constitution/) then States and locales theoretically have the power to regulate firearms ownership.
Agreed, the federal government has no authority in this matter. None. Self defense being a natural right, no government should be able to legislate such ownership and the matter should never even be taken up in a federal court. Mr. Vance is also the author of an excellent piece The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/) detailing the mistaken "incorporation theory" regarding the States and the Bill of Rights. In the above article the statement is made:"The Court then reaffirmed this opinion in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), and further ruled that the Second Amendment also applies to the states" leading me to believe based on the prior article that the author does not believe the Second Amendment does apply to the States. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights would seem to make it clear they were not intended to be "incorporated." Had it been so, would not religious disestablishment been required to end immediately upon ratification? It lasted into the 1800's. The States at the time of ratification would certainly not disarm their people/militia,and would certainly not agree to empower a central government to do so, but if this amendment holds against the States, then what amendments do ,do/ not and why?
Ah, but what of the power of the several states to institute arms control Laurence?
To Governor Brewer, and all Governors who may want to find cover in a conflicting allegiance position. We are by design a dual sovereignty Republic. I would submit to such a stance, on the surface so righteous, but upon examination, most hollow-these sentiments from Connecticut's Oliver Ellsworth: “The U.S. are sovereign on their side of the line dividing jurisdictions---the States on the other---each ought to have the power to defend their respective jurisdictions” I would also offer as further example that Governor Brewer's reasoning is flawed and is certainly not uncharted territory, another response from Connecticut, this time it's legislature explaining why it refused its Militia for service in The War of 1812- "But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed." A Governor cannot claim allegiance to a republic of our design without allegiance first to his own state, the very creator of the general government.
Perfectly put into words what so many have come to know in their hearts but couldn enunciate. Well done Mr. Maharrey.
DaveHiggins
Dave, in the coming election cycles, more of these people will be primaried, their real voting records and behavior exposed. One really big problem is GOP voters seem to think once you send "your guy" to office they need no managing. Well hell's bells, they get managed from day one by establishment leadership and lobbyists, then come home for the election cycle sucking up as faithful servants of the public. Time to kick their lying asses out and call out those people who run interference for them so they can have "access" to the great man or woman and be made to fee important.
RepublicRed
Read those words as "expand plenary power to my office of President." This is acceptable to the Republicans as well for when their guy is in, so as we have seen with the Patriot Act and NDAA, you can expect bipartisanship in the taking of our liberty and our money.
RepublicRed
We have to keep at it Red. Our numbers will grow and they wont' be able to ignore us. Many are still sleeping or in a left right paradigm coma.
RepublicRed
Well, let's put this in perspective- They HAVE NDAA. The Feinstein amendment may or may not go anywhere. The sentiment of the senate was to vote for NDAA as is. If they had issues, they should not have voted AYE. This amendment could be dead on arrival for all we know. The sin has been committed, let the sinners be identified and purified for their transgressions. http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10230-feinstein-introduces-due-process-guarantee-act
NICE!! We are taking this one all the way...there is no alternative!!
RepublicRed
Red, knowing they could care less what we think, the elites choose what they will reply to, if at all. They are there to be served in their minds, not the other way around.
RepublicRed
Red, Rubio and Obama share two things in common. They both benefitted from being the most over hyped and undervetted politicians of their generation. Both of them hold individual liberty in contempt. Rubio,as does Obama, believes in big, intrusive government as evidenced by his support for NDAA and the Patriot Act. Had there been no outcry re IPA, he would still have been onboard. Rubio fooled many good people who didnt do their homework in 2010. We are going to do our best to make sure they don't get fooled again in 2016.
RepublicRed
Thank you Red. This is just the beginning of anti NDAA activity. The Governor and Legislature have to be educated as to the danger of the act and also their responsibility to protect us. Stay tuned as we proceed in the coming weeks. Thanks again!
Time to fax, email, snail mail and call Rick Scotts office demanding he step up for LIBERTY. Please share your responses with us.
As Bradford noted, if the federal government is to be the sole arbiter of its own power then there really are no limits to that power, and those who still believe in the Founders™ constitution should not cheer its destruction by championing increased centralization over local control, federal dictates over states’ rights and œconservative victories that are not.- Jack Hunter, "Gunning Down the Constitution" http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/05/gunning-down-the-constitution/