Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WILL IT TAKE A REVOLUTION?
Canada Free Press ^ | March 31, 2012 | Douglas V. Gibbs

Posted on 03/31/2012 7:35:00 PM PDT by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny

We are told that it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, but that is hardly in line with the limiting principles offered by the U.S. Constitution. That power the courts claim to have is called Judicial Review, and it is addressed nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, the federal courts seized that power for themselves through an opinion written by Justice John Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803.

Yes, that’s right, the courts gave that power to themselves.

By deciding if laws are constitutional, and since the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, what is happening is that the federal government is deciding for itself what its own Constitutional authorities are. That, my friends, is hardly in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; constitution; judicialreview; marburyvmadison; nullification; scotus; separationofpowers; statesrights; tenthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last
To: theBuckwheat

I am 100% with you that obamacare must go in it’s entirety ... root and branch.
There must be a way to do it without the insanely dangerous move of a constitutional convention.

I don’t feel I am getting across that a convention is not convened with one topic to discuss. It is a wide open opportunity to bring up any kind of mischief.

Yes the states have to ratify but (for example) our congress has more than 50 socialists right now. Our congress and senate surely knew that Obama was not eligible but they have done nothing to the point of fingers in the ears and lala-la-la.

This digression to ask the question; Who can we get to entrust with the safety of America in a constitutional convention? Remember, it is at least 35 leaders with staffs and support who will have the future of America in their hands.

A convention sounds great but it is brain surgery with an ax.

There are other ways.
If SCOTUS finds obamacare unconstitutional then our work begins to root out the go-along, get-along senators and congresspeople so some real changes can be made for health care; tort reform; insurance reform (private), inter-state policies for real competition (and lots more I am not smart enough to know).

Not only the compliant congress and senator denizens but their staff that just move from one elected critter to another ... these are a major part of the problem too.

Government employee unions have to go... any person getting money from taxpayers for work should not get a unionized pension. Let them pay into social security ... maybe they will take care of it.

Private people should be able to handle their retirement anyway that they choose and not be forced into the social security tax.

Sorry for the rant ... but we need to change the government (not just the party) back to an actual constitutional republic. Get the bums out.


51 posted on 04/01/2012 7:09:11 PM PDT by GOPBiker (Thank a veteran, with a smile, every chance you get. You do more good than you can know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GOPBiker

Frankly its a high risk game, but i don’t see the odds ever getting better for us. The more the left controls our schooled & media the more of our population is going to lose track of their freedom.

Sometimes i think the most practical and perhaps only way to restore all our freedom at this point may be to just start over. That is to say abolish all unions and connection, and force everyone to start reforging their “alliances” from scratch. Force the left to start unionizing to enslave the minority from scratch.

That of course brings us back to the old biblical story of the tower of babel, which in my mind is very much the same kind of thing. Leftist see the institutions of Big government as the tower and their ultimate goal with them institutions(government functions over all) as The God their trying to reach.
To sustain any of theses things they require ever more massive unions of men ultimately all the worlds population. Unions which they will impose willing or not.

Our greatest hope is that like in the biblical story of the tower of babel the men they have enslaved will find it ever more difficult to agree on how to proceed(communicative), and ultimately break up into factions going their separate ways.


52 posted on 04/01/2012 7:33:43 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Thank you for speaking as I would....God Bless You!


53 posted on 04/01/2012 7:36:10 PM PDT by IrishPennant (Are you behind a "Blade of Grass?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Toothpick

Violence will not end their reign because we on the right will stop hanging them when half of them are still alive thinking that we have scared them into sanity when there is no sanity in a communist/socialist zombie


54 posted on 04/01/2012 7:57:38 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

“YES”


55 posted on 04/01/2012 7:58:34 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
How about: the US of A is either a single country or fifty countries.

Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.
Alexander Hamilton federalist #26

----

If it means getting our Liberty back, I'll take 50 countries.

56 posted on 04/01/2012 8:19:55 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

Sanity like self-reliance & famly responsibly the underpinnings of freedom must be taught. This is the underpinning of any and all human civilization and it is that education that must be our ultimate priorty.

