Bio not provided
There are just so many ways to nullify federal acts that don't require direct confrontation. I personally hate affirmative action. Why not make it possible that an employer can be sued when utilize it? How can the feds interfere with that when civil disputes are always reserved for state courts? The federal government can't do anything about such a law and employers will cease to utilize the tax credits they get for affirmative action for fear of being sued for discrimination...etc...etc.
This brings me to another point which is states can use their exclusive domain of civil courts to interfere with federal law. Why not make it so that federal employees can be sued? Or citizens who assist federal employees enforce nullification laws can also be sued.
1 year, 1 month ago on State Non-Compliance is Its Own Penalty
I think states should penalize its citizens when they help to enforce such laws. A neighbor who calls the feds because you have an 'illegal' firearm should face some kind of penalty. The toughest would be jailtime but that might be to hard to pass. The next can be a fine but then we may run into the argument that such laws interfere with federal laws (which is not really an issue for any nullifier). I think a novel solution would be to allow the person who is prosecuted by such a federal law to sue the person or persons who assisted in his prosecution. The neighbor who called the feds for illegal drugs, guns, bibles (obama is working on that), and etc would then face litigation and can lose his or her life savings. when you couple this with the state not complying with the federal law you create an even bigger field for them to cover.
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is,
in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to
decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the
last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the
government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the
constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other
departments hold their delegated trusts."
Is this saying that SCOTUS's final authority on deciding what the constitution means only exist for the departments of the federal government while allowing states to reject its final authority? That is what it says to me. My understanding from this paragraph is that SCOTUS can't tell states what to do and its decisions over states are voluntary at best but SCOTUS can tell the different departments of the federal what to do.
A state may not have to comply with a federal court when its decisions are in violation of their rights.
1 year, 2 months ago on MaddowBlog Smackdown Revisited
"not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional
compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold
their delegated trusts."
Doesn't this imply that the judiciary branch of the federal government can't decide what are the 'rights' of each state? It seems to imply that the power of judicial review should only extend to the different departments of the federal
@anarchobuddy I agree with what you said but people repeat that constantly to the point where you are forced to use the same phrase. The term 'we' often refers to our immediate association like 'we' in the church or 'we' in the family etc. "We" in a political sense should refer to society as a whole without its government since government is nothing but politicians. They say "we" in this legislature are creating laws for the people. They never say we are passing laws for ourselves. Clearly they see a line between their organization (the government) and the society that it governs.
The advantage of seeing the seperation is that our associations remain a-political. They are truly private in that sense because our family may be a part of the social fabric but that social fabric is completely disconnected from government. The result is that our non-political lives become truly private but the minute you include government as a part of society then it seems that our private lives become a part of the state's machinary. The result is the over politicalization of everything because everything is political and that is exactly what we have today. If we say someone is conservative we then make assumptions that they are pro-family. How is that our decision to value family is political in the first place. It is completely unnatural to make such a connection between politics and family in the first place!
1 year, 2 months ago on Why We Should Mistrust the Government
@theendisfar @onetenther isn't that what I said?
I always thought 'self-rule' was more about an individual having the freedom to guide themselves throughout life. Establishing their own direction and being able to execute their own will over their own lives. Government is not 'self-rule' by that definition.
A more important ( and something that infuriates me) the most about this argument is that it is often used to trick people into accepting whatever government wants to do. I would think that if I wanted absolute freedom to do whatever I want to the population I would want one that does not question me whatsoever. That is exactly what this and arguments like it are intended to do. Government can not do any harm to you simply because its will is the people's will. How can it hurt you then?
I would like to point out that the courts can not enforce 'executive orders' simply because the fifth amendment states that life, liberty, and property can not be taken away without the due process of law. There is no way that a court can use its power to enforce an executive order even when they are properly executing a law. An executive order simply gets the machinaray of the state moving to enforce the law. that is all.
Also, I believe the departments under the president can issue orders to move their departments to enforce the laws. They may be acting at the presidents command or they can do so independently but those orders can't be enforced in a court since courts only can enforce the law not 'orders' from other human beings.
This actually made me think of another reason why states can nullify federal attempts to enforce a law. The supremacy clause says 'laws' are supreme to state laws but it does not say executive orders are. Could a state prohibit the federal from taking action within their borders to enforce a federal law since those actions were initiated by an executive order somewhere? In essence, you would be nullifying, not the law itself, but the orders that move the machinary of the federal government thus prevent them from acting within the state itself.
An executive order and all federal actions that enforces gun laws because of them could be blocked in a state simply because the supremacy clause does not mention 'executive orders'. The law would still be in affect and it would be the state's responsibility at that point to enforce that law itself.
1 year, 2 months ago on Executive Orders: The Constitution Doesn’t Authorize Legislation by Executive
A balance budget amendment will not fix the problem simply because of the fact the government can ignore the constitution anytime it likes. Who would have thought that can happen? Anyways...the line item veto would be a better tool since the president can veto parts of any bill that he feels would put us in the red. The problem is not normal legislation but addons that congress attaches to it and a line item veto would stop that immediatly.
1 year, 2 months ago on Compact for America: Saving the Republic by Fixing the Debt? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
They keep telling us nullification is a no-go yet they keep attacking it. Now if it was as truly worthless as they say it is why are they attacking it. I suspect that nullification must, at least, slow down the enforcement of federal laws and, in some cases, completely shuts them down.
1 year, 2 months ago on South Carolina: Following James Madison’s Advice to Nullify Obamacare
The court rejected nullification because states were trying to decide for themselves what is constitutional BUT THAT WAS OVER THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF NOT ANY PARTICULAR PIECE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION!
1 year, 2 months ago on Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream
@mrducksmrnot I would like to point out that when they say the courts have rejected nullificaton they are usually pointing to civil rights cases during the 60s. The court rejected nullification because states were trying to decide for themselves what is constitutional and what is not BUT THAT WAS OVER THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF NOT ANY PARTICULAR PIECE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION! Its a huge difference. I'm OK with courts striking down state laws that plainly violate the constitution (most of the time) but the kind of nullification that this site, as well as other nullifiers, promote is states nullifying federal laws that violate the constitution. It is not a question about the acts of a state in regards to the constitution but a question of the acts of the federal in regards to the constitution. States should be able to declare federal laws unconstitutional and prohibit them from being enforced.
"According to the letter, Wilson may be in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (the release of blueprints qualifies as exporting), and his site may have released technical information that is controlled by International Traffic in Arms Regulations."
This is precisely why some of us are concerned about so called arms agreements....
1 year, 2 months ago on Access denied | FP Passport
As for Pew research on medical marijuana laws...Why wouldn't a cunning republican politician use that to split the democratic party in half. Wait...got to make sure everyone is morally pure which means drugs are out of the question.
@tnmilfman even if the federal govt did have the proper authority to do some things in a state a state could still interfere with the enforcement of those laws and even prevent it from being enforced all together. There is no reason why nullification can't both nullify unconstitutional as well as constitutional acts. One would wonder what would prevent a state from doing that? The answer is simple, Self-interest of the state! States need the federal to do some things for their own interest in dealing with foreign affairs, hunting down terrorist, engaging in war, etc, etc, and etc. Not one state has a military that can compete with the one the federal government gots which is why the federal becomes a benefit to the states themselves. Why would any state reject whatever authority is needed in order to provide protection from foreign invasion? It is like parties of contract. each side fears losing the obligation from the other so they mutual provide what the other wants. In this case it would be protection from federal and the federal would recieve the right to have some authority. Of course, but only power hungry people would see that as a benefit to themselves but that is the way it works.
I got a feeling that nullification will split the democratic/liberal (they are not liberal but we call them that anyways) party in half. As nullification becomes a solution for leftish causes such as medical marijuana, gay marriage, etc, etc, that the left will drop them in a minute. Why? A great deal of leftist are autocratic authoritarians who have managed to conceal that thinking from everyone and nullification destroys all central planning which makes me think they will drop democrats who support nullification.
@going insane You are exactly right about that. A big problem is that so much of the press here is 'liberal' which means stuff like this ain't going to get any coverage in the media. The public will never know unless you mention it to someone else privately at a lunch counter.
1 year, 2 months ago on Jan Brewer, You’re Fired! – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I life in Arizona and I could have told you who this woman really is. I knew she was going to veto the gold and silver bill. I wish somene would start a recall for this woman. She can go down with Mecham.
@jimwalsh59 I agree. It is the smoothest way to nullify because the feds don't have enough time and money to enforce such laws without the state's cooperation. It is just to hard and may not even be worth it to them. Just look at marijuana nullification. They had a rally of pot smokers in broad daylight in CO without a single federal arrest.
On this topic, I would like to say that the federal can regulate the flow of drugs into a country since that is INTER-state trade but once it is within a state or Indian tribe then the responsibility becomes up to the state or tribal governments. That is if they want to....
1 year, 2 months ago on Personal Liberty Laws: A Nullification History Lesson
@RayJ It will. It will get ridiculed in the liberal media but he who laughs last laughs best.
The best thing about this kind of law is that it creates an underground economy that isn't affected by the monitary policies of the federal reserve. It will still have an affect even if just 1% of all transactions are done with gold or silver coin because that is 1% less of the economy that is affected by the federal reserve. It may not sound like a lot but it may provide competition which ultimately forces the fiat currency to improve itself over time.
It would be interesting if someone could find a study to see the affect it had in Utah. I've traveled through there and noticed that things were a few cents less than what it is in other states. I don't know if that is because of the recent gold legislation but someone should do a study to see if there has been any affect whatsoever.
1 year, 2 months ago on Nullify the Fed! Arizona Constitutional Tender Bill on the Governor’s Desk for a Signature
@tsarbomba I left a message but I'm assuming you got to talk to someone direclty. They are going to give you the run around because that is there job. I think it is better to leave a message so that, at the end of the day, they tally the yes votes and no votes for whatever bill you are referencing. Talking to them directly just confuses them.
remove from office!
1 year, 2 months ago on BREAKING: Docs Show Janet Napolitano Thanked Missouri Governor For Breaking State Law – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@tsarbomba U have to leave a comment on the voicemail....it is the very last in the message cycle...press 3 then press 1...then....
There are many good articles on this website but is there a way that someone can catalog them so we can look up past articles? I wanted to look up some info on this site but I found there was very little in means of a way to find older articles. The wealth of information on this website about the constitution is invaluable and I think it should be more easily accessable.
1 year, 2 months ago on Just Blame James
I'm a huge supporter of nullification. I just see it as a way out of this mess and, quite frankly, don't care what other states do but I do think we are making progress. He said 'duly enacted laws are the supreme law of the land'...gee thanks for repeating the supremacy clause to us. Anyways, notice the term 'duly'. It is similar to 'pursuance of' which, as we all know, means only a handful to enacted laws are the superior to state laws. Those laws are those those that are in 'pursuance of' or 'duly enacted' but what about laws that are not 'duly enacted'? Where do those laws rank? Clearly they can not be superior to state laws since only laws that are 'duly enacted' are a part of the supreme law of the land as they like to say over and over again. I think we are making progress because we use to hear every law is the supreme law of the land but this change in their rhetoric shows that we are working them over. It is only going to be a matter of time.
I would like to add that nullification has to be unlimited because this is a confederation of state which means each state has sovreignty over their own borders just like any nation does. States are different than provinces in that they posses quasi nation status and if it wasn't for the constitution each state would be free to conduct their affairs as they wish with other countries. We can't say the same for 'provinces' can we?
Of course, there are going to be those that say this is a silly idea but don't waste time with them! I have a saying which is no individual has to negotiate with other individuals over what are their rights. Doing so jeapordizes that right since if you lose the argument you lose the right. Think about this for a moment! A person who is determined to not allow you to have your rights will always reject your argument even if its logic is sound. They do so because, on some level, they want control. They want power to deny you a freedom and we all know what power does. Just say NO to those who demand your rights. No negotiation, no arguments, no need to agree. Just say NO to them.
States, like individuals, should do the same thing. Don't enter into negotiations. Don't subject yourself to a court that seems inclined to interject itself in a state's internal affairs. Just say NO! Think of abortion. How many people honestly believe the courts are going to undo RoeVwade? Abortion, like so many other issues, are a state's business and if 50 states want to ban it then let them. IF they want to allow it then let them but the point is is that states (and the constitution) will decide what they are to do not the federal government.
