HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice  Donate

"HEY FREEPERS: Go Monthly and lets END these Freepathons!!!" ~~piytar

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $39,537
44%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 44% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by tahiti

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Not in My Backyard Racial Indifference at the Chicago Tribune (Obama land)

    07/02/2005 10:05:10 AM PDT · 10 of 21
    tahiti to MNnice
    "Call me stupid, but I don't understand the significance of this."

    I son't call you "stupid," I call you brilliant because I was thinking the exact same thing when I was reading the artilce.

  • John Edwards Should Separate Self From ACORN's Baggage on Cleveland Minimum Wage Tour

    06/30/2005 10:07:02 AM PDT · 5 of 6
    tahiti to Lightfinger
    "ACORN argued that abiding by the state minimum wage would limit their ability to promote their agenda and would therefore be a violation of their First Amendment rights."

    Minimum wage laws are unconstitutional because they violate the Fifth Amendment, not the First Amendment.

    "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

    Supreme Court

    Nixon v. Shrink (2000)

    Justice Stevens,

    "I make one simple point. Money is property."

  • It Has No Spirit

    06/29/2005 4:17:43 PM PDT · 3 of 9
    tahiti to Lorianne
    "My parents, recent Mexican immigrants,..."

    Legal or illegal? Show me their papers.

  • (St. Louis)County smoking ban put on hold

    06/28/2005 3:24:31 PM PDT · 1 of 5
    tahiti
    We are still winning.
  • Too Good to Play

    06/25/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT · 5 of 91
    tahiti to kiki04
    What amazes me with parents that wish to insulate themselves and their children from real world application "David v Goliath" principle is that they would not be living the life they are now in the USA had not a bunch of men in the mid to late 1700's decided to take on the Goliath British Empire.

    What ungrateful, selfish, fearful fellow citizens we have in this country.

  • Mario - Players Should Have Taken Owners' Old CBA Offer

    06/24/2005 9:23:36 AM PDT · 4 of 10
    tahiti to airborne
    "Lemieux said. "It was a great experience to play in the Olympics, a totally different game and a different pace, and I really enjoyed it."

    Lemieux inadvertently disparaged the NHL game which we fans already know is not that enjoyable to watch.

    My suggestion to the NHL to increase interest and attendance at games: repeal the mandatory helmet rule.

  • FRA (Federal Railroad Adm) order reflectors on locomotives and freight cars

    06/24/2005 5:23:01 AM PDT · 11 of 12
    tahiti to patricktschetter
    "Explain why the railroad industry shouldn't have a similar safety device,"

    Afer re-reading my post, I can understand your response to my post.

    What I did not make clear is that government mandated "regulations" cost money to implement.

    The 5th amendment states,

    "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

    In the Supreme Court decision of 2000, Nixon v. Shrink, Justice Stevens stated,

    "I make one simple. Money is property."

    Without some kind of "compensation" mechanism being included with the laws authorizing such regulations for the public use of "safety," then such regulations take money from private property owners for the public use without compensation and thus are unconstitutional.

    If the citizens want "safety," the citizens are going to have to pay for it directly with their taxes.

  • Why do people vote for Communists?

    06/22/2005 5:40:26 AM PDT · 11 of 29
    tahiti to America First Libertarian
    "By taking away from us the responsibility of our actions, and prolonging the dependency stage of life, the democratic interventionist state limits our ability to be happy."

    "democratic interventionist state" has brought us to point where private property in this country is declared "public places" then you cannot even smoke a cigerette in the now declared "public place."

    "...at the same time they ask for their own wishes to be satisfied by others and for their own mistakes to be paid by others."

    Sounds alot like Social Security, Medicaid, American with Disabilities Act, FDIC, FDA, FHA, SBA, Pension Guaranty Fund, WIC, Food Stamps, and the list goes on.

    And to think we spent billions and billions of dollars during the "cold war" years, for decades, to fight communism and it now exists, without objection by virtually anyone in this country, enacted and approved by both democrats and republicans.

  • Van crash kills 5, hurts 11 near Columbia, Mo. {Illegal Immigrants)

    06/20/2005 5:39:55 AM PDT · 1 of 30
    tahiti
  • Loud teen party becomes a high-profile legal battle

    06/17/2005 9:22:06 AM PDT · 19 of 97
    tahiti to Servant of the 9
    "The cops will not be disciplined for violating everyones rights."

    Those who's rights have been violated have the following recourse:

    U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)

    monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983

    "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."

    We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

    I would sue the shit out of the cops, prosecutors, and any other city official involved.

  • Mother, son won't budge from home (City of St. Louis)

    06/17/2005 5:55:44 AM PDT · 1 of 38
    tahiti
    Democrat Alderman Matt Villa says "we can't allow one property to derail the whole project."

    Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I,

    Section 28. That private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes, in the manner prescribed by law; and that when an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative declaration that the use is public.

  • Gephardt details plans for future (Time to boycott Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc again)

    06/16/2005 4:59:12 PM PDT · 1 of 12
    tahiti
  • New law ups age for child restraints

    06/16/2005 10:55:39 AM PDT · 28 of 75
    tahiti to Disambiguator
    Here is how I would counter the New Mexico child restraint law.

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

    "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

    U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) 502 U.S. 21

    , monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983

    "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."

    We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

    Sue the shit out of the legislators and the officers who have enacted and enforce this unconstitutional law.

  • Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America

    06/16/2005 10:31:09 AM PDT · 37 of 38
    tahiti to billbears
    The groups that I mentioned in my previous post, Catholics, Jews, and Blacks, are "religious" people.

    Most religions support the sanctity of life.

    These groups voted for Marxist, socialist, Democrats during the decades I stated, 1950's and 1960's. The evidence is that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate for 40 years.

    As most people know, Marx and Engels were athiests, relative moralist.

    The Marxist, socialist, Democrats, beginning in the late 1930's, began their quest to ingrain an anti-moral culture in the U.S. with the unconstitutional enactment of laws supporting Marxist unionism, confiscation of private property, and Social Security.

    So, why did supposedly "religious" people, who profess to believe in God, vote continiously for people who admired, professed, and advocated the ideas of admitted non-relgious, athiests and then act surprised when the result is a culture of death?

    That is my point.

  • The Celestial Fire of Conscience — Refusing to Deliver Medical Care

    06/16/2005 10:02:26 AM PDT · 16 of 28
    tahiti to marty60
    "Do we hold a gun to a Doctors head and make him/her perform an abortion."

    The author states,

    "And perhaps most crucial, to what extent do professionals have a collective duty to ensure that their profession provides nondiscriminatory access to all professional services? "

    Amendment XIII

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Amendment XIII pretty well sums it up on this question of whether a "professional" has the right to withhold "services" for whatever reason.

  • Jury finds heavy smoking to be grounds for eviction

    06/16/2005 6:02:09 AM PDT · 26 of 269
    tahiti to Boston Blackie
    tobacco law specialists said the decision is one of the "nation's first to declare smoking a nuisance serious enough to become grounds for eviction.

    ''It is very important, because it is a sign that people are more aware of how dangerous second-hand smoke is," said Professor Richard Daynard, chairman of Northeastern University's Tobacco Products Liability Project, which tracks second-hand smoke litigation nationally."

    how dangerous second-hand smoke is?"

    Bullsh_t. This not about "dangerous second-hand smoke."

    This is a "property rights" issue and victory.

    I am a landlord and I decide what can and cannot be done on my property.

    If, as a renter you do not like my decision, see you later.

  • Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America

    06/16/2005 5:51:15 AM PDT · 17 of 38
    tahiti to SLB
    "The mission of the Church in the midst of this cultural crisis is to proclaim the truth and reach out to the casualties."

    I am not exactly sure what the author means by the highlighted phrase above, but I think the author means "insulating" those who deny or ignore "the truth" from the disaster of the consequences those decisions will include which may even be death.

    The bottomline is Christian's over the years have voted for politicians that have created a government safety net system that insulates fellow citizens who do not follow the truth from experiencing the hardship of their actions and subsequently, others adopt that same behavior because there is no negative consequence.

    If you want the "cultural crisis" to go away, quit subsidizing it.

    How many union member, Catholics voted for Democrats to be U.S. Senators during the 1950's and 1960's who then confirmed the judges that gave us Roe v. Wade?

    A lot.

    How many U.S. Jews did the same thing as the Catholics for the reason of getting U.S. dollars to Isreal?

    A lot.

    How many black citizens voted for Democrats as U.S. Senators who then confirmed the judges that gave us Roe v. Wade in order to get a expand the welfare state?

    A lot.

    And you are surprised by the sudden change in the U.S. culture to the culture of death?

  • Is Staying Home with Children "Shirking Work" For Child Support Purposes? [UNBELIEVABLE LAWSUIT]

    06/15/2005 3:17:41 PM PDT · 41 of 137
    tahiti to freespirited
    "The appellate court ruled, however, that the mother's decision to retire was reasonable, given the circumstances: She had been unable to find appropriate part-time work, the father could easily afford child support, and the children would benefit from her greater involvement in their lives and activities. It thus upheld the trial court's order for the father to pay $4000/month in child support."

    Judicial activism, socialist, elitist, egalitarian thinking at it's worst.

  • Coalition Seeks a Federal Insurance Regulator

    06/15/2005 10:08:01 AM PDT · 2 of 4
    tahiti to M. Dodge Thomas
    the insurers and bankers complained of the burden of having to comply with regulators in 50 states, saying it was a very costly system that "provides no advantage to the consumer."

    I would safely say the "very costly" means the insurers and bankers expend money to comply with the regulations.

    With that being the case, consider the following:

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    No. 98—963 JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.

    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

    [January 24, 2000]

    Justice Stevens, concurring.

    "...therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property;"

    Amendment V

    "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

    If I was the CEO of an "insurers and bankers" I would quit complying with the regulations until my institution was compensated for the taking for the public use because otherwise the regulations are unconstitutional.

  • Rich-poor gap gaining attention

    06/14/2005 3:50:30 PM PDT · 5 of 30
    tahiti to zencat
    "data show that the top 1 percent of the population received 11.4 percent of national after-tax income in 2002, points out Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a new study. That's up from a 7.5 percent share in 1979. By contrast, the middle fifth of the population saw its share of national after-tax income fall over that same period of time, from 16.5 to 15.8."

    Received??? Share???

    Whatever happened to EARNED.

    Such Marxist, communist, socialist bias by the author.

  • 20 Years Ago Today: TWA Flight 847 Hijacked

    06/14/2005 3:44:14 PM PDT · 15 of 19
    tahiti to ambrose
    "Obviousy, this hijacking would never have occurred if it weren't for the abuses at Abu Gharib and Gitmo."

    This hijacking and the 9/11 hijackings would never have occurred had our federal government not unconstitutionally prohibited a private property owner, TWA at the time, from inviting the passenger's of their choice to be armed in assisting securing the aircraft and the other passengers from the threat of a hijacking attempt.

    10, 30, 50 armed citizens would be the deterrent to discourage terrorists from attempting a hijackng that would have a very low probability of success.

  • Bettman, Goodenow must go

    06/14/2005 3:37:38 PM PDT · 28 of 46
    tahiti to airborne
    "He wants to change hockey by changing the standards that have been time honored traditions. Leave the net alone. Leave overtime alone.",

    I agree.

    You want the game to "open" up again and get back the "time honored traditions," then take the helmets off, including the goaltender.

    The game was played many more years without helmets than with helmets.

    I remember the mandatory helmet opponents predicting that it would change the game in a negative way.

    Damn if it didn't.

    I predict fans will flock to the rinks to watch the game again.

  • Janice Rogers Brown Nails the Marxists - (she dared say it! NY Times & liberals aghast!)

    06/14/2005 3:14:47 PM PDT · 17 of 135
    tahiti to CHARLITE
    "It is instead a matter of constitutional freedom vs. Marxist oppression. There is no longer a national Democratic Party dedicated to the preservation of the liberties guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers."

