It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[P@triot]

Unlike you asshats on the left, we on the right do things because they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the odds aren't I our favor, it doesn't matter how large and powerful our opponent is, if it's the right thing to do, we do it.

The right thing to do....according to who? See, that's the rub. What you consider the 'right thing' isn't what many other people consider the 'right thing'. And you don't have near the numbers of folks that agree with you to impose your will. To say nothing of your fantasies of a 'resistance', 'civil war', or other right wing fan fiction.

Wether you agree is irrelevant. If it's the right thing to do, we don't need your permission.

Far, far more people disagree with you than agree with you. And they're far better armed and organized.

And of course you realize this. Which is why your ilk *talk*. But you don't *do*. You always have an excuse for why its someone else that has to bleed, someone else that has to fight.

But never you.

Ok....schizophrenia boy? What are you babbling about now? To begin with - there is nobody more ill-prepared, less organized, or completely unarmed than the modern day idiot liberals. You people all rely on government to wipe your little bottoms after you go potty and wipe your little chins after you eat. You literally couldn't survive 8 hours without government. I could go the next 8 years easily without government.

Furthermore, way more people agree with me than you. Just look at the numbers junior (let me guess - you don't accept the numbers unless someone can define what they mean to you without using any words found in the English language ).

If 'way more people agree with you', then why not just vote in your policy rather than babble about 'revolt'?

Simple: because you don't have the numbers you pretend you do. Or anything close to them. Which is why your ilk are threatening violence instead simply using constitutional processes to enact your will.

Man...your reading comprehension disability is killing me. Like the Constitution, I already addressed this. Is there anybody there with you right now that can read these posts for you and explain them to you? I'll say this one more time....

Adhering to the Constitution, voting, and attempting to use legal methods to address grievance is useless if the criminals in the Democrat party do not obey the law. This is as stupid as saying that gun laws will disarm criminals. When Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats rig elections, what good does voting do? When Barack Obama submits a "Presidential Memorandum" illegally granting amnesty to criminals who broke into our country, what good does voting do? When the Supreme Court is stacked with criminals like Sotomayor and Kagen who ignore the Constitution completely in favor of judicial activism, what good does taking Obama to court do?

Game over. Facts are in. Words do have meaning (even if you don't know the meanings and/or choose to ignore the meanings). You lose.

 

[PredFan]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

 

[Faun]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

It's ironic to listen to people who have violated the U.S. Constitution because they have a deep contempt for its limitation on powers complain about other people "dispising" the Constitution.

If Democrats (and even most Republicans now) actually respected and adhered to the U.S. Constitution, you would never hear a single citizen talking about revolt.

Ignore them. Liberals have nothing worthwhile to add to this discussion.

If that's true, then you won't be posting to another Liberal ever again.

Yeah, right.

 

[Faun]

That's the spirit boy, just go to sleep on the couch. Another 20 or 30 lbs around that 60" waist won't hurt at all.

Flap yap about resistance all you want, ya gotta get off the couch first.

In other words - you recognize that only liberals resort to violence while conservatives are the only law abiding citizens. And knowing that, you feel really comfortable popping off like an old school "internet tough guy"

Even Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph laugh at how ignorant you are.

 

[P@triot]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Here's the thing - something like that is spur of the moment. There will be that breaking point where it just happens after being pushed too far by a bunch of criminal thugs.

But that being said - be careful what you wish for. While it would be a bloodbath (libs are unarmed and unprepared sheep who wouldn't last 15 minutes without conservatives protecting them), I know I wouldn't want to live in times that would be that ugly and awful. And don't forget the wolves in other nations (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) who would be just itching to use that unrest to create more havoc and collapse the United States.

Mind you - that's not to advocate "the devil you know" stuff. But there are more concerns than you realize. I think the real answer is prayer. The more all of us pray to return this country to a nation of laws, the better chance we will have. Let God handle the dirty work of either changing the dark hearts of the left or driving them out in some way.

 

[P@triot]

That's the spirit boy, just go to sleep on the couch. Another 20 or 30 lbs around that 60" waist won't hurt at all.

Flap yap about resistance all you want, ya gotta get off the couch first.

In other words - you recognize that only liberals resort to violence while conservatives are the only law abiding citizens. And knowing that, you feel really comfortable popping off like an old school "internet tough guy"

Even Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph laugh at how ignorant you are.

Wow...a whole two people Faun? So your side has the idiot liberals of the Watts riots, the idiot liberals of the Rodney King riots, the idiot liberals of the Hurricane Katrina riots, and the idiot liberals of the Ferguson, Missouri riots. Not to mention the thousands of rapes, public indecency, thefts, drugs, and destruction of property during the Occupy Wall Street (bowel) movement and the day-to-day murders, rapes, thefts, assaults, and more of the idiot liberals and you're going to humiliate yourself by naming two people?

 

[Faun]

That's the spirit boy, just go to sleep on the couch. Another 20 or 30 lbs around that 60" waist won't hurt at all.

Flap yap about resistance all you want, ya gotta get off the couch first.

In other words - you recognize that only liberals resort to violence while conservatives are the only law abiding citizens. And knowing that, you feel really comfortable popping off like an old school "internet tough guy"

Even Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph laugh at how ignorant you are.

Wow...a whole two people Faun? So your side has the idiot liberals of the Watts riots, the idiot liberals of the Rodney King riots, the idiot liberals of the Hurricane Katrina riots, and the idiot liberals of the Ferguson, Missouri riots. Not to mention the thousands of rapes, public indecency, thefts, drugs, and destruction of property during the Occupy Wall Street (bowel) movement and the day-to-day murders, rapes, thefts, assaults, and more of the idiot liberals and you're going to humiliate yourself by naming two people?

Of course there are more than two. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Too much lead paint in your diet as a child?

 

[koshergrl]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

 

[P@triot]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

 

[Faun]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

I had a hunch someone forced you into a gay marriage. That sure explains a lot.

 

[P@triot]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

I had a hunch someone forced you into a gay marriage. That sure explains a lot.

Sooooo you're just a very creepy troll at this point. Rather than deal with the immature comments and what not - you're going on blocked now. Enjoy wasting your time (then again - since you clearly don't have a job, what else better do you have to do than troll the internet).

 

[Faun]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

I had a hunch someone forced you into a gay marriage. That sure explains a lot.

Sooooo you're just a very creepy troll at this point. Rather than deal with the immature comments and what not - you're going on blocked now. Enjoy wasting your time (then again - since you clearly don't have a job, what else better do you have to do than troll the internet).

Great, now I get to refute your lies and you can't defend yourself. That was easy. And of what trolling do you speak? I merely repeated your own words back at you. You said gay marriage was forced on you. As far as working... of course I have a job. A very good job, in fact. I just don't go into work this early.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

See also, Necessary and Proper Clause

 

[P@triot]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Incidentally PredFan - if you are serious about resistance - the first thing you need to do is know your rights. You need to know them inside and out so that you are justified in your resistance. For instance, most people don't realize that you can resist law enforcement - up to and including lethal force - if they are attempting to arrest you illegally. The law views a person with a badge attempting to do something illegal (like detain you against your will) just as they do a common criminal attempting to detain you against your will. In both cases, you are 100% justified in defending yourself.

But...you better damn well be sure you are in the right if you're going to resist a law enforcement officer. If in fact they were acting with legal authority to detain you and you resisted, you've now doubled the trouble you are facing (and especially if you resort to lethal force of course). In my humble opinion, your better off in most cases (not at all - but most) simply complying and letting the legal system determine that law enforcement was in the wrong in their actions and then following that up by filing a formal complaint with the officers department. Maybe even follow that up with a law suit against that person and the department. But it all starts with studying everything you can find about the U.S. Constitution (and it doesn't hurt to look at Supreme Court cases either). Most of all, when in doubt, consulting with a good attorney is wisest. For the record - I still say prayer is the best course of action right now. Yeah, I know the Democrats have become lawless thugs trampling rights. But resorting to a revolution should be the very last desperate option.

Bad Elk v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

 

[P@triot]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

 

[Faun]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Incidentally PredFan - if you are serious about resistance - the first thing you need to do is know your rights. You need to know them inside and out so that you are justified in your resistance. For instance, most people don't realize that you can resist law enforcement - up to and including lethal force - if they are attempting to arrest you illegally. The law views a person with a badge attempting to do something illegal (like detain you against your will) just as they do a common criminal attempting to detain you against your will. In both cases, you are 100% justified in defending yourself.

But...you better damn well be sure you are in the right if you're going to resist a law enforcement officer. If in fact they were acting with legal authority to detain you and you resisted, you've now doubled the trouble you are facing (and especially if you resort to lethal force of course). In my humble opinion, your better off in most cases (not at all - but most) simply complying and letting the legal system determine that law enforcement was in the wrong in their actions and then following that up by filing a formal complaint with the officers department. Maybe even follow that up with a law suit against that person and the department. But it all starts with studying everything you can find about the U.S. Constitution (and it doesn't hurt to look at Supreme Court cases either). Most of all, when in doubt, consulting with a good attorney is wisest. For the record - I still say prayer is the best course of action right now. Yeah, I know the Democrats have become lawless thugs trampling rights. But resorting to a revolution should be the very last desperate option.

Bad Elk v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

Your rights mean shit if you try an armed rebellion against the country. Don't forget, the federal government can suspend habeas corpus in such an event. They will throw your ass in jail and forget about you if you try.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

 

[Faun]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Article III, section 2.

The Constitution gives the federal government, specifically, the Judicial branch, the power to judge all cases arising under the Constitution. Please make a note of it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The one thing that the Oregon fiasco did was add to the anger and resentment. It has been added to Ruby Ridge and Waco. It is now useful to stoke the anger.

As far as Waco and Malheur, that's good. Lunatic fringe righties git what they deserved. I have no problem if more of you righties want to thin your herd with such actions. There's room on that list for more of you.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made one of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

 

[Faun]

As far as Waco and Malheur, that's good. Lunatic fringe righties git what they deserved. I have no problem if more of you righties want to thin your herd with such actions. There's room on that list for more of you.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.