Posted on 12/19/2009 9:31:51 AM PST by is_is
This isn't REID bribing Nelson, it is our OWN TAX PAYER MONEY bribing Nelson and his state. THE CURRENT SYSTEM MUST BE DESTROYED.
CREDIT GOES TO Cheerio FOR THE ABOVE STATEMENT.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2411155/posts?page=38#38
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE???? CAN WE WAIT FOR NOV. '1O???
FREEDOM!!!!!
True if all of the military support Obama and his commie henchmen and the Freepers attack the military head on in traditional warfare.
If violence starts it will be a gorilla war the government cannot easily win.
Proper? What's that? The scope of powers of the national government are defined by themselves. They only need worry about the other branches. The legislature can pass what it pleases, and as long as the president doesn't veto it, it stands. Even if he does veto it, they can override it. Someone can bring a suit, which MAY reach the SCOTUS, but they don't have to hear it. And even if they do, it only takes five of them to decide what is "proper." And from there, there is NO appeal except to force, and we know that's not going to happen.
The problem is our overlords don't give a damn about the constitution. That is our problem. And too few even on our side recognize it.
Why should they? The Constitution, as it is legally understood today after 200 years in practice, allows them to do damn near anything they want. The Constitution is nothing for them to worry about. THAT is the problem.
“Taxation WITH representation ain't so hot either.”--- Gerald Barzan
Decentralized power. I'd backtrack all the way back to the confederacy and start from there. No national government. Only a truly federal system. Not part national, part federal (which is really all-national where it counts.)
We should do several things in parallel. Your traffic idea, a nationwide (Christmas) spending stop, Jim’s idea, boycotting Democrap owned business (Progressive comes to mind).
We just need to get started and flesh all the details out. NOW.
lol. Good quote, and true!
Too late constitutional patriots—the fascists are in.
Look on the bright side—the Romans did pretty good for hundreds of years as a Republic too—but when they got an emperor Rome really took off!
Just can’t picture a nuthin’like Obama as Caeser.
lol....IF THE TALLYBAN CAN INTERCEPT DRONE VIDEO....IMAGINE WHAT OUR "INSURGENT" WHIZ KIDS COULD DO!!!!! NOT THAT I AM ADVOCATING ARMED INSURRECTION....
sorry in advance to the CAPS police.....
I most definitely have. Like Antifederalist 39, Antifederalist 78-84. Patrick Henry's speeches at the Virginia Convention. Various other statements made by great patriots who had the good sense to OPPOSE the Constitution. Hell, check my tagline. Check my profile page for a couple of good quotes, one from a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.
You say I give to the government powers it doesn't have. Do I? Let's observe the government in practice and see. Let's review SCOTUS case law all the way back to Marbury, and see who's right and who's wrong.
A nationwide work strike, perhaps on tax day, targeting all federal buildings for protest. Enough of this meeting at parks and other public venues. Have every Fed employee shaking in their loafers.
A special convoy of Ryder trucks to descend on D.C. (filled with patriots, of course) and disrupt all traffic and commerce.
I can think of a lot of other stuff but it might be skirting the law a bit. People would have to accept the possibility of being arrested.
Bump and bookmark. Good post!
Yes!!! but someone has to organize it on a national scale.....
FREEDOM !!!!!!
That's what we did. The Articles didn't work. Get over it.
It may be true that it was designed to do those things, just like the War on Poverty was designed to severely limit poverty, the War on drugs was designed to severely limit drug use, etc. The question, to me, is whether or not it DOES the things it's designed to do.
Rush Limbaugh has this rant he does about intentions. He always says liberals want their gubmint programs judged not on the results but on the intentions. Well then? Let's apply the same thing to the Constitution. Let's set aside the supposed intent (I say supposed because the framers clearly did not all want the same thing), and let's look at the results. I say the results speak for themselves. Epic fail.
Now it’s natural for the government to try to force their way into grabbing more and more power as time goes by,
I agree. In fact, I believe it's inevitable, which is why one must treat government, as Patrick Henry said, as "nothing more than a choice among evils." I believe the Constitution contained language that was unnecessarily broad--"general welfare" "necessary and proper",etc--that made it all too easy for this to take place. It doesn't happen over night. It happens bit by bit, always in the same direction.
but it’s just as natural for a free people to use their God-given rights to resist. And to resist forcefully when necessary.
Natural maybe, but is it common? If we look at history and the world, is it primarily a story of the people rising up and overcoming oppression, nipping it in the bud? Or is it primarily a story of long epochs of centralized domination of the people, with rare and sporadic instances of the people overcoming their rulers? It may be natural for people to rise up, but I don't think it's something to be relied upon as a check on national power. The best check on national power is to not allow it in the first place.
Further, appeal to force, what Madison called the "ultima ratio", is extra-constitutional. The Constitution does not provide for forcable overthrow of itself. Appeal to force is an appeal to natural law. The Constitution deserves no credit for that. It didn't create natural law. It is, as is anything, subject to it. When the government willfully ignores or tries to skirt around the constitution, it is the duty of the PEOPLE to ENFORCE it.
They haven't had to skirt around the Constitution. Everything that has transpired has been UNDER the Constitution. You mentioned the government being restricted to "severely limited powers" by the Constitution. Madison assured readers that the national powers would be "few and defined." And yet, in the Washington administration (!), Hamilton advanced the doctrine of "implied powers" and won the argument. That was later enshrined in law via the SCOTUS, with founding father John Marshall writing the opinion. It seems to me "few and defined" powers was blown out of the water before they even got out of the starting gate.
Great to hear from you. I say what I say with all due respect. I don't enjoy saying it. It's just where my thinking has taken me. In short, it's even worse than it appears. Merry Christmas.
No Marine will ever fire on an American citizen at the order of Obama.
Thinking about a proposal for a plan. Pings later.
Not really. We came to a fork in the road and took it. As everyone who has studied the history knows, the delegates who held their secret meetings in Philadelphia were not authorized by the Congress to create an entire new system of government. They were supposed to amend the articles of confederation in a few very specific ways--regulation of commerce, power to tax, power to pay off debts.
But certain delegates--Madison and Hamilton in particular---already had other ideas. They showed up with a draft or two of a new system. That's why Patrick Henry famously refused to be a delegate, saying he "smelt a rat." That's why it was ratified not by the Congress, not even by the States, who would have acted through the Congress, but rather by the PEOPLE, through state CONVENTIONS. Because, political theory went, only the PEOPLE had the right to abolish their government and form a new one. As we know, they did. And we're still stuck with it today. I'd backtrack all the way back to that point, and try to create a confederation with the necessary federal powers, and nothing more.
One more point. The "statements" of the "founding fathers" mean nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says any statement by any founder has any weight. All that matters is what the Constitution actually says, and how the powers created by it function.
Look at my tagline. That's a quote from a "founding father." A great American patriot. Should his thoughts have less weight than, say, Alexander Hamilton's? On what legal basis?
The Consitutional Convention was held in secret. They weren't allowed to publish their notes until after ratification. Madison didn't publish is until after his death. Therefore, their thoughts have no bearing, because the people, when they ratified the Constitution, were not aware of their thoughts.
The Federalist Papers? OK, but what legal basis is there for giving them more weight than the ANTI-federalist papers? And since they contradict, which one should be supreme?
Nope. At the end of the day, all that matters is what the Constitution says, and how it functions in reality. We've got 200 years of data, and I think it speaks pretty loudly.
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.