Guess we need to adjust the text a bit. The government and all parties involved are criminal enterprises.
Posted on 06/25/2012 12:13:28 PM PDT by Bob Ireland
Dear Arizona;
As Justice Antonin Scalia has just written, the SCOTUS opinion against the state of Arizona concerning immigration problems has made the phrase 'sovereign state' of no further effect.
The primary function of government is to serve the people it represents. One primary function under that obligation is to protect the population it serves. The SCOTUS opinion states that - if the United States Federal Government has statutory mandate to fulfill that obligation - then the state has no right to supersede the Federal Government when the Federal Government refuses to extend that protection.
The effect of the SCOTUS opinion today is to eliminate states' rights' in a major area of the states' statutory mandate. Put another way, the Federal Government can establish rules that eliminate states' rights under historical common law.
This author therefore suggests that the state of Arizona call a Constitutional Convention of interested states - to potentially include Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Alaska and perhaps the Carolinas [and any other state wishing to bind itself under such restrictions as herein mentioned] - pursuant to forming a new sovereign nation established under the auspices of the original Constitution of the United States.
Such Declaration of Independence should include a rejection of an imperial presidency which reserves unto itself the right to establish and enforce laws as it best sees fit without legislative oversight. The Declaration should reject all laws and regulations that establish a socialist, communist or dictatorial interpretation of states' rights or citizen's rights.
Such a federation or commonwealth should recognize in perpetuity the right of any member state to withdraw from the union when the said union jeopardizes the rights, liberties or the pursuit of happiness of said member state and its citizens. It should recognize the responsibility of the Executive Office as lawfully established to enforce laws properly passed by the legislature of representatives of the people, and to be interdicted against reinterpreting the meaning of such legally passed laws or refusing to enforce said laws.
The convention of agreeable states should establish such legal standards as were envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, and should carefully protect states' rights and individual citizen's rights.
It is impossible to see any other alternative for states and citizens wishing to protect their Constitutional rights in the face of a runaway Federal Government of the United States, and its various organs, that has all but suspended the founding intent of the original Constitutional Convention.
LET FREEDOM RING!!!
Take over congress and all this becomes moot.
It is very simple. We take over the senate via a veto proof majority. then no RINO rebellion from the WH.
You are right... look next for the Democraps to try to get the states above mentioned - who have been frugal and responsible in their spending - to bail out their profligate Democrap friends and happy spenders like Fornicalia and Michigan and Vermont.
“The simplest and easiest thing to do is scour the state statutes to find every instance where there may be an existing federal pre-emption or even partial pre-emption and simply refuse to enforce such laws as convient to the state or local budget.”
This is a good idea. And, of course, the beginning of the end.
Thanks for the link
Sounds about right... although I do not see a lot of hope in elections right now.
I am saying that interpretations of civil and/or constitutional law in this area are meaningless, as the law is ultimately defined by force.
Absolutely! ...and they are not all 'Hispanic' either!
Chicago, for example ~ then New York City, Long island and Connecticut.
Parts of Jersey, parts of Pennsylvania, parts of Michigan ~ Brownsville TX.
We can all make similar lists.
Steady, there, Banquo... ;-) I am mostly a lurker lately... but always ready when it is time to pick up the old muskets!
DOWN with the KING!
My thoughts, exactly.
The names you mention are depending on the states I mentioned to bail them out for their outrageous over-spending.
I’m not advocating it, though it wouldn’t bother me. The problem is the power in washington. I would like to see many states ban together and stop taking it on the chin from washington.
Thanks for this thread. For almost 80 years we have been saddled with the failed Keynesian Economic System. It has bankrupted the US Federal Government.
The derivatives of the WW2 Wage and Price Control Dictates are as follows: Medicare, Medicaid, Romney”care” and Obama”care.”
There will be additional calls for State Constitutional Conventions if the Republicans try to preserve or retain ANY of Obama or Romney”care.”
Obama”care” is the Death Knell for America. It must be ABOLISHED FOREVER if America is to survive.
If Obama”care” does survive, then I favor Regional Areas of the former United States of America. I think the States that the XL Pipeline will run through makes excellent sense for one Region, called The Texas Region. The Mississippi Region would be those States that the Mississippi River runs through. Pacific and Atlantic Regions are obvious, as are the Rocky Mountain States.
In this way people could vote with their feet and move to a greater or lesser degree of personal Liberty.
The Great Experiment of forcing the United States of America back into the European Feudal System began with FDR’s Social Security System and will end with Obama”care.”
No need for armed conflict, as we have already tried that with our bloody Civil War.
Just hold State Constitutional Conventions, split up into multi State Regions, and hold Fourth of July “Remember When Days” once a year, as we thank our lucky Stars that we in NO WAy are like Europe.
Maybe you came up with the solution. AZ stops taking all federal money. This eliminates all entitlement programs. No welfare check and watch them all move to California.
Guess we need to adjust the text a bit. The government and all parties involved are criminal enterprises.
Don’t forget that AZ re-elected mccain and Brewer won’t support taking obama off the ballot. I sure as hell don’t see secession in the future.
Brewer jumped in front of the cameras crowing how AZ had won. obama was waiting then told her the feds won’t accept any illegal aliens arrested under this law. I’m not convinced Brewer is as sharp and conservative as some think.
I have been scouring my files - but could not find :-( - a file about some Russian in the 90's who predicted the US would do just that by [now, I think].
Generally I have been a supporter of Keynesian economics - on a very moderate scale. We could never have produced so much wealth since WWII if we had stayed on the gold standard. I think where we went wrong with Keynes is, simply, greed. Trillions of $$$ on margins [of as little as a few %] and away too much debt on all sides has sunk Keynes - for good I hope. :-|
***The government and all parties involved are criminal enterprises***
Only because the Democraps have overthrown our normal Constitutional process - with the help of their lackey media, educators, state and local lieges, etc. They have truly transformed our 'Free Republic' into a banana republic.
I hope you are well... age is the worst tax we pay. ;-/
I believe that the constitution of Texas clearly states that it may remove itself from the Union if it desires to do so.
That was a carrot given to Texas to get it back into the union in the 1800’s.
My prediction is that in the very near future, AZ cops will undergo instruction on how to find an illegal in violation of an AZ state law — any AZ state law — that lets the state hold them. I would expect the state legislature to come up with some imaginative solutions to asssist in this regard.
As a show of solidarity, I’d like to call on every GOP legislature in the country to pass similar statutes.
Absolutely agree. We must all stand together.
We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.
BFLR
” - - - I think where we went wrong with Keynes is, simply, greed.”
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where Keynes went wrong had nothing to do with “greed” but had everything to do with his stupid, (stupid is the inability to learn), attempt to replace Market Economics.
Price is the intersection of fear and hope. You and I hope that the economy improves, but we fear that it will not.
The Anti-Capitalists, Keynesian air-heads, the OWS and the Liberal Agenda Media say it the same way but they think it this way: “ We need to stimulate the economy so it will increase by the sheer GREED of the fat cats on Wall Street, and we KNOW that the financial hell we create will also be due to the sheer GREED of the Fat Cats on Wall Street.
Liberals see only greed and despair in private business, whereas the market sees hope and fear driven by supply and demand.
The kitchen table for American Families is where the family checkbook gets balanced every month.
The Kitchen Table for the US Federal Government is the conference table that resolves the budgetary differences between the US House and Senate. That table has been unused since arrogant and incompetent Dictator “You Lie” Obama came to power.
To say that the US Federal Government is in a tailspin financially is an understatement!
It is time to reject Keyensian Economics as it has NEVER worked!!!!!
It is time to embrace “The Invisible” hand of Samuel Adams’ Free Market and restore supply and demand, fear and hope to America.
Failure is essential to drive home the powerful fear that motivates those who sincerely want to succeed. DISCARD THE DAMNED VOLKER RULE onto the trash heap of failed economic ideas, as it is based on the false premise that only Government can protect all of us from things that go bump in the night.
The Bolsheviks have had their day, and it is time to stand up to them by IMPEACHING Obama, abolishing the Dodd Frank Anti-Banking Law, and each year cutting 10 % across the board on all Welfare Federal Baseline spending, and each year a 20 % cut to the salary and expenses to all elected Federal Politicians.
Since 30 % of the wealth in the World was destroyed in 2008 and 2009, it is high time that the size of the US Federal Baseline Spending be decreased by 30 % in the next 3 years.
The US Federal Government has been a 20 % predator to the US Economy from the end of WW2 until the Zipper Boy years.
Now the Keyensian Debt of the US Federal Government is greater than the GDP of the entire US Economy.
At 1:48 PM EVERY work day the US Federal Government runs out of money, and is forced to borrow money from our grandchildren to finish out each work day.
The Gold Standard got in the way of Keynesian Economics, NOT of wealth creation. Wealth creation went on in spite of the 20 % predatory taxation millstone of the US Federal Government.
Each hotshot politician that comes along has some Keyensian gimmick to buy votes from gullible voters. JFK bought our votes with his damned “Federal Aid to Education” and now the crib to unemployment line debt created is greater that the credit card debt of their parents! Thanks for NOTHING, JFK!!!!!!!!
But I digress.
Ponder the words of Paul Harvey: WHEN YOUR OUTGO EXCEEDS YOUR INCOME, YOUR UPKEEP WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL.
Oooooo .... you play rough there, podna. Me likee.
Very well written, BTW ....................................... FRegards
Try it this way: He works for rich people who want cheap workers and who have moved heaven and earth to have things their way. How 'bout that?
Look, if you shut down the jobs, Mexicans go home and stay home. You can't make employers offer work to U.S. citizens if they are determined not to do so, but you can stop them from screwing up the polity by importing hordes of aliens.
It's importation of peasant labor that is the problem, and you have a very short, arrestable list of people who are doing it. So do something about it. Throw Butts and Perry and Pilgrim in jail, and let them rot. Problem disappears.
I believe the jurisprudence since ratification of the Constitution has always been that reservation clauses in ratification articles have always been invalid. It's always up or down.
The idea that ratification is a "threshold event", a one-time consent that can never be undone (as opposed to "perpetual" consent, which is continually renewed -- until revoked) has always been wrong and bad, and a favorite among "locked-door/suitors of Penelope" school Yankee politicians who intended then and now to prey on the South and the other agrarian sections of the country. Big favorite of theirs, and they've enforced their view with megascale death and violence against dissenters.
The "offer" that the triumphant Yankee politicians made Texas in 1865 was that, if the Texas Militia and Confederate troops would go home, they, the new owners and Lords Ordainers of the United States, would not send William T. Sherman into Texas with > 100,000 men to burn, kill, and destroy everything in sight.
ארץ ציונה
i.e. the land toward (in the direction of) Zion.
Dan 9.2. In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years (בספרים משפר השנים), which, according to the word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem; seventy years:
In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived 1177*, which, according to the word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem; seventy years:
* בספרים משפר השנים =1177
Jerusalem, allegory for America
Paint by number!
bookmark
I think you have misunderstood my comments... but it is off the subject of this thread. I do hope I make it clear that Keynesian economics has little to recommend it, especially when the govt gets involved heavily in the free market.
My understanding is that for Texas it is - something about their status and inclusion into the Union.
Regardless, legal issues in this day and age under a tyrant are specious - only one side apparently is playing by the rules - Obama routinely ignores it.
Finally, the precendent for legality was set by the Union when they won the Civil War. IOW, winner sets the rules. My feeling is that ultimately, secession, or Civil War, or both or just complete breakdown and third world anarchy is the end of this.
” - - - I think you have misunderstood my comments... “
Yes, I probably did. Sorry.
One of my many hotbuttons got pushed, and it appears that it was self-inflicted.
I will strive to do better the next time.
The debate has been raging for decades - there is no more time & correspondence has been met with scorn and Federal suppression.
Again, toss legality out and act!
Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.”
- Oscar Wilde
Why would you assume that power is something divorced from reason? It seems likely to me that power is the result of reason. Irrational power up against rational power is generally a loser.
No matter what happened in the Civil War it would not have changed the contradiction between what was attempted and the meaning of “constitution”.
Your alarm is justified but we are a long way from the tyranny you describe.
Roberts has been very good so far. You would prefer more Sotomayor and Cantors?
It isn’t as though we are where we are because of foreign influences or invasions but because the American people expect something for nothing and believes government when it promises just that. These are our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends and neighbors who think that way. Like it or not.
The whole concept of a Republic is consent of the governed and representation. What is your alternative? I lean toward an aristocracy but that is not a popular belief today. And how do you maintain power as a minority except thru armed force?
