George Washington signed onto the Constitution, which embodied the federalist notions I’ve been defending.
You caricature my argument by saying I defend tyranny. I embrace instead the idea that unpopular laws can be fixed by the people of the state or the people of the state who disagree can leave. I’ve even given examples, contemporary ones even, of those states. You’ve engaged in ad hominems.
We’re done. If you want to try and make yourself feel better by getting in one last name-calling post, go ahead. Your ego will be massaged, since I won’t respond, and you can think you’ve really zinged me good. :)
Afterward, I suggest you do a good study of dual and cooperative federalism before you try to negate the Tenth Amendment by railing against those of us who defend the same.
Eventually you should read the Federalist Papers, the contemporary commentary of the Constitution, which says the powers to states are far more numerous than the federal government. The Federalist Papers did not embrace tyranny either—they merely taught that the Constitution gives great leeway to the states that it PROHIBITS the national government from exercising.
I find it sad you are unable or unwilling to grasp that concept.
Good night.
1. appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think
Oh yeah. Refusing to accept that government has a right to force people to get healthcare and quoting Washington is an "ad hominem" all right. LOL
We are most certainly done.