Our children, indeed everyone’s children who wish to live among us in peace as our countrymen must be taught about the evil’s large unions of men are predisposed to commit upon not only others but their individual members. This is absoulty fundemtnal to living in a “democracy” that ever voter know the perous pit falls of attempting to control evermore larger and more complex organizational via the vote.

Theses organizations have a way of robing men of their rights, and committing some of the worst evils. They must learn that the solution is not to install dictators or many more elections, but not to create theses monsters in the first place.

Our children like ourselves Must in short know the limits & nature of their human countrymen! This is in the end all and be all of education in any free republic, and it is the most important lesion we need everyone to know.


57 posted on 04/01/2012 8:26:07 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

History shows us that the leftist/progressive approach appeals to those who want to be cared for and told what to do (short-term thinkers) but is a downward spiral that ends in disaster. Lots of commie ex-regimes to use for examples.

The constitutional republic of America has been the most successful form of social organization the world has ever known. What we are learning at this stage is that, as good as it is for all those who go forward and play ‘fair’, it can be subverted from within (as we have right now).

The 40year plan to make us stupid bore fruit in 2008 when an unknown commie with no message got elected.

Every actual free-thinking American has to step up and speak out, vote, be a good example of righteous clear thinking, not give in to hate and hysteria, be a good parent to all of the (adult) children who don’t get that there is work involved in being free.

Some say it is naive to want to use the ballot box but we must do this first (and hopefully we can make it work). All is not lost.

If you know your community, watch the vote counts. If the counts are wrong for what you know of your precinct, county or whatever then we must speak up.

Even the electronic vote counters have audit capability. Demand that they be used.

If there is ‘voter intimidation’ use your phone, make video, publish, publish.

We are America. We cannot be beaten, we can only give up. We MUST not give up.

As in the ‘shot heard around the world’ we must stand up as individuals and be counted. Speak out when it wrong and you know it.

The media is being intimidated over the cold case posse results.

Everybody cannot be intimidated. 10,000 or 100,000 people standing up and pointing at something wrong draws attention to it for sure.


58 posted on 04/01/2012 8:38:38 PM PDT by GOPBiker (Thank a veteran, with a smile, every chance you get. You do more good than you can know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

There then must be an eradication of the influence of John Dewey, Bill Ayers and that of many more of their ilk from public education, from the universities, from any contact with young minds (<30) There must be a wall to wall clean out of communist/socialist zombies from instatutions of education. Like Peter Singer who should inhabit a mental hospitals padded cell.


59 posted on 04/01/2012 8:42:16 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GOPBiker

Vote fraud machines: Pick address that can be easily monitored, Mailboxes etc for example, apartment complexes for another, fill out voter registration cards using names from a cemetery or simply make them up, make a copy so you know what the signature looks like.

Now for either primary or general elections you request an absentee ballot for every one of those fake voters, vote the ballot, make sure the signature looks right, mail it back. No need for an ID with picture, no chance of being caught by a poll worker who knows you are not who you say you are. The end result, a stolen election. Now do the math, the Republican turn out has been in the cellar with Romney the least liked and yet he wins. the voting public is gullible BUT there are some of us who can see and connect the dots.

The vote fraud machine was turned out to put Romney in front because the Democrats know that Romney will lose to Obama by at least ten points.

Now before the general election ask your county registrar for a list of addresses with five or more voters. Go in a group and get face to face with each listed voter. If there is no voter to get face to face with, file charges with your local sheriff. If the registrar refuses to help you you know they are crooked and act accordingly.


60 posted on 04/01/2012 8:51:45 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

<<
Now before the general election ask your county registrar for a list of addresses with five or more voters. Go in a group and get face to face with each listed voter. If there is no voter to get face to face with, file charges with your local sheriff. If the registrar refuses to help you you know they are crooked and act accordingly. >>

W.W., that is pretty good. Thanks. I bet TEA party folks would be up for that kind of activity.

If the registrar does not cooperate, what is a good strategy for tuning up a non-compliant registrar?


61 posted on 04/01/2012 9:13:41 PM PDT by GOPBiker (Thank a veteran, with a smile, every chance you get. You do more good than you can know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GOPBiker

what is a good strategy for tuning up a non-compliant registrar?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I don’t know but I am sure some one here will know. I would like fists but that would cost.