These are not simple questions with simple answers.
BUT the constitution was DESIGNED to protect the minority from the majority. If it fails then I see no chance for any other man-made system to do that.
1- the Constitutional Convention was not only completely legal but the actual document incorporates whole sections of the Articles. Had the States believed the CC exceeded its authority they were free not to ratify the document.
2- the Articles called for a perpetual Union. The Constitution declared its goal was “a more perfect Union”. Since a more perfect Union could not be less perpetual than the aforesaid perpetual Union there was no need to mention perpetuity in the new document. It was implied by logic.
3- The States sacrificed very little sovereignty to the Congress under the Articles which was the reason the first government essentially dissolved after the Revolution. That was why the CC was called and the constitution removed most of the real aspects of sovereignty from the state governments.
4- Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures can call a Convention at any time and discuss secession or expulsion or any damn thing they wish and it would be legal and constitutional. Unfortunately it would be taken over by Dumbasses and a disaster would result.
5- SOME of the Thirteen original states preceded the Union. However, all the other states were the creation of the Congress. Some of them occupied land bought by the federal government, some occupied land conquered by the federal military. However, even the original thirteen were occupied by people who believed themselves to be ONE People, the American people.
6- had the states not “linked up” they would have been conquered piece-meal by one of the empires which surrounded us. Washington and Hamilton and the greatest of our leaders, Lincoln included, understood this. They all understood that our Union was our strength. We can look at the penny ante nations across the world and see the weakness of small states in world politics which are unavoidable.
7- Actually the Constitution says nothing about states being “sovereign” and, in point of fact, they gave up most of the most important aspects of sovereignty: foreign policy, having state laws be paramount, monetary policy, exclusion from establishing pacts without Congressional approval, even the way their militias are regulated. Any idea of state sovereignty, esp. after the 17th amendment, is nothing more than a convenient fiction or a pretense.
8- Congress did not give states a choice other than “Yes” we ratify the constitution or “No” we reject the constitution. They NEVER had the choice “Yes, we ratify but...yada, yada, yada.” Only in some people’s fertile imagination did that option exist not in reality.
9- No, the people who attempted to use extra-political mans to defend slavery don’t count. Only those who use constitutional means count politically. There was no “tyranny” the South tried to escape. IT was the tyranny. There was no principle involved any more than there was with the earlier planning and actions of New England. In both cases it was economic conflicts not real principle. And Jefferson had done far more damage to NE with his embargo than Lincoln ever contemplated prior to the Wah.
10- Perhaps you need to brush up on your WWII history. Germany was not able to defeat Britain because of the massive military support Roosevelt provided. Without that it was finished. Had this been two or more nations rather than the UNITED States of America that support is problematic at best and non-existent at worst. Only the most short-sighted could believe its power would be anything but much less if divided.
11- I was born and raised in the South and love its people so I am in no way “beating up” on them. But don’t try and tell me that the ordinary Southerner had any control of what those states did. They did not but suffered from the control by the planter elites who controlled events and, BTW, along with their slaveholder friendly northern allies in the big cities, had controlled the federal government for all but short periods prior to the Wah.
Who is threatening who with civil war?
The greatest of our leaders: Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lincoln and Madison ALL viewed the idea of secession with horror.
A lot of people did get it wrong but not any of our greatest thinkers.
Washington’s Farewell Address was pointed at the “designing men” who spoke of secession. Read it if you don’t believe me.
The 10th amendment does not change the legal mechanism set up to change the Constitution which secession from the Union would be so there is nothing reserved which would allow secession by States.
While that might help get the federal budget under control, red states being net recipients of federal taxes it is just a silly fantasy.
There was no chance Lincoln was going to allow the South to fire on federal property and troops and leave, none.
It is laughable to claim that the hatred for the former slaves was the result of the federal occupation. It would have ended much sooner had not the Freedmen and Republicans been attacked throughout the South. There were thousands of murders prompting the laws against the KKK and other killers.
In REALITY the Roman Republic ended long before Caesar. It had devolved into class war at home and the control of distant provinces by the ultra-wealthy who often fielded their own armies. Republics were considered appropriate governments only for small states not the great empire Rome created.
I’m sure my understanding of Roman history and politics is sufficient for me to discuss them with you.
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.