Bio not provided
@JohnLambert1 @onetenther @mrducksmrnot
Since the Constitution and it's several amendments are not written in complicated legalese, it should be easy enough for all citizens who can read and have reasonable reading comrehension skills to understand it. It really is up to We the People to know what laws are constitutional or not, and hold our elected officials accountable to their oaths.
But perhaps, the Constituion may need to be re-written in "cyber shorthand" for the younger generation to be able to understand it.
1 year, 8 months ago on Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream
JohnLambert1, you sure are hell bent on trying to convince everyone that the Amendments to the first 10 amendments (aka "Bill of Rights") to the Constitution don't apply to the States. Why do you want to leave that door open?
I took me a spell to study on your past arguements in another thread, that followed this notion, but I think I've figured it out. You want the States to be able to trample all over the enumerated protect rights of the individuals, until at some point, enough States have done so, and have effectively "nullified" the US Constitution all together bypassing the amendment process prescribed in Article V.
The Supremacy Clause states that "This Constitution..." is the "supreme Law of the Land", and ALL amendments to teh Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) are PART OF the US Constitution
The 14th Amendment DIDN'T "incorporate" the bill of rights, to be imposed upon the States. they already had been by the Supremacy Clause within the Constitution. That clause was present in the US Constitution before the BoR were ratified, and the amendments didn't change ANYTHING in the original document.
The 14th Amendment, was ratified shortly after the "War between the States" in 1868. Section 1 of that amendment simply instated citizenship of the recently freed slaves that had been born here, and mandated that they be endowed with the same "previleges and immunities" protected by the Constitution as the rest of the citizenry.
I'm thinking you may be a usurper of the Constitution, sir. Misrepresenting the Constitution is what usurpers do, in order to get around it.
Mrducksmrnot, it use to be that those who campaigned for public office were ASKED to do so by their peers. They were ASKED because the citizens of their communities knew their charactor and beleived they would best represent them.
And yes, it was an honor to be "asked to serve" in public office. Today, people are still being asked to serve, but for the wrong reasons. Too many of the citizenry want their elected officials to "get for them" what they won't get off their butts and "get for themselves".
Secession wouldn't be necessary in the scenario you describe. If 3/4 of the States were to press the issue of returning to Constitutional governence, the remaining States would be forced to go along (albiet KICKING and SCREAMING, LOL) or THEY'd have to seccede. But of course, this is all up to the citizenry of each State.
Our Republic was designed for a "self-governing" citizenry, of moral and virtuous charactor. It will not work for no other, as we can see for ourselves, today. Having "carreer" politicians was never part of the plan. All who were elected to office, to represent their States in the Nations Capitol were businessmen and farmers. They still had to tend their business interests, while serving in government. Even the State legislators were "part timers" in government matters. As you can imagine, these legislative officials didn't spend a whole lot of time "in session".
Is it possible to get back to volunteer government work? Not totally. It would depend greatly on just how self-governing the citizenry are willing to return to. Considering that this would mean bearing far more responsibility for our own idividual sustinance and well-being, by EVERYONE, this could be a tall order. The citizenry has become very spoiled.
@mrducksmrnot Article VI, paragraph 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Now, keep in mind that ALL amendments to the Constitution are PART OF said document, making them part of the "supreme Law of the Land". What Wikipedia says about federal laws being mandated to be "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution is correct. Any Law made in Congress (the SOLE lawmaking body of our government) must be within the powers delegated to the Fed government by the Constitution and must not violate any protected "Rights" of the people enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" or subsequent Amendments that have followed.
The 2nd Amendment has no qualifiers or exceptions within its text and language, as to who can or cannot "keep and bear Arms', nor as to what type "Arms" the people can or cannot "keep and bear". Also note that the 2nd does not specify what level of government it applies to, therefore, it must apply to all levels, and the courts are mandatorially bound in their rulings to favor the Constitution over Statute. Unfortunately, the courts don't always do this.
