05/28/2024 3:10:53 PM PDT
· 27 of 33 Jim W N
to Harmless Teddy Bear
If the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the feds police power then, Art. IV, Cl. 2 is triggered and the law is null and void because it is not in “pursuance” of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land OVER unconstitutional federal law.
They are patently unconstitutional. Everybody knows or should know that the federal gov’t has NO POLICE POWER from the Constitution and the Constitution is the feds ONLY source of legitimate power.
Time to get this gov’t chained back down by the Constitution or the gov’t will chain us down.
Right. I'm a Constitutionalist because I believe in individual freedom (small "l" libertarian).
What does a true "constitutionalist" espouse? That the accurate use of the Constitution is applying the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
05/26/2024 7:33:10 AM PDT
· 16 of 148 Jim W N
to GrandJediMasterYoda
She is the poster child for Melvin Udall's take on women:
No reason and no accountability.
Her statement is such a massive lie - the kind Hitler used to espouse. A 180-degrees lie, delusionally projecting her own and the Left's outcome if Trump DOESN'T win.
You and I stand for the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended and influence as many as possible to do the same. It is the good fight of faith and freedom and you cannot sustain freedom without faith.
But you’ve surrendered and gone over to the other side.
Monopolization does not violate constitutional law which is the Supreme law of the Land and is the ONLY source of valid federal gov’t action.
States operating under their state laws, fine. But the feds are bound and limited by only those powers enumerated by the Constitution, which gives the feds no power over monopolization.
A close look reveals the feds are behind any issues regarding monopolization. But in the market economy FREE from gov’t interference, “monopolization” normally doesn’t last too long.