Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $53,246
60%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 60%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Amendment10

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • WH Budget: Claiming Child Care Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit Now Require a..(SSN)

    05/25/2017 3:01:50 PM PDT · 31 of 73
    Amendment10 to PROCON; All
    I agree that we’re winning under Trump. But I have the following concern about the child care tax credit.

    The problem with the child care tax credit imo, is that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to address child care issues.

    This means that, unless patriots support Trump in peacefully “forcing” corrupt Congress to surrender state powers that the corrept feds have stolen from the states back to the states, then some future WH administration can always work in cahoots with Congress to reduce or take away the child care tax credit to raise unconstitutional federal taxes.

    “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.

    Regarding the earned income credit, patriots also need to support Trump in working with the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments to the Constitution.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed in this post.

    • ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

  • Democrats officially introduce $15 minimum wage bill

    05/25/2017 2:24:52 PM PDT · 39 of 70
    Amendment10 to ChicagoConservative27; All
    With all due respect to Sen. Sanders, low-information Sanders is again proving himself to be an excellent example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified.

    More specifically, Sanders’ bill for hiking national minimum wage is evidence that he is clueless that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to establish a national minimum wage.

    In fact, regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the corrupt feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.

    • "State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    What’s going on with Sanders’ bill is this imo. Lawmakers are once again trying to steal state powers, the power of a given state to raise its minimum wage in this case, in order to win votes from low-information voters, voters who are as clueless as the federal lawmakers that they elect that the feds have no constitutional authority to set minimum wage.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

  • POLL: 59% Of Democrats Believe Russia Changed Vote Tallies To Elect Trump

    05/25/2017 10:43:09 AM PDT · 63 of 75
    Amendment10 to ForYourChildren; All
    Thank you for referencing that article ForYourChildren. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

    "POLL: 59% Of Democrats Believe Russia Changed Vote Tallies To Elect Trump"

    Democrats are unthinkingly indicating that they know how easy it is to rig an election.

    Hacking Democracy - The Hack

    On the other hand, consider that the Founding States had decided not to give ordinary voters the constitutional authority to vote for POTUS.

    In fact, if the Constitution-ignoring political parties and Progressive Movement hadn’t successfully interfered with the constitutionally enumerated process for electing POTUS, then the President of the Senate (corrections welcome) would be hand-counting a still very manageable 538 electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidential race (12th Amendment).

    Also keep in mind that dog fight elections for control of the federal government is really for control of 10th Amendment-protected state powers, and associated state revenues, that the corrupt feds have stolen from the states imo, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.

    • “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.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    If the individual states were once again calling the shots with respect to domestic policy, citizens would probably have to guess who current POTUS is, control of the constitutionally limited powers feds no longer a major concern for citizens.

    But patriots are warned that if they don’t support Trump in peacefully “forcing” the corrupt feds to surrender state powers back to the states, then it is only a matter of time before another lawless president works in cahoots with corrupt Congress to once again use stolen state powers to oppress the states and their citizens.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

  • They Went to Manchester Arena as Homeless Men. They Left as Heroes.

    05/24/2017 11:20:27 AM PDT · 7 of 12
    Amendment10 to C19fan; All
    Kudos to heroes Chris Parker and Stephen Jones for providing aid and comfort to the victims of the Manchester bombing.

    On the other hand, I find the alleged, politically correct response of security personnel to concerns about suspicious activity from concert fans before the bombing to be very disturbing.

    ‘Holly, my daughter, got very upset about things and went to security but then they asked her “How would you like it if someone accused you of this?’ —Mother blasts lax security at Manchester Arena before bomb that killed 22
  • Clinton slams Trump's budget: 'An unimaginable level of cruelty'

    05/23/2017 10:02:56 PM PDT · 53 of 79
    Amendment10 to 2ndDivisionVet; All
    Regarding the federal budget, Hillary refuses to recognize that most (all?) federal social spending programs are unconstitutional, such programs based on state powers and uniquely associated state revenues that the corrupt, post 17th Amendment-ratification feds have stolen from the states.

    Note that the feds steal state revenues by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that career lawmakers cannot justify under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

    • "Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.

    • “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.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    What’s going on imo is that corrupt career politicians establish unconstitutional federal spending programs to essentially buy votes from low-information citizens, citizens who are clueless that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific powers to establish such programs.