62 posted on 04/01/2012 9:56:37 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The effect of fifty states going their own way would be not liberty but insecurity and chaos.


63 posted on 04/02/2012 4:39:33 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

Insecurity an chaos will yield a coming together into groups of like minded states. The new unions will be free of the trash in the north east and coastal west.

The population will migrate to comfort.

The cities will fall apart and die. Being obsolete, that doesn’t matter.

Robert Heinlein saw it all and described it well in his later books.


64 posted on 04/02/2012 4:46:30 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
The effect of fifty states going their own way would be not liberty but insecurity and chaos.

LOL!

What do you think we have NOW?

-----

Original Intent is about a confederation of States NOT a consolidation of one.

That's not only something the Founders warned about, but the generation that followed knew it as well.

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States – 1803 [paragraph 337]

Do you seriously think they 'secured the blessing of Liberty to themselves and their posterity' by giving the federal government the authority to sit in absolute judgment over the States?

-----

BTW, it would be nice if you would point out exactly where in the Constitution OR in the Judiciary Act of 1789 the USSC was given the jurisdiction to sit in judgment of a single State and one of its own citizens.

THAT concept is negated by the 10thAmendment. If the Supreme Courts of the States don't have supreme authority IN the State, they're really not 'supreme', are they?

65 posted on 04/02/2012 7:30:59 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham; MamaTexan
That would frequently defeat the point of the jurisdiction that the Constitution grants to the Supreme Court.

According to Mr. Gibbs, in 1803 the Supreme Court granted themselves the authority. The Constitution did not.

How about: the US of A is either a single country or fifty countries.

The USA is a limited government formed by the states and given only the limited powers granted it by the states. The purpose of this general government was to coordinate but not to issue laws that apply to the states except within the limited powers of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is part of the Federal government, just as are the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, if a state or states see that the central government has overstepped its bounds they are free simply to ignore, or nullify, those overreaches. That includes executive orders, legislation, and Supreme Court rulings. Each state is free to act on its own or in concert with other states in that respect.

66 posted on 04/02/2012 9:45:21 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bert

What you are describing involves much suffering and bloodshed.


67 posted on 04/02/2012 11:41:15 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
The basis for federal constitutional supremacy is stated expressly in Article VI, Clause 2, which provides:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is flatly incompatible with state nullification.

68 posted on 04/02/2012 11:50:06 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

See my response at number 68, above.


69 posted on 04/02/2012 11:51:37 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

See my response at number 68, above.


70 posted on 04/02/2012 11:53:00 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
The basis for federal constitutional supremacy is stated expressly in Article VI, Clause 2, which provides:

You do realize that the Supremacy clause can only operate concerning the foregoing powers previously granted don't you?

It's not the carte blanche everyone believes it to be.

That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution

Such a power would allow the federal entity to define its own limits, and that I do not believe the Founders were foolish enough to do.

-----

This is flatly incompatible with state nullification.

Following Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation :
Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

This is called the Rule of Exclusion. Anything not included is therefore excluded.

Please show me the word 'nullification' in the Constitution.

71 posted on 04/02/2012 1:42:39 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ...

That is the key phrase. Those laws which may be ignored by the states are those which were not made in pursuance of the Constitution but instead, dispite the Constitution.

72 posted on 04/02/2012 2:07:11 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]



There will be no revolution.
73 posted on 04/02/2012 3:07:53 PM PDT by .30Carbine (God bless you with the spirit of wisdom and understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

There is no express or implied power of nullification reserved to the states.


74 posted on 04/02/2012 3:12:50 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
There is no express or implied power of nullification reserved to the states.

That's true. In fact, there are NO expressed or implied powers reserved to the states....period.

That's because everything that is not included in the Constitution is therefore excluded. This concept is cemented by the 10th Amendment
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

Is the power of nullification granted to the federal government? No.

Is the power of nullification expressly prohibited by the States? No.

Then it IS a retained power. It's as simple as that.

------

Think about it another way - if the intent of the supremacy clause was to make the federal government an unquestionably supreme authority, all the enumerations in order to LIMIT that federal authority are pointless.

The Founders might have well just written that single clause and gone home!

