Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EveningStar; aMorePerfectUnion; beaversmom; cloudmountain; cripplecreek; CyberAnt; DBeers; Fungi; ..
BTW, the feds have no valid constitutional say about freedom to choose ("discrimination") except when state law forces racial segregation based on original understanding of the ratifiers intent of the 14th Amendment and confirmed by the Slaughterhouse cases. The "Incorporation Doctrine" is patently unconstitutional because it ignore the ratifiers' post Civil-War, Reconstruction intent in passing the 14th Amendment.

It's time to rebel against such federal excesses starting with states exercising their sovereign, constitutional rights.

5 posted on 03/14/2015 1:49:21 PM PDT by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PapaNew; holdonnow
One of the nuances of Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments, for which he gets little credit, is the proper extension of state sovereignty which James Madison wrestled with in his post Alien and Sedition Act analysis. It is a pity the Articles of Confederation so polluted the concept of an adequately federal government. Madison's analysis, his Report of 1800 is a difficult read. I don't claim to comprehend it much beyond what others have written of it. Madison did not support single state nullification. Neither do I.

What is clear is that an additional approach for the people to arrest unconstitutional statutes, beyond reliance on state appointed senators, or Article V, is one of Mark Levin's suggested amendments, which would arm three fifths of the states to repeal congressional statutes, regulations, and Scotus decisions.

34 posted on 03/14/2015 2:33:13 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: PapaNew; All
"BTW, the feds have no valid constitutional say about freedom to choose ("discrimination") except when state law forces racial segregation based on original understanding of the ratifiers intent of the 14th Amendment and confirmed by the Slaughterhouse cases [emphasis added]."

Would you clarify that statement PapaNew? I don’t condone racism. But to my knowledge, the only race-based right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights, evidenced by the 15th Amendment.

Regarding 10th Amendment-protected state power to segregate, please consider this. While I don’t condone segragation any more than I condone racism, not only did the federal lawmakers who drafted the 14th Amendment arguably overlook segregation issues, but corrupt, post FDR era activist justices wrongly established the PC right not to be segregated outside the framework of the Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education imo. And two wrongs don’t make a right.

43 posted on 03/14/2015 2:50:59 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson