Posted on 12/11/2009 12:56:33 PM PST by yoe
Before the hardcore darwinists took over harvard lawschool, it was common for anyone proposing a law to cite where, in MOSAIC LAW, it was justified to have such a law.
IE, they were always referring to a FIXED basis of law instead of an EVOLVING basis of law.
Turn the question around, and ask a Congressman to name one thing that the Feds cannot regulate. They won't be able to name a single thing.
“Then why is she in office?”
When I lived in Louisiana, she got the vote only after a delay in the closure of voting precincts in New Orleans was allowed in order to get more Democrat votes bussed into the voting booths. Otherwise, Woody Jenkins would have won.
Think New Jersey politics like Torricelli/Lautenberg
Mark Levin is a Constitutional lawyer, isnt he?
let HIM answer that.
One brief paragraph from John Mills essay ON LIBERTY.
“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but...
aren’t all congresscritters sworn in to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States?
Therefore, isn’t it a DUTY to determine whether what they are doing IS Constitutional?”
Correct
Correct
Except that no one holds them accountable once they get the trappings of power.
Politicians regularly lie through their teeth while campaigning(aka Obama)
mary the lying wh0re commie.
LLS
AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!
LLS
LLS
Well, here’s to our prayers that Palin will set a new trend in boldly telling the truth and sticking to principles.
True.
Hatch is so stupid he hasn’t figueure out hid head from the hole in his behind. Just a typical senator.
If this monstrosity passes, I'd really like to see Americans boycott the provisions en masse.
Just because she is a senator doesn’t mean she knows anything about the Constitution.
Actually, no. In fact, the electoral process is now SO corrupt it does not provide ANY resort.
Here is our very last resort before rebellion...
Although both Amendments, not to mention the "commerce clause" and the "welfare clause" have been so distorted and convoluted from USSC rulings over years, the original INTENT of both Amendments have been lost.
However, the original premise was clear in that the States and the Peoples still remain as the absolute authority, aside from the few "enumerated" powers of the Fedgov. Therefore:
This is our last best hope, not demonstrations/protests that the marxists in DC ignore.
Build upon your own State's rights. Make your Governor and Legislature listen. That will also be difficult, but much easier than trying to persuade DC.
Your above has always been part of my equation to re-establish our Constitutional heritage.
My suggestions have included:
1. Congressional Term Limits. Probably impossible with the incumbent mentality and resources;
2. Reduced Congressional session time frames. The less they are in session, the less harm;
3. Your suggestion that all legislation must past a Constitutional muster by some non-partisan entity - very important;
4. All but military legislation have sunset clauses;
5. Further restrictions on Fedgov employees becoming lobbyists. Yes, I know, that could be considered an infringement on the 1st Amendment, but the FF's never envisioned nor wanted such a system.
I know the above won't happen, but if it did, think of how our system could change for the better.
Until then, think: STATE NULLIFICATION! Let DC stop their tax distribution to the States, while the States stop their forwarding of tax receipts. What else can DC do? Send armed forces to the States? Pfft! It won't happen in this day. We no longer live in the 1860's. Think about it!
Another useful legislative requirement for Congress would be like one in some state constitutions: that each bill presented have a title that specifically identifies the subject matter, and a rule that one bill can only address a single topic. No more omnibus anything with Pelosi inserting special tax credits for her own companies at the last minute!!
It’s above her pay grade!
Amen
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.