Federal courts are for federal laws and they should stick to their own business. On this subject, I believe the jurisdiction of the federal courts does not include all cases involving the constitution. It states a list of types of contraversies that they can settle when their is a question about federal law or the constitution. Notice it says contraversies between the federal and any citizen of any state or of foreign state (roughly). This does not include contraversies between a citizen and his state. That is left as an internal matter for the state to settle for itself. It seems that there is some kind of state power to settle internal matters regarding questions about the constitution. That sounds like nullification.
1 year, 2 months ago on Meet an Enforcer of Approved Opinion
@TaskForce16 @JohnBanks That would make it even harder to ban a weapon....
1 year, 2 months ago on The Founders and the 2nd Amendment
@JohnBanks I don't know if you are replying to me but I said that such weapons are permissable under the 2nd amendment. It is a 'loop hole' but one that exist and can't be undone until they change the constitution. I have no problem with limiting such weapons by that means only since it is exceptable but the idea that the federal government can do so by itself violates the 2nd and 10th amendment. I don't think that any kind of 'common sense' gun restrictions are possible under the 2nd amendment. I agree that terms like 'common sense' or 'reasonable' are nothing but phrases gun control politicians use to water down the 2nd amendment. It is kind of like saying reasonable restrictions on the first amendment. However, restrictions can be put into the constitution itself if people wanted to. Such an amendment was attempted many years ago by Bush I that attempted to deny people the freedom to burn the American flag. If it passed, it would have infringed on people's freedom of speech but it would have been legal to do so.
I think that, as a strategy to thwart gun grabbers, we should give them a legal path to getting what they want which is amending the constitution. It may seem like surrendering but in reality passing an amendment is so hard that they will quit attempting to do so. Can you imagine getting 2/3 of all states to agree to that? It won't happen but it will be fun to watch the gun grabbers proverbially ice skate uphill. LOL
You are trying to make a case that his was unconstitutional but there is an exception located within the constitution itself for civil unrest and foreign invasions. I don't know off hand if it is just for search warrants but it does exist and it exist for good reason because when there is an immediate public danger such as foreign invasion the government has to have some power to deal with it affectively.
1 year, 3 months ago on Totalitarian – Tenth Amendment Center
@WilliamSchooler I don't understand your point. Do you agree or disagree. I just said that illegals are a problem that is in proportion to the number of illegals. A few people jumping over the border isn't a problem but when it is a lot and you start to notice quite a few foreiners in your neighborhoods then it becomes a problem. Individual states should be able to decide who can enter their states. The exception is US citizens since that would violate the 14th amendment. I may not agree with California's open border policy but it will never affect me so I shouldn't care what they do and quite frankly allowing different states to have different policies simply checks any kind of bigotry that might be behind these anti-immigrant movements.
1 year, 3 months ago on Nullification and Amnesty – Tenth Amendment Center
@MikeJones4 The amnesty bill should be killed because it violates the tenth amendment.
I actually think that states should not allow unlimited immigration into their state because I live on a border state with Mexico and I can tell you the negative affects of open borders. However, I do agree with this article that immigration -- the movement of foreigners into a country-- is up to each state. It would be better that way because if a state was very bigoted then their bigotry can be checked by another state. It would also keep the hands of grimy politicians out of immigration because the only reason they care is that they see a way they can subvert the vote of the people. Think of it this way. If 51% of the people wanted something done that the politicians didn't want to do then they can allow a certain number of people into the country to weaken that 51% down to 49%. The politicians are just using immigration as a tool against the people.
@Camestrop All citizens of the United States (as well as citizens of the several states) are entitled to the immunities and priviliges of each state. The 14th amendment wouldn't come into affect.
@Lonny Eachus You sarcasm serves you no point. Nullification is not self-declaring someone a king simply because one state is not claiming any authority over another. They are simply asserting their authority over themselves which is the very idea behind individual liberty. What we are doing is not declaring anyone a king of the entire universe but more declaring an individual a king of their own selves only which shouldn't really bother anyone at all.
1 year, 3 months ago on Obama Drug Czar Says States Can’t Nullify Federal Drug Laws – Tenth Amendment Center
@MalcolmKyle1 I don't think that we will see the full legalization of drugs but I don't see what is wrong with delegating them to misdemeanor offenses where someone only has to pay a fine. It just seems that when we do that all the problems you mentioned (and ones I agree occur because of harsh drug laws) will evaporate. The thing I've noticed is the fact that ever since LBJ announced a war on drugs in the 60s the arguments as to why we should remove our procedurial rights have been eaten away. The war on terror is much worse. I'm all for prosecuting terrorist and criminals but why should I lose a single right because of that and why should I be subject to overly harsh laws?
@Lonny Eachus In further news: Obama announces he was king of America and a willing population nods their heads in agreement.
The best argument to decriminalize drugs on the state level is simply to eliminate every law against drugs within a state but then allow the federal government to come in and police it. It seems that if we want to eliminate the income tax in the states that we have to cut spending somewhere. How much do states spend on enforcing drug laws? Combine arrest, police patrols, judicial procedures, and incarceration and I bet we get a number that equals what we take in for income taxes.
I can just hear Charlsten Heston saying "You can take my medical marijuana from my cold dead hand!"
@Monorprise They take an oath to uphold the constitution as well as federal laws. What happens when one directly contradicts the other? They would have to sacrifice one oath in order to uphold the other. This invites several questions. The first is why would you uphold the oath to enforce federal laws that sit below the constitution? The second is why would you throw away the oath to uphold the supreme law and only law of the land which is the constitution? The only way you can uphold both oaths is to uphold laws that are in pursuant of the constitution itself.
I got one thing to say "FUCK YOU" federal government!
@TaskForce16 @DwayneStovall @OnTheMark The federalist papers never advocated for giving the federal government unlimited power. Just a few in order for it to carry out its purpose which was to deal with foreign affairs. It could not do those things unless it ws granted some powers. The federalist arguments that are used in courts are simply a way of helping us understand what the constitution means. It is not the same as other attempts to use foreign documents to expand the powers of the constitution.
1 year, 3 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th
@TaskForce16 @DwayneStovall @OnTheMark I hate to jump in but the supposed incorporation doctrine is actual has not been used to restrain the federal government but to unfairly restrain the state governments. It has been used to tell states things they can't do but the same courts that use the same BOR to tell states what to do rarely apply the same standard to the federal government. The courts have told the states that they can't infringe on the 2nd amendent but there is no corresponding ruling against the federal. By applying the BOR to the states the courts have used it as an excuse to strip states of their own right to pass laws that they deem is appropriate.
@tsarbomba On one level calling the police is a good thing such as calling the police when your neighbor's house is being robbed. However, there is an important difference between this act and what seems to happen now. The government creates a total compliance standard with the law but it knows it can't do that with the police alone so it get citizens to turn in other citizens for offenses that other citizens may not care about. Now we are being turned in for every little thing in the world and that is a police state because citizens are afraid to walk outside and be turned in by our neighbor for an innocent offense.
1 year, 3 months ago on A Message for Trying Times – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@tsarbomba Many conservatives are glad to help the government turn people in with the belief that they are being good citizens.
I find most conservatives have sucked in the collectivism philosophy wholeheartily. I expect someone on the left to turn me in for tax evasion because that is what we do in police states. We turn people in who don't comply with the law. Its the only way to achieve 100% compliance with the state (think about that for a moment). Conservatives act in the same way but will always complain about high taxes. What is it about us that will follow authority when that authority doesn't even benefit our own personal gain in life?
The left has to use arguments that appeal to righties in order to push their socialist agenda...
1 year, 3 months ago on N.C. Religion Resolution: A Poorly Worded Distraction – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Has anyone ever considered existing international treaties that bar WMD from civilian hands? That could be a useful talking point to counter the silly argument of 'what about nukes'?
1 year, 3 months ago on The Founders and the 2nd Amendment
I really do believe the 2nd amendment protects the right to have personal nukes. The writers of the 2nd amendment couldn't imagine people would have weapons that destructive so they didn't think their was a need to place any limits on it. I'm sure if they were writing the 2nd amendment today they would have carved out a few exceptions in order to accomodate those kind of weapons but that isn't so. Call it it fluke or a technicality but the fact their are no limits to what we can have in the 2nd amendment means we can have those weapons until someone puts something in the constitution that says we can't have those.
I would like to say that I am not thrilled with undoing drug laws but I do see where many of our drug enforcement laws are blatently unconstitutional. The first is the fact the federal government is limited in on what commercial transactions it can restrict. The feds can stop the sale of drugs when they cross state, national, or indian tribes but within these entities they can not. This mean payote is quite legal as long as it is grown, sold, and consumed within a tribal territory. The same thing would go for an entire state so as long as it is produced and sold within a state then the feds can't stop it. They can stop drugs from pouring into this country if they wanted to but that is as far as the DEA should go.
1 year, 3 months ago on Nullify the War on Drugs – Tenth Amendment Center
This is the best argument as to why the federal government shouldn't be able to check its own powers. It, by an act of congress, could take away the supreme courts appellete jurisdiction which would allow the lower courts (which are more controlled by congress) the final say. What would stop congress from doing such a thing and if it did who would be able declare a law unconstitutional? Geee....who can that be...um...
1 year, 3 months ago on A Professor’s Defense of Nullification – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
As someone who has been accused of being one of those anti-government types I favor this simply because the war on drugs has been used to destroy every single civil liberty protection we have. The next time a cop wants to unilateraly search your car just ask yourself what is he searching for. It can't be for stolen goods or to look for evidence of murder since he STILL needs a search warrant for those. Here comes the war on drugs and now cops can practically do body cavity searches on you whenever he wants.
1 year, 4 months ago on Nullify the War on Drugs – Tenth Amendment Center
I really don't see a point in voting republican anymore. I really think that this batch of republicans have to fade away into the sunset which is why I am withholding my vote for them. I might even vote democrat just to flush a few out.
1 year, 4 months ago on Why I’m Not a Conservative – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
One day we will see these people as the authoritarians that they actually are. What else explains why they defend bigger and stronger governments?
1 year, 4 months ago on Freedom, Not Government, Made America Great
The whole reason why government projects like the Eirie canal don't work is that governments don't think like a private business. They may point out some of the benefits to commerce of building such a thing but a private business thinks in terms of capital. I would think that if such a project was truly valuable to other businesses investors wold naturally flock to provide that service. They didn't for the Erie Canal because they knew it wouldn't work. The same is said about electric cars. They may actually be kind of neat but no one has figured out how to make them palatable to the public which is why Obama had to take over GM. Just like the Erie Canal, the government was the only thing that would go where investors fear to tread.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that there’s no such thing as nullification,” Connor said.
OK. Can Mr. Connor provide proof for this?
1 year, 4 months ago on Nullification vs. Arrogant College Professors – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I really see nullification as something that upholds the compact between the states as a whole and the federal government. States agreed to certain things so they should have no problem with allowing the federal government to do those things. I certainly have no problem with the federal government using its powers to enforce voting rights. It says so in the constitution but there is no recourse if states can't decide for themselves about what they will let the federal government do. Nullification is the ONLY true remedy for the situation but now that i said that how come this sight doesn't push nullification of state laws? How come no one wants to see the dangers of an every expanding state government? Think of NY and the fact that it is illegal to drink to much soda. It would be great if NY city decided to nullify that particular NY state law.
1 year, 4 months ago on Personal Liberty Laws: A Nullification History Lesson
I really think that the next time someone ask what started the civil war we should say "It was the nullification of the fugitive slave act by the northern states". Then we show them actual declarations of southern states independence that actually said so. How can you ignore that?
I have disagree. I think it was nine because of the 3/4 majority to approve of any new amendment or alter or abolish the constitution. I think it sounds like a great idea for today. We can just rewrite a new constitution founded on strong federal concepts so we can abolish the current federal government completely.
1 year, 4 months ago on Why the Framers Could Suggest Ratification by Only Nine States – Tenth Amendment Center
I would like to add an additional point of discussion which is that if congress didn't want the supreme court to weigh in on the law they could have established an appellate exception to it. The supreme court is basically an appellate court for all federal courts in which congress can also decide the path the appeals process takes to the supreme court. I think if congress wanted to protect its law it could have established an appellate exception which would give lower courts the final jurisdiction over the law. I believe this was done after the civil war where congress feared the supreme court would strike down convictions against former confederates. This would be interesting to look up and prove that the supreme court's supposed final say on a law is really only a grant from the congress itself.
1 year, 4 months ago on Supreme Court places National Security Agency above the law – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@cptbanjo I know what the court ruled but has it occurred to you that there decision was legally wrong? My whole point is that an unchanging construction of the law makes it possible for individuals to know what actions are legal ahead of time. Can you imagine if the courts changed their interpretation of what is an acceptable speed limit on the freeway? Even though it may say 55 the courts can change it via interpretation to be 63, 47, 13, or whatever they feel like it every day. How would we know, as individuals, what is acceptable to drive and would we really have any freedom in this scenario? The court could say that no one should be driving this speed and even though it was acceptable the day before they changed their minds. THey can essentially prosecute you any time they decide which is why an unchanging (and correct) interpretation is essential in order to prevent the law from being misused as a tool of arbitrary power.
In the case of racial segregation, the courts may not have liked the actions of those states and chose an interpretation that gave them the power to stop those states from doing what they might have been legally allowed to do. We might not care because it was ending something unsavory but everyone is entitled to the obligations the compact (which is the law and the constitution) they agreed to gave them and what if the obligations were that they would be allowed to racially segregate their public schools? Wouldn't they be entitled to that?
1 year, 5 months ago on The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is Constitutional
@cptbanjo The states were actually right in those cases because the law did allow them to decide the matter for themselves and like all laws they afford a great deal of protection of individual liberty. In this case it would be the individual liberty of each state and like any other liberty it can be used for unsavory practices such as segregation. The solution is the alter the constitution not come up with an interpretation that gets the result you need for a specific purpose at the moment because doing that changes the civil authority to an arbitrary power where no individual has any protection of liberty.
I feel people worship of any kind is degrading to the human spirit since it elevates others above us. That is self-degrading by definition. I think people should have self-esteem in themselves to realize that their worth is equal to anyone elses. That would include presidents, rock stars, sports stars, and etc.
1 year, 5 months ago on Presidents and Mythology – Tenth Amendment Center
That is my sentiment exactly. I think there are some laws that we should comply with since compliance brings about security for ourselves such as laws against property damage. I have no problem complying with those laws since my compliance provides protection to others and vice-versa. There compliance with such a law also provides protection. However, there are some laws that really don't yield any protection to any other individual around me which makes me wonder why I should comply with them when no one would be harmed if I broke them.
1 year, 5 months ago on Words Don’t Matter, Actions Do
@Ripcity "The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases "arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States." This is wrong because the constitution gives judicial power over the constitution and a few other cases which expands its power to that area. It does not exlcude states from declaring the law unconstitutional in itself. There is no section of the constitution that denies a state can do that if it chose to.
"the Constitution was established directly by the people, as stated in the preamble: "We the people of the United States. . . ." This is technichally true that the constitution and federal laws govern the people of the United States but that is not saying that states have no independent authority whatsoever. When we say that the federal government is constructed by the whole people we are saying that it has a right to govern them. We did not say that the federal government can govern the states since, as you said, it is of the people not the states. Also, the constitution, and every amendment was approved by the state legislatures so every power and every law it can make with those powers were ultimately allowed by the states themselves. The states affectively allowed the federal government to govern within its own jurisdiction simply because the states collectively can reject any new authority that the federal government or the constitution seeks to impose.
1 year, 5 months ago on An important introduction to Nullification. http:/...
There are so many different ways to nullify federal laws it isn't funny. The very first act of nullification was very successful even though it may not have been considered OK by the supreme court at the time. The reason for this is that the federal government had no police force to enforce its own laws so it relied completely on state cooperation. States had to enforce the sedition acts simply because they were the only ones who had a law enforcement body but when some states refused to enforce it there was simply no way that law could be enforced within that state. It would be interesting to see arrest records at the time to see if anyone was arrested for violation of the sedition act and I bet not one single person was arrested after the nullification acts were passed.
Now the federal government has arrest powers in different bodies such as ATF, FBI, DEA, etc, etc, and etc which makes nullification more difficult because the federal government doesn't have to rely on state cooperation but that doesn't mean that nullification still can't function if a state is creative enough. Consider non-compliance which is states not rendering any aid or its own resources to the assistance of enforcing what it deems unconstitutional laws. This doesn't stop those agents from making arrest but it definately makes their job much harder. So hard that they may not even attempt to enforce it themselves.
Another way to nullify is for states to stop accepting money from the federal government! The department of education is simply a government contractor between itself and state schools. It gives them 'free' money as long as they agree to certain rules which violates a state's own authority to decide the rules on what is taught in its schools. They freely accept the money but they also freely do what the federal government tells them to do. The best way to nullify the department of education is to simply not accept the money anymore and its authority is terminated within that state. I would say that this would for all other similar schemes within the federal government.
These are ones that have been openly discussed but what about making compliance with a federal law that the state has nullified a state crime in itself. An employer who forces their employees to participate in obamacare can be punished by state law. A cigarrette company that puts those pesky labels on the back of their cartons can also be punished by state law. The result is that people within that state will comply with state law and if that law itself is deemed constitutional by the federal courts the same federal courts will have no choice but to recognize state nullification since they are upholding a state law that basically tells its residents that complying with this federal law is a state crime.
What about taxation? There are no limits placed on taxation for states so why can't states erect a special federal enforcement tax. They can say that when the federal government comes in and enforces a federal law that it consumes state resources such as public roads, electricity, utilities, and so forth. All of which puts wear and tear so why shouldn't federal employees be taxed when they enter the state to do their job? Why not use the income tax and say any federal employee who entered the state has to pay a 100% income tax for the year. I wonder what federal employee would work really hard to enforce federal law.
My point is is that their are about a million different ways a state can interfere with federal officials that do not involve direct confrontation which I think is the worst stratagy of all. This is where we need pour mental energy into--strategy! Think and think hard....
One day we are going to see that people who don't support any kind of federalism are really authoritarians who are not content with letting entire segments of the population be free of their central control.
@jettabear The Supreme court has said states can't ban firearms yet many states are defying it anyways. Where is the outrage from those who think the federal government is superior to states? It just seems kind of selective when you can decide over what issues the states should comply with SCOTUS and what issues they can't.
1 year, 5 months ago on Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@jettabear There is really nothing the courts can do if a state decides to ignore any of its decisions.
@jettabear Do you mean this section?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
You will notice the first clause mentions the constitution and the second clause is laws made in pursuance of. Since states must honor the constitutions and federal law then their is a possibility that a federal law which they are suppose to uphold may conflict with their other obligation which is to uphold the constitution. A law that says a person can't practice Islam would be a federal law and it would also be unconstitutional which would put them into conflict with each other. Why should any state enforce that law when they are also required to uphold the constitution at the same time? They now have a choice and since the constitution is the superior to any federal law they must side on the constitution not the federal law that is in violation of it.
@Brian Barrett Each state and the United States has separate constitutions which means that our right to bear arms is protected on different levels depending on who is trying to infringe on that particular freedom. The 2nd amendment keeps the federal government away from our guns (as well as other weapons) but when it is the states then each state constitution serves to protect that right from their perspective governments.
The question of inalienbility of a right doesn't mean government can't prohibit you from excercising that right. It simply means that it will always be with you. The term 'inalianable' means you can not separate them. My right to bear arms might be infringed temporarily but the minute I move outside its jurisdiction I am free to use that right. As I moved across the border it came with me. It didn't drop off at the border because it is a part of my person like an arm or leg. I hope that helps.
1 year, 5 months ago on I'm broadcasting LIVE right now on Mixlr. "Tenther...
I disagree with one point in that our God given rights or natural rights can't be infringed on. They can but only with the people's consent because every law passed infringes on our pre-existing freedom and the only way those same freedoms can be 'unalienable' is to only allow those freedoms to be infringed upon the consent of the governed. I definately do think that my ability to murder at will should be infringed on since it protects me and everyone else. This is an example of giving up one freedom for the protection of all the rest.
Doesn't this kind of prove that the writers of the constitution, as well as everyone else, that America was trying to end slavery gradually over time not trying to preserve it? There goes the left's latest narrative on the supposed true purpose of the 2nd amendment was preserve slavery.
1 year, 5 months ago on We shouldn’t need to ask – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I would think that if the writers of the constitution intended on having any other interpretation than what they wrote then they would have put that into words. The whole point of interpretation is not to have different ones but to have the correct one that we can apply to all cases. We need rules of construction to guide us on to what is to be correct, we also need historical evidence, the federalist papers, and actual arguments for whatever aspects of the constitution we are discussing. Those rules aren't meant to deconstruct the constitution and turn it into something that it wasn't meant to be because that would violate the contractual nature of the document. Altering a document and altering how we interpret it does the same thing which is to destroy whatever obligation one party thought they might receive in it.
1 year, 5 months ago on The Real Original Understanding of Original Intent
"He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme."
Here is a way to send that argument right back at them which is to first acknowledge that this is true. In fact, it is true but point out that the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE ONLY HAS A FEW POWERS to write laws to begin with so there supreme authority over the states is limited to those few areas. This is something every 'tenther' should acknowledge but In regard to every other power the states are supreme. We really do not need a tenth amendment to point that out since it would seem that this is the only construction of the constitution we can make. I agree with others that the tenth amendment is serves as a defining rule of how separate powers should be treated and as a rule of construction for the entire constitution.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will never fully acknowledge that so it is up to states to use their muscle to enforce their own constitutional rights. I really feel that a real war is beginning to brew between the states again. I feel this because just try buying ammo at a local gun store! You can't. People sucked it up and the ammo they are buying is bulk ammo which isn't used for hunting!
Now if they would just get rid of the state income tax....just saying.
1 year, 6 months ago on Arizona Senate Bill Proposes Jail Time for Violations of the 2nd Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I would like to point out that the 5th amendment specifically states that life, liberty, and property shall not be deprived of without the due process of LAW. I think for a president to take away any of those without a law saying he can then it seems that executive orders are also a violation of the 5th amendment. Just saying...
1 year, 6 months ago on A Peep’s Executive Order – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
What we should say is that federal POWERS are superior to state powers not necessarily laws since the federal government can create any law it wants but it only has a few limited powers defined in the constitution. Those are superior to state powers not every single law passed by the federal government.
1 year, 6 months ago on Surprise: Constitutional Law Professor Lies About the Supremacy Clause. – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I really believe that a wide recognition and acceptance of nullification would radically change our political machine. The idea that lower governments can tell higher governments N-O seems to solve the problem of politicians using their power to do things that are unexceptable to the people they govern. It changes how people view government in that its will is rejectable which makes people realize that government has to enact just laws over their lives because they won't nullify laws against murder but will against ones that restrict our ability to speak freely. It begins to remove the mental shackles of government from our mind and makes people realize that their is an existence without government which is essential if they are to understand their rights exist naturally and are given to us by our creator (God). Without this concept of naturally occurring freedom we have no idea what the perfect state of freedom should look like which makes it hard for us to know when our rights are being unnecessarily being violated. Once we believe that society establishes the level of freedom we are to live by we only have other societies to compare our own established level of freedom to. Those societies also artificially established their own levels of freedom so where is the perfect state of freedom that we can all use to compare our own level of freedom to? It doesn't exist if we believe our rights come by the law and not by our creation.
1 year, 6 months ago on Nullification and Racism
@DaleNye I agree with that but I am playing devil's advocate for a moment. Can't the president use executive orders to enforce an existing law that may allow tighter gun control? I don't want to get ahead and assume he is just issuing direct commands to the public because he could be just enforcing existing laws that may have been gone unenforced in the past.
1 year, 6 months ago on Juan Williams: Constitution Is Pro-Gun Control – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Doesn't it explicitly say that the president has the power to enforce laws?
The people on the left are such liars.
I kind of felt of sorry for the guy after he got unfairly shot out of the racist canon but at some point people have to be 'rational'.
@legalbear7 @legalbear In the context of the document and the message he was trying to convey 'just' may have meant a different thing than what you have given.
1 year, 6 months ago on It Looks Solid, But… – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@legalbear "just powers"--that is something I never thought of before. I guess unjust powers would be laws that violate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which is property) because if we assume that all powers the people give it are OK to use then we open up the possibility the people may give government the power to destroy life, liberty, and property. Those would be unjust powers and government can only have Just powers. It would be interesting to see what Jefferson meant by that term.
In other words, the judicial branch only checks the other two branches of the federal government not the state governments themselves. That makes sense to me.
@ward7098 That is a good way of putting that.
1 year, 6 months ago on The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights
@ElectionsAreRigged The pre-amble for the first ten amendments specifically says that these are to restrict the newly created federal government. I am going to argue that states can do that but not because I actually think they should but because it is within the scope of the law to do so. It kind of sucks but the rule of law is intended to protect individuals and in this case it protects individual states and their ability to legislate in the way they want to.
I hate to say this but the 'possible' fact that some states used nullification to enforce segregation does seem to hurt the idea of nullification. Should we be brave and just say that anyone can use nullification for any reason they want--even if it is an bad reason? I just don't see how we can get pass that argument.
1 year, 6 months ago on Today, a bunch of liars and crooks took an oath to...
@MichaelYenglin I like the expression 'arbitrary laws'. It is definately true that all laws are really arbitrary in nature since it is the law making body arbitrarily deciding what the rules are. It is only under a constitution that this arbitrariness is stopped since the constitution provides a superior body of laws that can override anything they pass. They are quite limited in this respect in the same way my own actions are limited by the laws they create.
I've often wondered why some cops can shoot people who only ran a stop sign. I don't have a problem with them defending themselves or shooting truly dangerous people but when I hear cases of cops shooting a mother and her child simply because she didn't pull over when he said so it makes me wonder.
1 year, 6 months ago on When Congress takes its oath, remember they almost...
@NativeAmerican I think what some people are concerned about is that legitimate law enforcement walking around schools could become a stepping stone to more violations or our liberty. I think students should be free from TSA style searches/gropings which is the concern of having armed government officials patroling our schools on a regular basis. The massive ability for our government to wage war against any individual makes any seemingly innocent action they do a possible escalation to more aggregious actions in the future. I personally have no problem with local cops hanging around schools but the fear is that this is like opening the door to government officials who may want to do more with them.
Those that are against citizens owning guns and point out the massive numbers of people who have them as a danger seem to forget that our government has more weapons per citizen than any other country in the world. There is a great deal of risk of people having guns but some people seem to forget that their are plenty of gun-nuts in government who probably realize that, if they truly wanted to, could literally turn them onto the people at any moment. They know they have the power to do so and it is only their moral restraint that prevents them from using that power.
Government is the body that organizes societies collective ability to use violence. It wages wars, it kills individuals, it imprisons them, it fines them and then makes us pay for the cost in the form of taxes which is the ultimate irony. We can't really change that because somewhere there has to be a body within our society that has this right because if it wasn't the thing we call government it would be something else. It would go by a different name but it would still be identical in function. It is unescapable but upon realizing this we must realize that the power to do harm ultimately makes the ones in charge of this suseptable to temptation to do harm to others and that can never make it a good organization.
On second thought, a new constitution may be in order simply because the meaning of the current one is so twisted to meet the socialist agenda. One can think of "general welfare". The modern interpretation seems to want it to mean socialist welfare state but I believe that always meant for the general welfare of the federal government or the states as a whole.
1 year, 6 months ago on Happy New Year! Are you with us for a big push th...
States are the only real parties interested in enforcing the constitution simply because it is their liberty that is at stake. Some might say that states may abuse their nullification power but why would they do that when they already consented to giving away some powers in the first place? They signed the document saying that the federal government would have these powers! They were clearly OK with allowing those powers to exist and they will maintain those powers for one very basic reason which is those powers are needed for the benefit of the states themselves. They need an entity to make treaties so what good will it do them to nullify the treaty making power? They won't since they can't make treaties but will reject others that interfere with their own powers or they think violate the freedoms of their own people. They may not mind violating those freedoms but they surely will not let another government do that.
The article from NY times pisses me off because he says we should disobey the constitution and cites examples when it was ignored but forgets that eventually everything returned back to it. There is one question we don't realize which is if we can disobey the constitution why can't we disobey the government? I imagine this author's reaction would be to simply say NO which highlights the very point of why he wants us to disobey the constitution. Disobediance to the constitution eliminates all restraints imposed on the government which allows it to govern as it pleases which wouldn't be a problem if we were simultaniously allowed to disobey that same government. I doubt he would be OK with that!
1 year, 6 months ago on The Muddled Thinking of a New York Times Intellectual
I kind of wish the NRA took the high road and just acknowledge it was a tragic thing to happen and left the politics out of it.
1 year, 6 months ago on The NRA's Panic Attack
So what rights constitute 'privileges' and 'immunities'? It is a much simpler question that, if answered, could shed some light on the 14th amendment.
1 year, 6 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th
States need to assume a role in implementing the constitution as they think it means. I'm not saying that they along should have it but every level of government should be able to oppose each other when their opinions on the constitution differ. Each one would put pressure on the other and conformity will be reached eventually....
1 year, 6 months ago on Nullify Term Limits?
@Mike Maharrey @AnthonyJamesPalumbo @Sean I really believe that the priviliges and immunities clause are not referring to freedoms as the writers always believed in the fact that rights are associated with our natural existence so it can't be referring to supposed positive grants from the first amendment. I believe this is an equality under the law provision where they are referring to how the law treats each person.
1 year, 7 months ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution
I would like to point out that there are many smaller organization similar to the NRA that are purely on a local level. I happen to run into one at a gun show and they told me they did such a good job that the NRA left the state. The person, from what I was able to gather, understood more about the tenth amendment than the average NRA person. Unfortunately, the NRA is so big they tend to gobble up all the attention.
The NRA really doesn't get it and as much as I support them I am hesitant in joining simply because they don't understand the tenth amendment's role in the constitution. Under the X, the power to control weapons falls to local governments. It would be so much easier to convince people that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal if we allow them to have some gun control legislation at the state level. To some, and I am not one of them, the idea of people having access to military grade weapons scares them. Fine, let them have that in their own state or city. It makes them feel more secure and I get to keep my AR LOL
I agree. It is going to take a long time to undo the thinking that has taken hold in this country. The older I get and the more I learn the more I realize that the things I hated about the left also exist in the right. I also started to understand that the things I hated on the right also existed on the left but ten times worse. The people who vote don't understand this, unfortunately.
1 year, 7 months ago on Playing the Long Game
I would like to add that the right to depart falls under "nor prohibited by it to the States". It is a power not prohibited by the constitution.
1 year, 7 months ago on Nullification: As American as Baseball and Crackerjacks.
I'm not trying to spam but there is another issue of democracy in that once we thing everything is decide democratically then everything becomes an issue of agreement with others. We must agree on what rights we have between each others not only politically but also personally. This a part of the problem with political correctness in that this idea of needing agreement with out fellow man over, what should be non-political objects, forces us to negotiate with any group we are in over our own personal freedom. Political correctness seems to feel like that sometimes where I can't say anything because private society didn't decide it was OK. Not only is individual freedom lost politically but lost on a personal level with our fellow human beings which is something that shouldn't occur at all.
1 year, 7 months ago on Democracy and Majority Rule
There is so much to say on this issue. The only thing I can add to this is that democracy really forces us into a position where we have to negotiate for our liberties with others. Whenever someone wants to take away our right to bear arms (I'm using this as an example) they can get a simple majaority to do so which forces the minority to negotiate with them about why they have the right to bear arms. They have to convince the other side why they can enjoy the right they have which is basically negotiating with an attacker for that right. The other person is an attacker because you have that right already and the majority wants to take that away from you. That is an act of aggression against the individual and in democracy, in order to maintain that right, you have to negotiate with the attacker over what portion of your rights you can have.
We can also apply this to property in that if the majority thinks you do not have the right to obtain some kind of property (drugs, wealth, guns, etc) then they can deny that to you in a democracy. You have to negotiate with the public over what portion of your property you are allowed to keep and use as you see fit. I hate to say this but this should be the defense capitalist use because the left has a superior argument in that it attacks the morality of someone being ultra rich. Once you remove the democratic process over the issue of property free-enterprise naturally occurs which is why we never talked about economics in any political discussion prior to the 'democratic' movements during the progressive era. Once property (as well as liberty) became under the domain of democracy the green eyed monster of envy showed up and now people use their power to fullfill their quest to get something from someone else. In Democracy of any kind (particularly social democracy) property is the most valuable because when someone doesn't have as much as someone else it is natural to think of any reason to use the power of government to redistribute someone else's wealth. There probably isn't one democracy that didn't attempt to redistribute someone else's wealth in some form. It is just human nature to steal when you see that someone else has more.
The goal was not to protect the people's unlimited right to determine the laws but prevent the people from eliminating other people's liberty. A government of limited authority really only has power over a few areas of our lives but in all others the individual has the supreme power. I would also like to point out that no society is 'democratic'. Example: A group of friends may democratically vote where to spend their weekend but their collective power to decide things democratically wouldn't extend to other personal choices they can make on the trip. No association of people would accept that which makes me wonder why we accept that politically.
I kind notice that most people have different ideas of what 'freedom' is and what level of freedom we should be at. No one can really agree with each other which is why federalism is the most accomodating system for this. Different people, with different ideas about freedom, can live under seperate political systems that accomodates what they think that is.
1 year, 8 months ago on Nullification: The means to reestablish federalism
I think we get kind of confused about how democratic society really is. Does society have a right to vote if I can wear a pink shirt on tuesday? The problem with democratic societies is that we assume everything comes by agreement with others which forces us to require the approval of society. This is why we see rights coming from the democratic state or democratic society. What happens if we lived under a constitutional monarch that had limited authority over our lives. He could not tell us whether or not we can wear a pink shirt on tuesday and in that kind of society where does the right to wear a pink shirt on tuesday come from? Society as a whole would have no authority over it since it isn't democratic and the king couldn't deny us the choice over the issue. Where would your right to wear a pink shirt on tuesday come from then?
1 year, 8 months ago on Where Do Rights Come From?
@ReillyFlaherty I definately agree that a lot of social conservatives seem to see the role of centralized government as a place to validate their own beliefs in that if the government isn't talking family values then the people don't embrace them. The federal really has no authority over such a matter and under the tenthament the values we have towards family belongs to the individual since it is not a power delegated to the federal or state governments. Individuals are free to have whatever beliefs they want about family and I wish republicans running for public office would articulate that instead of treating teh federal government as a podium to preach to others. I vote GOP but sometimes I wish they just turn it off for few minutes and mind their own business about our families.
1 year, 8 months ago on Nullification: Are all Efforts Led by the Right?
The problem with conservatives is that they often don't think that the tenth applies to socialist causes as well. Untraditional marriages come to mind and so do drugs. Nullification is there to protect the constitution not to advocate for one groups specific causes. One side can't claim the tenth but then deny it to another. That is not having the law being equally applied to all situations (an important concept BTW).
I actually felt truly patriotic at the idea of leaving. I found myself whistling the star spangled banner without even knowing it. It was also the first time in my life I really did have a true feeling of patriotism and pride running through me. It made me realize how much I unknowingly hate being in this country. Isn't that sad? The greatest country in the world for freedom has been ruined to the point where no one likes being here anymore.
1 year, 8 months ago on Carts, Horses, and Secession
But you forget, we live in a democracy (sarcasm on) which means that the public can override the constitution at any moment and it also means politicians can ignore the constituton whenever they want That is why they follow it (sarcasm off)
1 year, 8 months ago on Will Arizona Refuse to Create a Health Exchange?
This is just actually the first step to implementing a national ID through driver's license. I doughty any of these dips really care what is happenning to our children. If they did they would be lowering taxes.. How about not collecting any income taxes for people under 21? How many lives would that save? These people really don't care about your own well-being which means the programs probably have a more sinister design behind them.
