Posts by mek1959

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/13/2013 9:00:57 PM PST · 166 of 173
    mek1959 to donmeaker

    Wrong on all counts.

    First, Article VI is defined by the “pursuance thereof” phrase. ONLY the laws “in pursuance thereof” are the Supreme Law of the land. Might want to check your facts friend. Also, the Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter, again, you might want to check the 9th and 10th Amendment. Marshall claiming judicial review does not make it sacrosanct. Geeez!

    Second, We the People in the aggregate did NOT ratify the Constitution...might want to check that out as well. Maybe you should start with tiny Rhode Island and look at how they ratified the Constitution. You’ll see it wasn’t in the aggregate. Answer this, who created the federal government, the People of the States? Hmmm...why would I ask that now?

    Keep bowing at the alter of DC. As for me, I’ll be working with the States to force the “men of mischief” back into the “chains of the Constitution.” If that fails, then the unalienable right to free association is next...hint, that means secession. I’ll let you keep focus on DC. Good luck.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 10:22:12 AM PST · 42 of 173
    mek1959 to x

    There can be all kinds of views on this...maybe there would be killings, maybe not.

    What we know for sure is that unalienable rights will not defend themselves...that’s just a fact.

    The fundamental question is whether or not we have the fortitude, convictions and courage of the Founders. That’s the question. They had the same fears...as did the secessionists in 1860.

    Further, there need not be 100% support in a State to move to secession...just a very vocal minority back up a State Legislature.

    Then we see what happens and so will the rest of the world see it this time as well. There was no internet in 1860 and not broadcast media either. Every secession movement throughout history is different. This one will be as well.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 9:39:47 AM PST · 37 of 173
    mek1959 to Psalm 144

    There need not be a shot fired. We had a peaceful secession already...in 1787. No one was shot, hung, or arrested back then.

    If Obama is Jackson/Lincoln revisited, then we’ll see. But I’m not remotely convinced there would be shooting. Just saber rattling and very tense negotiations.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 9:29:11 AM PST · 35 of 173
    mek1959 to RitaOK

    Indeed RitaOK, this is the conversation of the early 21st century. But it will be a battle for sure. We’ve all been infected by a disease called nationalism and the antidote are history and facts.

    It simply cannot be demonstrated that the signers of the ratification documents that “acceded” to the Constitution thought they were “surrendering” their sovereignty. Read the history of North Carolina’s ratification attempts. They failed until the Bill of Rights was passed believing it would ensure the newly created federal government wouldn’t trample on their State. Sadly, they were wrong. The other Wayward Sister, tiny Rhode Island waited almost two full years after NH ratified the Constitution to do so as well. Even then, they had to be kind of coerced into it by a very close 32-30 vote. Two votes. Is there any credibility to their desire not to be part of the new Union or where they just a bunch of redneck hayseeds like the nationalists make current day secession supporters out to be. Did you know that Rhode Island did not even send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.

    These and many other facts are the facts the nationalists do not want people to know. For when we do, we will bring down their little empire in Washington DC by breaking away from it.

    Now, to be fair, I can’t blame all nationalists, just about everyone of us in this generation have been infected with this disease. But once we take the antidote (facts and history), we must fight to restore that which was usurped. The intentional nationalists (both progressive and conservative) are the real enemies of liberty. And they will be who we will do battle with always remembering though that our cause is just and right. There’s is about power and control over people.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 9:06:29 AM PST · 30 of 173
    mek1959 to DesertRhino

    Here here again!

    This is refreshing to see...people defending an unalienable right. The nationalists, even the conservative one’s, don’t know what to do with this type of reasoning. They love their little “nuances” or “penumbras” of legal theory. But as I mentioned about, secession is NOT a legal question anyway. It’s a political question.

    Conservative nationalists bother me the most. First, because I used to be one until I got off the power politics bandwagon and actually learned history. Second, because the consequences of the “nationalism” they promote, just their kind of nationalism leads exactly to the oligarchy we have today. Either way, progressive or conservative nationalism leads to the same place...crushing unalienable rights.

    Let me off the nationalist train please; I want nothing to do with it. It’s very ugly, dirty, backroom deal making and immoral. No thanks.

    Though certainly not perfect, I’ll take my chances with a Union of sovereign States where diversity and liberty have a much better chance.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:50:29 AM PST · 26 of 173
    mek1959 to jospehm20

    Exactly Jospehm20. People who war against secession war against unalienable rights. A law cannot over rule an unalienable right. Unalienable rights can be delegated, but not surrendered. And as such, when delegated, the delegation can be rescinded. Secession rescinds a delegated power. That’s all it is...and no law created can nullify that.

    Not even Texas v. White nor the make believe “perpetual Union” baloney made up out of whole cloth.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:44:19 AM PST · 24 of 173
    mek1959 to OrangeHoof

    Spot on OrangeHoof!

    The days of the nationalists and “perpetual Unionists” are coming to the close. Their Constitutional “theories” are being laid bare for the ridicule they deserve.

    They bathe themselves in legal theory while ignoring facts. Nationalists are NOT to be trusted. They undermine the very unalienable rights the Founders fought and died for. And in doing so, the MOCK their sacrifice.

    The Founders, Framers nor Ratifiers did NOT create a “national” government...that is a fact. The federalists may have wanted one and crafted a way to get there. But the simple facts are, the Constitution would never have been ratified had the people of the States believed they were surrendering their sovereignty.

    Fear the nationalists, even the ones calling themselves “Conservative!” They are seeking ways to usurp more of your unalienable rights.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:16:52 AM PST · 14 of 173
    mek1959 to SeekAndFind

    I see the nationalists are out in full bloom!

    No State surrendered their sovereignty...please point out where they did? I can point to three ratification documents that make it clear they intended to resume governance to themselves should it become to necessary to their happiness. So either the signers of these documents were frauds and flat out stupid and didn’t read the invisible clause in Article 7 where they surrendered their sovereignty. Or, maybe, just maybe the nationalists have it ALL wrong. Hmmm. I wonder which is correct...historical fact or the perpetual Union philosophy.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:08:08 AM PST · 12 of 173
    mek1959 to xkaydet65
    It's hard to have a perpetual Union when in between June 21, 1788 and May 29, 1790 (almost 2 full years) the Union only consisted of between 9 and 13 States. That is just a fact. per·pet·u·al /pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/ Adjective Never ending or changing. Ummm...in June 1788, the Union went from 13 down to 9 and was still only 12 out of 13 for almost 2 full years. Now, one can wax eloquent about the "nature" of a Union persevering even when it wasn't a Union, but that's not a fact, just a philosophical opinion, that's all. The facts are, the Perpetual Union of 13 States was fractured for almost 2 years after the new Union met the Article 7 threshold. Which begs the question; just how "perpetual" was this non-perpetual Union. Rhode Island certainly didn't think it was part of the "perpetual" Union. Further, 3 States made it exquisitely clear in their ratification documents they they would re-assume power to themselves "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." I see no question or clause in Article 7 that the States were "surrendering" their sovereignty to the newly created non-perpetual Union. You can search, but it just ain't there. The "perpetual" Union nonsense was just a figment of a couple of presidents imaginations. A truly silly idea to boot.
  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 7:33:46 AM PST · 3 of 173
    mek1959 to SeekAndFind

    Great article. Secession is not a “legal” question anyway, it’s a political question. Those who believe the word secession is a scary word do so at their own peril.

    Not me, I’m not afraid of it. In fact, this the most powerful and potent tool we have...the unalienable right to free association.

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 11:20:22 AM PDT · 10 of 11
    mek1959 to Owl558
    Geeez.

    Is there a magic number that qualifies as a “long train of abuses” that Jefferson and the Committee of Five were asserting. Was it 23, or 19, or how about 3 really bad abuses?

    Nor do I believe the "world" has adopted the Committee of Five's recommendations about how long the list should be. Perhaps to the Flanders, redistribution of their property against their will is enough; I'm in no position to do so and won't. In the end, I'm not Belgium so how would I know? They seem to believe they have enough and they're choosing to exercise their unalienable right to self governance and self determination. You're not wanting to deny them that are you?

    If the Flanders want to leave they have every right to unless you believe they need “permission” to leave from their Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers...do you?

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 11:19:51 AM PDT · 9 of 11
    mek1959 to Owl558
    Geeez.

    Is there a magic number that qualifies as a “long train of abuses” that Jefferson and the Committee of Five were asserting. Was it 23, or 19, or how about 3 really bad abuses?

    Nor do I believe the "world" has adopted the Committee of Five's recommendations about how long the list should be. Perhaps to the Flanders, redistribution of their property against their will is enough; I'm in no position to do so and won't. In the end, I'm not Belgium so how would I know? They seem to believe they have enough and they're choosing to exercise their unalienable right to self governance and self determination. You're not wanting to deny them that are you?

    If the Flanders want to leave they have every right to unless you believe they need “permission” to leave from their Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers...do you?

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 11:18:38 AM PDT · 8 of 11
    mek1959 to Owl558
    Geeez.

    Is there a magic number that qualifies as a “long train of abuses” that Jefferson and the Committee of Five were asserting. Was it 23, or 19, or how about 3 really bad abuses?

    Nor do I believe the "world" has adopted the Committee of Five's recommendations about how long the list should be. Perhaps to the Flanders, redistribution of their property against their will is enough; I'm in no position to do so and won't. In the end, I'm not Belgium so how would I know? They seem to believe they have enough and they're choosing to exercise their unalienable right to self governance and self determination. You're not wanting to deny them that are you?

    If the Flanders want to leave they have every right to unless you believe they need “permission” to leave from their Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers...do you?

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 2:43:34 AM PDT · 2 of 11
    mek1959 to Kaslin

    Of course secession (or separation, or self-determination, whatever you want to call it) are good ideas. Goodness sakes, that’s what we did in 1776 and I don’t hear many carping that our “separation” (as Jefferson termed it) was a bad idea.

    Now, there are a bunch of liberty usurping nationalists who will argue otherwise, but their arguments are fallacious at best.

    So go Flanders!

  • Jul 28, 1868: 14th Amendment adopted

    07/28/2012 5:50:04 PM PDT · 8 of 13
    mek1959 to BO Stinkss

    A very BAD day in US History.

  • What will last longer, The Constitution or The Fed?

    07/28/2012 12:13:18 PM PDT · 7 of 12
    mek1959 to ExxonPatrolUs

    The Constitution has been gone and unauthoritative already for a VERY long time.

  • The 3 P’s – Program, propaganda, pacify; how the national government grows

    05/14/2012 2:59:48 PM PDT · 2 of 5
    mek1959 to 76revolution

    I don’t think most people have any clue how much they’ve been propagandized, programmed and pacified into compliance with the national government.