    Patriots need to support Trump in working with the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes. Once that happens then the states will probably find a tsunami of new revenues that they won’t know what to do with. They could establish their own healthcare programs, improve schools, increase funding for fire and police departments, and fix infrastructure for starters.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

  • Blame For Obamacare's Next Rate Hike Shifts To Trump And GOP

    05/23/2017 5:01:05 PM PDT · 18 of 30
    Amendment10 to Lorianne; All
    Thank you for referencing that article Lorianne. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

    Speaking of Obama’s post-Oval Office influence, I don’t like the timing of the federal fiscal year, a new fiscal year starting a little over a month before election day in election years.

    2017 United States federal budget

    More specifically, a new president like Trump evidently has to put up with, for most of a year, a budget signed into law by an outgoing president.

    In other words, it can be argued that a new, sworn-in president actually doesn’t take control of the federal government until she works with Congress and signs a new budget into law about a year later.

    The bottom line is that patriots need to work with Trump to change tax day and the start of a new federal fiscal year to reduce the chances for reelection of corrupt, state sovereignty-ignoring career lawmakers as much as possible.

    Corrections, insights welcome.

  • Katy Perry on Manchester Bombing: ‘No Barriers, No Borders, We All Just Need to Co-Exist’

    05/23/2017 1:31:12 PM PDT · 133 of 176
    Amendment10 to drewh; All
    Sorry if already posted in this thread, but Katy Perry is very wrong about Manchester bombing imo.
    ISIS: ‘We killed your children’. Terror group claim responsibility for Manchester bombing [tr]
  • Former Sen. Coburn pushes for Article V Convention to limit federal power

    05/23/2017 8:54:14 AM PDT · 10 of 29
    Amendment10 to rdl6989; All
    The 16th and 17th Amendments can disappear.

    Constitutionally undefined federal agencies like the EPA, IRS, etc. can disappear too.

    And the repeal amendment for 16 & 17 can compliment the 10th Amendment in the following way. The repeal amendment should include a provision that requires presumed guilt of unconstitutional expansion of federal government powers for any federal government action and legislation that are questionable under any of the powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds.

    "In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

    In fact, since corrupt Congress cannot be trusted to police itself with respect to making legislation that is reasonably based on powers which the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to Congress, the states need to constitutionally require Congress to reference specific constitutional clauses in all legislation to reasonably justify the legislation, regardless if one House chooses not to pass the legislation.

    The state legislatures need to give themselves the same constitutional authority to collectively exercise the same powers of impeachment and removal from federal office that Congress has, including removing lawmakers from office.

    Also the clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes by a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices needs to be enumerated in the Constitution.

    "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.
    
  • Border wall funding shrinks in Trump's 2018 budget (Trump, FUND THE WALL!!!)

    05/22/2017 5:39:07 PM PDT · 19 of 28
    Amendment10 to cba123; All
    What I hadn’t thought about during campaign when Trump was promising wall, Trump possibly not considering it either, is that even though Trump is now pres, the feds are still working within Obama’s last budget, the ’16-’17 federal budget ending in Sept. 30, 2017.
    2017 United States federal budget

    I understand that Trump is rolling up his sleves with respect to things like his wall for the ’17-’18 federal budget.

    Corrections, insights welcome.

  • US approves $650M for San Francisco Bay Area train system

    05/22/2017 4:13:44 PM PDT · 33 of 43
    Amendment10 to Drago; All
    Thank you for referencing that article Drago. Please note that the following critique is directed at Trump and not at you.

    Noting that I voted for Trump and do not regret doing so, please consider the following.

    Regardless of Trump’s good intentions for the country, as a consequence of constitutionally low-information Trump surrounding himself with advisors who probably don’t know the fed’s constitutionally limited powers any better than he does, Trump is still unsurprisingly clueless that the feds have no constitutional authority to tax and spend for infrastructure like train systems. This is evidenced by the following clarifications of Congress’s limited power to tax and spend by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court 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.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    In fact, and with all due respect to the family, friends and supporters of the late President Eisenhower, Eisenhower was likewise clueless that the states have never expressionally constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to establish a national highway system.