    More importantly, is there a "Republican Party dedicated to the preservation of the liberties guaranteed to all Americans..."

    I fear there is not.

  • Cancer Society fined for lack of disclosure in anti-smoking ads

    06/14/2005 9:45:51 AM PDT · 31 of 39
    tahiti to inquest
    "It's too bad no one's focusing on the real scandal in this story: the fact that a private organization has to clear it with the government before launching any kind of message campaign, if it might somehow influence the outcome of legislation."

    Well said.

  • The third way to metaphysical treason

    06/14/2005 9:22:33 AM PDT · 2 of 2
    tahiti to robowombat
    Here is my favorite statement by the Mr. Moriarity:

    "I deal with the fallout from eight years of the Bush family's volleyball with the Oval Office and their possible surrender to Bill Clinton's dialectical plan to merge socialism and capitalism."

  • Illinois passes legislation concerning cellphones

    06/13/2005 8:16:45 PM PDT · 1 of 2
    tahiti
    "Cahokia Police Chief Rick Watson said the new legislation is just a start, and thinks it will eventually expand to adults as well."

    In Illinois, between primary seat belt legislation and eventual banning of adult cell phone use, it will not be long before driving an automobile at all will ban due to public safety.

    God I am glad I do not live in Illinois.

  • Uncivil Liberties in Maryland

    06/13/2005 10:18:36 AM PDT · 13 of 22
    tahiti to Nasty McPhilthy
    "Such entry and testing without a warrant is unreasonable search and seizure.

    I hate this phrase, "unreasonable search and seizure."

    The way most people and many judges and police "interpret" the 4th amendment and I think incorrectly, is that police can search your car, your home, your person, without a warrant, as long as it is not "unreasonable."

    That being the case, the 4th amendment is meaningless. Defining what is "unreasonable" is almost a case by case endeavor, time consuming and expensive to pursue.

    If the 4th amendment was read correctly, it is obvious that a warrant is always needed when there is going to be people and items "searched...and...seized."

    It is my contention that the first part of 4th amendment states the philosophy behind why a "warrant" is always needed for a search and seizure.

    The proceudre required to obtain a "warrant" is designed to help protect the citizens against "unreasonable" search and seizures, which without such a procedure, the citizen is always subject to the officers mood and agenda, as illustrated in this article about the party in Maryland.

  • OK Governor Signs Backed Bill Prohibiting Employers from Banning Locked Firearms in Parking Lots

    06/10/2005 5:25:58 AM PDT · 27 of 32
    tahiti to P_A_I
    "Its a wise decision, especially seeing that no individuals 'private property' right is being violated. What's 'private' about a parking lot?"

    A corporation is usually "owned" by individuals, as stockholders.

    That is private property. There is no explicit or implied loss of constitutional rights just because you incorporate your business, your private property.

    The corportation maintains and provides a parking lot on their corporate property. That is private property.

    The employee probably signed an employment contract, of somekind, stating no guns on the private property.

    Oklahoma has a Bill of Rights Article prohibiting the interfernce in the obligations of contracts.

    Don't we want our government to protect our property rights and our contracts?

    If you did not want guns on your home property and any individual drove into your driveway with a gun in their car or on their hip, as a private property owner, do you not have the right to ask them either remove the guns from your property or themselves from your property?

    Of course you do.

    On my property, I determine what rights will be exerted.

    Their is a stronger constitutional case for the right to bear arms in court room than on private property. A court room is public property.

  • OK Governor Signs Backed Bill Prohibiting Employers from Banning Locked Firearms in Parking Lots

    06/10/2005 5:16:35 AM PDT · 26 of 32
    tahiti to Mulder
    "Only individuals have Rights. Governments do not have Rights, nor do corporations."

    If "corporations" do not have "rights" then Congress can "regulate" speech and content in a newspaper, Amendment I to the contrary?

    That is not a rhetorical question.

  • OK Governor Signs Backed Bill Prohibiting Employers from Banning Locked Firearms in Parking Lots

    06/09/2005 7:30:14 PM PDT · 9 of 32
    tahiti to Mulder
    "(NRA)-backed bill to prohibit employers from banning locked firearms in company parking lots."

    "Company parking lots" are private property. Why is the NRA advocating the expansion of unconstitutional government power on private property?

    Like many other states, Oklahoma has two or three "Bill of Rights" protecting property and contracts from interference by government.

    How are we going to stop government from enacting "smoke free" ordinances on private property if we celebrate other laws that fit our agenda that also violate private property rights?

  • The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit

    06/09/2005 10:25:00 AM PDT · 6 of 58
    tahiti to P_A_I
    Randy Barnett is my hero.

    I assume you have read his book "Restoring the Lost Constitution, A Presumption of Liberty."

    I have three times.

    What is amazing to me is some many "Freepers" when confronted with Prof. Barnett's "presumption of liberty," recoil in fear of liberty.

    The most famous person of all who recoils in such fear is Rush Limbaugh.

  • The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit

    06/09/2005 10:22:17 AM PDT · 5 of 58
    tahiti to agitator
    "All forms of activity that require a license are prohibited."

    A driver's license is to prove that you have fulfilled the "regulation" requirements the state imposes for driving, in other words that you took the test, and you have paid the "tax," as well.

    You are not prohibited from driving without a license. If you do drive without a license and get caught, you are only going to be fined for not participating in the "regulation" process.

    Otherwise, if driving is "prohibited" without a license then each driver would have to prove to "officials" possession of a valid license before starting their auto.

  • False Federalism: In Gonzales v. Raich, it’s the state that’s violating federalist principles.

    06/08/2005 5:31:26 PM PDT · 14 of 38
    tahiti to Crackingham
    "Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government is entitled to enforce the CSA’s proscription of the use of marijuana"

    "Proscription" means "to banish or outlaw."

    In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Goldberg, in his consenting opinion, declared that ingesting a chemical, in this case a birth control pill, was a "fundamental" right, a right "retained by the people," protected by Amendment IX.

    Alcohol, another chemical that free people can ingest, could only be banned by a constitutional amendment, not a federal law enforced by a congressional agency.

    So, what has changed since then that allows the "powers of Congress," through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), to overrule, usurp, diminish, "deny or disparage" our rights, "retained by the people," protected by the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1965?

  • False Federalism: In Gonzales v. Raich, it’s the state that’s violating federalist principles.

    06/08/2005 5:22:59 PM PDT · 12 of 38
    tahiti to EagleUSA
    "Sadly I think the Tenth Amendment is dead."

    It was killed by the 14th Amendment.

  • Group files suit to stop development (St. Louis County)

    06/08/2005 5:05:09 PM PDT · 12 of 14
    tahiti to Lorianne
    "Who owns the property?"

    Individuals, like you and I.

  • Group files suit to stop development (St. Louis County)

    06/08/2005 3:28:37 PM PDT · 1 of 14
    tahiti
    "The project by Novus Development Co., with $42 million in tax-increment financing from Sunset Hills,"

    Missouri Constitution

    Article I, Bill of Rights, (not bill of privileges)

    Section 28. That private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes, in the manner prescribed by law; and that when an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be public shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative declaration that the use is public.

    What part of "unless by consent of the owner,"do they not understand?

  • Federalism, Up in Smoke?

    06/07/2005 3:58:18 PM PDT · 26 of 51
    tahiti to neverdem
    "Such a regulation, she argued, was not a valid exercise of the federal commerce power."

    Why did she argue this case as a commerce power issue?

    Why did she not argue you the case as an Amendment IX right?

    What a coincidence that it was 40 years ago today that the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting the use of a contraceptive by a woman, a consenting opinion cited Amendment IX as the constitutional basis for the nullification.

    What is the difference between a chemical for contraception or for pain? It is a personal, fundamental right and decision, "retained by the people," for free people to make for themselves, not for their government to make for them.

    Yes, maybe it can be "regulated" for safety reasons, but it can not be "prohibited."

    Remember it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why does it not take a constitutional amendment to ban marijuana?