Madison and Jefferson recognized that the courts were not always going to adhere to the Constitution in their rulings. Afterall, judges are human and MOST humans have a difficult time setting their biases asside. Judges are suppose to rule without personal bias, but that doesn't always happen. Nullification was intended as a safe guard against imporper rulings by the courts. Without the power of the States, and the people (jury nullification) to nullify unconstitutional or unjust laws, the Constitution would become impitent and worthless by an "activist" majority ruling court.
Also, Wikipedia isn't always the best source of info regarding the Constitution. It is long been known as being liberally biased in it's "editing".
Let us not forget, that "WE the People" have nullification powers, as individuals, as well, in the form of "jury nullification". Any law that no one can be convicted of violating, is unenforceable, and therefore, NULLIFIED.
GrumpyOldGoat, as to the "war on drugs" we have to ask, when was the Constitution amended to initiate this operation? It took a Constitutional Amendment (18th) to start the "war on alcohol" in 1919, which started "Prohibition" during the "roaring 20's", which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment that ended Prohibition in 1933.
So.....where's that War on Drugs Amendment? That's right, it don't exist. At least not where the Federal Government is concerned.
The States made a grave mistake in ratifying the 16th Amendment. They set themselves up to be victims of extortion by the Fed.
1 year, 9 months ago on Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law
Onetenther, it actually would take 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution.
1 year, 9 months ago on The Founders and the 2nd Amendment
ummm.....How have the States been "in default" of this compact, if, as you claim, the BOR are not applicable to the States? You seem to contradict yourself in your arguments, sir.
But I agree, since the States did submit the proposed Bill of Rights and did ratify them, it would seem, to the reasoanbly minded that the States intended to honor the enumerated rights of the individual people within their jurisdictions. Somewhere along the line, in many if not all States, to one degree or another, they have fallen down on this.
Who's to blame for this? I'd say it is the "PEOPLES" fault. We, in our ignorance of the Constitution (or in some cases blatant defiance), have failed to hold our elected governments feet to the fire, that is within the Constitution. In Fact, generally speeking, it has been We the People that have failed to hold ourselves to the Constitution.
1 year, 9 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th
@onetenther @DwayneStovall @OnTheMark
onetenther, you have brought up a great point. Our government is NOT functioning as it was intended, in accordance with the Constitution. The judiciary wasn't given powers of "judicial review", by the Constitution, to begin with. It gave itself that power a long time ago. This might have worked out OK, "IF" the courts had based their rulings strickly in accordence with the text and language of the Constitution itself. BUT, it has NOT done that. Instead, the courts have ruled too often based on either popular opinion or the justices own biases, which often ignores the Constitution.
Plus, the courts have allowed arguments brought forth to stand, that were based on documentations outside the Constitution, mainly from the "Federalist Papers". Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the "Federalists" they guys that advocated giving the Fed Government more powers than the Constitution delegated to it? Why is it that no one wants to reffer to the "anti-Federalist Papers" that advocated LESS powers be given to the Fed Gov than was delegated to it by the Constitution? If I'm correct about the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists", then it would seem that using the "Federalists" arguments before the courts is what has gotten us into the mess we're in today. And maybe, that is why Dwayne Stovall likes to go to said arguments rather than keeping to the text and language of the Constitution itself.
Dwayne, I'll ask you. Why did a few of the States have to amend parts of their own Constitutions, to come into compliance with the US Constitution, after it and the "Bill of Rights" were ratified?
BTW, the "Bill of Rights" were among over 120 proposed amendments to the Constitution, submitted by the States, after the main body of the Constitution was ratified in 1787. Only 12 were passed by the NEW Constitutional Congress and presented to the States for ratification (10 ratified in 1791). And of the 2 that didn't make the cut in 1791, one of them was finally ratified in 1992, becoming the 27th Amendmnet.
No, I'm not a nationalist. I consider the US Constitution as a contract between the States as to what powers the Fed would have and how the new republic would function. And as a contract, I try to glean an interpretation strictly from the text and language therein.
