Posted on 01/17/2014 2:54:51 PM PST by WXRGina
Great thread! Thanks!
I have to say, as much as I like some of the people involved in this, this is my worry.
If we don’t obey the constitution we have, why does replacing it help? And if the people replacing it are influenced by the people who don’t obey the constitution we have, who says the outcome is better?
It looks like a sleight of hand. Under color of improving it, we lose it and no going back.
The longer road requires us to obey the constitution we already have. Is the constitution taught in school? Are Federalist Papers taught in school? Does anyone graduating high school have the first clue what limited government is? Does anyone graduating high school understand the vital need to limit the power of majorities?
Then you have a populace and a voter pool that has no clue what it means and why we should obey it in the first place. We dare not depend on such people to write a new one. We have to bring the constitution back into the schools so that everyone who graduates and goes to the polls knows what it is and means.
You’re welcome! :-) Ms. Publius is a brilliant constitutional scholar.
You’re welcome. This is one of Ms. Publius’ many excellent papers.
Amen!
“Federal,” state and local governments are “spending this country into the ground,” and state and local governments are spending most of it with the help of much federal funding. One socialist political party works more for federal interests, while the other political party continues shoveling more pork to state and local governments. They play good guy, bad guy to keep you voting and praising their political politics.
Well, I thought I understood nullification, but I don’t fully understand all it can be.
I can’t think of a way to use nullification to force the federal govt to stop spending money like a drunken sailor (no offense to drunken sailor’s past, present or future) and heaping debt on the next several generations to come.
I’ll presume individuals and states could do whatever was in their power to cut off the flow of tax revenue to the federal govt and try to starve it. Presuming a state legislature moved to do that, I would imagine the Fed would just seize accounts and/or failing that, they could always just start printing money like crazy (worse than they do now) to make up the difference or mitigate the impact. As for individuals, not too many folks can win a fight with the IRS, but “Going Galt” is an option.
So, is there a nullification option when it comes to reigning in federal spending?
If we don’t obey the constitution we have, why does replacing it help? And if the people replacing it are influenced by the people who don’t obey the constitution we have, who says the outcome is better?
It looks like a sleight of hand. Under color of improving it, we lose it and no going back.
You are absolutely right!
Thank you for posting. I believe Mark Levin is very wrong in his aasumptions about how a CC would act. Matt Bracken’s take, in his novels, is closer to the truth, IMHO.
ping
You’re welcome, Dynachrome!
I think that maybe 5% of the population understands these concepts.
That might not seem to be a formidable “army” until you consider the power so called minorities wield.
The enemy is unified. They understand that diversity empowers THEM.
Unless we organize, unify, and stop the criminals, we will just be spectators in the decline and fall.
That’s it. That’s it.
If the States win this argument and actually further restrain the Federal Government I believe the Criminal Class in DC will have to be removed by physical force, tried, convicted under the RICO Act and and jailed. Those that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they upheld their oath of office will be released to go home and look for a real job - every last one of them!
Oh, how I WISH for that, MosaicWolf!
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, even for them.
I don't think so; I think out best bet to reign in spending would be a Constitutional amendment, like so:
Fiscal Responsibility Amendment
Section I
The power of Congress to regulate the value of the dollar is hereby repealed.
Section II
The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand.
Section III
To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI).
Section IV
The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession, which shall be publicly available. Upon the petition of at least one tenth of the Several States, an independent audit of gold physically possessed by the Treasury shall commence and, upon completion, be publicly available; discrepancies shall be construed as malfeasance.
Section V
The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Section VI
Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold to be confiscated from a private citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall:
a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee),
b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits,
c. pay all legal costs, and
d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy.
Section VII
The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void.
Section VIII
The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation.
Why not get one, just one, governor with the balls to force the issue.
Heck, if you got him to do it before they ram Amnesty down our throats we can consider an Amnesty to be Treason.
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.