    The commerce clause power cannot violate the Bill of Rights, otherwise Congress could "regulate" the content of newspapers, which Amendment I clearly prohibits.

    I cannot wait for Judges Owens and Rogers-Clark to start on the federal bench to start the reversal of these current decisions repugnant and at odds with the clear textual language of the constitution protecting our rights.

  • The case for 'originalism' - (return to original intent of Founders & Ratifiers is essential)

    06/07/2005 5:47:37 AM PDT · 24 of 25
    tahiti to Tailgunner Joe
    "She can't even sell her fetus, only kill it."

    I have an adopted daughter.

    Because "private" adoption agencies house, feed, cloth, and provide medical services to the birth mother during gestation, in order to help protect the fetus from an irresponsible birth mother,I would say that is in effect, selling her fetus.

  • The case for 'originalism' - (return to original intent of Founders & Ratifiers is essential)

    06/06/2005 7:09:32 PM PDT · 21 of 25
    tahiti to Jacquerie
    " Do the acts of pedophiles and wife beaters deserve privacy?"

    The acts of the above violate the rights of others so their can be no right of privacy when a person commits a wrongful act.

    Prof. Barnett in his book, "Restoring the Lost Constitution makes the following statement which will help you with your example of "overly broad" rights:

    "Natural rights define the boundary or space within which people are at liberty to do as they please provided their actions do not interfere with the rightful actions of others operating within their own boundaries or spaces."

  • The case for 'originalism' - (return to original intent of Founders & Ratifiers is essential)

    06/06/2005 7:02:36 PM PDT · 20 of 25
    tahiti to mrsmith
    "The Ninth Amendment gives no power to the federal courts to overturn a state law."

    You are correct.

    It is 14th Amendment that gives jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights within the boundaries of sovereign states. It was the issue of slavery that was the genesis of the 14th.

    The "right to privacy" emanates from the Ninth.

  • The case for 'originalism' - (return to original intent of Founders & Ratifiers is essential)

    06/06/2005 3:59:11 PM PDT · 6 of 25
    tahiti to CHARLITE
    "Roe v. Wade."

    That 1973 decision was certainly an extreme example of judicial revision of our Constitution. The judges wanted to reach a particular political outcome, so they simply pretended to ground their decision in our founding document. They used a nonconstitutional "right to privacy" to create a "right" to abortion on demand."

    Mr. Meese I have read Roe v. Wade several times.

    Yes, it is true that the "judges wanted to reach a particular outcome," but it was not determined from an "unconstitutional right to privacy."

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

    A right to privacy is surely a right "retained by the people."

    What legalized abortion on demand emanating from the Roe v. Wade decision was the Court's arbitrary decision of when a fetus has the "right to privacy" as well.

    The fetus, in the Court's view and decision, is not a human being until "viability," which is the utter folly and manufactured stupidity of the decision.

    Thus, a fetus is rendered to nothing more than tissue in a woman's body such as a kidney or an eye, in which the "right to privacy" allows for her control of that tissue.

    We all have the "right to privacy" to control our own bodies, no can deny that contention. The "right to privacy" was acknowledged 10 years prior to Roe v. Wade.

    If a fetus was declared a human being, at conception for example, Roe v. Wade would be superfluous and moot.

    And then the law could save babies again.

  • [Supreme] Court Expands Scope of Disabilities Law

    06/06/2005 10:02:20 AM PDT · 24 of 26
    tahiti to mathprof
    "The Supreme Court, expanding the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, ruled Monday that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for passengers in wheelchairs."

    Aside from the fact that their maybe a "jurisdictional" issue, the ADA law is inherently unconstitutional.

    Since is "takes" money from the owner to alter their facility to accommodate "passengers in wheelchairs," without compensating the owners for the taking the law is unconstitutional.

    Amendment V

    nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

    Justice Stevens, in Nixon v. Shrink, 2000, states:

    "I make on simple point. Money is property."

  • Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People

    06/06/2005 9:52:31 AM PDT · 22 of 117
    tahiti to ClearCase_guy
    "Absolutely true. To have ruled otherwise would be an example of the Court making (altering) federal law."

