Posted on 12/04/2009 4:58:31 AM PST by Patriot1259
...if and when Texas makes the move to secede, after a majority vote by its people, the federal government will send troops in and keep us from following through.
Does anyone else find this a little strange; that those opposed to secession are opposed because they fear the federal government? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am for secession because I fear the federal government. I don’t necessarily fear them because I think they will march into Texas and impose martial law, but because if we don’t do something to stop what they are doing to us and the rest of the nation, we will all be living in a third world country, in debt to those who are becoming super powers, such as China
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
Thanks for taking the bait.
Do you disagree with the statement made by Madison at the Virginia ratifying convention?
As for responding to your degrading posts against our framers, I will continue to do so.
That checks and balances offer no real security? No! I agree with it! That's what makes Madison such a muddle. It's like he had the truth staring him in the face, but couldn't see it. He was very confused. On the one hand, he designs a national, consolidated government and believes that the checks and balances with the separate departments will provide security from tyranny. On the other hand, he doesn't.
As Patrick Henry said:
But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?
The solution, of course, was to reject the plan, and go back to doing what the convention was actually tasked to do---amend the articles of confederation. But the Constitutional Convention was a revolution in its own right. Madison, imo, was a dupe.
Every time I criticize, you complain that it's ad hominem, but none of it is. I literally think he was duped, and had a blind spot that is impossible to fathom. I don't say the same thing about Hamilton--he KNEW what he was after.
Madison, otoh, seems dumbfounded when things transpired just as the skeptics had warned. As P. Henry pointed out, governments are necessary evils. The solution, then, is to have as little of it as possible. The Constitution went in the other direction altogether, and we're paying for it.
I reject your characterization of Alexander Hamilton.
I reject your characterization of Thomas Jefferson.
I reject your degradation of the 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments.
I reject your degradation of our Beloved Constitution.
I will oppose your nonsense at every post. Count on it.
Of course you do. And of course you will.
You're missing a a couple.
The 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Vague, vague, vague! "respecting an establishment of religion."
Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"--thanks for mucking up the waters with superfluous, unnecessary qualification/justification. If the right to bear arms is absolute, then for crying out loud why not say so? Why justify it with this talk of militias and security of a free state--obviously leads to misconstruction.
So yeah, other than Amendment 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10, the Bill of Rights is pretty solid, lol.
Seems pretty clear to me. It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." And the Constitution makes very clear who "the people" are. For instance, "the people" elect the president and their representatives.
Some say that the 2nd amendment's referral to a "Militia" means that only the military has a right to bear arms that cannot be infringed. But to come to that conclusion, you must equate the "Militia" with "the people."
Clearly it is not the military alone who elects the president or our representatives; "the people" are the citizens of the U.S.
And if the founders really meant that only the military, and not the citizens, have a right to bear arms, then that would be very silly. Were the Founders afraid the Congress might one day prohibit the army from bearing arms? What country ever made it illegal for its armed forces to bear arms?
You really have to ignore the obvious to claim that the 2nd amendment is vague, IMO.
Too Bad PA dont have one of those units.
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.