1 year, 8 months ago on For Some, It's Just a Constitution of Convenience
I think people who believe big government is needed in these cases generally believe that human beings would wallow in the ruins forever. They then think people need to be pushed into doing what is needed to fix the situation.
1 year, 8 months ago on Disaster Response and Federalism
@GordonJohnson The point I was making was that just to think the people should be in control of the government and the laws implies that you also think that each person is a political equal to the other which gives them equal rights.
1 year, 8 months ago on State Initiatives and a Republican Form of Government
@GordonJohnson Me and you think alike. When classical democracy changed to the modern form it did so by dropping property rights. Property in classical democracy was untouchable which channeled its legislative efforts towards protecting existing property and an individual's right to obtain property through contracts. Modern democracy through that away so now it does the opposite and doesn't respect the individual whatsoever. The key was the role of property in both versions of democracy.
I actually think that democracy as defined by classical liberal thought is much broader than just a democratic body. Locke thought that they only logical thing that can determine a common rule for everyone to live by is when it is determined by at least a majority of the people. Anything less wold be a dictatorship since a very few can impose their will on the rest. If everyone has an equal say in what laws are to be created then only a majority would suffice but the basis of this idea assumes everyone has a basic natural right to power as anyone else. No one single individual can do this and neither can a minority. Having 100% agree is not practical so it has to be somewhere between a majority and 100% agreement. Democracy, in Washington's time, had to include much more than just method of how laws are to be passed. It had to include the idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law which means everyone has equal rights as well. This is why I think democracy might have been much more than a process but included a lot of other ideas.
I really think that if we are to have any government control of the airwaves, internet, etc, etc, then it should be on the state level. What if every state had its own FCC?
I've noticed that regulated networks tend to become 'liberal' over time. Just look at all the non-liberal news networks on cable and the internet?
1 year, 9 months ago on The Internet Revolution is a Liberty Revolution
People who justify strong federal government with the reasoning that states can't be trusted to protect minorities will usually use any justification for a strong government. They use any reason that is palatable to the public in order to maintain a strong government so it doesn't matter if the federal govt is justified about stopping discrimination. It just matters, to them, that there is a strong central government.
I would also like to point out that it was the constitution and the constitutionally granted powers of the federal government that stopped a lot of southern states. I bet if you look at any action the federal government did it was a power granted to them or it was to implement parts of the constitution that needed to be enforced. It wasn't unllimited federal government that stopped it but limited federal government.
1 year, 9 months ago on The Feds are Dangerous to the Rights of Minorities
Whoever thought of Obamacare must have had a lot of time to think about it if they could anticipate this.
1 year, 9 months ago on Stopping the Compact from Becoming a Trojan Horse
I honeslty to think there is a lot of anger but not necessarily at the federal government. Everyone agrees that federal government has a role in our system but the angry ones seem to resent the fact that they can't pass and legitimately enforce local laws that they deemed appropriate. I generally feel that people don't participate in local government as much as national because we all know where the real power is in this country and that makes enforcing local and state laws pointless. Federal law can simply override it which interferes with an individual's ability to live their own life the way they want.
1 year, 9 months ago on Everyday People and the American Revolution
@kenlbear @nd Would it make a difference what the motives were or would it only make a difference if it was true or not? In my opinion this article is correct in that 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government. States indepently decide if they want people to have weapons or not.
1 year, 9 months ago on Rejecting the Incorporation Doctrine
There is one important clause in the 14th amendment that actually takes away the courts ability to apply the incorporation doctrine to the 2nd amendment. The final sentence says that congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment. I assume that is a pretty wide application and why couldn't congress use that power to override the incorporation doctrine?
"You can’t manipulate centralized government for your own ends and expect the “other guy” not to do the same thing." This is exactly why the economy shouldn't be managed by the government. Someone will always manipulate the power for their own benefit and do harm to others.
"People who would impose their ideas on others by force fill the world." Rightamundo which is why decentralization works. They can only get so far within the system and upon learning this they become less inclined to do so.
1 year, 9 months ago on What should we really fear?
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled"
Isn't this kind of like the tenth amendment? Powers not delegated to the United States...etc etc. It kind of seems they did incorporate that into to the current constitution that we use.
1 year, 9 months ago on A Government of Implied Powers?
Nothing is going to change until Americans universally embrace the free-market. Attitudes of your friends usually stem from a lack of understanding of the market forces and how they benefit people. He believes that government is responsible for the high standard of living in this country. That says it all right there. I like what the french economics Bestiat roughly said in that all socialist of some form believe that human nature is stagnant and that it has to be pushed, pulled, and jarred into productivity. What about profit motive? Isn't that sufficient in making people produce?
1 year, 9 months ago on Why we must chain down governmental power
@JohnMohr It is true that a corporation is not a person. That is obvious but the issue is how far does the first amendment extend to? Does it cover just persons or does it also cover specific legal chargers aka corporations. The first amendment is pretty clear that no laws can forbid freedom of speech. I assume that would mean corporate laws that govern the actions of corporations. Since corporations, by their charter and the laws that govern them, are governed by laws then congress can't forbid a law that bans how corporations communicate with each other.
The second point is that if you believe that the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations then what about news agencies? Those are corporations. Are they protected under the first amendment's freedom of the press? Perhaps we can pass a corporate regulation that says news agencies can't say anything negative about the government? THey can use the same logic you are saying in that news corps are not people therefore they are not covered by the first amendemnt.
1 year, 9 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous
@JamesKoss @West Texan Really? The last time I checked corporations had very little ability to make me do things involuntarily. Making people do things involuntarily is power since force is what is needed to get them to do things they don't want to do. I've never experienced an involuntary relationship with a corporation until obamacare. What does it matter if a corporation is a person or not when the first amendment makes no exceptions over what is speaking. It does not say congress shall pass no law violating a person's right of free-speech. It says any entities right to communicate. That would include corporatations and even if you said otherwise the actions that corporations do are dictated by the CEOs who are also people. I know you don't consider them human beings but there is a lot of scientific evidence that suggest that CEOs descended from the same gene pool as poor and middle-class folk.
If I was Mitt I would have said "The free-market can still bring those shows to television. Just check out the garbage on Netflix. I'm sure you will find whatever show you are interested in". Why do we act like the free-market won't provide the things we want?
1 year, 9 months ago on The most basic question on PBS
@johnjmb714 I think the federal slave act covered a different issue which was whether or not a slave owner could re-capture their slave in free states. The issue of whether or not slave states could be slave states was never in question. I hope that answered your question.
1 year, 9 months ago on Celebrating Justice O’Connor: Parade Magazine Muffs the Job
My problem with the attitude that federalism is for the preservation of individual liberty is that if the court decides that a state has stepped on someone's liberty then whatever law that state erected that did so must be declared unconstitutional. The constitution does not say any law that violates liberty is unconstitutional because every law that is passed violates someone's liberty. The only question that should be decided is if the power used for the creation of that law existed to the state to begin with. If the answer is YES then that law is constitutional even if the law violates someone's liberty. Remember, slavery was clearly constitutional until an amendment was added that made it illegal everywhere in the United States. As much as justices may have despised slavery they had no choice but to uphold it. As much as O'connor is right about the sentiment about protecting someone's individual liberty we can not allow that to be an excuse to throw away perfectly constitutional laws of either the state or federal government. What we have allowed to happen is for people to live under the court dictatorship simply because they have came up with a palatable excuse for them to throw away laws that they don't like.
Some of these programs indirectly inspire racism. first they tell hispanics that this land was stolen, not by the United States, but by the white man directly. Then they say how their lives have been directly harmed by this injustice committed ages ago by saying that hispanics are the poorest minority. They do the same thing with black studies as well. Once you make a connection between the 'white man' and their own personal economic hardships in life its becomes almost natural to have some resentment towards white people especially if they have money. I think some of these programs are kind of racist against white people or at least creates that.
1 year, 9 months ago on Supreme Court has chance to end state university ethnic discrimination
@JamesKoss On a historical note--Hitler was a national Socialist and he did the same thing that the communist did which was to crush unions.
@JamesKoss OK so what? Just because a person attempts to deceive someone doesn't mean they can no longer participate in the political process. If that is your reason for thinking it is OK to ban corporate money then why can't we use the same justification for unions that do the same thing?
I don't understand why businesses should be excluded from the political process itself. I keep hearing the argument that it is bad for the government but many of the laws regarding the conduct of businesses affect them so why shouln't they have a right to participate in the process itself? To say no is really saying that I or anyone else should not have the right to affect legislation when that legislation directly affects my own life.
We never wonder WHY businesses would have a vested interest in the laws themselves. I have explained the reason why above and if we had no laws regulating business then they would have no reason to even care what happens in any government office. Just look at states that have very few regulations and see how much time businesses spend talking to their legislators. The less regulations the less time they spend at the capital building. They would much rather spend their time thinking of ways to make money--not trying to fight laws that harm them.
@JoelPoindex I was reccomending an amendment that makes a retirement plan constitutional. Not one that does away with it.
1 year, 9 months ago on Much Ado about Nothing: The Left Responds to the GOP's New Platform
I don't see why we can't have a constitutional amendment to correct the unconstitutionalness of medicaid. Its an easy fix.
@James Erfurth I have an answer for your question which is another question. What if the laws only protected property? How can it do any harm to you if it did that?
1 year, 10 months ago on Jefferson and Madison vs "Staff Writer"
The fact that nullification is beginning to take flak tells me that we are getting closer to the target.
@thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck Doesn't the 14th amendment say that states may not abridge the privileges and immunites of citizens of the United States. You can interpret that as states can't trample on the PandR granted to citizens from the federal government but is there another possible meaning? The 14th amendment declares all citizens of all states in the union to be citizens of the United States. Then it says no state may abridge the PandR of those particular group of people. Citizens of the United States may be an identifier for a group so that each person from every state is guaranteed the same PandRs of that particular state That is my opinion of what that means because if you say that it means states have to recognize PandRs of the federal government then that would seem a huge infringement on state powers.
1 year, 10 months ago on Dangerous Dicta
Maybe congress doesn't include the senate since it was originally strictly for the states. Congress could refer to the house of representatives and if that is the case then it wouldn't because Article I says that only acts that require both bodies have to be approved by the senate.
1 year, 10 months ago on Interstate Compacts, a Clarification
This is kind of off topic but wouldn't it be interesting if the southern states established their own compact that prohibited all federal law (not the constitution) from being applied within their boundaries.
@Bob Greenslade I actually believe that quote-unquote liberals have deleted that phrase out of the english language. The words might exist individually but it seems to violate some kind of rule that you can't put them together in that way. I call it language crime which in itself is thought-crime because all language is an identical creation of one's own thoughts.
I was kind of thinking about this and communist seemed bent on destroying the personality of each person through various tricks that they have learned. If a person's mind is so destroyed by these tricks how would anyone have the power to resist any kind of tyranical government. They wouldn't even know if they are under tyranny. That in itself is mind-boggling.
1 year, 10 months ago on I am not a number. I am a free man!
"means that superficiality and image trump truth and the individual."
I find that this statement really rings true that outward appearances of intelligence and truth seem to be more important than actually being intelligent and saying something truthful. Appearance trumps reality but I have a question about something I read.
I find the logic behind this statement true even though I despise its consequences.
"that is, can we really know anything about anything? Is reality a mere social construct? Since society creates any knowledge that people may possess, does this mean that human beings are simply products of the given social setting from which they are manufactured?"
Isn't our image of reality an accumulation of the total knowledge that we have acquired and wasn't that knowledge created by people. Wouldn't this mean that society creates that image? I find that when dealing with people who think like this that their opinion that existence is a construct of society that their logic is correct and I have a hard time dealing with it.
The best answer I can think of is that man can't create knowledge that is untrue and have it workable in 'reality'. I can't say that the london bridge is in London (it ain't. It is in Arizona) and expect to walk across where I and perhaps everyone else seems to think it is. I can even hallucinate and imagine it being there but when I try to walk across it I would fall and die. Apparently I could not create anything I wanted and reality seems to have its own existence that is independent of my own.
I'm not a fan of hobbes but I don't see how his view of humanity is wrong.
