Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

For Those About to Seek Sovereignty, We Salute You
American Daily Review ^ | 02/11/2009 | John Barnhart

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 Let’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; newhampshire; oklahoma; sovereignty; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last
The writers of American Daily Review appreciate you reading and commenting on these two related stories, more over we would really appreciate you supporting the states efforts of the citizens of New Hampshire and Oklahoma to tell the Federal government to mind their own business and stop trying to use "federal funding", which originally comes from the states, as a weapon of coercion.
1 posted on 02/11/2009 4:23:28 PM PST by ADReditor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ADReditor

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.


2 posted on 02/11/2009 4:32:58 PM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor

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.


3 posted on 02/11/2009 4:35:04 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Ping.


4 posted on 02/11/2009 4:35:30 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor
It's that time again!

It's OUR country!

Photobucket

5 posted on 02/11/2009 4:38:18 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Have You Punched A Democrat Today? - Do it for the children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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.


6 posted on 02/11/2009 4:41:33 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor; Osage Orange; GOP Poet; Army Air Corps; ducdriver; o_zarkman44; nuconvert; MeekOneGOP; ..
Well done ADReditor. There are many here on FR deeply interested in things Constitutional, and this bunch is keenly interested in things 10th Amendment! Ping for a great article folks.

Click the 10th Amendment button for all articles tagged with keyword "10thamendment"




7 posted on 02/11/2009 5:13:31 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Um we tried this a few years back, and didn’t work out so well in the end....


8 posted on 02/11/2009 5:14:40 PM PST by Mmogamer (<This space for lease>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation (general welfare clause) in a letter to James Robertson:

"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."

9 posted on 02/11/2009 5:16:21 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

bump


10 posted on 02/11/2009 5:16:37 PM PST by Popman (One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three is a Congress - John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
—Thomas Jefferson


11 posted on 02/11/2009 5:17:33 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

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.


12 posted on 02/11/2009 5:18:33 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

I’m not sure how I got on this Ping List, but PLEASE keep me on it! Thanks! :)


13 posted on 02/11/2009 5:18:58 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

De nada. Just doing my part as a member o’ the ping list.


14 posted on 02/11/2009 5:19:30 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

2:§§ 1073--91

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.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces22.html

15 posted on 02/11/2009 5:22:36 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

States rights began to die after the Civil War. They were dealt another crippling blow with the passage of the 17th Amendment.


16 posted on 02/11/2009 5:35:21 PM PST by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor

***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.


17 posted on 02/11/2009 5:36:01 PM PST by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush
...(general welfare clause)...

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.

18 posted on 02/11/2009 5:36:36 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
I’m not sure how I got on this Ping List, but PLEASE keep me on it! Thanks! :)

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.

19 posted on 02/11/2009 5:40:44 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

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.”


20 posted on 02/11/2009 5:49:56 PM PST by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

What?!

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 33 on January 3, 1788, “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”

It was universally understood by the Framers——and the State governments that ratified the Constitution——that the States were the supreme governments and that the federal government was the subserviant, limited agent of the States, authorized to carry out only the specific and enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution. If the President wanted to Proclaim something (especially something not specifically authorized in the Constitution), he had to ask the Governors or legislatures of the States for their approval and assistance.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” —James Madison, author of the Constitution, in Federalist Paper No. 45.

“It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.” —Thomas Jefferson

..But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?” —James Madison, from Federalist Paper No. 46

“I, George Washington, do further declare, that because the people of Massachusetts have perpetrated this brazen treason, all their rights are forthwith revoked. Of course, if any Massachusetts resident disavows his state’s dastardly decision, and swears an oath of loyalty to the federal government, his rights shall be restored. Such cases excepted, federal soldiers should feel free to loot any Massachusetts home. Crops not seized for army provisions should be destroyed without regards to the needs of the rebels and their families. After all, war is hell.


21 posted on 02/11/2009 5:50:19 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

“Glad you’re here.”

Me, too! It was a nice PING after a long day of work, all the while thinking of the CONFISCATORY Federal & State Taxes taken out of my hide while I was gainfully employed!

Now I’m revved up to ‘Fight the Good Fight.’ :)

Keep ‘em comin’! :)


22 posted on 02/11/2009 5:53:05 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor
“keepers of the flame”

And would we be FReepers of the Flame"?

23 posted on 02/11/2009 6:00:57 PM PST by do the dhue (They've got us surrounded again. The poor bastards. - One of General Abram's men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
Dead on. Try getting a libtard to understand the simple language in the Constitution is, well, challenging...

