Bio not provided
Could someone point out to me which Federalist Papers address the 2nd amendment, what it is meant to be and why? Thanks
1 year, 10 months ago on Happy New Year! Are you with us for a big push th...
To what are you referring? DCBR?
1 year, 10 months ago on South Carolina Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Trying to Enforce Obamacare
those laws "pursuant to the constitution" not just any ole' law is rarely understood and especially by other nations who do not understand our quite special kind of republic government. I am so thankful for the 10th amendment center for their clarity on this. The more the people understand this unique form of government the more our LEADERS will understand. And I thank you everlastingly.
Don't forget "affirnative action". Dr. Sowell is a very sharp black educator said "affirmative action" was almost an embarrassment to him when he first started teaching at a top rated university. He said when he walked in the classroom, everyone was thinking "well, we know how YOU got here". Before the year was out they KNEW how he got there-----he earned their respect through challenging their grasp of subject matter.
2 years ago on The Feds are Dangerous to the Rights of Minorities
novos you say there are differences in you and Icke and attempt to point them out. however, one could not tell the difference by reading what you write. An obcession with reptiles, with snakes, and evolution
threads through both yours and Icke's writings. At least, to be clear, those you have posted on this board.
2 years ago on James Madison: putting principle over pragmatism
here is a question, not a statement for you. Why don't you get off the "evolution" David Icke reptilian junk and write something you really know something about?
Ergo, something first hand. I'll coach you through it.
Novos with this It is so what you said: They , meaning those ( formerly ) of the belief in evolution who have "in Reality" come to see the Truth as they learn of the evidence revealed by the DNA Matrix . It is NOT possible to "evolve. Not because of the DNA matrix, but because as everyone seems to believe the big bang theory, then all started at the same "time" if this is so, where does "evolution: come into the picture?
(you probably think I am nuts. I admit it. I am) What was brough out in Matrix served to confirm this.
Novus. the constitution will NEVER "work" unless people do the working. More and more, states are recognizing people ARE LEAVING the state--just leaving---for places like New hampshire or Alabama who just banned Agenda 21 in that state. More and more people are leaving the country. More and more people are asking "offcials" if you swore to defend and uphold the constititution, why don't you do it? Why don't you do what you said you would do? Hillsdale College constitution 101 online course went from 15,000 to over 200,000 in the last year..Many just don't know what the constitution says.
They were inundated. Both candidates sound like the last ditch desperate cries to those on the Titanic.to stay seated! Malingering cuts it for a while, yes. But it just SEEMS to do so. 'Tis a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and of fury, signifying nothing." SP. People KNOW what to do for they are "constituted" of the constitution at their core. All over the world this is so. We will innovate our way out of this. For myself I think there should be two things for government. First, harm no man unless you just MUST harm --harm only yourself and after that do what you will. Anyway, my two pesos.
Butterfiles? The emphasis was clearly upon mosquitoes! And yet, butterfiles fly over these states of cocoon earth bound unanwarenesses. Might doesn't make right. Right makes right. IS there any such thing really, as a "wrong" answer? If it is wrong, it is not an answer, now it it? and as for malingering, neither candidate has come clean on release of anything. NEITHER! They hang themselves, eventually, in tangled webs of deceit, while we watch---utterly amazed. Why, there are just no words for such underhanded dealings. And there seems no other lawful answer other than the 10th, nullification---rendering the passage of thousands of laws by the federal government irrelevant, useless.
@Patrick Henry @ThePainefulTruth
I fully agree with your comments, Patrick
If, as you say, Constitutionalists are gullible, and they may well be----give me gullible. Perhaps that is why I prefer butterflies to mosquitos! There was once a group of mosquitos who presented a complaint to the court against the wind. the judge declared, "well, we must hear both sides. Summon the Wind!"
PatrickHenry, I agree. in some cases, Silence is Golden, Speach is Silver---subject to tarnish--- and must be rebuffed from time to time.
No, I do not agree with gypsynovus. There is a distinct difference in ranting and debating. Let us remember, know, ascribe to, that difference.
Let us not speak of nor personally attack one another on this board. We need to "get off the back roads and go interstate!" Hold to your character by not being led by baseness, rather let it be the best of yourself, and do not be tempted to wallow in the pigsty of nothingness That which is helpful to no one, especially yourself----so pause, to consider yourself, before just blasting out upon another. Lighten up! We are not a bunch of degenerates!
Paineful I have studied the federatist papers, Virginia papers, etc.,, and I have gleaned the difference in
common law(constitition) and that which applies only to fed. employees ---codes, statutory laws, etc.
Many times I have requested honest concise answers to honest concise questions concerning certain rules, environmental, and all the various alphabet agencies without even a reply on their part. But I continue to ask, not to beleagur them but simply for a straight forward answer. A real answer is one that is satifying. A wrong answer is a contradiction, at least to me, there is no such thing as a "wrong answer". If it is wrong,by definition it is not an answer.
Paineful, is your first name Thomas? Thank you. I shall procure it.
Paineful, yes as you say, the sentence construction in the constitution implies just what you said:" The fact that the words "general welfare" are isolated from the whole of the leading "topic sentence" , suggests an independent topic of concern with its own authority , rather than as a topic summation in part of a larger intended summation of the reasons......" Thus, my chagrin. It goes on to state enumerated powers, but the specificity, using sentence construction, at least in my opinion, could have been made less opaque. I know they did their best, but to me it has caused a lot of mischief---mischief that now only the states can correct through nullification and the 10th. Of course, now that the money is drying up in DC, the states seem more inclined to investigate nullification.
I can tell you that "the general welfare" clause, at least I think should never have gone in the constititution.
It is has been a horrible "trouble maker". It is just too vague. To me, the 10th amendment IF EXERCISED by the states, is the only answer.And it could start right now with nullification along with propositions on ballots. ( Perhaps, along with that strict abolishtion of all lobbyists). lobbyists could only lobby the people, not a representative. We could have computer voting, but then computer voting would be tooooooo honest, too upright, too character bound. And of course there would be a hue and cry about those who have no computer access. Which again could be solved with PAPER ballots as there would not be that many who do not have it.
painefultruth, could you give us "where" TO procure a copy of "A brief Enquiry...." that you referenced?
No. not Martha! lol
taskforce16 You don't need to take the course. You could probably teach it. Just keep on keepin' on.
But it is GREAT for people not too familiar with the constitution. You should start holding classes.
Locally or on the net.
Yes, that is good. Hillsdale College also offers a free or practically free online course in Constitution 101.
I contacted all I knew and they took the course. Some lived in other countries. The FACT of "un lienable" was such a force for them. And it is true, the constitition is what man is "constituted of" not some document alone. They told me at hillsdale that they used to have about 15,000 people sign up and now they had in July over 200,000. Those pocket editions you give out can be read while you are in a waiting room---airport or what not.
Well, I just answered tht it was my first jury call and didn't know anything about the case and that being the fact I could not say---, but I was sure when it was presented ---- that I could comprehend and understand and go from there. Then, he did not ask any further.
Taskforce16---I applaud you---am clapping NOW. This effort of yours is MOST effective. You will have many readers and even, perhaps, an invitation to write MORE still. People, some anyway are so hungry for what you have to offer.
Taskforce16. I too have witnessed this. But I answered in such a way that they took me anyway.
I instructed the jury in sessions where we asked the procecutor to leave about putting the law its self on trial. And they did. People INHERENTLY know what is UNJUST law.
yes, Painefultruth, your exxplanation is helpful to all and to me.. And I did mean that until or when our several state legislators apply this interpreatation instead of "my hand is out and thereform I consent to the robbery of other states" the problem of croynism will persist. Our Morality gauge,( and I mean this in its broadest sense, hence, no justt something called 'sex and gender") is way low in this area. This comes from INSIDE a person, as many a nefarious "whistleblower" has found out, ergo, "I just can no longer go along with this behavior" and are forced to see what it is they have been condoning---be they a congressman or judge. Again, the general welfare term as used in this day and age can only be confronted by our state legislators, through nullification, and therefore, the meaning of it would be "re considered" and put front and center in the minds of mainly the populace of the states.
Taskforce16--you are so right. That is why I reckon it is often said that the "pen" is mightier than the sword.
It is a truth that when you know---it speaks without a word said and if words are needed they too are just there. I certainly support second amendment rights. I have a friend in Bulgaria who wrote a piece --first one--for the newspaper---at my urging---using the Magna Carta and a man's home is his castle. She ran with it and said by extension, if man does not have the right to defend his home, then a country has no right to defend the country. It was a sensation. I was so proud of her and how she caught this and expounded upon it. Now the whole town is having meetings demanding that a man who was burgled and shot the intruder be set free.
ThePainefultruth----Yes, Iceland. I think of old and young banging on pots and pans---a steady beat.
They had some rough gos and still are, but they are coming back strong. Perhaps the isolation there helps those people stay more CLEAR, more introspective. And I agree, let the congressmen pay the federal reserve for the unconstitutional debts they are foisting upon us. Dejure grand juries and lawful court systems are so needed. At this juncture, however, if we could begin to get our state legislatures to use nullification---as Alabama did with Agenda 21---a type of nullification, then more locals might be interested in dejure grand juries because the more nullification, the more the locals want to know about it. People have attempted to teach this and have been slapped down for the attempt.
But they get up, dust themselves off, and try again. I know that people are driven from the inside, else
why would they "stray from the herd"? By the way, Henry Lamb, who mainly wrote the legisiation for AL died two days after he finished it. he had been ill, but finish it he did.
hgdorsey is absolutely CORRECT. I hope everyone on this board reads what he had to say. This is the very core of corruption. Most do not know it, and few speak of it.
hear, hear! Taskforce16. Well said and is an absolute MUST in practice.
