Skip to comments.For Those About to Seek Sovereignty, We Salute You
Posted on 02/11/2009 4:23:28 PM PST by ADReditor
Two days ago Sheridan Folger, one of our Senior Writers and the Co-Founder of Lets Get Theis Right.com and Conservative Solutions.org, wrote a very thought provoking article concerning the desire of many New Hampshire citizens to declare their sovereignty from the leftist Obama influenced law makers of Washington DC and their attempts to put a stranglehold on their state should they decide to further infringe on their states rights.
Much like my state of Texas, the voters of New Hampshire have always considered themselves keepers of the flame when it comes to preserving and reserving the right of the state to withdraw their support for an over-reaching federal government by force should it be necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
The states have sold themselves into slavery by taking money from the feds that they should have doled out to the feds far more carefully to begin with.
If you believe a state can withdraw from the Union you are barking up the wrong tree.
Federal funding does not come from “the states” it comes from American citizens.
States do not fund the feds. We tried that and it didn’t work too well. When states “doled out money to the feds” the central government couldn’t pay its bill and we got the Constitution.
Until the American people wake up we are screwed.
Um we tried this a few years back, and didn’t work out so well in the end....
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
"If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
BTW, thanks for the heads up AAC. And fellow keepers of the flame, please ping me to 10th Amendment articles as you come across them so we can slice and dice as necessary. Thanks.
I’m not sure how I got on this Ping List, but PLEASE keep me on it! Thanks! :)
De nada. Just doing my part as a member o’ the ping list.
The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
States rights began to die after the Civil War. They were dealt another crippling blow with the passage of the 17th Amendment.
***The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.***
The most ignored Amendment.
One of the FEW phrase in the whole of the Constitution the libtards have any use for. Of course they must go through all manner of mental gyrations to arrive at their conclusion: That taking the well earned resources of some and giving it to others does NO harm the ones they confiscated it from. Rational? Heh. I can't even begin to tell you how many libtards I've tried to carry on a rational conversation with, that ends up with them foaming at the mouth and waving their arms as if it contributes in any way to the conversation. Dolts, they are. Dragging us along into the abyss -- unless we stop them.
First, allow me to apologize for not posting the disclaimer I normally do on my ping; that is, I spent MANY hours poring over older threads re states rights, 10th Amendment, sovereignty, etc, and pulled names off contributors to those threads. And anybody that wants off, just say so. Glad you're here.
The Founders never intended for the General Welfare or Necessary and Proper Clause to be grants of power, rather a purpose for the listed powers in Article 1 Section 8 in the case of the former clause and an explicit statement of what was implied by granting those powers in the case of the latter clause.
The Necessary and Proper Clause really gets to me because people have taken it to mean it gives Congress “wiggle room”, when in reality it’s a completely redunant statement basically saying Congress has powers and the way it executes them is through laws. Here it is:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the FOREGOING [my emphasis] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.