Posted on 03/15/2016 4:58:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
Holy carp she’s ugly. Capital punishment guilty. Dumb too!
Noting that state sovereignty-ignoring Senator Reid is another excellent example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A) should never have been ratified, please consider the following.
Senator Reid is wrongly rewriting Constitutional history concerning the Founding Fathers as evidenced by the following. Consider that most of the delegates to the Constitution Convention were wealthy. However, they put their money where their mouths were by committing themselves, and all other wealthy Americans, to uniquely paying the taxes needed to run the federal government. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied [emphasis added]. … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” —Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
Also consider that one of the few powers that the states have actually delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, to regulate an aspect of domestic policy is to regualte the U.S. Mail Service (1.8.7).
In other words, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to establish most of the federal spending programs that we now have. Such programs have been wrongy established outside the framework of the Constitution.
More specifically, such programs have been established using 10th Amendment-protected state powers and associated state revenues which the corrupt feds have stolen from the states in the form of unconstitutional federal federal appropriations bills imo, bills which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8 limited powers. This is evidenced by the following excerpt by state sovereignty-respecting justices.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Probably that all that post-17A ratification Senators like Reid have in mind with respect to rewriting constitutional history is for the corrupt Wahington cartel to continue to exersise stolen state powers and spend likewise stolen state revenues.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach, putting a stop to unconstitutional, vote-winning federal social spending programs for example.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
The last of the signers of the Declaration Charles Carroll (from memory - I didn’t look up all 56) died 1832; the last of the signers of the Constitution appears to be James Madison died 1836. The first of the political conventions was 1832.
Now you could say that the conventions were a more open system than the “caucus” system that it replaced. On the other hand, 1824 brought with it 4 major candidates for President; of course the decision went to the House and the House served the purpose that the political convention would in later years.
The idiot thinks he’s brilliant, you couldnt clean thier toilets
You got to read more than just the title. Plus you got to look at the picture at the beginning of the article
Party conventions as we know them came later, the founders had nothing to with them and until modern times and primary voting I believe they were entirely private. There is not a word about them in the constitution. The party system developed naturally as there were political disagreements.
I believe the Anti-Masonic party was the first one with a nominating convention. Before that I believe the 2 major parties used their Congressional caucuses to choose their nominees for President. That ended in 1824 when most people didn’t give a shite that the Ye Olde ‘Republican’ (at that point the only major party) Caucus chose Crawford.
Libs are REALLY frigging stupid.
Senator Reid is wrongly rewriting Constitutional history
He may be doing just that...somewhere; but not in the article above, where he was in fact never mentioned...
Mea culpa.
Thank you for pointing that out. The title of the referenced article is misleading, and possibly deliberately misleading.
Which makes me want to vote for him even more. I am for Cruz, but in May if it is still undecided, I am voting Trump, only because it upsets the elites, really upsets them. Oh and it upsets the media and the little college student darlings.
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.