Thank you. An apt analogy, West Texan. The referees now just "kick the chessboard or go for the gun".
They don't even wait for the loser in checkmate to exercise these possible options---which belong to the two players only. . Just Game over.
As "armed conflict" generally urshers in more conflict, I would say No. One dictatorial state for another.
What I am suggesting is that the IDEA of the uselessness of the STATE must be thought about deeply.
For instance, I know many pretty wealthy people who say that having a LOT of money is so much trouble, that they have realized they would almost be as well off without it. They came to see that was true. Just as we came to see that slavery was useless---and for a time in this depth of thought it is not clear. But when the known becomes more scary, more untenable, more useless than the Unknown, then the IDEA flourishes.
Same with government. There is nothing "armed" about this. Unless you are "armed" with the IDEA of the useless overreach of the State, not gov. necessiarly-- though bare bones kind--- and there is a huge difference in those two terms.
There has been a lot of mischief done in that "general welfare" nomenclature. No doubt is it up to the people to hold the reps accountable. Someone said "if voting really meant anything, it would be illegal."
No one seems to have a good enough answer on this board as to the definition of "general welfare".
It is one of the m ost distorted of the entire constitution. Why? Because the reps hands are out, and they know the population's hands mostly are out too. And they are protected by our fraudulent voting system.
More now that ever, since about fifty million hands are out and that does not count corporations.
What has and IS bringing down the states is their "beggar hands" which IS "consent". If it is not consent, what is it? Unconstitutional? Sure. I know what the constitution says. That was NOT the point-----the Point was that no matter what the constitution says the states are consenting! And they have done so since the formation of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION.shortly after 1776. So just spouting the constitution does NOT address what is happening and even WHY it is happening. As long as you do not have a court system (unincorporated) a LAWFUL
not "legal" recourse and redress, you can talk all day long and it will not change the system we were born into.
My direct relatives signed the constitution AND the declaration----but we are not living under what they so carefully laid out. Are we?
ThePainefulTruth---I agree with your wonderful accessment. As we are self reliant, the gov. will be too.
I must say it has been mainly a lonesone road----that of self reliance. But I much prefer it to taking handouts and spending beyond your means.
Our only answer is nullification. There is nothing left. Other than finding ways just to ignore the government. There are only two things governments should enshrine. First----harm no man---harm yourself if you MUST harm and should you harm another do your best to make reparations----and second, Do what you will. But such necessitates having the idea clearly understood
that government is mainly useless, most particularly, in overreach mode.
I 100% agree that it MUST start with ladies and gentlemen in state's congress with the moral fortitude, no lobbyist funding, with a vocal, persistant, public who
will do some of the things you suggest.
Yes, I search the web for his comments and talks. That is why RP is loved. He strikes the heart of the matter. he knows the cobstitution is what people are "constituted of". When the people are ready,as the saying goes, the teacher or teachers appear and he is that for sure. .
Oh, I understand that. And I don't think I am reading anything into what you stated. Read what I said again.
The STATES run over one another for the handouts!!! Is that not CONSENT? The fed can offer, but they easily "blurr"
in concert with the states with open mouths and hands. I think that is WHY the "general welfare" clause is so distorted---states welcome its distortion and so do many people. . And I suppose that is the underlying reason for the tenth amendment center and nullification along with other remedies. Our state legislators, in the main, do not WANT a "remedy" to NOT receiving these funds. Nuffification came "into vogue" based solely on the drying up of fed funds and the fed demand that they continue the programs the states signed up for with fewer fed funds and more fed guidelines..
for paineful-----but it seems your explanation is exactly what is bringing down the states---they have had their hands out for so long---vying for fed. money---such willing "grantors" to the extent that it is deemed a feather in the cap of a congressman as to what state gets which largress.
How IS "provide for the general welfare" defined by a constitutionalist? It seems to have been so blurred
for such a long time.
furthermore, do people not know that we are now "pre Magna Carta" in the US with detained detention and no due process as our constitution demands? PRE MAGNA CARTA" let that sink in.
2 years, 1 month ago on Government Bullies
NAVY JR We have to get back to Principlle. Just doing what you took a OATH to do-----else just don't take the oath to get a job. Character has to come back into "vogue". In the end and beginning it is ALL that one has.
check this out. Very succinct.
lol. i just did. And they ARE saying the same thing. I do my best to keep it simple. If it is complex it is smelly to me.
You may be right. They call it politics and that is why there is so much "grey" in these areas. While the constitution is so CLEAR. And they ALL took an oath to defend and uphold it. If they are not going to do what they said they were going to do, why take the oath? And I think that point should be emphasized more often than it is. Just do what you said you were going to do when you took the oath.
Thank you for pointing out this completely unconstitutional behavior. It is as if Rand wants to go in "stages" but that too is unconstitutional. Just end it.