Gotta run gather up a sick grandbaby so I'll check back in approaching the wee hours.

24 posted on 02/11/2009 6:06:58 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“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”

Let us consider the argument relied on to support this view.

Great reliance is placed upon the words of the preamble: “We, the people of the United States,”

Let’s see if that holds water?

Declarations of Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, No. 39. Speaking of the ratifications by the States, he says: “This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing an entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. * * * Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”


25 posted on 02/11/2009 6:16:29 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer

Events then were what Washington warned about in his Farewell Address. Most people incorrectly believe it was a warning about foreign involvements when, in fact, it warned of secession and civil war.


26 posted on 02/11/2009 6:53:39 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Please add me to your pinglist


27 posted on 02/11/2009 7:00:39 PM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Beware, world! I haz camera!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Your quotations do not address the point of my post.

States were not sovereign even theoretically after the Constitution was ratified. Then never were in reality though perhaps in theory under the Articles. Nor could they get out of the Union after ratification as Madison made clear to Hamilton in letters written during the NY ratification debates. The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the argument that the document allowed only specific powers to be exercised by the feds as well. Hamilton defined constitutionality in his argument on the constitutionality of the National Bank.

State “governments” NEVER ratified the Constitution as you claim. State governments were deliberately by-passed for conventions called of the People IN states. Congress understood that the State governments were dominated by petty politicians concerned only about themselves and opposed to a government strong enough to bring our nation together and make it strong. It also understood that any state legislative act could be unilaterally undone which made a perpetual Union impossible.

In addition your comment about what the Framers believed is complete fantasy certainly nothing either Madison (who was ready to get rid of the states entirely early in the convention) or Hamilton (who despised the corrupt state governments) believed.

The quote from Madison actually shows why the federal government has grown at the expense of the state. The requirements of war and foreign relations has grown far more important than it had when we were a out-of-the-way backwater on the world stage. Now we occupy the center.

Jefferson is the last person one should quote when concerned about the Constitution and what it means. He didn’t even believe the Louisiana Purchase constitutional nor the Bank which made it possible.

Madison’s belief that the states would resist a federal government stepping out of bounds can be said to show that states do NOT believe it has happened or that they don’t care.

Sherman myth goes marching on. People hundreds of miles away from the March claim his soldiers burned out “Ole Grandpappy and raped the Missus.” When idiots are followed into political suicide things are tough for lots of innocent people along with plenty of the guilty. Those who perpetrated the RAT Rebellion were traitors.


28 posted on 02/11/2009 7:16:08 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

It was Madison who believed once a state was in the Union it was always in the Union or so he told Hamilton in rejecting acceptance of a conditional ratification. Hamilton was about to throw in the towel and accept that from the NY state ratification convention. Madison said “No!”


29 posted on 02/11/2009 7:19:09 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

BTW that “sovereignty” Madison mentions was ONLY in relation to the ratification. It could not be coerced by another state. And there was no other mechanism available for the expression of the political will EXCEPT through state mechanisms.

But Congress was clear that it wanted the decision taken OUT of the hands of the states. It specified special conventions out of the control of state governments.


30 posted on 02/11/2009 7:22:26 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I’m thinking I could hold off my share of federal troops....the ones that you could actually get to fire on US citizens....I should be good to hold down one to two rifle companies, from my mountainous area in NH. The taliban got nothing on a pissed off american when it comes to insurgency.


31 posted on 02/11/2009 8:03:38 PM PST by krogers58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: do the dhue
And would we be FReepers of the Flame"?

Ohhhhh, I like that!

32 posted on 02/11/2009 10:09:58 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum

Done. Good to have another aboard.


33 posted on 02/11/2009 10:12:01 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

lol - that was easy

I hope my pings are helping you out some.


34 posted on 02/11/2009 10:49:10 PM PST by do the dhue (They've got us surrounded again. The poor bastards. - One of General Abram's men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
You have thrown a good deal of verbiage around on this thread that leads me, maybe wrongly, to the conclusion you believe the fedguv can pretty much do what it pleases. That the states and the people should just sit down and shut up, even in the face of a fedguv blatantly violating our Constitution?

If you wouldn't mind playing devil's advocate for a bit, what remedies do you see available to the states or to the people? Let's assume "the people", after decades of misinformation and basic laziness haven't a clue their government is using our Constitution for toilet paper. Assume also the states have been intimidated and bludgeoned into submission by the fedguv so they no longer feel adequate to the challenge of holding that fedguv to its Constitutional restraints. What next?

