The civil war got rid of the idea of "state's rights". Since states didn't have the right to secede, they had no rights at all.
After that the constitution was "modernized" to allow direct election of senators (another blow to state's rights). It was "modernized" again to allow the federal government to tax and individual's income. I believe the final nail was struck when Roscoe Filburn was told by the Supreme Court that he could not grow wheat on his own farm for his own consumption. After that, it was up to liberals and their willing accomplices in the media to follow through.
If the federal government could dictate to an individual that they could not grow a food crop on their own farm for their own use, they could basically dictate anything to anybody. This will probably, and unfortunately, be affirmed when the supreme court upholds Obamacare later this year.
Can you detect the fear I feel for your republic?
Some really good observations. How many know that the civil war was fought over state’s rights (in Lincoln’s words ‘to preserve the union’) not over slavery?
I gotten into arguments about that in the past, and the BEST argument I’ve heard on the pro-Lincoln side (legally speaking) is that the Articles of Confederation were never repealed and those Articles contain wording to the effect that the States are an inseparable union.
And that is the BEST that can be said of the legal justification for the Civil War? How utterly sad, if that war was indeed legitimate.
If it was not, and the superseding Constitution reserved the right to separate under the 9th & 10th Amendments, then the war must needs be wholly illegitimate.
After that the constitution was “modernized” to allow direct election of senators (another blow to state’s rights). It was “modernized” again to allow the federal government to tax and individual’s income. I believe the final nail was struck when Roscoe Filburn was told by the Supreme Court that he could not grow wheat on his own farm for his own consumption.
Agreed, agreed, agreed; well except perhaps the Filburn decision being the final nail. While I think that was certainly a sledge-hammer & railroad-spike through the heart and spirit of the Constitution, I believe the final nail was Roe v. Wade: in that decision the US Supreme Court violated the Constitution many times over and no-body had the balls to take them to task for it.
Roe v. Wade was a violation of the unamended Constitution because they, in effect, rewrote the Constitution — penumbras and emanations my ass, I’ve seldom heard such mental masturbation!? — ever notice how the Constitution is VERY specific in detailing what the States cannot do? (Ex Post Facto law, for example.) Well, Roe v. Wade threw that right out the window! Further, the 5th Amendment guarantees that a life shall not be taken by the government without due process of law; by invalidating existent State laws restricting abortion the USSC violated the 5th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment *REQUIRES* the States to use Due Process with respect to rights; Rov v. Wade utterly invalidated any say the people had in producing the laws they wanted to live by.
Furthermore, Roe v. Wade could be viewed as treason; the Constitution defines Treason and requirement for conviction thusly: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
What is one way, traditionally, to ensure victory over another in a contest of nations (war)? To deplete the reserve of men that are able to fight; and what better depletion than to make them never have been born at all? Amendment 2 says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State;” so how does one make that security lesser? By depleting the members of the militia. (Traditionally all able-bodied males 18 to 45.) So how much has Roe v. Wade depleted our militia?
By these statistics:
The CDC records the sum total abortions 1973..1994 at: 26,769,863
The AGI records them at: 31,429,400
Now, applying the gender birth-rate multiplier for the US: .519 (See Human sex ratio.)
We get 13,893,559 (CDC) & 16,311,859 (AGI).
So, would you consider depleting the arm-able population by 13.8 to 16.6 Million to be treason?
This simple-minded calculation does not take into account the “prohibited persons”* produced as that would require serious studies into the matter which would, necessarily, entail how abortion has contributed to the dissolution of the family-unit among “african-american” ethnicities (making the question recursive in nature).
* The drug war, which is the means by which many are prohibited, can also be considered an treasonous by this same measure; and the Courts would have to struggle against their beloved precedence’ #spit# because the 18th Amendment was required to prohibit the trafficking/production of alcohol whereas there is no such amendment authorizing the current restrictions on drugs.
After that, it was up to liberals and their willing accomplices in the media to follow through.
Media? I think the schools are more to blame; I certainly don't think Jesus will have much mercy toward them.
Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.”— Luke 17:1&2 (and Mark 9:42; and Matthew 18:6)