    U.S. Constitution

    Article III, Section 2

    1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States

    From "Restoring the Lost Constitution,"

    …judicial nullification was included within the original meaning of the “judicial power.” Throughout the duration of the Convention no one disputed the existence of a judicial power to nullify unconstitutional laws.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."

    What constitution is Justice Stevens reading?

    Is it not a right "retained by the people," of free people, to consume the chemical of their choice, in the quantity of their choce, for the reason of their choice?

    Justice Stevens and the majority is so constitutionally incorrect it makes me want to puke.

    Why do free people have to beg for their natural rights to be respected and not impugned by the three branches of their federal government that is explicitly prohibited from doing the same?

    Does not a "written down" constitution mean anything?

    No power of Congress, can usurp the Bill of Rights.

  • King to push crackdown on illegal immigration (Steve King - IA "Put our military on the border.")

    06/03/2005 6:17:32 PM PDT · 23 of 217
    tahiti to rdb3
    "As an Army vet, I'm against placing soldiers on the border because the Commander in Chief is the President. A change of the administration can easily remove our soldiers from there, and not even Congress could stop it."

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

    Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

    The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;

    Now what is interesting is that Congress has to depend upon the President to sign the bill that they pass in order for it to become law.

    The Congress can of course, override that refusal, and thus the President is "forced" to lead the "militia" as the Congress has ordered via their enumerated power.

    His refusal may then be grounds for impeachment.

    I hope this is reason for the legislation Rep. King as introduced. I have written my congressman 3 times and suggested the same.

  • 'This Is Not Right'

    06/03/2005 5:57:08 AM PDT · 111 of 263
    tahiti to Hunble
    "Hence, President Bush could stop this TSA stupidity with one stroke of the pen."

    Why would he do that? He already initiated this stupidity with "one stroke of the pen" when he signed the law.

  • Legislators Pass Bills Requiring Ammo ID - Numbers would be put on new bullets and cartridges.

    06/03/2005 5:54:19 AM PDT · 38 of 51
    tahiti to calcowgirl

    This law could be nullified by a federal court because only the national Congress has the power to "regulate" commerce.

  • 'This Is Not Right'

    06/03/2005 5:42:39 AM PDT · 97 of 263
    tahiti to Hunble
    "That is true, since President Bush could sign an Executive Order to halt this TSA stupidity at any time."

    I don't think he can.

    The way I understand EO's they only have jurisdiction on federal property.

    The blame is definitely placed on the Republicans.

    A Republican Congress passed a Democrat conceived bill, (make no mistake about it, this type of unconstitutional legislation, the Patriot Act, has been brewing in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy for years, whom are all Democrats) and a Republican president signed it.

    So much for "conservatives" conserving the Constitution.

    The ultimate responsibility and blame for the loss of life and destruction of private property by airplanes being used as missiles on 9/11 is on the shoulders of all of the citizens, politicians, and judges who have supported the unconstituional activity of our federal government.

    That unconstitutional activity was the prohibition of a private property owners, the airlines, from exerting their Amendment II and Amendment IX right to invite their customer's to help secure their property and fellow passengers safety from the terror of a hijacker, by letting them bring their arms onboard.

    No terrorist would ever attempt to hijack an airplane with the possibility of 10, 30, 70 armed passengers on board.

    The probabiliy of success would be virtually zero.

    We unconstitutionally disarm ourselves, then act surprised when we become victims of crimminals and terrorists.

    The defniniton of insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

  • BOB WOODWARD IN THE NEWS The Abortion Papers by Bob Woodward (1989)

    06/02/2005 4:02:02 PM PDT · 12 of 17
    tahiti to Liz
    Excellent analysis.

    Now I have a question for you.

    You state, "Another wrongheaded aspect of Roe v Wade might be remedied with legislation by the Congress certifying that the unborn are "persons."

    "The USSC decision specfically states that under the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, the unborn child is not considered a "person" and therefore has no legal rights under US law (14th Excerpt: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof......")."