75 posted on 04/02/2012 6:33:23 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Fundamentally, nullification makes no sense because it embeds in the Constitution the means of its negation by each state as it pleases. Of course, the supremacy clause means that the Constitution is supreme, not necessarily that the federal government is supreme.


76 posted on 04/02/2012 7:53:48 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Fundamentally, nullification makes no sense because it embeds in the Constitution the means of its negation by each state as it pleases. Of course, the supremacy clause means that the Constitution is supreme, not necessarily that the federal government is supreme.


77 posted on 04/02/2012 7:54:11 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Fundamentally, nullification makes no sense because it embeds in the Constitution the means of its negation by each state as it pleases.

It was the States that created the federal government in the first place. NOT allowing them the ability of nullification is like someone having a child and then letting the child run the parent.

It against the Laws of Nature. 'That which you create, you have a right to control' is a very old legal adage.

-----

Of course, the supremacy clause means that the Constitution is supreme, not necessarily that the federal government is supreme.

Which is also quite true.

The problem is that without nullification, the supremacy clause leads to the result of MAKING the federal government supreme, as the State cannot stop an unconstitutional act before it's implementation.

It is forced to drag the issue through the courts only to have it finally arbitrated by (you guessed it) the federal government itself.

In a nutshell, nullification is what was SUPPOSED to allow the States to keep the feds from rigging them system.

78 posted on 04/03/2012 1:52:05 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Nullification is simply unworkable. Ultimately, someone has to determine constitutionality, and it is best if it is single high court in a comprehensive national system.

On the main point, the power of the Supreme Court to hold legislation unconstitutional, here is Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78:

" . . . Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable. There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."

79 posted on 04/03/2012 5:02:40 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
On the main point, the power of the Supreme Court to hold legislation unconstitutional, here is Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78:

#78 does not uphold your contention that the federal government has the enumerated authority to hold STATE legislation unconstitutional.

As the discussion concerns the federal Constitution, it outlines the balance of power between the federal legislature and the federal judiciary. Its a basic illustration the 'separate but equal' concept of the 3 branches

After your quote, he continues:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.

Remember, this was a totally NEW type of government. Do you seriously think the States intentionally joined something they could not control if necessary or leave if they had too?

------

BTW - if you like great resources here's Historical American Documents from us constitution.net.

This is also great - a massive database called The Avalon Project at Yale Law School.

80 posted on 04/03/2012 8:58:00 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny

What was the point of a Supreme Court then if not to evaluate legitimacy of laws? Who else would have the power to say “this is in flat conflict with the Constitution, ergo it must be eliminated from the body of laws”?

Sometimes a court must declare with clarity and formality that which was previously obvious and implied, because some idiots come to strange conclusions to the contrary.


81 posted on 04/03/2012 9:02:44 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The practice of early state governments was that state courts could declare state laws unconstitutional. The point of the supremacy provision of the federal Constitution was that it controlled over all other laws, including state law.


82 posted on 04/03/2012 9:50:42 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
The point of the supremacy provision of the federal Constitution was that it controlled over all other laws, including state law.

No it does not, and repeating the assertion won't make it come true.

83 posted on 04/03/2012 2:04:13 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny

Great article. HOWEVER, since State nullification is no longer practiced, and since the Fedgov seizes enough income to bribe the States into compliance, all we have left is judicial review.


84 posted on 04/03/2012 2:17:22 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Shut up and drill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

We are at an impasse — amiably, and better informed, I trust — but at an impasse.


85 posted on 04/03/2012 2:54:26 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Me too. I stand with the patriots in the red states should it come to that. Until then, I will continue to pray for divine intervention and hope that the hand of God will strike the evil ones.


86 posted on 04/03/2012 3:11:16 PM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
We are at an impasse — amiably, and better informed, I trust — but at an impasse.

Thank you for such a cordial exchange. Even though we don't agree, I've enjoyed it immensely.

87 posted on 04/03/2012 5:38:10 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

As have I.


88 posted on 04/03/2012 5:47:36 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: jersey117
Until then, I will continue to pray for divine intervention and hope that the hand of God will strike the evil ones.

So will I.

Yet we also must keep in mind that God helps those who help themselves. :-)

89 posted on 04/04/2012 6:37:28 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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