Posted on 02/09/2015 6:49:01 AM PST by alancarp
Well, then you want the federal government to agree that the federal government is out of its constitutional cage and must be shrunk drastically to be put back into its constitutional cage. Rots a ruck on that one.
So, apparently you will blindly follow a majority of federal decisions whose opinions conform to federal government self-interest securing its power, not based on constitutional reasoning, but on person moral viewpoints, in most cases Leftist, pro-government viewpoints, regardless of the Constitution.
Don't read Bork, don't learn for yourself what the Constitution is all about and have fun coming under the tyranny of the Rule of Man. I assume because you are here on FR you call yourself a conservative. We are in big trouble when "conservatives" acquiesce to government tyranny and lose their freedom with out a shot being fired.
Good luck my FRiend.
Well here, we're talking about POLITICAL freedom. A good definition given by Milton Friedman of political freedom is simply the absence of government coercion. As the Declaration of Independence says, our lives and freedoms are God-given, not man given. But man can steal what is rightfully ours. That is the issue today - will we let the Leftists steal our freedoms? So far, we have.
Given all that is happening in the world, why is anyone spending so much time and energy making sure Perverts can pretend they are mainstream? This is so blatantly anti-Christian!
I pretty much quit paying attention to him after this "gem":
The National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is the people's right to bear arms in a militia.
What does "OK" mean in the above sentence?
It's not PERMITTED for the Federal government, or the states after 1866, to deny Jews the equal protection of the laws or the privileges and immunities of US citizens if they are US citizens. It's not PERMITTED (assuming the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional, at least in part) for private parties to disfavor Jews in the letting out of public accommodations.
Otherwise, it's perfectly allowed to discriminate all you want. It's ignorant, and churlish, and keeps company with some really vile characters from the pages of history, but it's probably "OK" unless you are using "OK" in the cultural Marxist sense.
Please clarify.
Freedom.
Freedom is the lack of restraint against an act which you will to do.
“Freedom” as such is meaningless. Free to do what? When the Iraqis became “free”, they were free to slaughter Sunnis or Shias and to burn captives alive in cages. When the Bhutanese became free, they could set upon Nepalis who had been living under the protection of the monarchy for 500 years. When the Rwandans became free, it was really bad to be a Tutsi. And so on.
Freedom is a condition, and it is neutral in value. You can be free to do good, or free to do evil.
The growth of freedom to do evil in the world since 1792, abetted by pure democracy, is not to be respected.
Freedom is not the problem. Freedom is God-given. It is what people need and want and are willing to die for. Just courts of law are effective in dealing with wrongful acts between people. But generally, a society free of unjust government coercion and oppression is a happy and healthy society where government and individuals respect the rights and freedoms of the individual.
That was a sarcastic remark on my part.
I heartily recommend Bork. I don't necessarily agree with every detail of of his points of view, but nobody agrees with anyone about everything.
Bork is a strong proponent of construing the Constitution as written and originally intended and understood and he is equally an opponent of Leftist judicial activism which has nullified most of the Constitution at the federal level. (That's why the states must begin to in turn nullify unconstitutional federal acts.)
I urge you to read Bork's The Tempting of America. You'll find it worthwhile and educational.
Obeying tyranny and unconstitutional and unjust law is no virtue.
As the Supremacy Clause (Art VI Section 2) says, when you live under the Rule of Law, which is the Constitution, you are bound by federal law made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution. You are NOT bound by unconstitutional federal law.
That is NOT what the Leftists do because the Leftists believe in the Rule of Man, tyranny, and will rebel against anything they don’t like. Tyranny is hairsbreadth from anarchy.
“As the Supremacy Clause (Art VI Section 2) says, when you live under the Rule of Law, which is the Constitution, you are bound by federal law made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution. You are NOT bound by unconstitutional federal law.”
So the State of Alabama is not bound by this Federal Court decision? We are either governed by the rule of law or we aren’t; and if the rule of law no longer applies (or is applied in such a capricious manner as to neuter it) what options are left for saving the republic?
The whole point of “the rule of law” is that LAWMAKERS are bound by the written rule of law, the Constitution. It means that any “positive law” that comes down the pike is not necessarily valid. WE are PROTECTED by the rule of law of the Constitution, the supreme Law of the Land and any federal law IN PURSUANCE of it.
The rule of law does not mean being ruled by anything somebody calls “a law.” That’s how totalitarian regimes like Communism and Nazi Germany work. The rule of law means there’s something higher that LIMITS the whims and emotions of lawmakers and government officials. In our case it is the U.S. Constitution.
If lawmakers break the Law of the Land by unconstitutional acts, the states and the people simple are not bound by their illegal acts. That’s the difference between living free under the rule of law and living in tyranny under the whims of the rule of man.
To clarify, it is mainly FEDERAL lawmakers who are bound and limited by the Constitution. There are certain prohibitions to the states and of course state lawmakers are bound by those, but the Constitution is mainly pointed at the federal government.
Bork was right, and the American people are wrong again.
Bork was right, and the American people are wrong again.
Nothing racist about my post. Fact is fact. Public education went down hill when concessions were made after integration. Standards were lowered. Every retired black teacher in my old home town will tell you the education for blacks was better when it was segregated. The black teachers were respected and whipped butt when it was needed.
The Second Amendment was incorporated in the states in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago.
OK, WHICH GOP POSSIBLE PREZ CANDIDATE IS COMING OUT...... AGAINST THIS?
Basically you’re saying that the minute blacks were allowed to school with whites, public education started going to hell?
I don’t agree with that.
Hillsborough County- where I come from in Tampa- has a $3.9 billion budget, have 17% blacks and graduate less than New Orleans with a $350 million budget and is nearly 60% black.
You're wrong on all counts. When George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, he was denying black students access to the University of Alabama. University education in Alabama didn't decline after integration -- and in certain respects it didn't exist for black students prior to integration. Specifically, Vivian Malone Jones, one of the black students Wallace fought to keep out, wanted to study accounting. However no black university in Alabama offered a graduate degree (or accredited undergraduate degree) in accounting - it was a whites only field. She would have had to leave the state to pursue her studies.
Justifying that is impossible - it was illogical and immoral and stupid. You're either incredibly misinformed or you're simply a racist or maybe you're both. There's nothing remotely conservative about denying equal access to education to students on the basis of race. I'm shocked that that idea is tolerated in some corners of FR.
Secede.
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.