    Hint - Anybody But Obama is NOT the answer!

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/08/2012 11:22:31 AM PDT · 293 of 316
    mek1959 to mek1959

    Wow, sorry for the repetitive posts everyone...that’ll teach me to edit...click post, stop, edit, correct typo’s, repost!

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/08/2012 11:20:08 AM PDT · 292 of 316
    mek1959 to Pelham
    Hey Pelham, excellent rebuttals!

    It's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

    Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary power so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."how's that working out for you?"

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/08/2012 11:19:38 AM PDT · 291 of 316
    mek1959 to Pelham
    Hey Pelham, excellent rebuttals!

    As I'm sure you appreciate, it's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

    Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."hows that working out for you?"

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/08/2012 9:59:58 AM PDT · 290 of 316
    mek1959 to Pelham
    It's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

    Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."hows that working out for you?"

  • I am voting pro-Constitution (and Ron Paul) [Vanity]

    05/03/2012 8:02:18 PM PDT · 39 of 48
    mek1959 to mnehring
    Have you actually ever read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights...you've got it almost completely backwards. The Bill of Rights restricted ONLY the Federal government...not the States. The Incorporation Doctrine related to the 14th went on to apply some of the BoR to the States, but that was NEVER the reason the Framers and Ratifiers wrote the Bill of Rights.

    In case you've never read it:

    "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/02/2012 7:02:08 AM PDT · 261 of 316
    mek1959 to rockrr
    And you once again expose your flawed thinking about Inalienable Rights, Natures Law, etc...I NEVER once said there would be an opening salvo; I just want to withdraw without being attacked.

    At some point, a State or States will make a declaration, terminate relations with the national government in DC, evict national government facilities from their sovereign country and get on with independence. Of course, they'll have to settle shared debts and such.

    At that point, the only ones who will fire the "first salvo" will be the national government to "preserve the Union." Oh, wait, where have I heard that before.

    Sadly, it will be people like yourself who will drum up new theories about "universal law" or odd notions of contracts, or perpetual contracts to support the anti-constitutional actions of your national government. As for me, I want to PEACEFULLY seek independence, not attack the national government.

    Wait...please be assured that I'm not going to cry because after all "Gad, what a drama queen" I am! What an excellent, profound and well reasoned response. Geez.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/02/2012 6:31:12 AM PDT · 259 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan
    Precisely MamaTexan...sorry for hijacking your post to ask the question. I knew what your answer would be.

    Check your email, I sent you a message. Let me know.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/02/2012 5:24:09 AM PDT · 256 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan
    So, can we advance this conversation a little?

    Suppose the good people of the State of Texas in December 2012 decide they want to exercise their Inalienable Rights, Natural Law Right, or transcendent Rights from their Creator to withdraw from the Union because they believe their Rights have been infringed upon by the national government in DC.

    Do they have this right?

    Or, do you believe, as most pro-big government living constitution conservatives seem to believe, that Texas must seek permission from the other States, Congress, the Supreme Court? And if they cannot obtain this permission, and press ahead with the withdrawal, should they be subject to attack in order to preserve the Union?

    This boils this whole thread down to a practical question. Will you support a State withdrawing if the body-politic of that particular State believes their Rights have been infringed upon? Or, are you a big-government nationalist conservative?

    Can't wait to read the responses. Believe me, I can predict some!

    "C'mon you idiot, let's get real...that'll never happen!

    "No, the State cannot withdraw without permission."

    Etc, etc!

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/01/2012 8:46:00 PM PDT · 232 of 316
    mek1959 to Pelham

    Thanks, though I don’t think pro-arbitrary power, anti-constitutional authority conservatives live rrocker share your sentiments.

    As a Constitutionalist, I’m not well liked by the conservative living constitution crowd...even though I used to be one. Dr. Walter Williams helped me take off the blinders in 2000. And the pilgrimage continues.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/01/2012 8:27:36 PM PDT · 230 of 316
    mek1959 to rockrr
    Well, I'm gonna have to retract my "respect for you" comment now! :)
  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/01/2012 8:09:05 PM PDT · 227 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan
    It is alarming how many big-government, pro-arbitrary power so-called conservatives are on Free Republic. While sticking to principles, as we are doing, is easy...it does grow a bit tiring having to explain the difference between the easily plain reading of our founding legal documents and commentary or opinions by others during that period. I never knew Madison was the sole spokesman, singular source for all hermeneutics associated with the Constitution. On this thread, he seems to be the definitive opinion.

    Anyway, as you know, back in 1776, the people of the Colonies plainly, clearly, and simply stated in the Declaration that Natural Law and transcendent law of our Creator supersedes all other laws. They then assumed equal and separate standing leading to separation "at pleasure." They did not seek the approval of Parliament, the King or anyone else...they just declared it. This is the nonsense of it taking all parties to agree before a contract can be broken. In fact, I'm about to "withdraw" from one by declaration tomorrow in my business and I'm not waiting for the other party in the contract to agree to it. How absurd. Contracts are not perpetual, if so, then let's get the paddy-wagons out, round up all the people who walked away from their mortgages, deliver them back to their houses and MAKE THEM PAY! As unpleasant as it is, these people broke their contract without asking permission from all parties. Again, how absurd to think otherwise. In fact, the national government (sadly) is even helping these people "withdraw" from their contracts! Now, I/we may suffer consequences, may lose my business, may pay legal fees. But I'm not staying in it. So the war between the States was not settled by some profound legal mumbo jumbo related to universal law, perpetuity, unbreakable contracts without permission from all parties, etc. The war was settled because Lincoln decided to break his oath and act unconstitutionally. One person on this thread who I respect now for his honesty conceded that Lincoln had no authority to do what he did. He followed it with a "so what?" Fair enough, at least he was forthright enough not to hide behind what Lincoln did as somehow Constitutional. No, Lincoln won because he was willing to kill 700,000 fellow citizens. But in this case, might doesn't make right...it just means he won an unconstitutional war. That's all.