1 year, 10 months ago on I'll take liberty
I really think the whole system needs to wiped clean. God sent the Jews into the desert for 40yrs until they lost the urge to return to Egypt. It took a new generation to reclaim their land that God gave them. This is what is going to have to happen to America. I got a feeling that the suffering is going to increase but, in some ways, it would be like Karma for our nation. Dry out the old 'fascist' system in order to bring in a true free-market. I hope that doesn't happen but at some point we may need God to intervene.
1 year, 10 months ago on A Message to <i>The Revolution</i>
@Monorprise Some provision can be added that the legislators can temporarily choose someone to fill in the void or perhaps have no one in the void until the next election.
1 year, 10 months ago on On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part I: Agreement
@Monorprise I was talking about having the legislator themselves having the power to recall them with a majority vote of their own legislative bodies. I wasn't talking about the voters doing it.
@Michael Boldin @Steve Palmer Doma doesn't interfere with state agencies or even state laws so I don't see how it violates the tenth amendment.
1 year, 11 months ago on Why is Gay Marriage Like a Dodge Durango?
Why not just give state legislators the ability to directly recall either state senators and state representatives? This way we can avoid the entire argument about 'democracy' and give state legislators the ability to recall senators when they don't comply with the wishes of the state legislator of the state that they are from.
1 year, 11 months ago on On Repealing the 17th Amendment Part I: Agreement
I think any constitutional amendment doing so would have to expressly forbid states from allowing senators to be directly elected by popular vote. Many states before the 17th amendment actually allowed this. I do agree with this but if you say it out loud people accuse you of being against democracy. boo hoo hoo
@Steve Palmer @shevmonster I don't see where DOMA interferes with any of the powers of any state government since they are free allow state agencies to recognize such relationships.
I would like to add my two cents is that equality, in my opinion, is equality of political power. I think if a man is free to marry a woman then under the definition of equality this doesn't interfere with gay-men since they can marry a woman as well. The law allows one activity for one person and disallows the same activity for all people then that would be sufficient. Is there a loss of freedom in this? Yes because gay men can't be in the same relationship a man and woman can be but neither can straight men. Freedom is not absolute because absolute freedom is negated by the law since some things are prohibited by the law.
I hate to say this but the first amendment should actually to this case. The courts won't agree but it should. All speech, including threatening speech, is included. There are no execptions in that amendment.
1 year, 11 months ago on Detainment of Virginia Marine veteran NOT an NDAA issue
The oath actually is a pledge to uphold the constitution of the United States, constitution of the state of Arizona, and all laws of the state of Arizona. I didn't read any part about upholding any federal laws. This blue dude's argument is kind of invalid from the beginning.
1 year, 11 months ago on Name Calling and "Tenther Nullification Nonsense" in Arizona
Anyone who can't see the authoritarian tendencies of the left....Complain all you want about the right but I never have to deal with 'power politics' when I talk with the right. I'm just not buying into the fact that that the democratic party believes in civil liberities.
1 year, 11 months ago on Where is the Civil Liberties Party?
The most serious abuses of twisting the constitution around comes from the courts not the legislative branches. I think judicial review should be abolished and we should have some kind of repeal amendment where if a simple majority of states declare a law unconstitutional then it is repealed. A simple as that. This judge has really twisted this around and I think the AG in the case was probably caught off guard because how would you prepare a defense for such a stupid case. It should be obvious that Colarado has a republican form of government. Its like trying to prove the sky is blue. How do you do that other than pointing out the obvious to everyone.
1 year, 11 months ago on Lawsuit Attacks Republican Form of Government
@West Texan They also conveniently leave out the part that says all acts in pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land. They know it says that but delibertly skip over that part with the hope of ignorant people not being smart enough to read the entire clause in itself.
1 year, 11 months ago on Krugman, ThinkProgress. As Dangerous as it Gets
@Monorprise There is another idea that I have thought of which is to have the federal government write its own rules of construction for the lower courts that it 'ordains'. I assume the power to ordain a court is a broad power which might include the power to tell them how to interpret the constitution and if SCOTUS disagrees then we can create exceptions for them for such cases so that their opinion won't interfere with this. That is a power the federal legislative branch has.
There is so much we can do. We can't think of ourselves as powerless over this matter. We have to realize we are way smarter than the politicians who we elect. For that reason, we have to tell them what to do.
1 year, 11 months ago on The Rule of Law Doesn't Exist in DC
@Monorprise I think refusing to uphold or enforce any act that violates the constitution is fine but writing it out of the legislative code is completely different. I think the federal courts should just say we won't preside over any cases dealing with this law since it violates the constitution. It will still be on the books and it would then fall to seperate and independent state courts to uphold it since they to have a jurisdiction over federal laws and the US constitution. It could be a way of checking federal courts.
Also, why not give the legislative branch the power to write rules of construction for either the constitution or the laws themselves. This way the people will have some control over how the constitution is interpretted by the court system. It still allows for judicial review but the people will have the final say over the meaning of the constitution itself. I can't stand the idea that SCOTUS has decided to put itself as the final decider of the constitution. Who made them GOD!
@Michael Boldin I kind of wonder why is there any kind of pull and push between those who want weak governments and those who want strong ones. Isn't that weird that the debate in this country is between those two camps in one form or the other. Take the idea that economies have to be managed. That is a strong government since it gives government an incredible power over our own lives (aka bloomberge's soda elimination). What about the power we gave government to check us at the airport or search us for drugs. Someone has to have the desire for that kind of government to begin with which kind of makes me think about who among us are closet authoritarians..
Is Paul Krguman good for America?
Most liberal newspapers are full of lies that try to distort our perception of reality into what they think it should be. I find that people are very religious and, where I work, there is a group of ladies that talk openly about the bible. I don't join in but I do encourage it because religion is going to be the most important force for undoing statism in this country. Governments, especially ones that wanted more power, either took away the guns for obvious reasons and they took away the right to practice any religion that they did not approve of. The ones that said God had more authority than the state over the practitioner were the first to go. That is not a coincidence and many in the tea party movement say that when government takes away guns they are moving towards dictatorship but they fail to be skeptical of a government that wants to make it hard for people to acknowledge a being that has infinitly more authority than the state. Authoritarian states can't tolerate that which is why these religions are either made illegal or co-opted so that that religious power can be used for their own gain. When the state says there is no God or assumes it is the right-hand of God (Rick Santorum) then we should all be wary of what its true intentions are.
1 year, 11 months ago on Can We Legislate Morality?
@DarylLloydDavis The point I was making about consent of the governed is that it is a consent to have some freedom removed VOLUNTARILY. People consent to certain laws through the democratic process but what about people who did not get an opportunity to vote up or down on those same laws or have any say in the law's creation? We can't really say that people outside the political jurisdiction are really bound by the law in the same way as the people inside of it because they really didn't consent to having that liberty taken away from them. The people of Canada can't be subject to US law simply because they had no opportunity to consent to them hence while they live in Canada they are not subject to the laws of the United States.
What about people born after the laws creation? What about if that gap between the time the law was enacted and when the law is being applied is several generations? I think the proceeding generations are in the same boat as Canadians in that they did not consent to the law removing some of their natural pre-existing freedom so it kind of seems that these laws are tyranical since that generation did not have any opportunity vote or have any say in it. The very definition of dictatorship is being ruled without your approval and living under laws that you did not consent to. This definition seems to imply that laws being applied to the current generation are, in fact, tyranical.
1 year, 11 months ago on Our Federal Government
@DarylLloydDavis I'm not really sure if you are advocating for some kind of socialist system but this is what I have to say on the subject.
The right to life and the ability to maintain it is what the idea of individual pursuit of property is. Once a person freely secures some property such as food, shelter, and everything else they need to survive then why to they have to give that up once it has been obtained? More importantly, why does anyone have to give up the freedom to obtain the things they want? It is a very individualistic and individualism is selfish since the individual in these societies focuses on their own interest. Call it self-interest if you want but greed has been more beneficial to humanity that selflessness ever was.
@DarylLloydDavis The idea that this is not the founders nation anymore kind of brings me to a question of if we live by consent of the governed then do we really have to honor the constitution's authority whatsoever? I surely didn't consent to it in anyway and neither did anyone else. I would also say the same for international treaties that impose restrictions on our behavior such as not going to war when the U.N. comes a calling. I did not consent to having to participate in a retirement system such as the social security tax. I did not consent to have any of my liberties taken away from me in these regards yet it is imposed. It seems that I was born in chains with a lot of my natural God-given freedom already denied to me. This does not seem fair.
Thank You. The commerce clause is a power that is suppose to stop states from imposing trade restrictions with other states, nations, and, of course, Indian tribes. I wish someone would do this for the insurance industries. You would be amazed to see how insurance industries are protected from out-of-state competition. You can't buy autoinsurnace in another state because state law says you can't.
1 year, 11 months ago on Farm Bill in Limbo, So is the Commerce Clause
I'm convinced that people on the left secretly crave dictatorships because it seems that all their arguments go in one direction which is stronger and establishing processes that seem to go around any democratic process. I give you things like the EPA that can arbitrarily establish and enforce any rule it wants in the name of the enviroment. Arguments that the court can alter the constitution and any laws passed by the legislature seem to do the same thing. The EPA can establish any rule but the courts can rewrite any rule and find any interpretation to the constitution that fits its agenda. Not much different from the EPA--if you ask me.
1 year, 11 months ago on Obamacare and the Revenge of the 'Secret Constitution'
@DarylLloydDavis I agree with that. Judicial review is kind of pointless and always has been. When it was needed to do the right thing it failed as in the case of Dredd Scott. What scares me is that judicial review is now a toll of upholding federal power while striking down state power. That can't be good.
1 year, 11 months ago on Obamacare Decision Suggests U.S. Malpractice Bill Unconstitutional
@DonJonVonavich @darrelljr ON a purely voluntary level it is because rich people spend their money on the labor of everyone else so they can make even more money. They inturn spend that money on more labor so they can have even more. Greed is a productive force that allows for money to redistributed from the rich to the poor. We see the same thing happenning between rich and poor nations because whenever the two trade the poor one gets some of the money of the rich one. Just look at India.
1 year, 11 months ago on End the Fed! Whether Congress Wants us to or Not!
@DonJonVonavich @darrelljr I'm sure that we can find evidence that pursuit of happiness (pursuit of property) was always intended for individuals so that individual can acquire as much property as they can obtain through commerce not redistribution of wealth.
@DonJonVonavich @darrelljr Is that so you can distort facts?
@DonJonVonavich @darrelljr BTW, pursuit of happiness means the freedom to pursue. It is much different and better than a god given right to have. It is the ability to move from point A to destination B unhindered by government or other people. Think of Bloomberge's soda ban. In this case he is hindering you already existing ability to acquire all the Soda you want yet he is throwing up roadblocks to that destination. We can see that there is a loss of freedom in this case because government did not allow you to freely pursue what you wanted. To say that we have a right to have something may include Sodas but it may not include the ability to freely attempt to acquire those same objects. When we forget that government locks down on you and creates all sorts of roadblocks to prevent you from pursuing things it doesn't want you to acquire.
@DonJonVonavich @darrelljr As for natural rights of labor, property can never belong to anything that it wasn't freely transferred to. Individuals have an exclusive right to their own property since in almost every situation it was transferred to them exclusively. You have a right to your computer because the seller transferred it to you. He did not transfer it to society as a whole or anyone else. This is true for everyone which means that property can only belong to the private individual since it was the private individual who obtained those rights to it.
What you are saying is that something made in a factory belongs to the workers. OK, was that property freely transferred to the workers or was it transferred to the factory owner?
@DonJonVonavich @darrelljr Thank you for reciting Karl Marx's argument of why industrial laborers own the things they make in factories. It only serves to prove my point. The real end to his argument is that since it belongs to the laborers the laborers should be able to control the means of production. That is accomplished through the state since it is the organizing force in society. This actually takes property out of the hands of a private person and greater society and puts it under the control of the state. I can't see how the workers, at that point, have any property rights to the things they supposely make in factories if they just end up turning control over it to a politician. That politician then decides what to do with it. They may say they are helping the poor but what is to stop them from using it for their own selfish purpose? You just gave them complete power over all property by allowing the state to determine what can be done with it.
Your kind complains about how the wealthy use the rights to their property and the labor of the workers to line their own pockets but why wouldn't the same thing happen when politicians have those same rights? And why wouldn't it be worse considering they, at the same time, have the exclusive power of violence in society. They have all the property and they have a monopoly on the right to use force. That is much worse than come CEO who only has the right to use property because they never have the right to use force against workers when they don't comply with their wishes.
Just look at what the communist did when workers weren't productive or missed work. They imprisoned and, in some cases, executed them. Why would you swap out private control of property with public control in that case?
@DonJonVonavich @TyeBrown I would much rather 'regress' to something that works than progress towards a totalitarian state which is exactly where the left is going to take us.
@DonJonVonavich @darrelljr I like how socialist turn all conservative or liberal sentences into something they want. The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness is a pretty capitalist idea from the beginning. Zero of the writers of that sentence actually intended for the words to convey the message you are trying to give it. This tactic is used over and over again by the socialist left and, unfortunately, it works.
Unrespectfully, you are liar.
@JohnMajor It is kind of suspicious as to why such a building would need guarding considering it ain't used as money.
1 year, 12 months ago on End the Fed! Whether Congress Wants us to or Not!
@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment Have you ever heard of the madison amendment. It was proposed by madison and it allows states to amend the constitution directly without calling for a full blown constitutional convention. LINK: http://www.madisonamendment.org/index.html
1 year, 12 months ago on Standing on the Moral High Ground
@Stogie It also puts kids with other kids from different parts of the city. When I went to school it was a shock to go from neighborhood kids that I knew to kids who were a part of gangs. Pretty damn scary and it actually hurt the education process and, as I got older, I realized being scared to go to school isn't normal. I wish states would not comply with supreme court decisions that violate the powers they have under the constitution. Seriously..what is justice stab-me-in-the-back Roberts going to do? Is he going to order an invasion?
@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment The way I see it is that federal laws and the constitution are really a compact among the states. States agree to have these laws and a repeal amendment will allow states to collectively decide to invalidate these laws. I feel that nullification kind of runs into this in that the states might agree to something and can't allow a state to go rogue. Its a part of what the states PERCIEVE as a part of the lawful compact and because of that they won't tolerate any states going rogue. Its the strongest resistance to state nullification which is people fear a state being out of control. I think a repeal amendment would alleviate those fears by allowing the states to have some control over the process.
I also think states are within their right to put up resistance to federal laws even ones that are constitutional but why not have both? We should have a repeal amendment that includes nullification. It should say if a majority of states declare a law void then the law is repealed. This way it combines the best of both worlds. That is just my opinion on this.
I hate to spam the comment section but I think the repeal amendment has a better chance than nullification since we won't run into these arguments. It makes people feel better that states won't go rogue on everything because the states collectively can undo a federal law. It provides a check against bad states and at the same time gives everything nullification does.
Thank you for not dancing around the subject on this. I think not acknowleding factual history on this issue such as the southern manifesto kind of undermines our credibility. We shouldn't hide from facts or 'outsmart the truth'.
At some point, we are going to have to acknowledge that evil people have the same freedoms under the law, constitution, and natural that good people have. Every state has the same right to lawfully resist federal power. It does not matter what is the end purpose is whether it is for good or for evil because each state has the same 'reserved powers' under the constitution as the other.
I know I am going to get smacked around for this but I think the south had a point about school desegratation in that it was their right to decide for themselves. The only thing that could undo that right was an amendment to the constitution. The court, in that case, overstepped its bound even thought it was for a good cause. No one complains because of that.
PS. I generally did like this article. I was just disagreeing with judicial review.
2 years ago on The Rule of Law Doesn't Exist in DC
I am going to have to disagree with the judge about the fact that the judiciary should be able to strike down law that it things are unconstitutional. It sounds great but I think it has lead to a judiciary that knows it can dictate what laws can pass and what can't. They know they have veto power over every other branch of the government and the states themselves. This is the worst part about SCOTUS. I don't care if they think they have the power to strike down federal laws but I draw the line at state laws because now the left is using the federal courts to strike down laws they don't like. Think of SB1070, abortion laws, and now it seems they want the federal courts to tell states they have to publically fund abortion clinics.
Now if the courts were perfect beings who were incapable of bias, errors, and didn't allow their own personal opinion affect their decisions then I would have no problem with it but who here is perfect in that regard? Why should we trust human nature in this affair?
Judicial review should be removed completely because as much as we all hate unconstitutional laws I don't think we should replace it with a dictatorship. I would prefer democratic tyranny to judicial tyranny because in a democratic system I would have some control over those decisions but with judicial tyranny I don't. I give you the fact that only 7% agree with the 1942 decisions that expanded the commerce clause. We can't really do anything about it which kind of makes it a kind of dictatorship.
I also don't think that judicial review is completely undemocratic. When it is used perfectly it does counter the legislative branch which makes it undemocratic but it can only counter that branch when it passes a law that violates the constitution. The constitution and all of its amendments are still democratically approved so it still is under the thumb of democracy and the will of the people. There should be no branch of the government that can act independtly of that.
@West Texan Loving Americans kind of forces us to love people as people themselves that are not attached to any kind of nation-state. I think I see your point about caring about the society but it is kind of like caring about a favorite car in that it is not a person and only has value for what it can do for the person. I like the car because it provides me with a method of going somewhere. I like the society only because of the benefit it provides for me. It sounds 'selfish' but I hate to tell everyone this but individualism inherently focuses around our own self-interest. Society loses its value (in my mind) when it no longer respects that. I stop loving it when it harms me in the same way I stop loving my car when it no longer works.
I'll be real honest and will probably stomp on some people's feelings of patriotism but in the last 15 years this country has not done a lot for my own self-interest. In fact, it seems to want to sacrifice it whenever it wants. If the country is the proverbial car then I would say that this car is no longer working out for me.
2 years ago on The America-Haters Strike Again
@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment At least someone checked.
2 years ago on Fear Mongering at Huffington Post. Again.
The best quote I ever heard was Loving America means Loving American(s). Its a much different concept in that you care about the people that compose America without any allegiance to the whole society or to its government. You care about people on an individual level which is much different than caring about the nation as a whole.
I wish people would actually check to see if Jerod what-his-name actually said what the huffington post said he said. Liberals lie so much that everything they claim as a fact has to be investigated.
@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment Do you have something to back that up?
2 years ago on "Taxes" are for Revenue. SCOTUS is Wrong.
I often wonder if courts should have the power to strike down any laws whatsoever. It seems to have given them the power to shape how the constitution is to be viewed since every law that passes must pass their opinion of the constitution. They basically decide what flavor of legislation gets passed simply because they decide what is consitutional. The courts opinion of what that is basically decides what kind of legislation gets passed. Why have an opinion about what conflicts with the constitution when the supreme court has the final say over it. This does not seem like three equal branches of government when one branch's opinion of the constitution basically overrides the other two.
2 years ago on A Vast New Federal Power
I think there is something inherently wrong with anyone who happens to listen to anyone on the left.
2 years ago on A View You Won't Get Watching 'Real News'
Does this mean we can't have protective tariffs?
@tpaige Agreed. There are many arguments that can be used to justify the existence of state nullification. The one I like is that the national government has power over the people of the states not the states themselves. States are not subject to the laws of the federal government which means they are free to put up whatever resistance the constitution of the United States allows them to. The feds can't just say 'you are not allowed to do that' because they don't govern states. If they wanted to govern states then they should have adopted the southern confederacy's constitution.
2 years ago on Oklahoma State Rep to File Bill to Nullify Individual Mandate
I would feel more passionate about these things if they nullified the whole bill instead of just one section of it.
2 years ago on What next? Nullify!
@Alex Hamilton "The founders understood that determining the meaning of the Constitution and its applicability is a matter of interpretation of law, which is inherently a judicial function."
I would seriosley consider that some kind of fraud or deception is going on if the opinion of the people who wrote the law differed from the opinion of the people who interpret the law. I would also consider that it would be incredibly undemocratic if the people create a law with a specific intent and purpose and have the judiciary give it an entirely different intent and meaning that the people never wanted. This idea that the judiciary is completely free to construct whatever meaning they want from the text seems to give them the power to recreate the law itself which is a legislative power. A power that they don't have because it is a power given to the congress alone. It also flies in the face of the 9th and 11th amendments that tell everyone how this document is to be interpreted.
Can't we just make this bill ineffective by prohibiting states from creating the healthcare exchanges?
@Zinsky The real issue is a person's ability to choose for themselves. If you think health insurance is to expensive then don't buy it at all. That seems to save a person a lot of money and if you ever need some health care then you have to pay for it. Most hospitals don't let you walk out without making some kind of payment plan. You hear that. You pay it back and probably with interest. This means I am not paying for others.
The second bomb to drop on your argument is that it really doesn't cost you anything at all for a doctor to treat someone for free. When you pay for your treatment the doctor recieves money. That money is his and if he wants to use it to treat others then that didn't cost you a thing. You didn't get another bill in the mail trying to make you pay for johnies free service. The doctor used his own money, time, and resources to do so and he didn't bill you for it so it didn't cost you a thing.
Now if you are going to say that the doctor made the service more expensive by trying to cover the cost of the uninsured then why not say that the doctor is also making the service more expensive by trying to cover the cost of his sports car. He could have bought a Honda instead of the lamborgini. Why not mandate the maximum amount of money a doctor can spend on their own life by XYZ so that we don't have to cover the cost of his expensive lifestyle? It is a silly argument and so is the one about covering the uninsured.
@gopwop Did the senate just add things to it or was it a totally different bill entirely because they are allowed to add amendments to it if they wanted.
@Monorprise @gopwop I just thought of something as well. If Obama is trying to say that this is a part of the income tax and an income tax is an excise tax then how can you have a excise tax on non-activity such as not buying health insurance.
@Monorprise @gopwop I hate to get off topic monoprise but ain't direct taxes a tax on land, tomatos, and other tangable objects that is charge annually. That is my understanding of a direct tax and is the opposite of a non-direct tax which is a tax on an activity. A sales tax is not a direct tax because it is triggered when you buy something. That would be an excise tax. Right?
@gopwop I wish I can give you one million pts for that answer because you are exactly right.
I often wonder why so-called conservatives don't see the free-market as a solution or don't write things like this. They repeat the same leftist bull that government can do everything and I am beginning to wonder why...
2 years ago on Government is Already Too Involved in Healthcare
What we need is a nullification amendment added to the constitution.
"But the virtue of a free press is that when the mainstream media have been corrupted in this way, the door is always open to upstarts willing to act more honestly and more aggressively."--This sounds like something that would happen in the free-market.
2 years ago on Checkout
I would like to ask this question to all anti-nullifiers. Could a state pass a law making it an offense to comply with a federal law? This would mean that the law was nullified since the state made it illegal for any citizen to comply with it.
2 years ago on Setting Things Straight on Nullification
How much freedom would citizens of the several states have if the federal government couldn't regulate economic transactions within a state boaundry?
2 years, 1 month ago on Sportsbook Showdown: California Moves to Allow Sports Betting
If as the founding fathers understood that the Constitution is a contract among the several states,
I would like to expand the discussion on this idea. The constitution is a compact just like any set of laws or government is but all compacts or agreements are limited in one crucial and obvious way. The obligations of any contract can't be passed on to the offspring of the signers. The signers of this 'contract' agreed to these rules over 8 generations ago so doesn't it make sense that only those people are bound to it. Only the people of the states that agreed to it are bound by it which means all proceeding generations did not sign it and are not obligated to honor it. Its authority exist as a legacy ONLY and not really something current generations ever agreed to.
2 years, 1 month ago on What If the States Refuse to Comply?
I find Jefferson's words so fancy that it is hard to comprehend. I wish he just wrote plainly instead of trying to out-shakespeare everyone.
2 years, 1 month ago on Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny
I'm really disturbed that the judge introduces facts that don't exist such as the term torture. I haven't seen any credible evidence to prove the torture was ever used other than some partisan crackpot who THINKs it happens.