Government DOES fear the citizenry. Why do you think the communists in our governments are trying so hard to disarm us? They KNOW what will happen to them, if they don't. It won't be pretty.
1 year, 9 months ago on Let Me Say This Clearly
The Supremacy Clause does no such thing! The Supremacy Clause CLEARLY States that all laws made by the Federal Government "SHALL" (or must) be made in Pursuance" of the Constitution. Any Fed Laws that ARE NOT "in Pursuance" of the Constitution are NON-laws to begin with. The States not only have a right to nullifiy non-laws (unconstitutional laws) made by the Federal government, it is their duty to do so, as representatives of the people in their respective jurisdiction.
The supremacy Clause also CLEARLY STATES that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. And since the 2nd Amendment IS PART OF the Constitution, it IS the supreme Law of the Land, too.
We the People also have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws, by refusing to indict or convict anyone charged with violating such laws, as jurors.
Dwayne, it appears that your interpretation would restrain only the Federal government from, say, infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but not the States themselves. Is that what you are saying?
If so, what if ALL the States decided to dissarm the citizens of thier respective jurisdictions? Wouldn't that make the 2nd Amendment a totally imputant protection of an unalienable right of the people?
I think you put too much imphases on the Preamble of the US Constitution and the introductary notice to the States which was sent with the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution for ratification.
The US Constitution, Article I through Article VII, and ALL Amendments that have been ratified since, is the legally binding part of said document. The Preamble is merely a brief description of the document.
Not necessarily. Most of the "Bill of Rights" are not specific, in their wording, as to what level of government they apply to.
The 1st Amendment starts off with "Congress shall make no law...", specifically aimes at the Federal legislative body. However, we may find that the States have also limited themselves, via their respective State Constitutions, concerning the issues contained in the !st Amendment of the US Constitution.
The rest of the 1st 10 Amendments (AKA Bill of Rights) are NOT specific, in what level of government they apply to. So, we should assume that these limitations were intended to apply to ALL levels of governence AND to the people as well, in particular the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
And as a reminder, All amendments that have been made to the US Constitution are PART OF the Constitution, and in so being, are the "supreme Law of the Land", in accordance to Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution (the "Supremacy Clause").
No, I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the heads up.
@KathyWashburn @Michael Boldin @LLKayaker
Ya know Kathy, back when I was still in HS after a couple of months of American History ('69/70), the consensus in my Jr year was that Government was nothing more than legalized organized crime. I don't think much has changed, since then. Probably gotten much worse.
I think we need to focus on educating our neighbors and others about the Constitution. Tell the cold facts about the document and that it is "the supreme Law of the Land". I've been purchasing Pocket Constitutions by bulk and handing them out to people to study. Next week I'm going to be distributing the booklets to the local Boy Scout and Cub Scout groups in my county.
The more people we can get educated about the US Constitution, the quicker we'll get this monster back in its cage.
@Michael Boldin @LLKayaker @KathyWashburn
Mickael, the biggest problem is convicing others what laws are unconstitutional. How many times have you argued with someone over the prohibition of certain persons from "keeping and bearing arms" being unconstitutional?
With most people, they beleive that if "THEY" agree with a law, it just HAS TO BE Constitutional (whether it is or not doesn't matter).
Yeah....that'll work too. I've already emailed Senators Corker and Alexander and let them know what lowdown traitors they were.
BTW, don't trust the NRA too much either. Here in TN we had 2 nullification bills (SB250 and SB100) get hung up in committee, both had teeth to them with criminal charges attached. NRA was silent on those, but have just jumped up and called for support of another "so-called" nullification bill that has no teeth at all.
Perhaps we should al send one last email to our reps in DC. Something like, "I hereby consider the Federal government and all of it's employees, elected and/or appointed, NULL AND VOID."
I tend to agree with your observations.
Our Constitution and form of government that the founders created was intended for a self-governing people. They knew that it could not work for any other.
Unfortunately, We the people, have for decades shirked our responsibility of self-governence, a little at a time, and surrendered our own authority to do so, to the government.
