Posted on 04/23/2010 11:58:03 AM PDT by tutstar
GREAT tagline!!
SECESSION. and impeach Charlie Crist at the same time.
Ummmmmmmmmmmm....... an exceptional woman here and there (prophets, no less) doesn't make the "sweeping generalization" any less true.
The passage clearly implies that being oppressed by children and ruled by women is not a good position to be in, at least in general. And, curiously, both conditions are on the increase in the good ol' USA.
It’s a battle allright. Will we be forced to go commie or stay a freedom loving republic? Obama’s not a socialist. He’s a communist.
Yes, that is what we want.
You don’t seem to get it too well, so let me enlighten you just a bit. The Constitution is/was a CONTRACT between We, the People, and the Several States, which authorizes the creation of a federal Government to do certain things in our names and on our behalf. FedGov is a CREATION of the States and is most assuredly NOT sovereign over them. ONLY in certain areas where specific authority has been granted to FedGov, such as handling foreign affairs or coining money, does the “Supremacy” clause apply. IN ALL OTHER MATTERS, either the Several States or We, the People, reign supreme. Which includes slapping down FedGov when needed OR seceding from the Union, if we feel the necessity. In the present instance, FedGov has pretty much VOIDED its contract with us by its own dastardly deeds.
Like all socialist schemes, it depends entirely on force in order to have effect.
The grand experiment in communism, the Soviet Union, was forced to erect an "Iron Curtain" to prevent the productive people among them from fleeing the tyranny.
One test of the freedom permitted in a nation is to examine its borders to see which way the guns point. If the guns point inward to challenge the people's ability to flee, then it is socialism.
Which states, if any, would opt out of "National Healthcare"? Those whose citizens were most inclined to provide for themselves. Which states would not opt out? Those whose citizens were most inclined to let the government solve their problems.
But like all socialist schemes, it is the productive who must pay and cannot be allowed to "opt out". Without the ability to force states to participate, the federal government will never be able to supply a fraction of what has been promised.
“I joined the High School debate team for about a week once. I discovered that Oh yea, F**K you didn’t win the debate!”
Ron White
My point is this. I do understand federalism and the constitutional limits on the federal government. Here’s my point: Challenges to federal action need to be addressed at the federal level. Addressing them by unilateral action at the state level is ultimately disruptive to federalism and requires either capitulation by the federal government or secession and disunion. Do you see the federal government capitulating? I don’t. The alternative is disunion (and not without bloodshed). We need to change the federal government. Just Vote Them Out. Stop this silliness about states passing laws to negate or restrict the implementation of a federal law.
For when they say, "peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.
I believe our own federal government is offering us "peace and safety", in health care and unemployment insurance and protection from predatory lenders and unscrupulous wall street execs ....
If the courts side against the CONSTITUTION and rule for a clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL HEALTH CARE SCAM, then WE THE PEOPLE will have to either submit to tyranny or WE THE PEOPLE need to reinstate the CONSTITUTION.
That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it?
This nation was BORN in blood, the blood of Patriots and Tyrants and the servants of tyrants. If it takes blood to refresh the Freedoms God has given us, then so be it. If you have nothing to STAND for, you’ll FALL for anything, and if you’ve no principles worth DYING for, nothing for which you are willing to draw a line in the sand and say, “This is AS FAR AS YOU GO,” then you are a morally deficient and depraved excuse for a human being. Why do you think the Founders ensured that a guarantee of our God-given right to self defense was specifically included as an area NO government was allowed to trespass into? It WAS NOT so we could go shoot Bambi for dinner.
Let’s see what happens in November.
And I might add: There are a lot of cases coming before the federal courts.
No, it's NOT the 14th Amendment. It's the New Deal Commerce Clause - the darling of Drug Warriors and Nanny Staters.
Now, we’ll have a Constitutional crisis! 10th Amendment vs the feds. I’m betting on the 10th!
30 states seem to think so, these days.
"A lot of blood was shed 1861-65 to determine whether this would be the choice. The outcome seems to have been that federal problems need to be resolved at the federal level."
Actually, more pragmatically, the outcome seems to have been that any effect the 10th amendment might have originally had has been entirely superseded by whoever has the best ability to force their viewpoint on the group that differs. That means that, very likely, even though 3/5ths of the states may have legislatively disagreed, it doesn't make any real difference to a "federal" government gone wild.
The Constitution contains mechanisms (a free press, elections, and the federal courts) to address the situation we’re in. Let’s make the best possible use of them.
Not just a free press, but the whole Bill of Rights.
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.