---------------------------------------------
True.. my upgrade was a godsend... "fight fire with fire".... Forest Rangers do that... republicans DO NOT...
ALL RINOs despise me..
Posted on 03/27/2015 2:21:16 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
True.. my upgrade was a godsend... "fight fire with fire".... Forest Rangers do that... republicans DO NOT...
ALL RINOs despise me..
I know this is a thread about the JBS, but I think we can leave it out of the discussion because their complaint has nothing to do with mine. It’s a strawman often used to avoid the glaring flaw in COS. I believe COS is obviously constitutional. But I also believe the Bill of Rights is constitutional. I know you think of cases where lower courts and SCOTUS have ignored those and ruled on personal preference or the zeitgeist.
As far as no court upholding nullification, there’s never been a time of overt, government lawlessness like we have now, so I don’t think the question is relevant because we’re in a crisis. And nullification is implicit in the supremacy clause through the language “pursuant to the constitution.” Who decides what’s pursuant to the constitution? Federal judges? That language has no meaning if the federal government can pass unconstitutional laws and the federal government can then declare them constitutional. States decide what’s pursuant to the constitution. The Feds were wrong to enforce the fugitive slave act on Wisconsin because Wisconsin’s nullification was constitutional. Nullifying Obamacare, ATF rules, EPA regulations, Roe v Wade, marriage for Sodomites, and other fed overreaches would absolutely be constitutional.
The framers were sending an engraved invitation for violent intervention from the King when they signed the Declaration. That’s not the issue.
And besides all this, the framers pretty much all said that you can wad that document up and burn it once we have an immoral, idiotic, selfish electorate. At least some states still have sanity. I don’t feel like waiting on Virginia (who made a piece of crap their governor) to see if my kids will inherit a free country. Most of the people in my state want liberty, it’s their God-given right, they should have it.
I thought I saw it all, until I read that a Republican appointed Chief Justice said that government can force citizens to buy something because a penalty was actually a tax even though the authors of the bill consistently claimed it wasn’t. Or that “shall not be infringed” means forced to pay 100.00 for training, another 150.00 to be brought into a police station, photographed, finger printed, and put on a list that the governor can make public anytime he wants.
In all seriousness, I truly can’t imagine why you guys think SCOTUS will honor these amendments. You admit they’re lawless right?
Similar experiences here in Arizona, except for one... I believe you’re familiar with our “conservative” senate president Andy Biggs... He’s a Birch Pod, paralyzed by his own fear. He’s a little different than the typical fear-monger in that he has written a book about the “Con-Con” and is using his position to hawk it. Don’t you just love the smell of free-market corruption in the morning? This guy is an abomination to the party and to the pursuit of liberty.
Love your sig, BTW... wasn’t that Reagan... If not now, when... if not us, who?
Once we've exhausted all legal, peaceful means, then you and I can meet shoulder to shoulder at the ramparts, but until then you're just picking a fight that you're going to lose, and you're gonna take us all down with you. I can't support that.
The logical progression of your approach leads to the destruction of the nation. So does Obama's, by the way. I choose differently.
The meme that the Federal government does not follow the Constitution is demonstrably false. I submit to you that even our current "lawless" government adheres to virtually every modern day amendment to the Constitution. It's more the Articles that they've raped and plundered. On average, amendments to the Constitution are followed VERY closely for about 100 years after they are ratified by the states and made part of the Constitution. Some have endured even longer. When an amendment has been debated, drafted, proposed and ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures, the federal government has little choice but to sit up and pay attention. For example, it’s been almost 225 years since the First Amendment was ratified, and only recently have the federal courts dared to trespass on religious freedom, and even at that, only on the margins and in the service of a small but influential political special interest group.
Similar things can be said of the government’s nipping at the edges of the Second Amendment… private ownership of firearms went virtually unchallenged until New York passed the first “gun control” law in 1911… that’s 120 years. And even though the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Search & Seizure, Privacy, Due Process, etc.) have been held virtually sacrosanct since the nation’s inception, no serious discussion about loss of liberty can avoid acknowledging the impact that September 11, 2001 and consequent federal legislation has had on them, but that’s only over the last decade.
Although these are all liberties that are currently under attack, we have enjoyed most of them for almost 2¼ centuries, and all were achieved by AMENDING the Constitution.
The problem is that these liberties are being changed by legislative fiat without benefit of the amendment process, and when challenged, the Supreme Court has enabled the infringement.
So, in response to your charge that the government doesn’t follow the Constitution now, it’s more than fair to say that the Constitution as a whole is, by and large, followed by government at all levels, all the time, and fairly closely… but here I need to clarify that I’m not talking about the Constitution as it was written, but as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
It's the "Interpreted Constitution" that brings us to what many believe is the crux of the matter, and the single-most important reason to support an amendment convention - it's the beautifully written but vague and ambiguous language of the Founders that allows "constitutional scholars" like our current president (and liberal justices) to find the wiggle room that they need to subvert the original intent of the Founders.
If we were to close the loopholes that civil rights lawyers, activist judges and an enabling U.S. Supreme Court have used to “create” new powers and authority for the federal government that the framers never anticipated nor intended, if those loosely written phrases were amended to reflect the narrow scope intended by the authors of that great document, it’s completely conceivable that the legacy we could leave to the next several generations of Americans would be living free of the overwhelming burdens, constraints and regulations of hundreds and hundreds of ever-expanding federal bureaucracies.
IMHO
A waste of who's time? Yours?
Then I'd like you to read Reflections on the 82nd Anniversary of the New Deal, which brings the story to the present and offers a look into the future. This one is much shorter.
“Pretend Patriots”? Stuff it, buddy.
But I stand by every other word.
When someone uses the word "probably" to deride or reject another's opinion and doesn't even bother to take the time to investigate what it is that he is about to dismiss, then he deserves to be called lazy.
As a matter of fact, for your future benefit, I would recommend using the word "prolly," which is the now popular abbreviation for the word "probably"... it's fewer keystrokes, meaning it takes even less effort on your part.
I'll revise my earlier closing statement as follows: America certainly DOES NOT need any more uneducated, unmotivated, un-involved patriots like you.
You might find some information in this library useful.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/not-a-constitutional-convention.html
“You might find some information in this library useful.”
I did find it useful and I agree with the goals. I will support it. It’s a shame some people try to persuade others by using insults.
You insulted yourself... I simply seconded the motion.
You behave like an idiot.
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.