    Fortunately, more and more people are awakening to the notion that a State can secede in 2012 at pleasure and hopefully some will in the near term. Though I fear some on this thread who are very Lincolonian will shoot people like me who may want to honor our Natural Rights and transcendent and Inalienable Right to self-governance without the "permission" of Congress. I only ask, that if you're going to shoot me for trying this, please make its a head shot and not a gut shot; I'm not fond of agony.

    Back to contracts. Following Lincoln's notion of contracts in his 1st Inaugural Address, the 13 States should have waited for permission from England before the seceded! And this is the inconsistency of big-government pro-arbitrary Anybody But Obama so-called conservatives. They pound their chests about the moral superiority of declaring separation from England without "permission" and at their "pleasure;" but when the South decides to separate, all kinds of new theories about Universal law, perpetuity, odd contract law, with pleasure vs. injury emerge. They seem to be unable to see the inconsistency.

    So, I'll end with the Voltaire quote I posted a few posts ago: "It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere."

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/01/2012 6:24:15 PM PDT · 225 of 316
    mek1959 to aruanan
    Geeez...not this argument. Oh, well;

    From Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1785:

    Separation: n. the act of departing; disjunction. 2. The state of being separate, disunion. 4. Divorce, disjunction.

    Secession: s. a act of departing

    Declaration of Independence:

    "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

    And again:

    "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    Without the "opinion" of an inconsistent Madison...what's the distinction between the words secession and separation by the body-politic in the Declaration viewed through the lens of Natural Law and laws ordained by our Creator referenced in the document? In your own words please.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/29/2012 4:08:23 PM PDT · 207 of 316
    mek1959 to rockrr
    Your post reminds me of a quote Voltaire was purported to have said - "It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere." Go ahead, keep the chains on while "we" (and believe me, our views are held by millions more than the just me and MamaTexan) attempt to bind "men of mischief down by the chains of the Constitution." (psst...that was Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution in case you didn't know)

    Why don't you just come clean here and admit you're a living constitutionalist. It's ok, we won't shoot you for your beliefs unlike a certain president who shot 400,000 people for a inaccurate, anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-inalienable right, anti-authority, set of beliefs. Hmmm...now who was that who did that. Wait, wait, it's coming to me.

    No, your vaunted and cherished "fluidity" has led to a national (NOT federal) government that:

    1. Has wracked up $16 or so trillion in current debt

    2. Is working on $105 or so trillion in unfunded liabilities

    3. And making grandmothers in wheelchairs take of their undergarments in order to board a plane.

    Yes, these federalism crushing THEORIES based on "Universal Law" have worked out just great. But then again, as you're a living constitutionalist, and a pragmatist, I would suspect you're quite ok with the outcome.

    So I'll end with the "gotcha" question for others who have yet to answer (except you, I'll get to that in a sec) on this thread. Here it is:

    Please point to that section of Article II of the United States Constitution where the good people of the SEPARATE and SOVEREIGN States DELEGATED a power that they alone possessed as the repositories of Inalienable Rights to the Executive Branch of Article II to "Preserve the Union????"

    Chirping crickets sounds in the background. You can stop looking...there is none.

    You however rockr, you are the man because you answered CORRECTLY and HONESTLY..."Neither are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. So what?" FINALLY...a big government, pro-arbitrary power "conservative" comes clean. So what? I'm truly impressed, rarely do conservative living constitutionalists admit such. Seriously, I'm impressed.

    Indeed, my question is a "gotcha" question to smoke out conservative living constitutionalists. I run into them all the time. Some actually see the error of their ways (like me and Dr. Walter Williams) recant our former big-government (just our kind of big government) ideas and reorient ourselves back to the Rule of Law. It doesn't sound like you're one of them...but I could be wrong.

    Anyway, this is a "gotcha" question...and it works like a charm. So now that you've answered it honestly, take pride in your arbitrary power supporting living Constitution ideas. That's ok, we pro-inalienable rights people won't shoot you. Though we're pretty sure you'll shoot us if Texas or Oklahoma, or Idaho, or Montana decides they want to withdraw from the Union. You'll probably weave together something like this as you oil your guns:

    "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.

    Oh, wait...somebody already used this.

    Great, now I'm dead because of some "Universal Law" that holds Unions together in perpetuity that nobody taught me about. Stupid me, I thought that our ratified Constitution was the Law...not some Universal Law. Crap! Can somebody call an ambulance? I've been shot by the Lincolnian living constitutionalists because people of our State, like me, thought we had Inalienable Rights and tried to withdraw from the Compact.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/29/2012 8:00:00 AM PDT · 198 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan
    You're welcome friend.

    If anything good can come from this thread, it's the hope that readers of it will pause, take off the republican or Heritage Foundation filters and take a honest look at the period. I did years ago after I got out of the belly of the beast. Sadly, I watched first hand the arbitrary power Washington DC could wield after 1865 and unfortunately, I was involved in it myself. As I mentioned on an earlier post, not ONCE did anyone in my Congressional office, including my boss, the Member, ever pause and ask whether or not what were about to do was authorized by the Constitution or violating the Bill of Rights...NOT ONCE. And neither did any of the other Congressional offices. And this anti-constitutional, pro-arbitrary power approach to national governance finds its birthplace squarely in the period of 1860-1865; the death of federalism.

    And this is why I'm so definitive about my position and why absolutely NOTHING the big-government and pro-arbitrary power conservatives throw at me sways me a bit. I actually lived pro-arbitrary power every day during my tenure on the "Hill." It's hard for the "theorists" on this thread to assault my first hand experience. Just as it's impossible for them to cite anything from the Article II of the Constitution that empowered Lincoln to Preserve the Union. Unless of course they refer to the hidden Article 8 of the Constitution that Lincoln found! :)

    It's also been a blessing running across you on this thread and when my wife and I get to Texas, maybe you can direct us to some good BBQ there!

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/29/2012 5:07:02 AM PDT · 193 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan
    Mamatexan, your factual expose' is unassailable...though the big government types on this thread will emote about it; not counter it.

    As you know, I withdrew from this thread but have been watching your posts; impressive indeed.

    In the end, our big-government pro-arbitrary powers apologists on this thread will be the very ones who come running to our side when the Lincolnian doctrines blossom fully and the national government (it hasn't been federative since 1865) collapses; as they all do. And when it collapses, the national DC'vers, as occurred in 1860 will weave a fanciful web of deceit about this or that theory of "contract" or "perpituity". In fact, here is the mangled mishmash of Lincolns "views" about "universal law" and "implied perpetuity."

    I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

    Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

    Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

    But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

    It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

    I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

    And the fanciful fallacious story they will weave will offer even more "security" in exchange for a little more liberty. And when this happens, some group of people, operating through there States will exercise their Inalienable Right to withdraw from the COMPACT "at pleasure." And the pro-big government pro-arbitrary power "conservatives" on this thread who don't abandon their "theories" about Lincoln's supposed authority, will be the first one's to pick up a gun and shoot the the people attempting to withdraw from the COMPACT. The Constitution means nothing to these people except as a propaganda tool. How do I know this?

    I have asked repeatedly on this thread to point to ONE sentence, paragraph, section, Article in the entire Constitution...heck I'll go to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights that the PEOPLE of the SEPARATE STATES working through those sovereign STATES DELEGATED a shred of their RIGHTS to the Executive to "preserve the Union? What do I get, a letter the inconsistent Madison wrote (by the way, this is a well known letter...no new information here) about separation for "injury" only but never "for pleasure." And that letter is supposedly the "smoking gun" for the entire group of people we refer to as the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers.

    The reason I don't engage in a "quote battle" between the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers is because I don't need to. I always win the debate (even though the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary power side rarely concedes) by asking the simplest of questions...where is the RULE OF LAW AUTHORITY for Lincoln? There simply isn't any. And the anti-inalienable rights crowd knows this so they start up the rhetoric machine and pump out "theories" or favorable quotes from the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. I point to legal binding static documents...the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary power side goes to "theories," "opinions," and "views." That's called obfuscation friends.

    I'll close awaiting the citation from ANY of the legally binding founding documents that delegated this authority to the Executive to preserve the Union or the Union's perpetuity? As vicious and unpleasant the issue of slavery was, there are much bigger issues to discuss surrounding the period 1860-1865 such as THE RULE OF LAW, not some "Universal Law" Lincoln refers to. Seriously folks, does it not bother you at all that he goes to Universal Law, whatever the heck that is, for part of his justification? I prefer discussing Authority, or Inalienable Rights, or Self Determination or Arbitrary Power and many others that emerged from this period.

    Oddly, I used to be just like you defenders of Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior...even while working as a Senior Legislative Assistant for two conservative Republican Members of Congress back in the 1980's. And then I began asking myself uncomfortable questions about the issues above and I realized I did not understand the Rule of Law, the cornerstone of the Constitution. I do now!

    So, I will patiently continue to watch MamaTexan eviscerate the pro-big government, pro-arbitrary powers types here and maybe pop back in from time to time. She is right you know, ignore her at your own peril.

    In closing, I'll post a quote from a recent President who was also pro-arbitrary power; I suspect you probably supported this president:

    Cue Jeopardy music in the background...

    Which pro-unconstitutional power, pro-arbritrary power president said this?

    "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

    You have :30 seconds and while you're answering this, can you give me the citation to the question I asked above?

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/22/2012 7:16:22 PM PDT · 140 of 316
    mek1959 to rockrr
    I've given up on this thread...it's been taken over by big-government conservatives who seem to believe in unlimited submission to a national government. I honestly wonder if there is any current issue that would cause any of the big-government types here to mobilize in their State to defy the national government? Numerous times on this thread, I've asked for a citation from Article II of the Constitution where the people, operating through their individual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to "preserve the Union?" Silence as there is none.

    I've asked numerous times about the Citation in Article II where the people, operating through their indicudual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to suspend habeas corpus. Silence...as there is none.

    I have asked numerous time where in Article II the the people, operating through their individual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to issue an arrest warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Taney ( I suspect I'll read something about Ward Hill Lamon not being credible)

    And the list can go on and on but I tire of writing it, it's MANY lines long.

    This is an issue of the Rule of Law and authority, not opinions about what Madison said about proper construction or intent. Lincoln had ZERO Article II Constitutional authority to do what he did, unless you can point to that section of Article II which no one can. So what do people do when they do not have an actual Constitution argument? Typically, they obfuscate with opinions, citations, in some cases of ONE Framer and present that as ironclad proof that the intent of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers was "X". Yet, silence when it comes to a shred of Article II authority. Never a cite...just opinion and weaving together fanciful stories about the "real" meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution. Fanciful indeed.

    So I will retire from this discussion, for it is not fruitful. I've merely found another group of big-government conservatives cut from Hamilton's clothe who are very comfortable waving the Constitution as a propaganda tool, but hold little fidelity to it.

    Unless of course, anyone can point to that section of Article II where Lincoln was DELEGATED a power the the people of their individual States possessed to do the anti-constitutional things he did...crickets.

    What you really seem to support, arbitrary power based on Machiavellian narrative about Madison, and the Framers, will someday come back to bite you. Good luck with that.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/20/2012 5:21:38 AM PDT · 103 of 316
    mek1959 to BroJoeK
    I apologize for the typo's...I accidentally posted this before I was completely finished. Again, my apologies; I will respond at length later.
  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/20/2012 4:57:47 AM PDT · 102 of 316
    mek1959 to BroJoeK
    I'll respond to this at length in later today though I must take one initial forray into this.

    You cite Madison's "flip-flop" and then apply the in relation to the S. Carolina "efforts" to nullify, even secede and then ascribe the notion that the Founder's implicite and explicit intent was found in this letter. I can assure you that you are wrong...or Jefferson (and a younger Madison) in 1798 were not founders...which is it? You can't have it both ways. Madison was an evolutionary founder and not completely consistent, I'm sure you understand that about him. As a federalist, he no doubt held a deeper desire for a more consolidated government so his letter is not some stunning new revelation about the "intent of the Founders." Far from it. Your bias towards a consolidated can is exposed; that's fine. Mine is towards State sovereignity which was not "surrendered" during ratification but "delegated." So, continue with your big-government propoganda...it's seen for what it is, meshed together letters and opinions.

    I'll rely on historical LEGAL documents like the NY Ratification Document, paragraph 4:

    "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/19/2012 6:17:11 PM PDT · 98 of 316
    mek1959 to x
    Oh my gosh, now we're debating "concepts!" Ummm...once again, we're not a NATION, we're a UNION as in "to form a more perfect UNION" (not NATION). And there is a difference. And we're certainly NOT a country; geez, how little people know about the founding.

    And why can't a State withdraw? Because "X" believes they can't? Or because in "x's" opinion, it negates a concept...so what. Why does that make it wrong or unconstitutional?

    Finally, the UNION is NOT owned by the people of the 50 states (though you probably believe it is), nor is it owned by the national government. It is OWNED by the people of that particular State, privately and corporately by their consent through their STATE constitutional form of government. Again, that you believe all the "territory" is communal or owned by the national government betrays a very unhealthy devotion you have to socialism (cure music "We are the World). So "x," the PEOPLE of that State can do whatever they want to do with the land within the boarders of that State. Though I doubt you believe that. You'd seem to prefer begging your masters in DC for permission.

    Geez, and we wonder why the Constitution is no longer authoritative, or we're 15 Trillion in debt, or the EPA can come in a take property. It only takes serf think by people like "x" to give the thugs in DC what they want. You've been played like a fiddle "x" by the little kings in DC.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/19/2012 5:47:04 PM PDT · 96 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan
    Mama Texan 1

    X (big government serf) 0

    Give up Mama Texan and bask in your victory, these are big-government conservatives who believe in unlimited submission to the national government. Sadly, when our view triumphs over the tyranny of this national government, they'll be the first one's claiming they were on the side of liberty all along...we just misunderstood them.

    As I'm sure you know, big government conservatives are VERY similar to big government progressives...they just like their type of big government.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/19/2012 5:46:35 PM PDT · 95 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan

    Mama Texan 1

    X (big government serf) 0

    Give up Mama Texan and bask in your victory, these are big-government conservatives who believe in unlimited submission to the national government. Sadly, when our view triumphs over the tyranny of this national government, they’ll be the first one’s claiming they were on the side of liberty all along...we just misunderstood them.

    As I’m sure you know, big government conservatives are VERY similar to big government progressives...they just like their type of big government.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/18/2012 1:03:37 PM PDT · 84 of 316
    mek1959 to rockrr
    My championing of my ideas have absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama...in the slightest. It has to do with decades, perhaps generations of unconstitutional, perhaps anti-constitutional by elected officials who have been put into power by We the People who are largely ignorant of their responsibilities to know history...so it doesn't "repeat itself." So, this current administration has nothing to do with it.

    My quip in response to your comment about chaos was just that, a quip. Don't read more into it than that.

