Posted on 03/08/2015 7:48:37 AM PDT by aquapub
Sadly, you are correct.
I’ve begun to understand how the freight cars came to be loaded in nazi Germany.
The Feds often try to deny, hide and sometimes even lie about the true success record and legality of the practice of nullification which Does take place and has been practice almost sense day one by states.
Even the 2nd step of Interposition is occasionally threaten and even been carried from time to time by the aggrieved State and its people. The so called ‘nullification’ crisis was perhaps one of the most dramatic example of interposition(NOT merely nullification). Althou it is usually told omitting the fact that South Carolina got what it wanted, less prohibitive tariffs, and never surrendered its right to nullify.
Even said there are numerous other examples of interposition in our history from States in every section of our federation, from Ohio laws to cripple the Federal banks to the anti-fugitive slave law of the anti-slavery northern States prior to the Civil War. The history of theses united State is not one of ‘dutiful’ submission Washington’s edicts. That simply has never been the American way, much to the dismay of self-important federal employees both in and out of black robes.
Nullification of course doesn’t necessarily include active interposition of the State simply declare unlawfulness of said behavior and it’s own non-cooperation.
Interposition is the next step that is only rarely taken by States for good reason. If your going to act to protect the rights of your people you need a plan and the force & political means to get away with it. Washington may have few domestic agents(thus why mere nullification works often enough) but it does have a standing army willing to impose tyranny when Washington’s leaders feel they can get away with it politically.
The game for interposition requires skillful & politically talented State leaders able to play the politics of the situation against Washington and win from a weaker position. Leaders with talent like that are unfortunately rare, and thus so too is successful interposition. In the end you don’t get into that game until you’ve already arranged for its successful conclusion being a huge political mess for Washington D.C.
Well .. if I were younger and I could get to DC, I would probably help you.
I don’t agree with you.
Ted Cruz has continued to build a following of people who are fed up with the goings-on in DC. He totally skunked everybody in IOWA at the Ag Summit. He told them straight out he wanted to change the subsidy .. and he didn’t bow like the others to change his mind to curry favor.
I believe .. from some of the recent comments he has made, that he is leaning toward running for President. When he announces, I will be the first one to volunteer to help with his campaign in my city.
If my guess is correct, Ted’s campaign will be so huge .. people will be shooting all kinds of darts at him .. but I believe he will prevail and turn this country around .. because he’s not in it for himself .. he’s in it to get America back to basics.
If you don’t agree .. that’s okay .. I’m a Scot too (Highlands) .. so you can have your own opinion.
It is good FRiend, that we can respectfully disagree here, and it seems we must. Like you, I believe that Ted Cruz is a good conservative leader. And should he pursue the presidency I’ll be right beside you, pushing for change. I don’t, however, believe that one man will restore our republic, or inspire the rest of the government to even allow that possibility. Our constitutional republic wasn’t created by one strong leader, but by a mass of citizens who were willing to risk everything to bring that dream to fruition. My concern is that “we”, the conservative majority will never reach that point.
It’s always the next outrage that will set our resolve, never the one we currently suffer.
Will Ted Cruz single handedly take the government boot off your neck? I doubt it. Will he force the IRS to stop stealing your money to pay for the murder of children? Alone? No chance.
The will to resist isn’t there today, after the federal government commits wholesale murder against those who simply want to live free, it won’t magically appear with a Cruz presidency. Alas freedom, we hardly knew ye.
When they say they've read it?
Well .. I’m not sure you’re plugged into the real tone out there in normal land.
THE PEOPLE ARE MAD AS HELL .. AND READY FOR A FIGHT. All we need is the right person to lead the way.
If you’re not ready for a fight .. I’m sorry.
Keeper.
We have to be willing to do things that we loathe. We must locate those in the local power structure who GIVE THE ORDERS to oppress us, and remove them, either from position or from this Earth. We can no longer just wait for the assault and fight back; we have to be preemptive. Otherwise we will find ourselves as Solzhenitsyn warned:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Ha! Ha!
This is the Jeffersonian interpretation, held by people who had been opposed to the Constitution's ratification in the first place.
This is certainly a legitimate interpretation, but so is its Hamiltonian "loose constructionist" counterpart which held that if the ends are Constitutional and the means not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the federal government had a certain amount of leeway.
It's a shame that the Left has made Hamilton's interpretation anathema to so many conservatives.
Very much to the point, sir!
Bookmark.
Bookmark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.