BTW, Washington offered several warnings in his farewell address. One of which was to guard against those that would usurp power by bypassing the restraints of the Constitution. As far as I could tell, he didn't propose any remedy for such a thing. What might he have done?

35 posted on 02/11/2009 11:29:35 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

You claim:

“State “governments” NEVER ratified the Constitution as you claim. State governments were deliberately by-passed for conventions called of the People IN states.”

Yet the Constitution itself says in Article VII:

“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

The ratifying documents of the various states can be seen here: www.usconstitution.net/otherdocs.html#rats

You also seem to suffer from some strange notion that Congress had something to do with the constitutional convention. In fact, as far as the Congress of the old confederation knew, the convention was negotiating an amendment to the then current Articles of Confederation, the actual nature of the convention being a tightly held secret.

On the up-side, your handle is accurate.


36 posted on 02/11/2009 11:38:18 PM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Add me.


37 posted on 02/11/2009 11:44:18 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (Atlas Shrugged Mode: ON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Mississippi Passes Legislation Protecting Gun Owners During Martial Law

We can only link the source.

38 posted on 02/12/2009 12:12:12 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Done J J. How you been?


39 posted on 02/12/2009 12:44:51 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We can only link the source.

Great article! I'll see if I can figure out a way to get it posted or otherwise get more exposure. NOTHING under Goober news or Yeehaaaw news. Surprised?

40 posted on 02/12/2009 12:57:46 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Article posted from the State of Mississippi website:

Senate Passes Legislation Aimed at Protecting Gun Owners and hard working Mississippians

41 posted on 02/12/2009 1:08:36 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor
hussein... without meaning to... will eventually cause the restoration of States Rights... maybe even the Constitution!

LLS

42 posted on 02/12/2009 4:16:54 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Speak the evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
     --John Stuart Mill 

Wake me when/if the shooting starts.....

43 posted on 02/12/2009 4:24:42 AM PST by central_va (Co. C, 15th Va., Patrick Henry Rifles-The boys of Hanover Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
You have thrown a good deal of verbiage around on this thread that leads me, maybe wrongly, to the conclusion you believe the fedguv can pretty much do what it pleases. That the states and the people should just sit down and shut up, even in the face of a fedguv blatantly violating our Constitution?

Arrogantsob is a typical Yankee, forcing their socialist big govt. views down the rest of the countries throat. If we in the south don't go along, I guess we'll be invaded again. Well come on then....

44 posted on 02/12/2009 4:27:57 AM PST by central_va (Co. C, 15th Va., Patrick Henry Rifles-The boys of Hanover Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ADReditor; All

Thanks for the ping, and thanks to all for some very enlightening comments/ opinions/ quotes.

One quick (and trivial) note:
Typo in the first line (Let’s Get Theis Right).


45 posted on 02/12/2009 6:27:35 AM PST by astyanax ("democracy, immigration, multiculturalism ... pick any two." James C. Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Federal funding does not come from “the states” it comes from American citizens.

I have never understood........why states would be happy about sending a dollar and receiving back only 77%.

Baffling, you make our laws or you won't get any money back......then keep the money!

46 posted on 02/12/2009 6:35:34 AM PST by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Thanks.

All good here.


47 posted on 02/12/2009 9:22:34 AM PST by Jet Jaguar (Atlas Shrugged Mode: ON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Arrogantsob is a typical Yankee...

If you're serious about participating in discussions concerning efforts to reclaim our sovereignty, personal attacks based on geography, or any other unrelated issue will only serve to distract from or even hijack those discussion. Is that what you really want???

You probably realize not all, or even most, "Yankees" are marxist driven idealogues but would not admit it because of some deeper resentments from long ago. Similar to muzzies. Irrational behavior that will serve no good purpose, IMHO. So please, can we discuss idealogy and not geography?

48 posted on 02/12/2009 9:25:31 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (ABCNNBCBS: A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Yeah, geopgraphy has NOTHING to do with it, considering NE is ALL BLUE right! I guess you're a socialist Yankee too. Truth hurts.

49 posted on 02/12/2009 10:55:24 AM PST by central_va (Co. C, 15th Va., Patrick Henry Rifles-The boys of Hanover Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time.

Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus “retained” from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do”

Note that the term “state” used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term “nation” for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term “United States” literally meant “United Nations.”

You then, must believe that the states somehow “surrendered” their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution

However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated,

“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”

In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence – with both union and non-union nations – solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.

Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Since the term “others” as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents – such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them.

Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
“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.”

To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.

I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand.


50 posted on 02/12/2009 1:22:25 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson