Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Huck
As if everything that has occurred hasn't occurred under the Constitution.

We the people have allowed this to happen. The founders expected the people to be educated and throw out any politician that attempted to usurp the Constitution. Therefor there were no formal penalties for doing so. The states should have pushed back vigorously every time the feds tried to overstep their authority. Instead they slowly gave away more and more power. Now the federal genie is totally out of the bottle and it will be difficult to put it back in. All states need to re-exert their 10th amendment power and refuse to obey or enforce any federal law that is un-Constitutional. Let's amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, and add penalties for any un-Constitutional act. We should also make impeachment of Supreme Court Justices a more frequent occurrence.

26 posted on 02/18/2010 8:03:45 AM PST by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: BubbaBasher
The founders expected the people to be educated and throw out any politician that attempted to usurp the Constitution.

But that begs the question of when the Constitution is being violated and when it is not. If the founders themselves couldn't agree, how can the people at large be expected to do so? In short, the scope of power has been an open question from the start.

The states should have pushed back vigorously every time the feds tried to overstep their authority. Instead they slowly gave away more and more power.

The states gave their power away when they ratified the Constitution. Supreme law of the land. The states tried pushing back here and there. But what gives one state's opinion more weight than another? If one state says something is constitutional, and another disagrees, which state wins the argument, and on what basis?

All states need to re-exert their 10th amendment power and refuse to obey or enforce any federal law that is un-Constitutional.

Again, it begs the question. If one state decides a law is unconstitutional, but others believe it is constitutional, which state should prevail? Under the Constitution, the decider of such controversies is the Supreme Court! The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, state laws and constitutions notwithstanding. Nullification is not constitutional.

Let's amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, and add penalties for any un-Constitutional act. We should also make impeachment of Supreme Court Justices a more frequent occurrence.

Impeachment of SCOTUS judges for error of opinion is a bad idea. Basically, then, that would put every Supreme Court justice up for a re-vote with each Congress. It would further politicize the role of the judiciary. Is that a good thing?

I think we should eliminate direct taxation by the national government. We should return to a real federal system where national taxes are collected from the states, not from the people. That is a REAL check on federal power. That is REAL state sovereignty.

The Constitution created a consolidated national government with supreme power. That is the problem. It's not a federal system at all.

27 posted on 02/18/2010 8:31:47 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson