If I may, since some don't wish to read it on their own:

I've been avoiding making this observation on purpose, but there comes a time when it must be made. At times, the garden of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots. A little hell breaking out in matters such as this is a good thing in the long run. Surrendering our rights to a priesthood and clerics in favor of peace and tranquility is still surrendering.
Click to expand...
Bravo sierra. The reason no one can can get past it is b/c everyone has their own interpreatation. You haven't even gotten to the meat of the document.
Absolutely. A case in point, that happened right here, back in the 1860's. Seems like they burned this place to the ground: non-combatants and all. And after it all, the losers in the conflict ended up having insult added to injury. The winners even today seem to want to conveniently sweep that under the rug, but it is still remembered around here.
Click to expand...
BTW, the Civil War ended a long time ago. What's Sherman's march have anything to do with what we're talking about? It has to do with some of the posts you've written regarding commerce clause and plantation owners losing their rights. It seems to me your fight with the constitution is about what happened in 1865, when America was finally united again.
 
Of late, the SCOTUS has metaphorically decreed that down is up and left is right. That doesn't make it right, but they have done it anyway. They have, in effect, been ammending the constitution on the fly instead of interpreting it as written, as the writers actually meant when they wrote it. Haven't they heard of the Federalist Papers? And the Anti-Federalist papers? Haven't they actually read the rulings of the SCOTUS of the early 1800's? Or have they conveniently forgotten?
Click to expand...
Of late? Starting when? Korematsu (1942), the Court ruled that internment of any persons of Japanese descent on executive order was okay. The dissent in that case, by the way, cited the Federalist Papers when he said "This is racism."

Y'all think that it was only since the Civil War that 10A took a hit? Try McCulloch v Maryland (1819), in which the Court said that the State of Maryland couldn't tax a Federal Bank, and which expanded the Comerce Clause. That pretty much set the tone.
 
because police were never mentioned in the constitution, their existence is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

ROFL! Man, I assume Frank must have come up with that.

The Constitution does not mention police because police powers were reserved to the States. So yes, for the most part, federal police are unconstitutional. That is why the ATF was set up as a tax collection agency in the treasury department, so that the feds might pretend that their unconstitutional police are really a constitutional tax collection agency. But people are so ignorant of the Constitution that the ATF has been moved from treasury to justice and nobody even noticed. Well ... *I* noticed.

Now, I'm sure I'm not going to be able to use this information to make myself immune from federal police. The feds do what they want. And this is what I keep saying ... we have strayed from the Constitution.
 
Well, I kind of stopped paying attention to this thread ... but if somebody is my "corner man" (whatever that is), and he thinks that it is unconstitutional to have police, then we need to talk.
 
The sovereignity of the states were lost in that war, to the detrement of us all.
Click to expand...

But the real power comes from the income tax, followed by State appropriations with strings attached. I call it blackmail.
 
The use of seat belts is perhaps arguable. I believe that I was once protected from what could have been very serious injury in an auto accident due to having worn the available "seat belt".

Otherwise, many, many of the stunts pulled via the Nanny State are not good ideas, and that is the polite version of what some, myself included, might offer.
 
The use of seat belts is perhaps arguable. I believe that I was once protected from what could have been very serious injury in an auto accident due to having worn the available "seat belt".

Otherwise, many, many of the stunts pulled via the Nanny State are not good ideas, and that is the polite version of what some, myself included, might offer. - alan
Click to expand...

I installed seat belts in my car before they were mandatory. I wore a helmet for my motor bike before they were mandatory in PA. In both cases my life was likely saved in accidents with each vehicle, but it was my choice, not the goverment's.

If there was really a concern for safety, there would be disincentives for owning and driving large SUVs and Humvees. They might be an advantage for the occupants but have enough mass to represent a serious threat to smaller vehicles. I guess there is such a thing as too big or too small.

I think there really are things best coordinated by the feds. What I object to is when the jurisdiction of interstate commerce is clearly fabricated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top