Posted on 09/30/2009 11:07:52 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
Just so. That framework has been in place since its inception and with rare exceptions has remained pretty much intact. BUT, when we have SC justices like Scalia, presumably a "strict" constructionist himself massaging and squeezing the commerce clause to wring out a skewed decision in favor of the feral government, one has to wonder just who in DC is actually looking for the principle of original intent.
Not to mention, a goodly number of knuckle-draggers. GUILTY!
I also believe that it would definitely evoke a certain “Spirit of the People” response as well...
Would you believe a recent survey(scientific or otherwise) taken in the State showed nearly a third of Texans were already agreeable to secession!!!??? Imagine that! But anyway, I get your point; ANY State leading the charge against a feral government would surely strike a cord in the hearts of patriots all over the country.
I would only hope those states that decided to do this would let some of us in, if and when the stuff comes down...
Heh, got guns and ammo? Symbolically at least, the Alamo may once again need to be defended.
I must have missed this seemingly incongruent notion of his along the way, could you point me to link or something?
Truth be told, it probably doesn't even mention "States" rights anywhere in the whole of the Constitution. That said, who is higher, the potter or the pot? The States AND The People created the feral government.
Good point. And I should’ve been more clear.
Amendment X addresses the subject of powers, not rights. That’s an important distinction, and, in my opinion, should decide where we launch our attack.
If the states and the people have all proper powers not delegated to the national government, then the national government is outside its jurisdiction on many issues.
All too often, “rights” debates go unresolved, and are thus viewed by many as ultimately unresolvable except by a superior (i.e. federal) arbiter. A “power” debate is not only free of this historical baggage and lopsided advantage, but also focuses our attention on a more alarming subject (power) and clarifies the contestants in the struggle (federal vs. state governments).
I’d like to see the debate framed as “States’ Defense” or “States’ Jurisdiction” or some such.
I like it!
Gov. Perry: "Sorry Obama, you're out of your jurisdiction."
Here’s a link to a Rush Limbaugh transcript.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102808/content/01125110.guest.html
As far as I can tell, Rush and many others are totally misunderstanding what is meant by “negative rights.” They ARE negative rights, in that they are limited what someone else can do TO you. There’s no bad connotation to that. It’s an accurate description. Here in the piece, Chodorov uses “negative” in the same manner.
Actually, much of our Constitution is a clear and complete failure. If we’re not going to fix it, there’s no point in starting over.
What’s-past-is-prologue ping!
Mostly agree, governments don't actually have rights per se, The People have rights, most God given and unalienable at that. Our Constitution was arranged in such a way so that The People ceded limited and enumerated "powers" to various governmental bodies for purposes of protecting those rights and of course, mediating disputes.
All too often, “rights” debates go unresolved, and are thus viewed by many as ultimately unresolvable except by a superior (i.e. federal) arbiter. A “power” debate is not only free of this historical baggage and lopsided advantage, but also focuses our attention on a more alarming subject (power) and clarifies the contestants in the struggle (federal vs. state governments).
Difficult to argue with that also; the few and enumerated powers of the feral government vs the numerous and indefinite powers of The States. On the surface at least it would appear The States would have the upper hand. Which only seems natural since The States are the nearer governing body to The People.
I’d like to see the debate framed as “States’ Defense” or “States’ Jurisdiction” or some such.
I like the idea! IMHO, what it boils down to in 25 words or less is, with the assistance of the feral courts, the overreaching and expanded powers of the feral government under the supremacy and commerce clauses in particular have gone far beyond any sensible reading of our Constitution. The feral agents taking sides against The States no less. Surprise! Government skools have given us a couple of generations with "The feral government is all powerful" mentality. Framing the debate in a constitutionally illiterate populace will be a trick I suspect.
It appears to be an academic debate as much as anything else. But given what I know of both parties, I’ll put my money on Rush just about every time. Over the years he has shown himself to be a very astute observer of the political scene, not to mention an accomplished wordsmith, no?
Really? I think We The People have failed the Constitution but that's JMO.
If we’re not going to fix it, there’s no point in starting over.
You have some recommendations???
Actually, the only failure was due to men who refused to be constricted to its clear restrictions on their power.
I’ve often thought that we could re-write it on the “do-over” and make the language more clear, but seriously, how do you have language any clearer than the 10th amendment?
This Constitution is good for the governance of a moral and religious people, it is inadequate for any other.
The same could be said about the governing people. Without moral and religious people being elected, the Constitution has no power to restrict them.
The world is fixin’ to change again, too. At least this country. The level of instability is increasing hourly. We are rapidly approaching crisis on multiple fronts - economic, political, military, social - you name it. What specifically happens and what triggers it are totally unpredictable. What is a near certainty, IMHO, is that we will have serious crisis and a new type of breakdown within a year.
Have you all noticed how the left is using their media to set up the right to take the fall for any violence set in to motion by any of the above factors? They just don’t get the fact that they and their media mouthpieces have zero credibility with us and we are rapidly approaching the point where we would pay just about any price to be rid of them. The best scenario is that we as states just start ignoring them and their edicts.
1. Mandatory gun ownership
2. No vote for non-landowners
3. Removal of citizenship and personhood from any convicted violent criminal (go from man to unprotected thing in one afternoon).
General welfare, interstate commerce, necessary and proper...no constitutional means of secession, no clear language on who resolves constitutional controversies. It was a nice try, but a very bad job.
I could address each of your objections,
but I assert that even if [more] clear, declarative restrictions on government had been included,
it would have made no difference due to the men who sought power over other men.
But it's too late. All the damage has been done.
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.