Bio not provided
@MarkBHopp The legislation passed by the states can say whatever it wants on paper but the IRS is a huge, out-of-control, federal agency that can make your life a living hell if they choose. They can confiscate future tax refunds, seize your assets, freeze your bank accounts, and maybe even garnish your wages. My question is, how far is the state of Montana going to go to interpose itself between the feds and it's citizens. If I was a citizen of Montana and planning to not purchase health insurance I would want this question answered beforehand.
As I said before, I am in full support of these nullification efforts.
I see massive quantities of very expensive litigation either between fed and state governments or between individuals and fed government. If the current management remains in office, they are not simply going to set back and take these challenges to their usurped power. They have proven they are not opposed to using our money and the courts to get their way. In the mean time, the individual citizens will be suffering.
2 years, 3 months ago on Will Montana Voters Nullify the Mandate?
I agree 100% with the states taking this course. I wish mine was one of them. I'm just wondering how they would stop the IRS from charging and collecting the penalty. Seizing assets, freezing bank accounts, etc.
Can anyone expand on what the author says about article seven giving states the option to join the union and the right to vote to secede from the union? This is the first I have heard of this. I do not see where it says that.
3 years ago on Freedom and Federalism
The states had to delegate sufficient power to the "entity" in order for it to carry out its functions. If you take a look at the heading of article 1 section 8 it specifically says"POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS".
Webster defines "GRANT" as to give, concede, transfer, or convey. I don't believe the states could give, concede, transfer, or convey power to congress yet still retain those same powers for themselves.
Maybe surrender was too stong of a word. However, as you say, we both get the point. Thanks for the exchange.
3 years ago on State Governments check Federal Power
Very good article Mr. Roberts but I do disagree with the wording of one sentence; "The United States Constitution gives significant power to the individual state governments".
The Constitution gives nothing to the states. They already possess the power by their own right. The states gathered to form the Constitution which grants(surrenders) specifically defined powers to the Federal Government. If it was not listed, it never belonged to the Federal Government in the first place.
I suspect that you are well aware of this but the wording of that sentence dangerously implies that the Federal Government gives powers to the states. The Tenth Amendment established nothing new. It simply emphasizes what already was.
Concerning your question; "What might happen in the future with the Judicial Branch?" I would suspect not much until an American citizen is actually detained under the NDAA travesty. The Supremes in Ashwander V. The Tennessee Valley Authority, as part of Justice Brandeis decision, established a set of rules in which certain situations would have to be met before they would grant certiorari and consider the constitutionality of a congressional act. One of the rules requires that a party must sustain actual damage before they will consider constitutionality. Some of the others could also be used to avoid a decision.
@Admiral America A federal judge would block it. Probably citing the supremacy clause. The lapdog American public would continue with their daily business as usual. Anybody see that game last night? American idol comes on at 7pm.
3 years ago on The Little-Known – but Seminal – York Town Convention of 1777