Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

"The photobomb involving Desmond Howard is Offensive."

Howard doing the Heismen pose was ten times more offensive. 

2 months, 3 weeks ago on This photobomb involving Desmond Howard is offensive

Reply

@hamishmckenzie Thank you. That is honorable of you.

1 year, 8 months ago on William Shatner calls out Reddit for racism and hate mongering

Reply

Saying Reddit is a "libertarian online community" is like saying the average ago of the Lawrence Welk show was 15.

1 year, 8 months ago on William Shatner calls out Reddit for racism and hate mongering

Reply

@markross67 That's exactly right. If only the people I've been trying to educate would listen when I say the exact same thing.

1 year, 9 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply

@West Texan I would also like to point out that historian Thomas Woods and the 10th Amendment Center have info. On the Supremacy Clause, and what it actually means. I also had a similar understanding of it as yours, until they perked my mind, and went to the founding documents themselves. I would just suggest to go check it, and see for yourself. Thanks again for the reply.

1 year, 9 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply

@West Texan I already pointed out to you, pointing to numerous historical examples, that the founders didn't believe the Supremacy Clause had that authority. Thanks for the reply.

1 year, 9 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply

 @West Texan The idea of federalism rejects the idea that the federal courts are the arbiters to the extent of the individuals rights against the States. You state that it is "We the People who created the Constitution. Many founders, like Patrick Henry, in fact, had difficulty in what the language of "We the People" meant. Henry preferred the term, "We the States" to be included in the Preamble to the Constitution because it was the States who called for it. Although it was the people in the respective States, it was the people only through the States that the Constitution had its breath. Now, to address the more fundamental concern: here are some examples which irrefutably show the founding era believed the Bill of Rights only applied to the General Government. We know this first because James Madison wanted them at one point to apply to the States, and complained that there wasn't any more protections by the General Government against the States other than Article 1, Section 10.(Madison later rejected this idea of an active judiciary, as he moved more and more Jeffersonian as he aged) Furthermore, at the Constitutional Convention, there were 12 Amendments proposed. One of them read:" No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” This Amendment was rejected at the Convention. This shows two things: 1. Some of the founders saw a need for the General Government acting against the States, but well over a supermajority rejected it. 2. It was understood by the founders the first 10 Amendments applied only to the General Government, Otherwise, they wouldn't have proposed the aforementioned Amendment. The 1st and 7th Amendments already protected the rights of conscience, press, and trial by jury, so those very few founders who included this Amendment obviously wrote it because the 1st Ten Amendments didn't apply to the States. Second, just read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It reads: "Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...." Here, it is stated plainly that the Bill of Rights are written for "it's powers"-"The Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York." Third, even the hyper-nationalist John Marshall understood the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. This was why he said the Bill of Rights are so plainly understood to apply only to the General Government. The justices unanimously agreed with Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore, stating that the "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments." Pragmatically, the Incorporation doctrine may be held, and in some instances it may be beneficial, but morally we cannot use unconstitutional power in order to exert our will, and in the long run, the incorporation doctrine will diminish liberty, both through the General and State governments.  The incorporation doctrine has lead to a lazy citizenry. Instead of active participation in state and local governments, freedom lovers have said, "eh-let's just let the federal courts do our job." Furthermore, the incorporation doctrine is a lose-lose situation. As we have seen, once the courts apply the Bill of Rights to the States, the States concoct more excuses to the federal government. This in turn allows the General Government to make these excuses for themselves. Besides short term victories for individual citizens, the incorporation doctrine has done nothing to limit the General Government, and in many cases, hasn't even limited State and local government abuses.

1 year, 9 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply

@West Texan @West Texan I agree with your statements, except for your assertion of Heller. Actually, Heller arises out of a Progressive misconception of the 2nd Amendment. The Progressives invented the doctrine of incorporation out of nowhere. The 2nd Amendment applies only to the General Government, which is clearly evident in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The Incorporation doctrine has lead to a lazy citizenry, and lead liberty activists to rely too much on federal courts to do their job.

1 year, 9 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply

 @WilliamSchooler   Your pantheistic view of the universe is far from the truth. You view everything as univocal, but the Scriptures view man and ownership of the Earth as analogical.  

 

1 year, 9 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply

@cptbanjo That's the point. Rights do not stem from any document or any declaration of rights. They are inherent in nature. This is why the Federalists didn't even want to include a Bill of Rights, and many anti-Federalists understood their fear. The founders repeated fears that the Bill of Rights would be seen as a listing of a persons rights.(Which is partially the reason for the 9th Amendment) The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of a persons rights, it is a list of violations of certain rights the States wanted to specifically protect against the General Government. Just look at the Bill of Rights in comparison to late colonial history. The First 10 Amendments were rights that England most often violated. The founders believed that violations of the Bill of Rights would still be illegal even without a Bill of Rights.