2 years, 1 month ago on The Secret Kill List
Wrong. This only applies to the federal government and determining what benefits they can give to people. It does not interfere with states who wish to recognize this and give benefits to it.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Did you see the part about department or office thereof?
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Now do you see the part about department or bureaus and agencies of the United States? They are within there powers to tell what their agencies can do and they happen to have unlimited power over those agencies unless you are arguing that states have such a power to determine how federal bureaus behave?
2 years, 1 month ago on DOMA ruling a small victory for state sovereignty
"California headed toward “nation state” status when it moved to link its carbon markets with Québec’s"
If I am not mistaken, aren't all treatise between states and foreign states subject to congressional approval?
2 years, 1 month ago on Does America still need a president?
@Bob Greenslade So passing laws over federal land is completely bogus?
2 years, 1 month ago on Another Federal Real Estate Screw-Up
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may" and "to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". Doesn't this imply that the federal government can only impose its authority over buildings that do not exceed ten square miles?
I thank God for the tenthamendment center. I disagree with a some of the articles but without it we would not be able to hear about this because the liberal and even the conservative media.
2 years, 1 month ago on Arizona Nullification Initiative Making Headway
Anyone who believes that OWS is being prosecuted because they are protesting is an idiot.
2 years, 2 months ago on Police State Clashes with Protesters in Chicago
@EdwardNilges Where did you get that from?
2 years, 2 months ago on Free at Last! Martin Luther King and Nullification
@EdwardNilges @Patrick Henry Lives Do you or do you not agree that a daughter should willing participate in incest? You seem to avoid the entire question completely by babling about things that have no real point to them at all. THe point that pat was making that authority has limits and those limits are exactly when that authority no longer benefits that person.
How can you say the United States isn't a christian country when the dominant and most practiced religion is christianity. It is pretty obvious that the law does not favor one religion over the other nor does it prevent someone from practicing any religion that they choose. It seems like a great many individual either choose to practice christianity in this country.
@EdwardNilges @Patrick Henry Lives Most socialist have to pretend to be something more favorable in order to push their ideas through. They abandoned the label yet still spout the same ideas.
@EdwardNilges I wish I spoke your language. This is an American speaking site.
@EdwardNilges That means that illegal residents are entitled to equal protection of the laws which is another way of saying that it is a crime to steal from a citizen of any state or non-citizens. The equal protection clause does not change their status as illegal.
2 years, 2 months ago on Utah Expands Legal Tender in the State
I use to think that the state's role was to enforce a moral code but I realized that was wrong. Then I realized that the state's job is to provide security and I realized that is only partially correct because the government tends to not do an adequite job of that. Because if it did every city that has a police force should be violence free. I came to the final conclusion that government is really good at one thing and one thing only and that is enforcing contracts or agreements between two parties. It does that very well and should be the main and only service that government provides.
2 years, 2 months ago on "Bad" people make "good" government?
I'm kind of curious about whether or not the prohibition on states that they can't make anything but gold and silver is a mandate or voluntary. I think if a state has no law about this then it is saying that everything is legal tender but wouldn't that be in violation since it is allowing other things other than gold or silver to be used as legal tender? In my mind that would seem almost like a requirement on states that they must make gold or silver of some kind legal tender.
@EdwardNilges Riddle me this riddle me that...
@EdwardNilges That applies to public records of other state like driver's licenses, court decisions, and so forth. That does not apply to money since the truthfullness of a dollar bill isn't an issue. It is not a public act, record, or judicial proceeding. The federal reserve notes are a federal creation so this clause wouldn't even apply to this.
States are prohibited by the constitution and there isn't anything in the constitution that tells them they can't control who has the legal right to enter into a state.
@EdwardNilges The states are hereby forbidden to do something, not to "make gold or silver the legal tender of that state". The states CANNOT make ANYTHING except specie (gold or silver) legal tender, but they do not have to.
This is a mandate that a state must make something as legal tender within their own borders and the condition is that it must be gold or silver.
@EdwardNilges The power to coin money is simply the power to create money and the constitution demands that states make gold or silver as the legal currency of that state Any federal law that attempts to tell the state that they can't is in violation of the constitution since it reqiures states to do so and it violates the tenth amendment.
@Alex Hamilton Is there a difference between a state civilly disobeying a law because they believe it is unjust and a person do the same thing for the same reason. He didn't mention the word 'nullification' but the idea is the same that people have the right to reject authority when it is unjust or places to much of a burden on us. People will willing obey laws that help them pursue their own interest and wants but will unwillingly obey laws that either goes against their interest or denies it completely. You can see in those two sets of laws that there is a division between laws that protect freedom and laws that deny it.
States formed the compact to help them pursue their own interest abroad such as signing treaties. States individually can't do that without losing their own cohesion so the states will willingling follows laws conductive to their own interest but they will not when they don't. This is the basic principle of nullification which is states will reject federal laws that abuse their power and hinder a state's own interest.
I think one should disobey laws that violate your own pursuit of your own interest. Laws that are compatible with what you want in your own live can never be said to be restraining in any way since they are aligned with you want to do or your own free-will.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution clearly says that the people of the United States established the constitution. The states ratified it because all new amendments have to be ratified by the states since the previous constitution says so. I would assume that includes new constitutions as well.
Anyways, my point is is that people are subjects of the constitution which means it has the right to government the people of the United states. This is because people delegated some authority directly to the federal government to handle certain things. States did not delegate any authority to the federal government and remain outside its jurisdiction.
I'm on your side about federalism. I just think my opinion actually frees states up.
2 years, 2 months ago on The Establishment Media Are Clueless About the Purpose of The Constitution
I would like to point out that the constitution and the federal government was created by the people of the United States. This means that the people ceded some freedom to the federal government, which consequently created it, but STATES did not. States owe no obligation to the federal government and remain free to do as they want. Its the people of the United States that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government not the States themselves. They are outside the sphere of power and remain sovreign.
The Senate Democrats as well as the House are extremely progressive, and I would even say Marxist in some ways.
The most truest statement so far. I live here so I know.
2 years, 2 months ago on Leading the Way in Arizona
Even without the tenthamendment the federal government is still limited to the powers it has and states still face the same restrictions on them that happen to be stated in the constitution. It doesn't change the constitution itself. It doesn't grant any new powers to the federal government nor does it place any more restrictions on states or individuals. It simply restates the relationship between federal, state, and the people.
2 years, 2 months ago on Tenth Amendment a Waste of Ink?
I live in AZ and she won't sign it. She vetoes half of everything the new tea party legislature manages to push through.
2 years, 2 months ago on Two and Counting? NDAA Nullification Passes in Arizona
I wonder if FBI and other federal police forces count as officers.
2 years, 3 months ago on The Constitution's Officers
@West Texan Nullification is not seccession. No one is attempting to leave the union. It is merely an attempt to prohibit the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws. It still allows the constitution's authority over the states to exist which means states using nullification are still subject to the constitution's authority. No one is attempting to void that.
2 years, 3 months ago on Did the Founders expect the Courts to Declare Laws Unconstitutional?
Honestly, I think nullification is a much better way to check the federal government's power than judicial review. People must realize that the federal government isn't important in our system. It is the states themselves and allowing any state to nullify a federal law maintains a proper federalist system.
"If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under [congressional] jurisdiction. They would declare it void."
I think this one line shows why courts can strike down federal laws which is when they are outside the enumerated powers. Its another piece of ammo we can use against the left to prove that the federal government has limited powers strictly defined by the constitution.
My next question is why would they allow the federal government to establish and ordain lower courts and, at the same time, created appellete exceptions for the supreme court for them. This ability to create exceptions seems to cut off the supreme courts authority over some cases and is probably a check on their own power.
Brewer is a politician who is trying to play the middle. I wish politicians would start realizing that middle is not where we want to go.
2 years, 3 months ago on Arizona governor vetoes sheriffs first bill
Brewer is a complete bitch. The only reason she signed some of the 1070 was to boost her political careers. She was polling 40% in an election season so she signed it. I guess we need to flush again.
Lets not forget that the federal government gets its powers from the people of the United States not the states themselves. It is a government of the people--not the states--so it has no direct authority over the states themselves. States are free to do whatever they want with their powers which include interfering with the execution of federal laws.
2 years, 3 months ago on A Question of Supremacy
There is no such power to regulate commercial activity by the federal government. There is a power to erect trade restrictions between states, nations, and indian tribes. The former is the power to control every aspect of individual businesses while the latter is a narrow power to stop a transaction that happens to cross a national, state, or tribal borders.
2 years, 3 months ago on The fatuous “uniqueness” argument for the constitutionality of Obamacare
I wish this website had more things about the civil war and some of the debates about it.
2 years, 3 months ago on Lincoln: Did he Really Say that?
I think what we should note is the term 'social equality' which is, I believe, some kind of socialist thing. Is it possible the abolitionist were using the slavery issue as a vehicle to advance their agenda? If so, it would substantiate some of the criticisms the south had of the north over this issue in that it was not genuine but something to be used to advance an agenda. It would not surprise me if this turned out to be true because most leftist today seem to operate that way.
Only congress can decide how our armed forces are. I don't agree with Ron Paul that we need a declaration of war because authorization to use force seems to be the same thing. What is the difference between declaring war with a nation and authorizing force to be used against them? It seems to be a game of symantics over what term we use.
2 years, 4 months ago on Who Can Initiate War
Is this a complete nullification of all federal firearm laws? I think it is about time if this is true
unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Kansas and that remains within the state of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony
As someone who has recently bought a bunch of guns lately I really appreciate this because the forms for acquiring a firearm are so extensive and I suspect it is being used as data gathering.
2 years, 4 months ago on Kansas legislation will protect right to keep and bear arms
A very short nullification of Paneta's justification is the 5th amendment which states that no PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. The keyword is person because person includes citizens and non citizens residing within the boundaries of the United States and people residing within the boundaries of other countries. An executive order taking away any human beings life, liberty, and property is simply in violation of the 5th amendment's due process clause.
2 years, 4 months ago on Executive War Powers Have Strict Constitutional Limits
@ElectionsAreRigged States have their own protections in their own constitutions and some of them are stronger than the federal government's limitations spelled out in the first amendment.
2 years, 4 months ago on The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights
@ElectionsAreRigged Wrong. If you read the federalist papers this "“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" actually means that states could not discriminate against citizens of other states. It was designed to prohibit states from selectively enforcing laws in favor of its own citizens. The 14th just clarifies further by saying that each person is a citizen of the United States and that each one of these citizens had every privilege and immunity that each state provided for its own citizens. Each person who resides in a state no matter what there state citizenship is garanteed all privileges and immunites of that state since both citizens happen to be citizens of the United states. This is why it says "citizens of the United States"
I would like to point out that the rule of law is actually a preferred alternative to being ruled by other people. There are two kinds of political authority which is laws and persons and if we put political authority in the hands of a person then we are governed by a dictatorship. This violates the concept that all men are created equal so we choose the alternative of being ruled by laws. A dictator could actually rule in such a way that would preserve a great deal of freedom but that would violate any sense of equality that exist between people so we choose to be ruled by laws but even laws can take away more freedom than we want them to. They natural question then becomes why would that become the preferred alternative. The answer is in order to preserve the idea that no person can fall under the jurisdiction of another person's personal authority.
Now laws are not the ultimate authority because the ultimate authority is the person themselves and whatever deity (assuming they believe in one) they choose to worship. Ala given rights is the same thing as God-given rights in the sense that a person's ultimate authority is cemented in that deity that they choose to worship. It is not cemented in the state even one that is governed by laws because a law that compels us to commit suicide would always run into the natural will to live that has been cemented into us by the creator (GOd, Ala, or the evolutionary process). Our natural will would compel us to resist such a law which indicates that natural rights has at least as much authority as the state. This is why the state can not have absolute authority over any person because whenever a law or direct order from a dictator attempts to compel us to do something that would harm ourselves and our own interest our natural will will resist as much as it can.
In fact, this is probably true of all human relationships because a controlling husband may have gained a lot of power over his wife but even he knows he can not tell her to kill herself. He knows that there are certain limits to how much authority the wife would cede to her husband for the simple reason of human beings will not commit suicide voluntarily so they will not cede that power to anyone.
2 years, 4 months ago on The Rule of Law