    And as far as "not as bad as you would have us to believe," well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally feel that $16 trillion in debt, arbitrary governance, and $105 Trillion of unfunded liabilities are "bad!" Maybe you don't...so be it. I guess we'll see. As for me, I'd prefer to be prepared while thinking of solutions.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/18/2012 12:03:43 PM PDT · 80 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan

    Mama, think of the Stockholm Syndrome and the picture will become much clearer about why people suspend reality like they do now. We’re all Patty Hearsts now! :)

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/18/2012 12:01:00 PM PDT · 79 of 316
    mek1959 to rockrr

    And a facade of “order” is better? What do you think is going to happen when the house of cards comes down?

    And what I suggested is certainly not chaos...just change. Scary to some, liberating to others.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/18/2012 9:32:27 AM PDT · 74 of 316
    mek1959 to Sherman Logan
    I'm assuming you read my earlier post where I described my secession scenario. This isn't a tough question when you embrace little "r" republicanism.

    1. I believe a "super majority" would be necessary for a State, based on the CONSENT of the governed of that State to withdraw from the compact.

    2. Those who oppose the consent of the super-majority have a few choices.

    A. Stay and put up with the governance of the new sovereign State

    B. Leave

    C. Work politically to overturn the existing power.

    D. Attempt to secede themselves and break apart.

    E. Take up arms against the new sovereign State.

    So, there you have it, 5 options for any individual to take. I personally would have no problem with Texas breaking into 300 little sovereign city-states sharing a common defense pact (something the duchy's in Italy didn't do to well when Spain came a knocking). So little "r" republicanism offers an UNBELIEVABLE number of options for self-governance and the free-market to EXPLODE. The Founders understood this clearly.

    Now, I understand the Founders (and other historical figures all the way back to Plato) have fallen on hard times these days with big-government progressives AND conservatives. And this has led to very heated power struggles for generations and most have come to put most of their hope in getting "their guy" into office. Never realizing that they're just pawns in a BIG-GOVERNMENT chess game between the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation! ( in jest I'm sure you understand)

    Be that as it may, the issue of secession has emerged again, mainly by modern day Jeffersonians and as expected, the legacy of Lincoln emerges as well. And the debate rages on between the two camps yet only 1 can lay claim to the 10,000 year understanding of Inalienable Rights. Hint - it ain't ole' honest Abe. It simply cannot be disputed, Lincoln's anti-constitutional actions in the 1860's fertilized the ground from which a HUGE oppressive national government emerged. And perhaps people should read a little more into Lincoln's law practice before they Knight him. He's not quite as white as the driven snow as we've been taught by the big-government propaganda machine.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/18/2012 4:11:22 AM PDT · 66 of 316
    mek1959 to fortheDeclaration
    So I guess I back to my original two points which you ignore time and time again. Where EXACTLY in Article II, did President Lincoln have ANY, one iota of AUTHORITY to Preserve the Union? Where forthedeclaration? How about suspending habeas corpus? Arresting State legislators, imprisoning political opponents? Where? You truly are a serf who serves a feudal king, this time 535 of them. You mock Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Jefferson, Madison with your positions. You name call when facts are presented. You're the type of person that binds people down with incorrect history. Did you even read the ratification documents? Crickets. You would have been mocked by the majority of Founders as would Lincoln for the anti-inalienable rights position you both hold. You have NO understanding for freedom and a firm grasp on unlimited submission to your national overlords. You will eventually lead to a tyranny that my children and grandchildren will suffer unless of course I and the millions across the UNION can stop people like you. Which I believe in the end we will, because we stand for FREEDOM, not UNLIMITED SUBMISSION to a national government.

    Point two, will you shoot me and my family or authorize the shooting of me and my family, or support a government who would shoot me if I'm part of a State that desires to secede? Please answer with yes or no so I can see just how strongly you are committed to your ideology. Yes or no, will you point a gun at me and shoot me to "preserve the Union?" Talk is easy, but if my side is successful, and a few States decided to go their own way and form a new Union...will forthedeclaration not just talk about his support for Lincolnian policy, but will you actually shoot me? Talk is cheap friend...will you live out your political theory and kill me to preserve the Union?

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/17/2012 9:44:47 PM PDT · 57 of 316
    mek1959 to fortheDeclaration

    Are you coming back to respond to the facts that have been submitted by me, mamatexan and TJ1776?

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/17/2012 4:57:14 PM PDT · 52 of 316
    mek1959 to fortheDeclaration
    defend the nation from rebellion,

    Ummmm...we're not a "nation," we're a Union as in "to form a more perfect Union." Might want to read Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755 to better understand WHY the Framers chose the work "Union."

    You've got your history all wrong, so did I until Dr. Walter Williams helped me take the blinders off. I know, I know, you think he's wrong to.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/17/2012 4:46:25 PM PDT · 51 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan
    Give up...he's a Lincolnian and that's all there is to it. Allow me to test my hypothesis that he is, maybe I'm wrong and just misreading him.

    Ok, fortheDeclaration, let's for the sake of discussion agree that I'm a racist (which I'm not, and for proof, my family was involved in the underground railroad in Peterboro, NY and I take GREAT offense at your accusation of be being otherwise) and let's further say that I agree with you that the South only wanted to secede because of the slavery issue. Ok, are we all in agreement now?

    Let's fast forward to 2012 and 12 States want to withdraw from the compact. These 12 States hold State conventions to reflect the will of the PEOPLE (the only TRUE Sovereigns, unless of course you believe in the divine right of Kings which if you support Lincoln, you might). And lets say a super-majority of the PEOPLE decide they want their State to separate from the Union because their inalienable right to let's say property was being infringed or they BELIEVED it was being infringed. Maybe Washington DC doesn't.

