Posted on 01/24/2007 7:45:58 AM PST by SmithL
That seems pretty clear to me.
Seems to me that some in congress and critics are not hearing all of what Gonzales said and only hearing what they want to hear
Yes, and that was the hope and intent of the AG when he USED that attorney-speak double-talk!
Whatever happened to forthrightness?!?
No rights are granted by govm't. Govm't only grants privaledge, where their is otherwise no right to engage. The declaration and the Consitution acknowledge that rights are inherent to the individual, as God, or nature provided.
In your twisted view Federalism is the same as Secessionism since it recognized states having rights and powers not turned over to the Feds.
You also believe the Constitution set up a Consolidated General government. This, of course, is the Anti-federalist claim and what major Founders: Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Jay, Morris, denied.
Your argument is dependent upon claiming Marshall, the GREATEST expositor of the Constitution, was either a turncoat or senile when there is no evidence of either. His last writings are the same masterpieces of logic and composition his earliest were. In fact, Bolton is one of the greatest examples of legal reasoning and writing ever put to paper. Wherein he examines and destroys all the bogus crap you try and pass as constitutional law.
Your idea that the 1830s was a period of fear of secession is simply historically wrong. There were NO advocates of that position. Show us there were if you are going to claim it.
Definitely lawyer-speak, Spirit. I agree, it appears deliberately devious. We know who notoriously uttered that kind of talk before ....
That's just your opinion, one that suits those who want to leave "-- large areas of power to the states --"; -- so they can infringe on our constitutional rights.
Only someone a clueless as you could make such an asinine claim. Anyone else who has seen my posts knows I loathe the Secessionists, States' Righters and all seeking to weaken the Union.
I quote you:
"-- The BoR was written to control ONLY the federal government while leaving state governments free to violate them at will if not prohibited within their constitutions. --"
Hellofa way to loathe "-- States' Righters and all seeking to weaken the Union. --"
The fact that I KNOW how desperately the opponents to the Constitution were to preserve state powers and that the Founders created the BoR to reassure them that the new government was NOT a "consolidated" government like YOU claim does not mean I agree with the Antis.
You agree with those who say a State can infringe on our rights to own & carry arms. Just above you say that: "-- leaving state governments free to violate them at will if not prohibited within their constitutions. --"; -- a number of our State governments have no such prohibitions.
In your twisted view Federalism is the same as Secessionism since it recognized states having rights and powers not turned over to the Feds.
In your twisted view States have 'rights' and powers to violate an individuals rights at will.
You also believe the Constitution set up a Consolidated General government.
Ludicrous unsupported opinion. You're simply getting desperate to justify your "twisted view".
I am tired of your attempts to twist what I have said and pretend that the views of today where in effect in 1787. They were NOT. The Founders did not establish a government based upon YOUR views. In fact, YOUR views have NO relation to what was actually created.
You have repeatedly shown no understanding of the political environment of 1787 and no willingness to learn about it.
You are dishonest and deceptive in your statements which repeatedly LIE about what I say and what the Founders believe. It is worthless to speak with you.
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.