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
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Happy New Year! Are you with us for a big push th...
To what are you referring? DCBR?
5 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.
5 months, 1 week ago on South Carolina Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Trying to Enforce Obamacare
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.
6 months, 4 weeks 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.
7 months 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.
7 months, 1 week ago on James Madison: putting principle over pragmatism
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?