    They've tried every other peaceful means for redress and have been met with opposition from the national government. And the assembled legislators of these 12 States meet and solemnly agree to withdraw and forward correspondence to that fact to Washington DC.

    Does President fortheDeclaration:

    A. Assent to the wishes of the PEOPLE of those States and begin proposing and establishing embassies in this new country?

    B. Begin war preparations against this new country with the intention of slaughtering as many PEOPLE of those States as necessary to compel them to stay in the Union AGAINST THEIR WILL? Even though the Declaration of Independence is what caused a separation between the PEOPLE of the 13 Colonies operating through their assemblies in 1776?

    My suspicion is you will embarrassingly answer "B" and join the other tyrants of history who stopped people who sought freedom but could not attain it because of the likes of Lincolnian thinkers like yourself. And also because you contend that a State has no right to secede even though this was fully understood by the Ratifiers (read below). Your defense of your position is a video lecture you saw from Hillsdale College. Perhaps you should read Professor Kevin Gutzman's new book "James Madison and the making of America" before you write so authoritatively about what Madison did or did not believe about the Union and the Compact.

    This is not hard fortheDeclaration, you are making it so. You have no facts to support your contention that Lincoln had Article II authority to wage war against the South. So you do your best to try and weave together an argument, again, buttressed with ZERO, ZIP, NADA Article II delegations of authority to do what he did. By the way, your latest post was very Lincolnian, very similar to his 1st Inaugural Address, you have read that I assume. He wasn't all that anti-slavery was he? And wow, his elucidation of contracts was well, stunning.

    And again, I contend, you would be willing to slaughter me and my family if we lived in a State that joined other States and decided to withdraw from the Compact.

    By the way, a little tidbit of history the guys at Hillsdale left out, are the ratification documents of NY, Rhode Island and Virginia. You've read them I assume and by the way, if not, they're VERY easy to find. Here's paragraph 4 of NY's (it will give you a little insight into how the Ratifiers thought about that quaint silly and anti-Lincolnian notion of secession):

    "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

    Did you catch that first line? That the powers of government may be resumed...? They obviously weren't referring to the yet to be created new federal government were they? Hmmmm...so who could they have been referring to. I'll let you answer that.

    Finally, I am not a "neo-confederate" friend. Though I am impressed it took you a while to get to name calling. Most people who lose arguments on FACTS jump to this much earlier. So I'm impressed you had the self-control. I don't think I'll benefit from that if I'm with a State that is seeking to secede...I continue to believe you'll shoot me.

    That said, I am however:

    1. Pro-Inalienable Rights

    2. Pro-authority (Lincoln had none)

    3. Pro-Rule of Law (Lincoln not so much)

    4. Pro-habeas corpus (Lincoln not so much)

    5. Pro-first Amendment (Lincoln not so much)

    6. Pro-self governance (Lincoln not so much)

    These are the FACTS and they cannot be disputed. That you don't like them tells me that you're probably a big-government conservative and no friend of Jefferson OR Madison (or Henry, Mason, Lee etc).

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/17/2012 11:01:29 AM PDT · 37 of 316
    mek1959 to MamaTexan

    MamaTexan...you are the BOMB! Way to go with HISTORICAL FACTS. But never you mind, fortheDeclaration will have no problem shooting you and your fellow Texans should you decide to voluntarily withdraw from the Union.

    All Lincolnians have no problem forcing their unconstitutional will by using national government troops and shooting people like me...and probably you MamaTexan

    Liberty 1
    for the Declaration 0

    I suspect he will not return, he lost the debate in facts.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/17/2012 6:07:18 AM PDT · 32 of 316
    mek1959 to fortheDeclaration

    So, the $64,000 question which I doubt you will answer.

    If the PEOPLE (the only true sovereigns) of the State of Texas or Oklahoma decide they no longer want to be part of the Union...would you be willing the shoot them and kill them to force them to stay in the Union they do not want to stay in?

    You won’t answer, but I think based on your understanding of the Constitution, inalienable rights and the Rule of Law, yes, you would be willing to shoot and kill people in Texas and Oklahoma if they wanted to go their own way. How sad.

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/16/2012 5:15:28 AM PDT · 27 of 316
    mek1959 to Big Giant Head
    Excellent way to look at it. I simply find it so troubling as Jefferson stated in the Declaration that "accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." we indeed seem exactly at this point. We're willing to believe a lie propagated by a clever series of myths about the the South withdrawing from the compact, and "suffer" the evils thereof rather than take the blinders off. This must be very disappointing to the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers. I'm certain we would have had a 2nd Declaration of Independence or a break-up of the Union by now if they were alive. Just sad to read how much "Declaration" has swallowed inaccurate history. What he/she believes simply is not accurate.
  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    04/16/2012 4:53:16 AM PDT · 25 of 316
    mek1959 to fortheDeclaration
    "Where in the Constitution does it say a State can stop obeying Federal laws?" Oh, I forgot to respond to this...ummm, let me think for 1 nano second on this, that pesky 9th and 10th Amendment. Geeez...do you even read what you write? "Obey" Federal Laws? Have you actually read Article VI and the clause "in pursuance thereof?" Do you have any idea what the Framers and Ratifiers meant by this? The supremacy clause was NOT a broad grant of power to the federal government. Only serfs believe this.