    I believe Rep. Ron Paul has introduced legislation to certify an unborn as a person.

    But I see a potential problem, since I am original meaning constitutionalist.

    19th century medical technology declares they did not know when life began.

    Subsequently, when the 14th amendment was written, it used the word "born."

    Since no law can usurp or have superiority over the Constitution, it appears to me that the 14th amendment will need to be amended to certify an unborn as a "person."

    What do you think?

  • Mountain Brook girl disappears during senior trip to Aruba

    06/02/2005 10:10:01 AM PDT · 142 of 247
    tahiti to Labyrinthos
    "If parents stopped trying to control every aspect of their children's lives, then maybe 18 year old adults wouldn't need mommy and daddy watching over them."

    You and I have disagreed in this forum on the expansion of liberty issues, but I cannot agree with you more on the subject stated above.

    The greatest gift a parent can give to their children is individualism and self-sufficiency.

    Life is full of situations were the risk of injury or death is imminent.

    Teach your children to discern and analyze "risk" as correctly as possible.

    My deepest and heartfelt empathy for the parents of this missing girl.

  • Seat Belt Violators Caught By Cops Wearing Night Vision Goggles

    06/02/2005 9:57:32 AM PDT · 124 of 198
    tahiti to Publius6961
    "I am searching for a way to recruit people across the country to review the original debates for a simple idea that evolved from a provision of choice,"

    This is a simple constitutional issue that has to be fought state by state because each state enacts their own laws.

    For instance, here in Missouri, a "primary" seat belt law was recently rejected by the legislature.

    I would like to think the following e-mail message I sent to my state rep was partially responsible for it's defeat:

    Hello Rep. Byrd,

    Oh, how I hate to have to send you this e-mail message.

    In the list of “Legislation Sponsored by Rep. Richard Byrd,” there is a reference to the following bill in which you are listed as the “cosponsor:”

    HB 339 -- Seat Belts

    Sponsor: St. Onge

    This bill allows law enforcement officers to stop a vehicle for a seat belt violation if the violation is clearly visible. The fine for the violation is increased from $10 to $20.

    You are a Republican. I thought Republican’s prided themselves in their philosophy of “limited government” and the rule of law. The rule of law means our Constitution’s covenants are supreme and superior to statutes and ordinances.

    With that being said, consider the following:

    Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights (not privileges), Article I,

    Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.

    Natural rights define the boundary or space within which people are at liberty to do as they please provided their actions do not interfere with the rightful actions of others operating within their own boundaries or spaces.” (Lockean theory of police power)

    The definition of “liberty:” The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. A right and power to engage in certain actions without control or interference.”

    In Lawrence v Texas, Justice Kennedy’s opinion is especially noteworthy because it protects liberty, without a any discussion of whether liberty was “fundamental.”

    (At last, Footnote Four is either dead or is dying.)

    Only when the exertion of a “liberty” by one individual may or does impose on the “liberty” of another individual, is the state authorized to deny or diminish a “natural right to…liberty” of all other of the citizens with a statute or ordinance.

    The “liberty” to wear or not wear a seat belt does not, in any fashion or form, impose, impugn, deny or disparage any other citizen’s natural rights or liberties.

    Now for the part I wish I did not have to mention:

    Section 4. That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States;

    U.S. Constitution

    Amendment XIV

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

    Amendment IX

    "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."

    It is surely a right “retained by the people” as to the decision of a free citizen of the U.S. whether to wear a seat belt or not while operating an automobile, especially during private use.

    With all of that being said, then I wish to inform you that you will be “personally liable” for the damages citizens will incur from the enactment and enforcement of this “seat belt” law.

    In addition, every police officer who enforces this law will also be held liable, as well, as described below:

    U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)

    Federal law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, states:

    "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."

    "We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed."

    By providing no judicially enforceable limit whatsoever on the police power of states, such a construction would violate the original meaning of Amendment XIV.

    So, please withdraw your co sponsorship of this unconstitutional legislation and please inform your fellow legislators of their personal financial risk that they will be risking if the support the enactment and enforcement of a HB 339.