Now, nullification will only be doable if we as individuals carry it out in a collective mass.
1 year, 9 months ago on There’s Nothing Radical about Nullification
Wait till some of Brene's favorite rights start getting trampled on, by uncosntitutional laws. He'll find all sorts of reasons to nullify them then.
I beleive we have to take into consideration another part of the Constitution, here. Article VI, paragraph 2, the "Supremacy Clause". The 2nd Amendment, being PART OF the Constitution, would be "the supreme Law of the Land". Since the 2nd makes no specific aim as to what level of government it applies to, like the 1st Amendment is aimed at "Congress Shall make no Law...", it appears that "Shall not be infringed" applies to the States as well.
Also note, that there are no exceptions as to who can or cannot "keep and bear Arms". This leads me to beleive that any prohibition of certain persons from "keeping and bearing Arms" is unconstitutional. This country existed for nearly 200 years without prohibiting "formerly" convicted criminals from possessing firearms. Most everyone carried a firearm of some sort during that time, too.
And BTW, there were the occassional "gang" problems, back in the old days (James Gang, The Daltons, etc), but they didn't last very long. The armed citizenry of that time had a tendency to make short order of them.
1 year, 10 months ago on The Founders and the 2nd Amendment
In taking an interpretation strickly from the text and language of the 2nd Amendment, I see no exceptions as to what type "Arms" the people can "keep and bear", Although most of the weapons beyond light combat arms would be cost prohibitive for individuals. (I'm kinda short on getting an Abrams M1A2)
As for nukes, Don't those things have to be monitored constantly. And again, we're looking at another cost prohibitive weapon.
"MSNBC’s Steve Benen believes that “[n]ullification must never be on the table” as a means to protect innocent lives and property."
This guy, Benen, would have fit right in with Hitler's gang. I'm sure that "nullification" of Hitler's "Enabling Act" would have saved allot of Jews.
1 year, 10 months ago on There’s Nothing Radical about Nullification
SB0250 failed in Judicial Committee with a 4-4 vote.
Yeas were: Campfield (R), Bell (R), Gardenhire (R), and Green (R)
No's were: Kelsey (R), Overly (R), Finney (D), and Stevens (R)
Ford (D) didn't vote.
The House companion bill (HB0248) is still in Civik Justice Subcommittee, deferred until 3/6/2013
There's still another nullification bill that hasn't gone through the Sen Judicial committee yet. SB0100 intorduced by Sen Joey Hensley. House companion bill is HB0042 introduced by J Carr. It would still make attempting to enforce new Fed gun Laws, in TN, a Class A misdermeaner.
1 year, 11 months ago on The Ignorant Expert. They’re Everywhere.
The TN House Civil Justice Subcommittee will be considering the companion bill to SB 0250 (HB0248) tommorrow. I just sent them all an email as follows.
Chairman and members of the TN House Civil Justice Subcommittee,
In considering HB0248, introduced by Rep. Butt, I hope you will consider the following.
US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2 (Supremacy Clause):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Note that the Laws of the United States (Fed Government) must be in compliance (in Pursuance) with the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, being a PART OF said document, is the "Supreme Law of the Land."
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In order for "We the People" to be an affective "Unorganized Militia" (as defined by 10 USC 311) it is imperative that the "unorganized Militia" be armed with appropriate "Arms" to defend ourselves, our communities, our State, against criminals and other enemies of OUR liberties, be they foreign or domestic. Also note, that there are no exceptions in the text of the 2nd Amendment, as to who can or can't "keep and bear Arms", nor as to what type "Arms" we the People can or cannot "Keep and Bear".
Again, I point out, that the 2nd Amendment, being a PART OF the Constitution of the United States, is the "Supreme Law of the Land". This means that neither the Federal Government or any State can make any law that violates the 2nd Amendment, as long as it stands AS WRITTEN. The Fed Government AND the many States already have laws/statutes that violate this enumerated "right of the people". It is the duty of the many States to "nullify" ANY Federal Law that is in violation of the US Constitution.
