Posted on 09/04/2015 1:44:26 PM PDT by z taxman
Edited on 09/04/2015 1:48:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
What he is doing, now, is speaking out against judicial lawlessness and judicial tyranny. And I think it is very important that he is doing so, calling attention and bringing awareness to this issue. And what **I** propose we do about it in the near term--i.e., the next fourteen months--is to speak out and speak up ourselves, and to nominate and then elect a presidential candidate who understands and upholds the Constitution and who will appoint judges and justices who will make decisions according to, and not against, the Constitution.
And the Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.
Should we enforce that, Don?
In post 61 I am referring to Cruz, of course, not Trump.
Too many laws, too much red tape. Who benefits?
“Laws are spider-webs, which catch the little flies, but cannot hold the big ones.” - Anacharsis
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Donald Trump on Kentucky clerk: Same-sex marriage the ‘law of the land’, Laissez-faire capitalist wrote:”If this doesn’t show Trump for what he really is to the Trump Bots, then what will?”
You have my permission to call them “Igneranting Trump Chumpions “ if you so desire.
Absent armed revolution, that's the only recourse and one we should follow.
If the Supreme Court said that a government agency had a duty to start lining Jews up into gas chambers, would we be told it’s the “law of the land” by anyone?
When someone reacts to this issue in a wishy-washy way, it has nothing to do with laws or courts, it has to do with how they feel about the issue. If they have no problem with same-sex marriage and don’t think it’s immoral, they will say it’s the “law of the land.” If the issue was gas chambers, they would start actually doing something to defy and work around the Supreme Court’s ruling. And they would absolutely not say that any government employee had any obligation to comply with that ruling.
The Constitution itself says unconstitutional federal law is not valid law.
So the feds have been ignoring the Constitution for some time. Do you understand that unconstitutional federal acts are acts of tyranny? So the question is how do we deal with federal tyranny and fight for our God-given and Constitutionally protected freedoms against the federal tyrants?
The answer is state-by-state as supported by the Supremacy Clause and confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Here’s how it goes...
Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause) of the U.S. Constitution, confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, give individual states valid basis for nullifying and rejecting unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny. Individual states must begin doing this, which, of course will mean those states must be ready for financial independence from the feds – but of course that is the basis of America’s beginnings to begin with – INDEPENDENCE.
Individual states must in good-faith nullify unconstitutional federal acts and notify the feds and the world why the nullified and rejected acts are unconstitutional. This is the only basis for state action towards further independence from the feds which one would hope would not be needed unless necessary.
At some point, individual state secession may be necessary. The Declaration of Independence gives instruction and guidance for valid secession. The D of I shows valid secession 1) should not be “for light or transient causes” 2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable” 3) notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally 4) When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.” This is not a constitutional dictate, but, as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”
So there are no sanctuary cities now, when did that change? We are a nation of laws only for conservatives.
law of the land? so it the immigration law, yet we seem to blow that off regularly.
why are the folks on the right the only ones expected to adhere to the law?
screw them. f-off fag boy
President Trump will get their attention. VP Cruz when he becomes President will (hopefully) put the Constitution back front and center when it comes to federal acts.
“If Trump is the best we can come with, we deserve to be slaves.”
What you are not taking into consideration is that Trump is the only multi-billionaire running, and what ever his leanings are politically, he is not bought and paid for by the big money men. And he’s fed up with the PC crap just like the rest of us are.
He obviously is taking the right approach in the campaign thus far or he wouldn’t be leading in the polls. I’m sure he is not the most conservative, but he probably IS the most conservative that has any chance of winning.
Nay...
Article V Convention. It's the SHORTEST path to an Amendment.
But I doubt it's likely to get 2/3 to propose and 3/4 to ratify a Biblical definition of Marriage.
It's worth a shot though.
That’s what they said about the colonies when dealing with British tyranny in the 1700’s.
The fact is, states CAN and MUST reject and nullify unconstitutional federal acts NOW.
She’s a Democrat and so is Trump, so that makes sense.
Only in the womb is murder legal.
If the Supreme Court said some government employees were required to worship Satan, would everyone wait for a constitutional amendment to provide relief to the aggrieved parties?
If the president, governors, judges and police all agreed to defy the ruling, then it would get defied and not enforced. “We were just following the Supreme Court’s orders” is not an excuse. Every one of the individuals responsible for helping jail this woman is culpable for human rights violations no different than when Iran jails someone for converting to Christianity.
We now find ourselves living in a tyranny. It’s up to us to decide what potential options are on the table for dealing with it. But we cannot deny what it is and who is responsible for enforcing its dictates on us.
You lost me at 1.Pro life since at least 2011, wanted to ban partial birth abortion as far back as 2000.
He should then have 15 years +/- of provable actual pro-life activism. He earns some $400 million a year. Where’s all the donations? Where did he stand for life?
Has he given even a penny to any conservative cause: border control, pro-marriage, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-free markets, etc.? You put your money where your mouth is. Trump’s all mouth. He cares so much the money just stays in his pocket.
I get the attraction, but the closer I get the more repulsed I am. He’s at very best a RINO to the left of Giuliani. At worst he’s a NY Democrat. No thanks.
This is the major reason I believe Trump’s a Dem plant sent to scramble the primary. We’ve got a plethora of outstanding candidates. Trump picks and chooses which laws he’ll enforce. He’s button pushing on illegals, but selective on the rest of the conservative agenda.
This is the moment I have been waiting for, for Trump to step in it big time and derail his campaign. His true liberal side shows here. Time for Ted Cruz to come in and pick up the pieces.
That's absurd.
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.