martin s harris jr
Bio not provided
It's the mental feat shrinks call "cognitive dissonance", the ability to embrace two conflicting concepts simultaneously. Sometimes, in conversations with Gentry-Left folks, they'll actually admit that they fully understand the plain-speak meaning of various Constitutional and Bill of Rights language, and then they go into elaborate excuses for them, as supeeior-intellect Progressives with the obligation to govern us dumber folks (what Progressive Rudyard Kiling called "the white man's burden") who simply have to choose to interpret the meanings differently in order to "make progress" and "move forward".
They do the same with "modern art", pretending to admire the paint-spatters but occasionally admitting that a chimp could do ( and has done) them, because if you don't sign on for Pollack and Warhol you won't be welcome at the brie-and-chablis receptions which they prize so highly.
2 years, 1 month ago on No More Waiting. Nullify Now!
Mr. Delaney is right again. I would only add that lawyers fully understand the plain meaning of the Constitution in general and the Tenth Amendment in particular, but, as the second-oldest profession, they suppress that understanding when, just like the oldest profession, they temporarily assume any position desired by a fee-paying client. But history has shown that plain-language-meaning interpretation of the existing Constitution doesn't trump legal fees, which means that eventually, for plain-language seekers, we'll have to adopt it for ourselves and create some degree of governance separation from those who think its language infinitely flexible.
I fully agree with Mr. Delaney's observations about a Tenth Amendment with teeth as an essential first effort. Even if it ultimately fails, as I suspect from the historical evidence, it will, going through the effort will earn the TA movement points for credibility and respect for Constitutional principle and process. I'd argue that an Articles of Confederation approach is less divisive than a full-Secession approach, and we should keep in mind that we have friends in even the bluest of States: for example, the 31% of the electorate in Gentry-Left Vermont which didn't vote for re-distributed "free stuff."
should Nullification not work, for the usual political-majority reasons, the answer isn't Secession, tried last time around; a better route is a revised Articles of Confederation, where we in the red (maker) states decline to provide further fudning for the rules and spending of the ble (taker) States. I doubt that the remaining 30 States (by Obama-count) will invade our 27, because Leftists are proudly pacifist. It will be a semi-divorce without alimony.