Nullification: Can you Hear the People of South Carolina and California Sing?

[The2ndAmendment]

California nullifies NDAA

South Carolina nullifies Obamacare

One more Day 'til Revolution





Go to your local/County Legislature asap (next Public Hearing). Propose this bill:

Title of Bill:
Federal and State Tyranny Prevention Act

Be It Enacted By The Suffolk County Legislature

Preamble:

We, the people of Suffolk County, do solemnly declare that the Creator, not Government, has bestowed each individual with certain unalienable rights, and that each individual is sovereign, free to communicate, interact and contract with other sovereigns, and by nature are free to defend themselves from all threats to their life, liberty and property.
The people of Suffolk County also reject the principle of unlimited submission to their federal government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of the Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they ratified a federal government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State and County to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: and that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

However, New York State has failed in her responsibility to shield and protect her citizens from the usurpations of the federal government, and has, itself, assumed powers that are prohibited to New York State through the New York State Constitution and has both endorsed and enforced the tyrannical actions of the Federal Government. Therefore the Suffolk County Legislature must erect a bulwark shielding her citizens against the tyranny of the wicked and malicious federal and state governments.

Section I:
a. In respect to the arbitrary and monstrous nature of the Patriot Act (and other similar laws), both the United States and New York State are denied the ability to spy on any citizen of Suffolk County, unless they obtain a Warrant, supported by Oath or affirmation, particularly describing the things to be searched or seized. This Warrant must be presented to the Sheriff of Suffolk County, so that he or she has knowledge of the existence and nature of the Warrant, and may challenge the constitutional validity of the Warrant in the appropriate Suffolk County Court.

b. Any evidence obtained by the United States or New York State that circumvents the above processes, shall be inadmissible in court, and Suffolk County will shield its citizens from being arrested or detained or summoned before a state or federal tribunal, on evidence that is obtained contrary to this SECTION.

d. A federal or state Warrant that is challenged in a Suffolk County Court (by the sheriff) is rendered inoperative and is considered suspended, unless the appropriate Suffolk County Court approves the Warrant.

e. Local police and authorities reserve the right to exempt themselves from executing a federal or state search, regardless of the validity of the Warrant.

Section II:
a. In respect to the heinous implications of the National Defense Authorization Act (and other similar laws), the United States is denied the ability to kidnap any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County. The United States must obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County before detaining or arresting an individual within Suffolk County, for any crime or violation of law thereof.

b. The failure of federal or state authorities to obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County may be met with lethal force from either the local police or the person to be detained or arrested.

Section III:
a. Suffolk County recognizes the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as a legitimate article of the Constitution; however, the Constitution does not authorize the use of paper fiat currency, therefore Suffolk County will cease to enforce the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, unless the federal taxes are being collected in Lawful gold or silver Coin, as prescribed by Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution.

b. Suffolk County will also shield any of its inhabitants from detention or arrest or being forced to appear before a federal or state tribunal for failing to pay federal or state taxes in any Thing other than gold or silver Coin.

c. All federal taxes will be collected by Suffolk County and held in a Federal Escrow Tax Account, as the Constitution of United States does not grant the Federal Government the power to collect Federal Taxes or delegate that power to any other agency. As such, the IRS is prohibited from operating within Suffolk County immediately following the enactment of this bill.

b. All states taxes will be collected by Suffolk County and held in a State Escrow Tax Account.

Section IV:
a. Suffolk County does not recognize that the United States is being Invaded, or is experiencing Rebellion; therefore in accordance to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended for any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296599-does-the-irs-need-oversight.html#post7315808 Linked To Original Post. Link Each Copy and Paste to It's Source. Don't Post Entire Piece. -Intense

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=51229

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-...ate-tyranny-nullification-act/616811438348749



What now Lakhota, and his gang of Statist goons, what now fuckers?

 

[Freemason9]

"do solemnly declare that the Creator, not Government"

hahahah

so, they're installing a theocracy now. Iran would be proud of them!

 

[t_polkow]

"do solemnly declare that the creator, not government"

hahahah

so, they're installing a theocracy now. Iran would be proud of them!

xxxxxxx

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"do solemnly declare that the Creator, not Government"

hahahah

so, they're installing a theocracy now. Iran would be proud of them!

...

Apparently you've missed the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Is Government the Creator?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders, based on the principle of God/Creator given rights, gave the USA a Constitution designed for the people to govern themselves. No monarchy. No theocracy. No combination of the two or any other authoritarian government.

To recognize that our rights come from God and not from government is NOT the establishment of a theocracy in any shape or form. It is necessary for human liberty, however.

 

[NYcarbineer]

California nullifies NDAA

South Carolina nullifies Obamacare

One more Day 'til Revolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IddP8AAIGTQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v582kPp43Mg

Go to your local/County Legislature asap (next Public Hearing). Propose this bill:

Title of Bill:
Federal and State Tyranny Prevention Act

Be It Enacted By The Suffolk County Legislature

Preamble:

We, the people of Suffolk County, do solemnly declare that the Creator, not Government, has bestowed each individual with certain unalienable rights, and that each individual is sovereign, free to communicate, interact and contract with other sovereigns, and by nature are free to defend themselves from all threats to their life, liberty and property.
The people of Suffolk County also reject the principle of unlimited submission to their federal government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of the Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they ratified a federal government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State and County to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: and that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

However, New York State has failed in her responsibility to shield and protect her citizens from the usurpations of the federal government, and has, itself, assumed powers that are prohibited to New York State through the New York State Constitution and has both endorsed and enforced the tyrannical actions of the Federal Government. Therefore the Suffolk County Legislature must erect a bulwark shielding her citizens against the tyranny of the wicked and malicious federal and state governments.

Section I:
a. In respect to the arbitrary and monstrous nature of the Patriot Act (and other similar laws), both the United States and New York State are denied the ability to spy on any citizen of Suffolk County, unless they obtain a Warrant, supported by Oath or affirmation, particularly describing the things to be searched or seized. This Warrant must be presented to the Sheriff of Suffolk County, so that he or she has knowledge of the existence and nature of the Warrant, and may challenge the constitutional validity of the Warrant in the appropriate Suffolk County Court.

b. Any evidence obtained by the United States or New York State that circumvents the above processes, shall be inadmissible in court, and Suffolk County will shield its citizens from being arrested or detained or summoned before a state or federal tribunal, on evidence that is obtained contrary to this SECTION.

d. A federal or state Warrant that is challenged in a Suffolk County Court (by the sheriff) is rendered inoperative and is considered suspended, unless the appropriate Suffolk County Court approves the Warrant.

e. Local police and authorities reserve the right to exempt themselves from executing a federal or state search, regardless of the validity of the Warrant.

Section II:
a. In respect to the heinous implications of the National Defense Authorization Act (and other similar laws), the United States is denied the ability to kidnap any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County. The United States must obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County before detaining or arresting an individual within Suffolk County, for any crime or violation of law thereof.

b. The failure of federal or state authorities to obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County may be met with lethal force from either the local police or the person to be detained or arrested.

Section III:
a. Suffolk County recognizes the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as a legitimate article of the Constitution; however, the Constitution does not authorize the use of paper fiat currency, therefore Suffolk County will cease to enforce the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, unless the federal taxes are being collected in Lawful gold or silver Coin, as prescribed by Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution.

b. Suffolk County will also shield any of its inhabitants from detention or arrest or being forced to appear before a federal or state tribunal for failing to pay federal or state taxes in any Thing other than gold or silver Coin.

c. All federal taxes will be collected by Suffolk County and held in a Federal Escrow Tax Account, as the Constitution of United States does not grant the Federal Government the power to collect Federal Taxes or delegate that power to any other agency. As such, the IRS is prohibited from operating within Suffolk County immediately following the enactment of this bill.

b. All states taxes will be collected by Suffolk County and held in a State Escrow Tax Account.

Section IV:
a. Suffolk County does not recognize that the United States is being Invaded, or is experiencing Rebellion; therefore in accordance to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended for any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County.

.

South Carolina could become the first state to nullify Obamacare - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online

What now Lakhota, and his gang of Statist goons, what now fuckers?

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes all of the above null and void.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Founders, based on the principle of God/Creator given rights, gave the USA a Constitution designed for the people to govern themselves. No monarchy. No theocracy. No combination of the two or any other authoritarian government.

To recognize that our rights come from God and not from government is NOT the establishment of a theocracy in any shape or form. It is necessary for human liberty, however.

They don't even know the basic definitions of any of those terms, even theocracy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes all of the above null and void.

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those Laws derived from the express delegation of powers.

Otherwise, what would be the point of enumerating the powers of the federal government to begin with? What would be the point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? If the Powers of the Federal Government are unlimited, why name them?

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

IX - Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (individuals, county)

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (local/county).

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rights1.asp

It appears you missed the Enlightenment:

Our investigation begins with a man named John Milton and the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, under this doctrine, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.

The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject among Men, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.

Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.

However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.

Now we will return to Sir Robert's Patriarcha, and cast aside the involvement of religion (God) in doctrine of Divine Right. When we have removed religion, we are left with the raw embodiment of Statism, which decrees that the State is Sovereign over the people, and that the people exist at the mercy and grace of the State, thus these people are Subjects, and their rulers are Kings.

People living under this doctrine, willingly or unwillingly, possess no rights, for the State is sovereign over all things, and thus the State has unlimited rights, infinite in its power. The State will usually delegate most of its powers to the Subjects, as it would be both inconvenient and impractical to administer the entirety of its infinite power in finite Time. Thus the State must prioritize which powers it exercises, because it only has limited Time and resources to execute its authority.

The first among these priorities will be to exercise the powers required to preserve its authority. Any time the Subjects of the State use their delegated privileges to challenge the State, the State will hastily disparage that privilege among those who are resisting them, and sometimes deny the privilege completely. In times of great peril to the Kings who administer the State, they will revoke the privilege entirely among all their Subjects. Once revoked, it will never be regained by the Subjects; the State does not forgive, it does not forget, it will never relinquish that privilege again.

In order to make sure that the people no longer continue to exercise that privilege, it will perpetually police its Subjects, for the failure to police the Subjects will result in a challenge to the authority of the State, which must not be questioned. Herein is the guiding principle behind the Police State. A government founded on the doctrine of Statism cannot guarantee its infinite sovereignty by doctrine alone, it must rely upon a compliant police or military, a Privileged class of Subjects, granted innumerable benefits and privileges that no ordinary Subject may possess (in short, a Nobility).

Recalling that the State must prioritize which powers to invoke, because the State is limited by Time, we must pay heed to the innovations of modern technology. Technology is a neutral entity; it can be used for both good and ill. The most important feature of technology, is that it allows a person or party (government) to use its Time more efficiently, allowing the person or party to accomplish more tasks in a given measure of time than previously before. As a consequence, as technology improves, the State is able to exercise additional powers, because it can use its Time more efficiently, and thus can Police its citizens even more than ever before, further reducing any perceived threats. Remember, that any government operating under the Doctrine of Statism only delegates those privileges to its Subjects that it cannot reasonable exercise in respect to its other priorities. However, once the Government has the ability to Police that right without diminishing other priorities, it will immediately revoke that privilege among its Subjects and reserve that right exclusively to itself.

So if we had to define Statism in a nutshell, it would be this: All rights are reserved to the State, and people within the State are Subjects to its Supreme Sovereignty, thus any rights that the Subjects exercise are but mere privileges, either granted by the State directly, or graced upon the Subjects by silent acquiescence. The State, being the Supreme Sovereign, may deny, disparage or revoke those privileges among any or all of its Subjects, for any or no cause. Therefore, the Subjects have no rights, but legal privileges only.

However, Statism is founded upon a series of contradictory axioms, and we will explore these contradictions in the essays to follow! One of the largest contradictions in Statist philosophy is that Statists require a compliant police or military force (notice that compliant was put in bold print earlier). If the Kings must rely upon the Consent of individual Subjects in order to enforce their Will, then the Kings are not truly sovereign, they must derive their power, as a privilege, from the rights of some other Sovereign entity (or entities) who Consented to delegate those privileges to the Kings. And if this Sovereign Entity decides that the Kings have become tyrannical, they may withdraw their Consent by ceasing to enforce its laws, in other words, make the edicts of the King void, without force, null.

This is only the beginning of the logical fallacies in the Statist philosophy. As such, Statism leads to Chaos, because it is founded on flawed axioms, expelling the system back into the void; whereas Anarchy is Chaos, because it is not founded on any axiom, being totally devoid of Order. Consequentially, Societies, being a different entity from Government altogether, will quickly find themselves in despair whilst existing within a Statist or Anarchistic form of Government, because the societies themselves will fall victim to Chaos. On the theme of Order and Chaos, we shall conclude Part 2 with two excerpts from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense:

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!

Here Thomas Paine writes that both despotism and anarchy result in the same miseries!

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

First.- The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly.- The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly.- The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.

To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things.

First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

The highlighted phrases in bold draw our attention towards the illogical determinations present in doctrines containing axiomatic contradictions. It is these types of arguments that will stand any chance of resisting the crushing grip of the Statist Governments that have enslaved all Nations today; for we must not only be against something, but we must also be for something, otherwise our Will shall lead us back to the same Chaos that which we freed ourselves from, for we would have nothing to offer other than the Void. And whatever Thing we chose to be for, that Thing must be of true form, free of paradox and ambiguity.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

"do solemnly declare that the Creator, not Government"

hahahah

so, they're installing a theocracy now. Iran would be proud of them!

That's exactly what we're doing. There is no sense denying it any longer. The first thing we're going to do is force you to wear a scarlet D for dumbass on all your clothes.

Don't say you weren't warned.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes all of the above null and void.

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those Laws derived from the express delegation of powers.

Otherwise, what would be the point of enumerating the powers of the federal government to begin with? What would be the point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? If the Powers of the Federal Government are unlimited, why name them?

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

IX - Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (individuals, county)

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (local/county).

Avalon Project - Constitution of the United States : Bill of Rights

The Supremacy Clause was originally intended to prevent the states from overriding necessary federal powers/laws. It was not intended for the federal government to be able to pass laws for the states to implement. The lines occasionally got fuzzy every once in awhile after the Cosntitution was ratified, but such iinstances were rare and fairly inconsequential. After the Civil War, governments and courts held much more closely to the original intent of the Constitution re separation of federal and states powers. . . .

. . . .until. . . .the 1930's when Wilson and then FDR, taking advantage of a crack in the door left open by Teddy Roosevelt, untilized the courts to invvoke the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broad national power. That escalated what was originally a tiny snowball into one that has been gaining momentum, size, and destructive force ever since.

I believe this is the last generation with any chance to even slow it down, much less stop it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I believe this is the last generation with any chance to even slow it down, much less stop it.

We are the final generation that has any chance, because technology will be too advanced and controlled by the international elite to resist them in the next 5-10 years.

The Bill of Rights becomes more important with each passing generation and advances in tehcnology, not LESS IMPORTANT as all the libtards seem to think.

quoting my own writing again:

Recalling that the State must prioritize which powers to invoke, because the State is limited by Time, we must pay heed to the innovations of modern technology. Technology is a neutral entity; it can be used for both good and ill. The most important feature of technology, is that it allows a person or party (government) to use its Time more efficiently, allowing the person or party to accomplish more tasks in a given measure of time than previously before. As a consequence, as technology improves, the State is able to exercise additional powers, because it can use its Time more efficiently, and thus can Police its citizens even more than ever before, further reducing any perceived threats. Remember, that any government operating under the Doctrine of Statism only delegates those privileges to its Subjects that it cannot reasonable exercise in respect to its other priorities. However, once the Government has the ability to Police that right without diminishing other priorities, it will immediately revoke that privilege among its Subjects and reserve that right exclusively to itself.

So if we had to define Statism in a nutshell, it would be this: All rights are reserved to the State, and people within the State are Subjects to its Supreme Sovereignty, thus any rights that the Subjects exercise are but mere privileges, either granted by the State directly, or graced upon the Subjects by silent acquiescence. The State, being the Supreme Sovereign, may deny, disparage or revoke those privileges among any or all of its Subjects, for any or no cause. Therefore, the Subjects have no rights, but legal privileges only

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes all of the above null and void.

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those Laws derived from the express delegation of powers.

That's a circular argument. State and local governments do not get to set themselves up as federal courts to decide the constitutionality of laws. Unless a law is ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts, it is the law of the land with the full force of the Supremacy Clause behind it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no god. Man wrote the laws of this land.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes all of the above null and void.

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those Laws derived from the express delegation of powers.

Otherwise, what would be the point of enumerating the powers of the federal government to begin with? What would be the point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? If the Powers of the Federal Government are unlimited, why name them?

IX - Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (individuals, county)

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (local/county).

Avalon Project - Constitution of the United States : Bill of Rights

The Supremacy Clause was originally intended to prevent the states from overriding necessary federal powers/laws. It was not intended for the federal government to be able to pass laws for the states to implement. The lines occasionally got fuzzy every once in awhile after the Cosntitution was ratified, but such iinstances were rare and fairly inconsequential. After the Civil War, governments and courts held much more closely to the original intent of the Constitution re separation of federal and states powers. . . .

. . . .until. . . .the 1930's when Wilson and then FDR, taking advantage of a crack in the door left open by Teddy Roosevelt, untilized the courts to invvoke the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broad national power. That escalated what was originally a tiny snowball into one that has been gaining momentum, size, and destructive force ever since.

I believe this is the last generation with any chance to even slow it down, much less stop it.

Read the Supremacy Clause. It does not mean what some crackpot faction of rightwing fundamentalists, like you, think it means.

 

[Foxfyre]

2nd Amendment, well stated. (pun intended )

And that is the drumbeat I have been beating now for two decades. Two many people have been bribed, bought, coerced, indocrinated, and hoodwinked into complacency so that they look away when government overreaches. They refuse to see and deny that our freedoms are being eroded and dissolved, one by one by one. They comfort themselves by believing that government truly is a big benevolent brother who cares about them and will take care of them and shield them against all bad things. They convince themselves that government rules, regulations, laws, and increasing encroachment into everybody's daily lives is necessary for our own good. Without government we would be doing it all wrong and we shouldn't be allowed to do it wrong. They ignore how much an overreaching government encourages and reinforces wrong choices that many people make and buy the propaganda that such wrong choices are for reasons other than overreaching government.

The best we can really hope for is that government will overreach to the extent that enough people will finally see it and make a difference when they collectively push back. But when it is such a slow creep, they simply don't notice and don't care. And there aren't enough of us yet to be heard over the loud discordant din of people clamoring for government to rescue them and give them more and more.

 

[Intense]

The Founders, based on the principle of God/Creator given rights, gave the USA a Constitution designed for the people to govern themselves. No monarchy. No theocracy. No combination of the two or any other authoritarian government.

To recognize that our rights come from God and not from government is NOT the establishment of a theocracy in any shape or form. It is necessary for human liberty, however.

They don't even know the basic definitions of any of those terms, even theocracy.

Or that Separation of Church and State is a Christian Principle.
Big difference from both Jewish and Muslin thought.

 

[bendog]

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those Laws derived from the express delegation of powers.

Otherwise, what would be the point of enumerating the powers of the federal government to begin with? What would be the point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? If the Powers of the Federal Government are unlimited, why name them?





Avalon Project - Constitution of the United States : Bill of Rights

The Supremacy Clause was originally intended to prevent the states from overriding necessary federal powers/laws. It was not intended for the federal government to be able to pass laws for the states to implement. The lines occasionally got fuzzy every once in awhile after the Cosntitution was ratified, but such iinstances were rare and fairly inconsequential. After the Civil War, governments and courts held much more closely to the original intent of the Constitution re separation of federal and states powers. . . .

. . . .until. . . .the 1930's when Wilson and then FDR, taking advantage of a crack in the door left open by Teddy Roosevelt, untilized the courts to invvoke the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broad national power. That escalated what was originally a tiny snowball into one that has been gaining momentum, size, and destructive force ever since.

I believe this is the last generation with any chance to even slow it down, much less stop it.

Read the Supremacy Clause. It does not mean what some crackpot faction of rightwing fundamentalists, like you, think it means.

A biography of Andrew Jackson would be a good place to start. Not Meechem's, that was the graduate level one.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's a circular argument. State and local governments do not get to set themselves up as federal courts to decide the constitutionality of laws. Unless a law is ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts, it is the law of the land with the full force of the Supremacy Clause behind it.

Your logic violates the first Maxim of Law:

NO ENTITY SHALL BE A JUDGE OF ITS OWN CAUSE.

Only an impartial Jury was given the power to the final judge of the Constitutionality of the laws.

"I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution".

We live at a time in which we have the potential to learn perhaps more from history than did our ancestors, but it seems that though technology and information have increased, our memories have only grown shorter; we have forgotten the value of those fundamentals that preserve liberty and justice.

One such fundamental is that sovereignty resides in the people. This being the case we can say that the people are masters of their own governments and thus superior to them; they are the creator, the government the created. A corollary of this superiority is that people have the rightful power to check their own government, to keep it within the bounds of what is lawful and constitutional.

Trial by Jury – The Final Legal Check on Tyranny

Here's some more of Jefferson's writings:

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Even Andrew Jackson, a strong supporter of central government (relative to his era) said the following about giving the federal courts a monopoly on the interpretation of the Constitution:

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

History is against Big Government. Name one instance in humanity where large centralized government produced good results?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders, based on the principle of God/Creator given rights, gave the USA a Constitution designed for the people to govern themselves. No monarchy. No theocracy. No combination of the two or any other authoritarian government.

To recognize that our rights come from God and not from government is NOT the establishment of a theocracy in any shape or form. It is necessary for human liberty, however.

They don't even know the basic definitions of any of those terms, even theocracy.

Or that Separation of Church and State is a Christian Principle.
Big difference from both Jewish and Muslin thought.

Or at least it was a concept arising out of the concept of natural rights as expressed by 17th and 18th century philosophers including those who were agnositc or Atheist. And, because they accepted the right of men/women to be believers, they did not object to the Founders, mostly men of deep faith, who saw those rights as given by God.

Whether secular or from God, it did not change the concept that no pope or any other religious authority nor any official of government would have ability to dictate to any of us what we must or must not believe or profess, what rites or rituals we would be required to perform or not perform, or any other aspect of our religious convictions. Nor would they have the ability to prevent us from practicing whatever we wished re our religious convictions.

The Founders would roll over in their graves at lawsuits or courts or government edicts forbidding religious expression, arts, or any other symbolism or conviction in the schools, in the courts, or anywhere else the people deemed appropriate. The only thing that would not be allowed was anybody using any means, either reward or punishment, to require somebody else to do anyting of a religious nature.