Why State’s Rights is a Flawed Argument

guest-commentaryAs promised we continue with my plan to publish the articles that people send to me. As a side note to this, please don’t be afraid to send me articles. I know that some of you are worried that you won’t have good spelling or grammar. If asked I am always willing to help with that. But more importantly, I would like to make this a weekly thing that I do every Friday night. So I will be needing commentary from folks to do so. The ones that people have sent to me thus far have been interesting. So onward to tonight’s guest commentary…

Tonight we welcome our continually comedic SFC Dick to the stage. There has been considerable discussion lightly touching on this subject over the last couple of week. And with the considerable slant towards state’s right from our discussions, I was surprised to find that the first article someone sent me on the subject was from the opposite point of view. I figured that would get some discussion brewing so I am excited to see the comments that show up for SFC Dick. 

SFC Dick as today’s Guest Commentary

Today I write for fun.

I read about the renewal of states interests to reassert the constitutional guarantee of states’ rights as enumerated in the 10th amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. I’m no big brain type but I continue to operate under the false pretense that the constitution was written for folks like me and was never intended to be some tome of cryptic guide only discernable by top historians, linguists and most of all politicians. Therefore and in summation of, referring to and in regardance ( I just made that word up ) I will speak like a real person here, not someone attempting my third doctorial dissertation.

What does the 10th amendment say , wait a sec, let me google it…

‘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”

Well, that’s what wikipedia has, I take it as a given, seems to back my point. As a side note, notice it talks about “states”, states is plural for people, as in many. Some use this to argue that the bill of rights, the 10 amendments, are collective rather than individual and things like the 2nd amendment are therefore states not individual….urgh… I just had a grandma seizure; I have those when regarding anyone’s idiot argument; Nothing against idiots, just idiot arguments.

The whole thing seems to boil down to the fact that states want power but the bigger boys, the feds, have grabbed all the power and aint giving it back. The states, eternal optimists they are, hope to petition the very same big boys to give back what was guaranteed in the constitution. Yeah, good luck with that. I’m going to pause here and ask a question of you, my gentle reader…….”do ya see the insanity here?”……pause…Yes, exactly. I see you have a brain and you have been paying attention, and yes, as you just stated..”I might not be a rocket scientist but the very argument is flawed, self serving, hypocritical and disingenuous” . I wouldn’t have used disingenuous, but exactly correct. The states, bereft (cry baby acting) of a monopoly of power use the very amendment that seems to even limit states power , in favor of individual rights to reign power over the individual.

Yeah, the 10th really aint about a sharing of power, it’s about recognizing the states as a power broker and in its attempt to regulate the state, again enumerates (lists out like on shopping lists) the rights of the people. See here “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” stuff not specifically talked about, written down and later down the road signed into law as the only powers the US federal government gets…”, nor prohibited by it to the States”… stuff not specifically talked about, written down and later down the road signed into law as powers the states DO NOT get….” are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” here it can get slippery for a Joe like me, in a court of law. My 3rd grade English teacher would want me to start a new paragraph here.

“Respectively”, the prickly stick it, no, the stickly prick it, damn, wickly picker, crap,…the rub. Here is my windows word 07 definition,” matching one list with another in the order given for both”, Websters said “in the order given”. So we have the last phrase of the 10th Amendment “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Replacing respectively we have “are reserved to the States in the order given, or to the people”. Hold one ‘dere, I’m gonna go back and read the constitution again here, use this time constructively, you boys call your mothers. Geesh, have you guys read this? A bit more time here, just a sec…

Man, that is a dry read I gotta tell ya. No wonder no one knows what’s going on or should be going on. Back to the point here, “are reserved to the States in the order given, or to the people”, Article 4 of the constitution talks to states’ rights, since we’ll look at the “in order given “ part as literally meaning “by order listed” ( I won’t argue the “in order given” in context that the entire constitution was framed to liberate a people, so the very “order” of the document itself is brought forth by recognizing men’s  liberties and attempting to specifically control government), so…the states are required by law to acquiesce (my word here, recognize and allow).” (and a great word it is SFC, to comply without contract in essence). 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”, send back fugitives, return escaped men whom are enslaved by others to the ones who enslave them, not make new states and allow the feds to grab territory that the feds deem their own. Ok then, enough of states obligations.  They are at the same time vile and, well hell, nobody plays by those rules anyway. On to individual rights; the rights of the people, as granted under the constitution. Man, I dread this read, IT HAS to be long, hold on I’ll be right back….What the? That was quick …Amendment  9. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.

That enumerations word again, “the listing of rights does not mean that just because the right was not listed, the people don’t have it; any rights not listed are recognized as belonging to the people”. Wow, so what gives? This seems strange, the 10th amendment seems to say that any right not specifically reserved by the feds, or given the states, belongs to the people. The previous amendment enumerated as “anything that is not listed as a personal right does not mean that it is not inherently a personal right. Any personal right not listed is still a valid right held by the people. Why do the states give a damn, so much of a damn, they now fight for something that seems to not give them a damn thing anyway?

Ya know what? I haven’t poked anybody in the eye yet. What the hell kind of writer posits some political missive without eye poking, name calling, wait, I did call idiots …well, idiots. That one there is a gimmie. Allow me to beginuth the poketh. Folks want to smoke dope, government says:

“No, do not smoke dope, we find you have no right to dope smoking, it took us some 150 years, established as a republic, conducting the people’s business, waging war, creating economic mayhem, legalizing enslavement, illegalizing enslavement, conducting civil war and generally operating at full speed, but we have now finally gotten around to this fact that you do not have a right to smoke dope. Do not ask where it is written in the constitution, we have that document and you can’t see it, but trust us, you don’t and if you do, there will be trouble. Furthermore and in summation of in regardance to said dope smoking, were you to resist our attempts to imprison you, we will feel most justified in killing you. As an aside, do not try to make trouble, your fellow citizens are on board with this so…….psych! you suck, do not smoke dope!”

Well, as a formerly free people are want to do , people smoked dope. Yeah, too bad for them if they got caught, remember the “psych! You suck” clause, well the government does. Hell, ask around, many people also know of the “psych! You suck” clause and are well on board. OK then, this is a republic (eyes roll) the good people have recourse, the political process. Remember the “psych! You suck” clause, yeh well, that is somewhere in the constitution, along with mundane minutia about self governance. The good people of several states put the thingy to the people. Of course, most prominent on these peoples mind, the “psych! You suck” clause, so these good people framed the whole thing as “medical marijuana”, brilliant. The people voted, the whole thing passed and became state law. Great, right?

Wrong, I can’t believe you said great. Do you not see the whole stickly racket thingy here? In that document nobody reads, nobody understands, nobody abides by, it says “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”. Are you kidding me, do you want dope smokers running about? Christ sake man, next thing you know, folks will want to carry guns into your state, black men will petition for freedom in your state (wait, we already took care of that) and are you ready for this one, HOMOSEXUALS, wed homos, will want to move into your state. Yeah, NOT! So the fed moves in, arrested the dope smokers declares the local state laws unconstitutional and  end of story. All order restored and the “psych! You suck” clause is alive and well. OK, “we don’t follow, so what does that have to do with this” you ask. I’ll tell ya.

The state’s petition for recognition under the 10th amendment is:

  1. Useless under the guise of returning the power to the people, exhibit A. ”psych! You suck”.
  2. The argument about returning states rights is not about states’ rights and power to the people at all, it is a power grab, (of illegal powers some might argue) and with power comes the money. Read in context of “hey you, we don’t want you taking our peoples money, we want to take our peoples money!”. What was that movie, “you can’t like to party!…I like to party. I like to party is me”.

I know this whole thing sounds good in todays climate. I know it sounds like a way to cage the out of control government, but I argue it is useless and would further distract focus on the greater federal evil. This new movement under the 10th amendment is a specious argument made by politicians on the assumption that nobody knows what states rights are, that the government is reigning down on people so hard with other people being on board that we must like the fascist stuff so who cares anyway and gosh darn it, it’s local homespun politics at its best. Answer me this simple question, what state right do you want back and in essence, which stolen rights do you believe will be returned to you by this?…..waiting…..waiting….waiting……

SFC Dick is presently a malcontent serving his second volunteer tour in Afghanistan as a , well…something. His affiliations have included membership on the Illinois youth services board of directors, membership in the NRA, NORMAL and coaching in the Dale Teubner youth handicapped baseball league. He attended many prestigious colleges and universities.(period).  He has numerous writings, being published during  5th grade in the WIU poetry symposium hand out. He has been awarded the prestigious army “idea improvement” sweat headband and might very well be a multimillionaire according to inside sources at publishers clearing house.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. TexasChem says:

    Sadly I believe SFCDicks’ take on this subject is dead on. We shall see in the next month or so though whether the states are just ruffling their feathers or really willing to take a stand.

  2. Okay, You get an “E” for effort.

    “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”

    Kinda reads like “ANTIDISESTABLISMENTINTERIANISM” . . . Doesn’t it?

    Any challenge by the states will be headed off by the U.S. Supreme court and deemed unconstitutional by that biased body politic, citing a breakdown of the 10th in between commas.

    Lawyers are the problem. We should have taken Mark Twain’s advice! 😉

  3. OK, I completely agree that the power ought to and under the constitution does belong to the people, but at the same time the federal government has become too strong (obviously).

    I think the states rights movement (yea, I know states don’t have rights only individuals do) is an attempt to balance power and weaken the federal government. The constitution is all about the balance of power and keeping government in check. Governments always tend toward tyranny (as we are daily witnessing) and strengthening the state governments at the expense of the federal government (ie taking back regulatory roles that ought to belong to states) would be a good thing. The smaller the unit of government, the more likely it is that the people can have some control over it.

    Ideally the point would be moot, because government would be restricting itself to its proper role of protecting life, liberty, and property, but we are currently far from that ideal. That being the case, perhaps a move back to more power centered in the states at the expense of federal power would be a step toward freedom rather than away. In any case it would halt the current tyranny of our executive branch.

    For example if states were able to say, “Federal government you can no longer direct education in America” and the Dept of Education were abolished, that would be a step in the right direction. I actually believe government has no business in education at all, but again, it would be a step in the right direction.

    In another example of legitimate state government the states would regulate the banking industry without federal interference (some regulation is necessary to protect property of individuals). This used to be the case, but the fed govt usurped this power. It ought to be returned to the states.

    Basically, I believe the movement of states rights is legitimate and ought to be persued, but the people themselves need to become more vigilant and demand their rights back, very vocally and very persistently. They’re not going to give up power without a fight. We need to be patient and persistent. It’s taken us since the 1930’s to get where we are today and we can’t expect to regain our freedom without a long battle.

    • SFC Dick says:

      I live in the peoples republic of illinois ( when not on tour), there is absolutely no more, different, additional,seperate etc etc power I want them to have. The state has already reigned down enough on the good people of Illinois, no need to try to empower them to reign down harded. They have rstricted damn near every constitutional right I am suposed to have.

      I would suggest folks put their efforts into ridding all government from their lives. Feeding the little devil, making it bigger to take on the big devil really aint a good long run plan.

      plus, I don’t see what “rights” the states lost, or that you would reinstate for them. State based education? I didn’t see that in article 4, I best go look again.

      • Perhaps part of your feelings on this subject is exactly because of where you live. Arizona is one of the states that has “reasserted” their rights under the 10th amendment. Here I don’t think they did it to regain lost rights, but to retain certain rights. We are pretty much last of the wild west down here, and I am proud of my state. All in all the state stays out of everyone’s lives (with the exception of closing some areas to offroading). When I read the AZ legislation regarding the 10th amendment, I did not feel that we as a state are powerless, rather I felt is was a great step towards reigning in our completely out of control federal government, if only by saying, “back the f*** off”
        Wonderful post SFC! Thank you so much for making me laugh this morning!!

        • Azgrl, I want to know one thing, and it’s not States Rights, just curiosity. Just how in the hell does a Rancher on the border in AZ get sued by ILLEGALs for millions for “detaining” them at gunpoint after they were destroying his property? And the SOB’s won?!!!!

    • Michelle,

      Good points & I agree. Also some of the state argument’s won, could be used as an individual argument against the state if it began restricting personal rights.

    • Michelle: ” “Federal government you can no longer direct education in America””

      Point of order: The states just have to stop taking the money then the Fed has no say. Ah but there in lies the rub, because the citizens will still pay the fed tax but not get the supposed benefits. I believe Utah tried this approach but I am not sure they are still.

      We should remember that it is the power to tax and appropriate (general welfare) that provides the greatest contol over our lives. Stop taking the money and watch the cards tumble.

      OH NO….Could be getting a little to close to the Flag defense.

      Anyway, Keep Happy
      JAC

      • JAC. Yeah you could be getting just a hair close to BF’s, but it’s to me is still appropriate. If the States stop taking the money, they would have a basis for Sovereignty. As long as they do, they don’t.

      • Black Flag says:

        Slowly but surely everyone will be flying the “Flag”…

  4. Broad interpretations of the Necessary and Proper clause and The Commerce clause of the Constitution has allowed The Federal Government to expand it’s powers.On the plus side these clauses weld the States together into a cohesive unit without wildly diverse laws which will undoubtedly happen under a strict interpretation of The Tenth Amendment.The minus side is that The Feds have way too much power.It was pointed out by the framers of the Constitution that this would happen because of the Necessary and Proper clause and it did.

    All that said,I can’t think of any reason to strip the Fed of power and let the States gain power. I would have to look very carefully at the motives of the State power advocates before I would sign on.

  5. The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/ 1

  6. SFC, Good article, hope life finds you safe in Poppyland! I have read the legislature that Ohio passed concerning the 10th amendment. Basically, it demanded the Feds to cease interferring with the states right to govern Ohioans. I think I remember when the Feds received it, because I heard O’Bigears laugh real loud. That’s probably the only response the Feds will give.

    Instead of engaging in another interpretation debate, I’d rather spend my efforts protecting our individual rights, because it’s those rights that may be in jeopardy. As we speak there is legislation in committee that would interfere with our 2nd Amendment rights (HR 45). They just will not quit in D.C.. Ohio passed a law that made it legal to use deadly force against a uninvited person entering your/in home, and home invasions are way down. “Way to go Ohio” as the Pretenders have sung.

    Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is even a debatable statement because the socialist definition of Liberty is akin to wealth redistribution. UGH!

    I do think the Feds need to stay out of the peoples business, we don’t need 10 new laws every week, they can’t even enforce the ones we have had for decades. When I think of D.C., I think of the worlds largest jackass farm!

  7. Just in case anyone missed this…

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/10/climate-bill-could-trigger-lawsuit-landslide/

    This is yet ANOTHER reason that we need to do something, anything to stop these people (not that we really needed another one). While I can’t completely disagree with SFC’s thoughts on the subject, states asserting their rights against this federal government is, at the very least, a step in the right direction!

  8. Lets go back a minute. When the constitution was presented to the people there were thos FOR and those AGAINST ratification. As I posted yesterday the AGAINST wanted a bill of rights. The FOR argued that the doc gave the federal only those powers included in the doc and therefore no such thing was needed. There defense, or attack, was that if a list were included then some evil federal would later say that is all the rights the people have.

    The AGAINST also argued that the commcerce, necessary and proper, and general welfare provisions (two of these are actually only statements but the court later changed that)opened the door to all types of potential evil. The FOR said, no way Jose….This doc gives the federal only those powers (not rights) specifically described.

    Then someone in the AGAINST camp raised a good point that the Framers may have missed, not sure though. Most if not all the states already had constitutions in place. The federal const. was written as a compact between the people and the federal but the people had already formed the state. Furthermore, it was the states that arranged the big meet that created the new document. Some argued this was a ploy to eliminate the states authority all together, but connecting the people to the federal. You have to remember we were a “Confederation” of nation states up to this point in time. You see the awful LAWYERS (for you G.A.) on the AGAINST side were finding all the cracks in the thinking. Of course the const. was a compromise and thus by its nature would have cracks, all great horses created by committees tend to have a few bumps.

    AND WHY THE HELL AM I BOTHERING YOU WITH ALL THIS ON A GREAT SAT MORNING?????? It puts the provisions mentioned by SFC in context, like interpreting what they meant, or in a better word provided by Chris (credit where do) gaining a better understanding of what was meant. I summarize it all, free of lawyer talk, this way:

    All rights given to man by his creator are his, forever, and no govt’ may take them away. We the people have decided we would be better off if we organized as a Nation of sovereign states instead of a Confederation of Nation States. Because we don’t trust govt at all, we are giving the federal govt only those powers specifically listed in this document. In order for us to function as a Nation we have decided to limit the power of all states in certain matters. These limitations are imposed so as to protect our rights equally among and between all the states and to prevent the states from attempting to undermine those powers we specifically gave to the federal govt. Those limitations are also specifically listed in this document. No govt may take our rights but especially because we don’t trust govt at all, we have listed in this document restrictions on govt power relating to a few of those rights that we find worthy of mention. And just so there is no doubt, the list does not include all rights of the people,nor restrictions against govt imposement upon them. It inlcudes only those that we feel necessary to list to make sure the federal and state governments get the message….Don’t even try to take any more power than we have given and Don’t Tread on Us.

    That is my view of the context. More a little later.
    JAC

  9. SFC,

    I want the right to eat corn that I grow, without the government telling me how much I can grow or charging me a fee for that privilege.(see yesterday’s #10 Wickard vs Filburn) I want the right to smoke tobacco ( I don’t smoke)without the government taxing me to the point I can’t afford it. Yes I know its going to kill me, but so does stress and McDonald’s.

    I like to shoot. I don’t like snakes and they damn sure aren’t endangered. So why the hell is that ILLEGAL? Lead poisoning you say? Shooting ranges that have been in existence for 200 years have the same lead concentration as surrounding areas, but hay, who knows, maybe 1,000 years of continuous shooting will prove that point. Or maybe the point is to stop me from shooting. Period.

    The government is building a fence around our freedoms. Its important to take off as many of as we can, before they finish. And what good is state’s rights? Radical extremist Sara Palin answered her position on abortion was it should be a state issue. Not that Roe vs Wade would not apply, but that California’s (and Obama’s) stance that abortion by the youngest child is a right, and parental CONSENT or even NOTIFICATION, is not required. I agree with her position.

    Oregon passed a right to death law in 94′, I agree with that as well. I have seen loved ones suffer a painful, lingering death, that they did not wish to endure. But the federal government knows better than us, so 49 states require we die without dignity all to often.

    An asserting of states rights would let “we the people”, vote with our feet.
    So I feel fighting for states rights is the same as fighting for an individual
    right. And that fighting all gun restrictions are simply defending the second amendment. If they ban the 50 cal., will the 308 not be next?

    Has there ever been a war won by being fought defensively only? Is this not a “war” for our freedoms? I advocate being offensive.

    You say you’ll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change your head
    You tell me its the institution
    Well, you know
    You better free your mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
    Don’t you know its going to be alright

    Beatles, I wonder if they would write that song today, with a socialist in the white house?

    • I’m all for ya brother, my state constitution reads much like the big boy, buuuuut, they continually pass laws that limited the “rights” enumerated in it. My bad luck is I have a bunch of poge “army defamitory term” neighbors up in Chicago that vote for these laws. Vote with me feet. NAY!

      I am also guarunteed the same rights and freedoms of those in other states under the federal constitution, right? It says so, no what ifs here, rock solid stuf. Can I carry a gun in IL because you can in AZ, NO!
      will i ever be allowed to ….NO! why? Because a significant voting block in my state is all about denying me my rights because these self apointed moral crusaders know better than some down state hay seed, sitting on his front porch picking burrs out of his buck teeth with his toe nail.

      I’m cranky damnit, screw the states and their drive to gain capital, I’ve looked much into this thing, I see the states that have made headway are going down the “it’s our money to take, back off feds” I will not vote with my feet (retreat) I will not be a part of some charade to help any arm of government gain more power, I will not put my efforts into some crock that the federal government has already shown, NOW, that it won’t abide by. I will not place myself at the mercy of my fellow citizence of Illinois in some broken down, defeated, apeasement posture that they might toss me some crumbs of my stolen liberties and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. NO SIR! screw the states, screw the feds, screw spell check. I’m out!

      oh yeh, I’ll post some more reasoned arguments down the line and, heck….wait for it…my solution. See, I believe I identified a problem, and being a certified big brain type, when I pitch a bitch, I like to follow up with what I see as a workable solution, lest I woulda’ kept my mouth shut to start with.

      “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

  10. SFC and LOI: “An asserting of states rights would let “we the people”, vote with our feet.” (LOI): EXACTLY
    SFC, if Illinois is that bad move west young man, you will find many states who take this seriously. Not perfect but sure as hell not what you got there.

    • JAC

      Thanks. It would make for a better country.

      1. Our government is an experiment.

      2. Our society is undergoing changes, but not at a pace that matches changes brought by science.

      It would be sensible to experiment on a small vs large scale to see whats best for the nation. Which would be accomplished by states imitating policies successful in other states, until a majority was achieved. And likewise, not following the lead of failures.

  11. SFC: Now the point I actually started to make before falling down history lane.

    You are correct in your view of how the Feds currently look at such silliness and some states may be more sincere than others. BUT

    First: You eat the elephant or jackass, your preference, one bite at a time.

    Second: This movement serves a very good purpose. It helps wake up the people and gets them more focused on what they are dealing with.

    (I RELUCTANTLY OFFER THIS IN DEFENSE AND AS AN EXAMPLE. I HATE REVEALING SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY BUT PERHAPS IT IS TIME)

    A few years back several states started pushing to take control of Federal lands within their borders. Especially forested lands. (SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS) It was no accident that Idaho led the way as you see, you are talking to one of the founders of that grand scheme. Now while everyone was writing legislation to actually make this happen, and debating and howling on and on, only a few of us knew the real reason behind the movement. It was hatched over a bottle of whiskey in a bar next to a sawmill in a small town in Idaho. The conversation was about how to reduce the impact of the environmental groups power, especially over public opinion. The Algorians were in charge and our future looked BLACK FLAG at that moment. My first idea was to send false donation requests to their mailing lists so as to have their supporters mail donation checks to some empty warehouse in the mid west. Given that Uncle Jack Daniels was involved in the discussion we all thought that a grand idea until the bar maid explained it was mail fraud. We would be admiring our fine work in prison.

    OK we said lets restart. Then it came. The green movement’s power relies on federal control and action. They rely on it because they have always felt the people were stupid and state govt to linked to the people. Plus they could impose their will on everyone at the same time. Much like they are now calling for world govt control on these issues. Anyway, we knew this to be true but you never hear one of them say it. So, it went like this. If we push for state management of federal lands but not state or private ownership, the Enviros will have to explain why it is a bad idea. We will argue that federal mgt may have made since in the past but that was before free public education and internet had made the public smarter and more connected. The People are now wise enough and moral enough to manage their own affairs. It is time to let the child grow up and move out. Another round was poured as we could all see the beauty of this scheme. The only way to try and defeat this idea was for them to openly admit the people were NOT in fact moral or smart enough. (AND THE REST IS HISTORY)

    For once in our lives, at least the five of us at the table, the plan worked as envisioned. The Enviros completely damaged their standing, with even Dem state legislators, in their fervent argument espousing the ignorance of the average citizen and state corruption. The Unions voted against the incumbant Dem Congressman from Idhao in 94, replacing him with Helen Chenowith. (A TRUE FRIEND OF LIBERTY AND OBSERVER OF BLACK HELICOPTERS) The Greens lost influence, the Feds started working closer with the states and things improved. And, the unexpected benefit was, the idea stuck. Some western states are still trying to get control, and the feds latest shennanigans has increased the volume. Perhaps some in the east as well but I don’t know them so can’t say.

    (I HAPPEN TO THINK THE MARKETING STRATEGY OF OUR NEW MOVEMENT IS CONTAINED IN THE ONE I JUST SHARED.)

    The Sagebrush Rebellion, then the Fed Land Mgt by States, now the Tea Parties and the Tenth Amendment movement. They all build on the other, gradually increasing their resonance with the public and perhaps most importantly ringing the bell of liberty a little louder each time. Until the sound becomes deafening and those NIMRODS in Wash. D.C. finally get it.

    (NOW FOR A CAUTIONARY TALE)

    And if they don’t get it, if the Orange Revolt fails, the final sound they hear will not be a bell but that of gunfire. Because that is the natural course and outcome of human history, whenever a tyrranical government has ignored the demands for Liberty by its citizens. But then again perhaps that is what they want. Because once the shots are fired it becomes harder and harder to control circumstances and the outcome. In the end it may be them who is in total control, because the brute most often prevails once violence is allowed. Perhaps it is this chance to take it all in violent rebellion that they wish to orchestrate. Do not underestimate the nature or capability of a devioius enemy. If violence and slavery are allowed by their ethic then why would they not use it to eliminate their opposition. Especially if they could do it in a way that they could later say…”they started it”!!!

    That is perhaps enough for now. SFC I do think your observation as to how this effort is a little hypocratical by the states is a good one. Some states are more sincere but wait until the Feds say OK, no more money for schools, highways, CHIP, medicaid, medicare, etc etc.. See how they scream. I hope I have made the case that all that doesn’t matter. Its a good thing.

    HAPPY EASTER TO ALL
    May you all be blessed with joy and peace
    JAC

    • JAC, damn you Sir!

      I just got finished on my cranky rant, I was going to post on sage brush tomorow, as WHY we shouldn’t waste our time on states “rights’ but, that we can learn from the successes of those movements and build on that. This is all tactical dude, do you think that these Taliban are genious tacticians, NAY, but they are making a go of it…HOW?…HA! It’s all the same, all successfull revoulutions share some basic things, we need to enact some of these if we want change. It will not be popular at first, many will not have the heart. look at the original tea party dudes, look at how many sat that thing out, look at the fact that they disguised themselves as indians. They were chided by some who said things such as “if you hot rods are so proud of yourselves, how come you dressed up like indians, why not show your faces if you are so proud of this and all”

      ok, this time I’m serious, this is me being serious. I’m out.

      “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

      • And remember one man’s retreat may be another man’s advance, “in another direction”.

      • Ok, one last thing

        The folks spinning up the revolution were not….SAY AGAIN…not looked at as heros, patriots etc, we all call them patriots now ’cause they won. Had they been smashed we would be speaking the kings’ english and reffering to them in our history books as most well to do citizence of the day did “cowards” “outlaws” “criminal gangs” and “rebels”, ask some good old southern dude in the US how well that term rebel sits, were the south to have pushed back the federalist incursions, they would be reffered to now as the second patriots or something equally nice and we would all have the common understanding that the war was about liberty and freedom, just as we now have the common understanding that the civil war was about freeing the slaves. By God, the winner do write the history.

        • Amen to that SFC! Im from Georgia. When I learned History in School, The Civil War was fought over States rights. Now, 28 years later, it was fought to free the freakin’ Slaves! The winners did not write the history. The damned Liberals who write the books have re-written History to say whar their version of history is! Let me make this clear. NO MAN SHOULD BE A SLAVE TO ANOTHER. Abolitionists were fighting to free slaves but most in the north could have cared less.

          As a fact, when Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, a Michigan (10th) Brigade and several others refused to continue fighting. They made the statement that they were fighting to preserve the Union, not free the damn blacks! (their words not mine) At the beginning of the War, Lincoln stated that he would preserve the South’s right to own slaves if they would no seceed. The EP was made to help end the war faster by making the slaves restive and cause disruption in the South. And it worked.

          Also; had Lincoln not been killed, there would have been NO Reconstruction. His vision was to allow the States to rejoin peacefully in the Union. There was a rumor that Sec of War Stanton conspired to have Lincoln assasinated becuse of the sentiment in Congress to “Punish” the South. All this is missing in the new school History books.

    • JAC,

      Beware of Jack Daniels Legislation Procedures . . . 😉

      The mail-in scheme is similar to one which I hatched with a bunch of brainiacs that I worked with in the late eighties . . . I called it “Send me money cause I like it”, until we all figured out that in order to get money you had to either sell something that amounted to that value or provide a service of equal value. Instead of a barmaid correcting us it was one of our secretaries. That was just before all the S&L’s crashed and burned up the FSLIC. Do miss those secretaries, though, they were very intelligent and made us all look brilliant!

      You are right about the sound of gunfire. We sure don’t need that. If someone or a group of someones can keep the momentum of the Tax Day Tea Party going – ie, keep John Q interested in his government with eyes wide open – then we might have a real good chance of putting this latest “putsch” toward socialism/fascism or whatever it is back into pandoras box and lock the lid down!