    This is evidenced by the following excerpt from the writings of President Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson indicating that the states would first have to expressly constitutionally delegate to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for a national highway — something that the states have never done.

    "On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added]”—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress

    In fact, President James Madison later vetoed the public works bill of 1817, complementing Jefferson’s words by pointing out that, regardless of politically correct (my term) interpretations of the Common Defense and General Welfare Clause (1.8.1), other than the post roads clause (1.8.7), there are no clauses in Congress’s constitutional Article I Section 8-limited powers that gave Congress the specific power to tax and spend to build roads and canals.

    Veto of federal public works bill

    In other words, Eisnhower needed to first successfully petition the states for a national interstate highway amendment to the Constitutional before building one imo.

    So at this point in time, misguided Trump is inadvertently helping to unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers like Eisenhower did imo.

    Roy Riegels wrong way run in the Rose Bowl
  • EPA setting aside millions for buyouts and early retirement. Wait… what?

    05/22/2017 9:15:50 AM PDT · 23 of 31
    Amendment10 to SeekAndFind; All
    Thank you for referencing that article SeekAndFind. As usual, please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

    Regardless that the EPA is arguably a good idea, patriots are reminded that since the states have never expressly constitutionally debated to the corrupt feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of environmental protections, the constitutionally undefined EPA’s budget should be $0.

    • “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.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

  • Sen Marco Rubio Says Americans Got the White House Drama 'They Voted For' by Electing Trump

    05/22/2017 8:50:57 AM PDT · 50 of 76
    Amendment10 to antidemoncrat; All

    With all due respect to Sen. Rubio, low-information Rubio overlooks that misguided Americans also got the state sovereignty-ignoring Senate that they wanted when they twisted the arms of state lawmakers to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, that amendment effectively repealing the whole Constitution imo.

  • We must ditch the two major parties for our own good

    05/21/2017 8:43:48 AM PDT · 19 of 61
    Amendment10 to 2banana; All
    Thank you for referencing that article 2banana. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

    As mentioned in related threads, the political parties exist to control state powers and state revenues that the unconstitutionally big federal government has stolen, and continues to steal, from the states imo.

    Note that the feds steal state revenues in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that corrupt Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, unconstitutional Obamacare a great example.

    • “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.

    • "State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    In fact, military issues aside, noting that one of the very few powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds to control an aspect of domestic policy is to run the US Mail Service (1.8.7), the key question concerning the need for political party involvement in the federal government is the following.

    How many political parties does it take to run the mail service?

    I say none. No political parties required.

    In fact, the states should amend the Constitution to prohibit political party support for federal politicians.

    The states, on the other hand, can have as many political parties as they want. Those states that manage to shoot both feet off with political parties can have their stars removed from the flag.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

  • Rand Paul Will Attempt to Block Trump’s Saudi Arms Deal

    05/20/2017 2:22:30 PM PDT · 25 of 52
    Amendment10 to ATOMIC_PUNK; All
    Given that deal-maker Trump knows what he is doing, it looks like that by arguing against Trump’s Saudi Arms Deal, Paul will be put in position of being anti-jobs for US citizens.
    Trump Says Saudi Arabia Deal Will Create ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’
  • Peruta Likely to be Heard by the Supreme Court

    05/20/2017 10:21:26 AM PDT · 14 of 16
    Amendment10 to marktwain; All
    Thank you for referencing that article marktwain. As usual, please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

    "Peruta v. California, 16-894, asks whether the Second Amendment entitles citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense – including concealed carry when carrying firearms openly is forbidden by state law."

    Patriots are reminded the following about the 2nd Amendment (2A). The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), included 2A when he read the Bill of Rights as the main example of enumerated constitutional rights that 14A applies to the states.

    See the 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in the middle of the 2nd column from the page in congressional record which contains Bingham’s explanation.
    ”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    This is another case that I’m surprised has made it as far to the Supreme Court as it has.

    Regardless that Hillary didn’t win Oval Office, I question if misguided activist states like California are actually hoping that anti-2A activist justices will politically repeal that amendment from the bench.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

    • “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.

    • ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

  • Jerry Brown: California Taxpayers are ‘Freeloaders

    05/19/2017 2:02:32 PM PDT · 50 of 56
    Amendment10 to lowbridge; All
    "California Governor Jerry Brown referred to taxpayers as “freeloaders” last week for objecting to his new gas tax and car fee hikes."

    With all due respect to Gov. Brown, he needs to wise up to the following.

    As a major consequence of probably being clueless about the fed’s constitutionally limited powers, Brown is likely oblivious that California taxpayers are wrongly being forced to pay a king’s ransom in unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, taxes that are arguably stolen California state revenues; same problem with the other states.

    "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.
    

    So Gov. Brown needs to team up with the gov. of NY and support Trump in doing the following. The governors need to lead the rest of the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes. Once that happens then the states will probably find a tsunami of new revenues that they won’t know what to do with.

    The states can use their new revenues to establish their own healthcare programs, improve public schools, increase funding for police and fire departments, and repair infrastructure for starters.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

    • “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.

    • ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

  • US Judge Allows Transgender Person To Sue Under Disability Law

    05/19/2017 1:37:31 PM PDT · 17 of 18
    Amendment10 to Thalean; All
    Thank you for referencing that article Thalean. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

    "US Judge Allows Transgender Person To Sue Under Disability Law"

    FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

    There are two major constitutional problems with the judge’s decision imo.

    First, while I agree with the idea of federal protections for disabled people in principle, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect disabled people.

    Next, regarding so-called federal sex protections, the only sex-related right that the states have amended the constitution to expressly protect deals only with voting rights, evidenced by the 19th Amendment. But since the referenced politically correct transgender issue is clearly outside the scope of voting rights, the feds don’t have the power to interfere with this issue.

    • "Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.

    • "From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    So the judge’s misguided (imo) decision in this case is another example of the already unconstitutionally big federal government slowly unconstitutionally expanding its powers. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had warned patriots to be vigilant against the feds doing this.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

    • “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.

    • ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

  • If We Can't Repeal the Higher Education Act, Let's Try To Improve It

    05/19/2017 8:20:21 AM PDT · 8 of 9
    Amendment10 to reaganaut1; All
    Thank you for referencing that article reaganaut1. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

    "If We Can't Repeal the Higher Education Act, Let's Try To Improve It"

    FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

    Only in the “blind leading the blind” United States do you hear talk of the hopelessness of repealing federal laws that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to make.

    Regarding the Higher Education Act, President Thomas Jefferson had indicated in a State of the Union address that in order for the feds to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate educational purposes that the states would first need to amend the Constitution for that purpose, something that the states have never done.

    • On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added]”—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress
    • "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.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

  • Largest US Solar Panel Maker Files For Bankruptcy After Receiving $206 Million In Subsidies

    05/12/2017 10:51:36 PM PDT · 28 of 37
    Amendment10 to lowbridge; All
    Ignoring that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the corrupt feds the specific power to tax and spend for energy development purposes, arguably a good idea, the corrupt House not only wrongy appropriated taxes (1.7.1) for such a purpose concerning this solar company issue, but evidently didn’t do it’s homework before investing unconstitutional taxes in this company.
    • “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.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

    And regardless that the Founding States established the federal Senate partly to kill appropriations bills that steal state revenues, it’s no surprise that the post-17th Amendment ratification, state sovereignty-ignoring Senate wrongly helped to pass the unconstitutional appropriations bills that helped to fund the solar panel maker.

    Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

    Remember in November ’18 !

    Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

    Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

    In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.

    Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

    While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

    Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

    Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.

  • Missouri is state #12 to adopt Convention of States!

    05/12/2017 5:59:48 PM PDT · 41 of 55
    Amendment10 to Ken H; All
    "Amend to repeal the 17th. Such an amendment can’t be cheated. Forget everything else."

    I agree. Both the 16th and 17th Amendments need to disappear imo.

    The biggest problem with the country is not the federal government per se, but low-information citizens imo.

    More specifically, such citizens unthinkingly abuse their voting power by using it to unconstitutionally expand the federal government’s powers when they sell their votes to corrupt career politicians.

    This is because many voters evidently do not understand that the feds have no constitutional authority to give the voters the social spending programs and politically correct rights that politicians promise to give them if elected.

    In fact, candidates for citizenship should be required to prove that they understand the following Supreme Court clarifications of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers before they are allowed to become citizens.

    • “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.

    • "State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    • ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.