1 year, 10 months ago on Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right

Reply

@ArnoldZiffle I have always held that funding by the General Government of schools is not in the Constitution, and so does the 10th Amendment Center. In fact, the 10th Amendment Center has articles on this subject, and has recommended literature stating this. That is something that occurs when you support the 10th Amendment in all areas. When you support the 10th Amendment, you will oppose even those things that you wish the General Government could do. The principles of federalism,, popular control of government, and home rule are ideas that bring multiple ideologies and affiliations together.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@JessicaShaner I did listen to the press conference. He called on the Congress to appropriate funds for revenues they have no authority under the Constituon to distribute.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@MelMeskill @MelMeskill You cannot make the 2nd Amendment mean simply what you want it to mean. We understand the 2nd Amendment by the actual words used by their meaning at the time of adoption, and how they were understood by the founders. This is how almost every text is analyzed. The Bill of Rights was never understood to apply to the States. We know this first because James Madison wanted them at one point to apply to the States, and complained that there wasn't any more protections by the General Government against the States other than Article 1, Section 10.(Madison later rejected this idea of an active judiciary, as he moved more and more Jeffersonian as he aged) Furthermore, at the Constitutional Convention, there were 12 Amendments proposed. One of them read:" No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” This Amendment was rejected at the Convention. This shows two things: 1. Some of the founders saw a need for the General Government acting against the States, but well over a supermajority rejected it. 2. It was understood by the founders the First 10 Amendments applied only to the General Government, Otherwise, they wouldn't have proposed the aforementioned Amendment. The 1st and 7th Amendments already protected the rights of conscience, press, and trial by jury, so those very few founders who included this Amendment obviously wrote it because the 1st Ten Amendments didn't apply to the States. Second, just read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It reads: "Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Here, it is stated plainly that the Bill of Rights are written for "it's powers"-"The Congress of the Uited States bupegun and held at the City of New York." Third, even the hyper-nationalist John Marshall understood the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. This was why he said the Bill of Rights are so plainly understood to apply only to the General Government. The justices unanimously agreed with Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore, stating that the "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments." The incorporation doctrine has lead to a lazy citizenry. Instead of active participation in state and local governments, freedom lovers have said, "eh-let's just let the federal courts do our job." Furthermore, the incorporation doctrine is a lose-lose situation. As we have seen, once the courts apply the Bill of Rights to the States, the States concoct more excuses to the federal government. This in turn allows the General Government to make these excuses for themselves. Besides short term victories for individual citizens, the incorporation doctrine has done nothing to limit the General Government, and in many cases, hasn't even limited State and local governments.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@JessicaShaner The Congress works for the people and states to perform those duties listed under the Copnstitution. Anything outside of those powers is a violation of what the Purpose of the General Gov't is under the Constituon. The founders believed in a General Gov't to do those things which the States cannot do themselves. In calling for a General Gov't, they believed that when a General Gov't acted in a proper manner, that it was actually the States acting in unison. When the General Gov't does anything outside of those things the States can't do or the Constitution didn't authorize, the Congress is no longer working for the people through the compact of the States.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@RhondaReichel Balloney to what? Mike Maharrey neither endorsed nor denied the NRA's view that armed guards should be in every school. What you brought up has nothing to do with Maharrey's posts. All he said was the NRA doesn't care about the Constitution because they have called for the General government to police such action. The General Government has no authority to have any control over schools whatsoever. Under the 10th Amendment, this is a state function. The 10th Amendment Center is not a policy center. They are a Constiutuon first center. They let other organizations do the public policy decisions. the Constitution is first priority.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@bloomofyouth The General gov't is the worst entity to temporarily have this program. The General gov't has nothing, owns nothing, and has no money, except what three people in the States give them. The General Gov't has no authority to temporarily have any influence in the schools, yet alone to cause another problem through their power. You right, I don't trust the General gov't to do anything in the schools, so I don't trust them to be with or have influence over any school child.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@Mike Maharrey Awesome. To be clear, I was not in any way suggesting you even nudged at supporting incorporation. If that came across, I didn't mean for it to. I was just adding that that is my problem with how the NRA goes about proporting to be defending gun rights.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@MichaelBrady Who are you referring to?

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

@Sean W Unfortunately, most libertarians also support the incorporation doctrine. I'm fact, many libertarians also support full incorporation of the first 8 Amendments.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply

Not only that, the NRA is what talk show host Mike Church calls "incorporationistas." The NRA uses every chance to use the federal courts to shove their view on the States.

1 year, 10 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution

Reply