The 10th Amendment fully applies here. "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I ask you all, to consider this. There has been a massive surge in firearms and ammunition sales (many of which are included in US Sen. Feinstein's proposed Assault Weapons ban) across the nation. We the People ARE NOT arming up just to surrender our 2nd Amendment Right. Quite the contrary! We are preparing to use our Arms and the 2nd Amendment for the purpose they were intended by the founders of our Constitutional nation. We intend to stand our ground against any tyrannical oppression. You are all obligated, as elected officials of this State, to stand up for the people of Tennessee, against unconstitutional activities of the Fed Government.
Please expedite HB0248 to the TN House floor for a vote in the General Assembly.
@Michael Boldin @gigg101
Sometimes it can be hard to tell bold faced lies with a straight face.
I had also emailed a copy of a "Letter to the Editor" that I submitted (and was published in Jan) in our local news paper, that addressed the "supremacy Clause" and the "10th Amendment", to all the members of the Senate Judicial committee.
I'm going to also email them all and point out to them that the 2nd Amendment, being part of the US Constitution, IS the "supreme Law of the Land", in accordence with the "Supremacy Clause". I'm also going to point out to them that there are no exceptions or qualifiers in the text of the 2nd Amendmnet as to who can or can't "keep and bear Arms", or as to what type "Arms" We the People are allowed to "keep and bear".
As the 2nd Amendment stands now, ALL restrictive gun laws (Fed and/or State) are unconstitutional, as they violate the Constitution (the 2nd being part thereof). I know that may stick in the craw of allot of folks, but, "It is what it IS".
Here's how dumb Kelsey is. He introduced a bill (SB0012) that, if passed,
"As introduced, for purposes of criminal code, expands the definition of serious bodily injury to include any bodily injury that involves a wound from a firearm. - Amends TCA Section 39-11-106."
Well duuuh! Apparently Senator Kelsey thinks Tennesseans are too stupid to understand that GETTING SHOT leads to serious bodily injury. A person would have to be pretty darned stupid not to figure that out for themselves. Unfortunately, there are few folks out there that ARE just that stupid. The bill has been withdrawn.
I disagree with your assertion that the US Constiution does not apply to the States. In regard to the 2nd Amendment, neither the Fed or State government can violate it. The "Bill of Rights" (first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution) apply to both the Fed and States.
The 1st Amendment begins with, "Cngress shall make no law...". Now that infers that the legislative body of the FEDERAL government has to keep hands off of religion. You'll need to take a look at your respective State Constitution to see if it also take's a similar stand on this issue (the ones that I've looked at do)
But the 2nd Amendment does not specify what governing body is not to "Infringe" on "the peoples right to keep and bear arms" Another point to be made is that there are no exceptions, within the text of said amendment, as to who can or can't "keep and bear arms". Are you aware that we went for nearly 200 years without restricting certain people from "keeping and bearing arms" (except for Native Americans and later freed slaves, that didn't work out so well for those groups did it.) and the per capita crime rate wasn't as high as it is today. Perhaps we should repeal all the restrictive gun laws and go back to everyone "packing iron". I beleive we'd thin out the criminal element in our society rather quickly.
1 year, 11 months ago on Who’s Supreme? The Supremacy Clause Smackdown
Contrary to what many may want of the Justices who set the SCOTUS, they are suppose to be neutral, being neither liberal or conservative. According to Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, The Constitution itself is suppose to be the "Supreme Law of the Land...and the Judges in every State shall be bound therby;" As Mr. Natelson points out, SCOTUS has indeed unconstitutionally expanded the powers of Congress, beyond its powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8. But it's been my observation, that conservatives have often desired SCOTUS to do this on their behalf as well. IF the Justices had been ruling in accordance with the text and language within the Constitution itself, rather than looking to outside writings for interpretations, this nation would not have strayed from constitutional governence.
One thing that I have taken from my own study of the Constitution, is that it is not always going to support everything anyone on either side wants from government.
Case in point: There's been a big misinterpretation about the 1st Amendment establishing "separation of Church and State". What I read from it, is a "Separation of POWERS of Church and State". Congress has to "keep hands off" of religion. It can't make laws that favor one religion over any others, or favor any particlular religious doctrine. It doesn't mean that you can't have prayer in school or religious sybolism on government property. So that pretty well shoots the liberal sides argument down. However, the Church can't use government to prohibit activities the church (conservatives) sees as contrary to its religious doctrine. The church has to stay out of other peoples business. Conservative Christians aren't happy when I tell them this. All government can do is make laws that prevent all of us from injuring each other, physically or financially, or other wise infringing on each others enumerated rights. And BTW, the Judical and Executive Branches have no power to make law, so no one can really stop folks from praying or posting religious symbolisms where ever they want, except on someone elses private property if the property owner doesn't want it there. NO Judge can constitutionally forbid it.
If anything, I believe the SCOTUS bench has often failed to uphold the Constitution, as it was written. We all lose when they don't, because it takes us further from constitutional governence every time they ignore this sacred contract.
2 years ago on South Carolina: Nullify Obamacare Rally and Press...
1) Both, The Constitution delegates limited authority/powers to the Fed Government. The States are also limited in theirauthority over their jurisdictions by the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent Amendments concerning civil rights.
2) The framers constructed the Constitution with self-governence by the people in mind. Before they wrote and sent the Declaration of Independence to King George, they were concerned about whether the people in this new land were capable of living in such a independent self governing fashion, as soveriegn people. After realizing that the people had gone through a sort of "moral revolution" they decided that the people were indeed ready. Being an independently soveriegn individual requires personal responsibility and self-governence, by the people. As I've studied the Constitution, I see this theme within its text and language. The powers delegated to the Fed are indeed limited. There are far more powers of governence that have been left to the States or to the people. Yet, the rights of the people, enumerated in the Constitution, are not to be infringed upon by either the Fed or State gov's, nor by the people.
3) The Constitution was constructed to be a contract (or compact) between the States as to the powers the Fed would have, while reserving other powers/rights to the States (allowing State soveriegnty) or to the people (preserving individual soveriegnty and self-governence - LIBERTY). Law, I believe was to be limited and restricted to governing those that self-govern themselves poorly or infringed on the rights of others, protecting liberty for all. As I see it, according to the Constitution, we, as individuals, shoudl be able to do as we please, as long as our activities cause no injury (financial/physical) to others or otherwise infringe on the rights of others.
2 years ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th
@Austin Holthaus @TaskForce16
@Austin Holthaus I think there is one State that DOES NOT recognize the Right to Bear arms in its Constitution. I know that the rest of the States do have their own versions of the 2nd, however, requiring that residents apply for permits to bear arms in public is a violation of the 2nd. There are no qualifiers or exceptions in the text of the 2nd Amendment as to who can or can't "keep and bear arms", nor says we have to "get permission" from our States to bear arms in public. Requirements to get a carry permit, turns a "right" into a "privilage". Currently, there are only 5 States that are considered Constitutional Carry States. Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming do not require a permit to carry concealed or openly, while Ky does not require a permit to carry openly (including in your vehicle).
Please read the excert I provided carefully, particularly the part where it says, "and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF:" This means that congress, being the sole law making body/branch of the Fed government, is not to make any laws that violate any part of the US Constitution. Nor can congress expand the powers of the Fed government beyond those enumerated in Article I, Section 8. Neither can the Executive or Judicial branches of the Fed government. What powers the Fed Gov does not have delegated to it by the Constitution, of course, are reserved to the States or to the people (10th Amendment).
The respective States still have many powers reserved to them, that they can exercise within their own jurisdictions. State Constitutions may also limit these powers. The 1st 8 Amendments to the US Constituion appear to me to enumerate certain inalienable rights of the people (individually) that must be protected, to prevent tyranny. The 9th Amendment protects all other unenumerated rights retained by the People (This is one most people are not aware of and often violate, by attempting to get government to prohibit the activities of other people, just because they don't agree with it). The 10th Amendment, then protects States Rights (at least it's suppose to).
Since the US Constitution (this includes ALL of the Amendmnets) is the "supreme Law of the Land", the Federal government AND the State governments are prohibited from violating it, in particular, our enumerated rights established within the US Constitution. But this still leaves quite a bit of leeway for State and individual soveriegnty, provided that We the People fervantly enforce the Constitution upon ALL levels of government (Fed/State/Local).
Are you aware, that after the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, several States had to amend their own Constitutions/laws to be "in Pursuance" of the US Constitution? Are you aware, that there were 128 proposed amendments to the original Constitution sent to the 1st Constitutional Congress? Of those, only 12 were passed by congress and presented to the States for ratification. Only 10 were ratified by the States, as the Bill of Rights. The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, was one of the original 12 amendments presented to the States, that wasn't ratified in 1791 with the other 10.
I have to dissagree with Mr. Maharrey's contention the Constitution does not trump State Law. Let me reffer you to exerts from Article VI, paragraph 2, of the US Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be in Pursuance thereof;....shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The 2nd Amendment IS part of the Constitution of the United States, therefor, it IS the supreme Law of the Land, State Laws notwithstanding. This means that ALL Laws, both Federal and State, that infringes on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", by anyone, is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
I agree with Mr. Maharrey's statement that "The Consitution does not give us Rights". This is true, what it does do is that it recognizes and insures that our rights are protected, from both the Fed and State governments. But it is up to the People to make sure said rights are respected. We the People have failed to do this.
Ignore gypsy! His post exhibit the charactoristics of the "Rules for Radicals". Notice that he may identify many of the ills of the people of this country, yet he offers NO solutions, except to just surrender to our dismal fate, and let the Constitution dissolve into non-existance.
Surrender is NOT an option!
2 years, 3 months ago on James Madison: putting principle over pragmatism
I think it pretty obvious that you are trying to discourage any attempt at saving the republic and bring back constitutional governence. If you want to throw in the towel, fine. But the rest of aren't willing to do that. Get OVER yourself!
@ThePainefulTruth @Patrick Henry
I don't believe Henry has anything to apologize about either. And I also agree that the Fed government has no powers delegated to it to be messing in matters of religion or religious doctrine. Maybe, not even the States, since "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE IN PURSUENCE THEREOF;.....shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" It appears to me, that religion, or lack thereof, SHOULD be practiced as a personal matter, with no mandate of imposing such doctrines on others.
The 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law in regards to establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof:" That pretty much sounds to me like a mandated "HANDS OFF" to Congress, which is suppose to be the sole "law making" apparatus of government, according to the Constitution. This "separation" thing has been mis-construed. What the 1st amendment really implies, IMHO, is a "separation of POWERS between State and church." This put an end to partnerships between the leaders of the Church and State, which had existed throughout much of human history, up until the US Constitution was ratified.
The monicker I use on this forum is taken from Naval History during WWII. Task Force 16 was a US Navy taskforce built around the USS Enterprise (CV-6) that included it's excort of Destroyers (DD & DE) and a couple of cruisers (CE). TF-16 was returning to Oahu, from a shuttle mission to Wake Island and was approx. 200 miles West of Pearl Harbor when it was attacked on Dec. 7, 1942 by the Combined Fleet (6 carriers) of the Japanese Navy.
I've used the TaskForce16 nick in several forums, in honor of the tanacity of CV-6 and it's courageous crews during it's operations in the War. The USS Enterprise became the highest decorated war ship of the US Navy, with 20 Battle Stars (out of a possible 24), a Presidential Citation, and a Unit Citation, for it's invovlement with the "Doolittle Raids". PLus, it is the only war ship outside the Bristish Royal Navy to be bestowed with that navies highest honor, The Admiralties Penant, which it recieved after the war while docked in Southhampton, England, as it was operating as part of Operation Magic Carpet (bringing our troops home). www.cv6.org
I have absolutely no idea what gypsy is ranting about. He's definitely an agent provocateur, for the anti-constitutionalist communist.
Agreed as well. I believe the nation wouldbe better served if we could replace the current gang in Gongress with a new bunch that will adhere to the letter of the Constitution, as the Supreme Law of the Land. The shoudl start by, not making new laws, but in reviewing what are already on the books and repael all, or amend parts thereof, that do not comply with the Constitution. Then begin repalcing all judges that have a record of forgetting to leave their personal biases at home when THEY go to work.
The States also need to take more responsibility for solving problems within their own jurisdictions. This will require the people of each state to hold their elected governments AND judges accountable, in adhering to the US Constitution adn their respective State constitutions.
And then there's "WE the People" who really need to get back to the old pioneering mentality of our anscesters that braved this new frontier in it's beginnings. Self-reliance, self-determination, personal responibility must become the norm....AGAIN.
@gypsynovus @ThePainefulTruth Gypsy, you seem to be the only one having a "tantrum", just because you haven't been able to get anyone on this forum to "totally aggree" with your perspective.
You can identify problems, yet you offer no solutions. If ya ain't gonna help, stay out of the way.
gypsey, the rapist you cite were psycho's, with a pinchant for power over others. In their cases, they desired extreme power and control over women. I doubt they had any political leanings.
It's been fairly well documented and exposed that liberalism/progressivism is a mental dissorder, I doubt that anyone here will dispute that fact. However, it has also been documented that extreme religious zealotry can also fall in the category of mental dissorder. You seem to fall in the later.
Now, you seemed to beleive you have figured out what the problem is, so, what's your solution? Or do you even have one?
Well.... lets see......hmmmm.... maybe it's...ahhhh... nah. Perhaps...... er...... OH WAIT! I get it! In the broader sense..... ummm...
Nope, I think he's/she's just another narcissistic progressive, that believes he's/she's the only person in the room that knows anything, and no one else has a right to exist unless they totally agree with them.
Just about every tyrant in history was like that, weren't they.
In my tendency to read the Constitution as a "contract", I work with the text and language that exists therein. As I read this part of Art I, Sec 8,: "...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and gerneral Welfare of the United States;" I don't see any mention of "the people" or "the individual citizens". I interpret this as meaning that responsibility to provide "Welfare" of the individual citizen, is at the feet of the individual. Same goes for our individual Defense (from criminal) when law enforcement is not readily available.
Maybe I'm seeing this the same as you, Paineful, just not as elequent at expressing it as you are.
Are you sure didn't write some of those Federalist papers? ;)
I like to keep one of the booklets on me at all times. I've laready used it during Constitutional discussions with other people, when they make a claim concerning the document that I've I already foudn not to be true. I whip it out and say, "Show me where it says that!" Yeah, I get some dirty looks some times. LOL
I'd like to taek the Hillsdale courses, but my Inet connection (23k) won't download the 45 minute lectures.
Well now, gypsy, you have finally revealed your religious zealotry. Or is it your liberal/progressive (the persistant name calling and insults are tell-tale signs) distain for the US Constitution.
Thank you. It is my hope that I can get the local residents to THINK about the Constitution and take an interest in learning what it is and isn't. I'm also handing out "pocket Constitutions" that i've been purchasing from www.nccs.net/us_constitution . I've already had one business split a box of 200 with me and he's keeping the booklets on his counter for customers to take, AND THEY DO. Part one of my LTE included a challenge to other local businesses to do the same.
I didn't make it to the jury box, before they seated a jury. I stewed the whole time, wondering how to answer that last question, about having a problem with the law. It was a week later that I realized that I might have been able to say, "I didn't" without committing purgery. As most of us, I tend to agree with the prohibition of formerly convicted felons possesing fire arms, to a degree. So, a "NO" answer wouldn't have neccesarily been a lie. The judge didn't ask if anyone had a problem with un-constitutional laws, which I do.
But I probably would have been rejected for being a past member of the NRA, anyway. I was really looking forward to serving, for the first time, on a jury.