      SFC – I am still trying to decipher what you were trying to say. Maybe if you translate it into AZ English I might make the leap. I think you type(write) like you talk and think. I know young-uns don’t like advice from geezers, but I will give you a hint – Try something called “proof reading” your writings before you submit them for publication. I know it sounds archaic but it worked for us way back in the days of mechanical typewriters and pencil erasers (that came after the pencil lead that you had to lick before they would write). 😉

      PS- If I didn’t do that then no one would ever be able to make sense of what my dyslexic fingers write!

      • Beware of Jack Daniels Legislation Procedures . . .

        I know Cuervo negotiations got me nothing but a fine and a hangover like none other ever experienced! Obviously, the police did not recognize my excellent negotiating skills!

      • Alright old man, I’ve given you lead because of your age, but now the gauntlet is down. Which post, My original article or my follow up?
        Here’s the drill gramps, one moment I’m getting the back handed “ I like the way you write, I just hope that’s not the way you talk” now I get “ I think you type(write) like you talk and think”?. I see you posted at 1304 local, I don’t know if your nurse has served you your jello and fish sticks and now you are sleepy or if you are preparing to walk on the wild side today and waiting for the church group to pick you up and take you down to Sandies for a fish sandwich; lack of glucose might have you a little light headed, but get it together bub; If you need to summons help, that’s what that little buzzer next to your bed is for
        You write “I am still trying to decipher what you were trying to say” I know, I know, Microsoft computers have a magnification feature so you can enlarge the typeset. I suggest you get on your jitterbug and call your great great great grandson so that he can come over and help you. If it is not a typeset issue I will need you to be a bit more specific. I know we are living in 2009, but we don’t fly around in magic cars, we don’t take one pill a day for all our nutritional needs and we don’t have mind reading abilities yet. Yes, I realize that you and Dolly Madison probably discussed these possibilities over at George’s Friday night parties while you were attaché to Secretary Paul Hamilton.
        In any event, I’ll need you to focus pops. What do you want? If you request, just for you, I will retype my original article and submit it to you; you punch it up on your Olivetti, send it back to me, I’ll repost it and we’ll all be square.
        By the way Mah Mah, I saw some things that needed polish after it was posted. I, unlike some other types, don’t have secretaries, they don’t do so well hummpin’ the Mane Kadow.

        “All enlisted men are stupid, but they are cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching.”

        • I hope that this is written as a joke. It is quite funny. But I would hate to think that people are actually starting to get mean on the site. It was a joke right?

          • G.A. is retired marine
            I believe he can tell from all my previous posts where he and I poke at each other that this is a bir srdanic, but meant as wit, not animous. I believe he understands the amount of time and research ( Finding President Madisons’ secratary of navy was a bit time consuming) that went into that “rant” denotes a certain respect I have for him otherwise I would not have responded at all. I took alot of time on that to give it authanticity. Does any one (I believe Mr G.A Rowe and I are much closer in age than people might think) else besides me an G.A remember Sandies? Sandies, the only real competitor to Mcdonalds at the time, 1969/70s era. I hope it is not looked at upon as mean spirited. I gave a clue, a clue that I believe (LTC I’m betting) G.A Rowe, USMC, Ret, will see.2d to last line “Mah Mah” Pashto, for revered elder, not slang for gramps, old man etc, very respectfull, I use it sparringly here but use it when the situation require.
            Again, I am supreme smart ass SFC Dick, but I don’t devolve into mean spirited name calling, especially to my military brothers.

            • I typed that response quickly as it appeared there might be a missunderstanding brewing.Many typos

              • And anyway, old G.A is quite the spry old fellow. Look at him, typing away at that computer key board. That is so cute.

                Sorry, but I had to.

                After reading US , I became quite spun up.

                What if this was taken as mean spirited or worse yet, what if G.A took it as a personal attack?

                That would be bad.

                This blog site is quite unique in the varied types of people it brings in. This is accomplished by a level of respect shown those whom with which we disagree but engage in civil debate.

                This place is my sanctuary, I in no way want to be thought of as the one who reacts with the personal attack nor do I want to be a “real” reason why this blog degenerates into such things.

            • No, not LTC. GYSGT, and a former USMC DI & Viet Vet.

              Do like your sense of humor though. Don’t remember Sandies, but we had the HillTop Drive in complete with short-skirted roller skating car-hops where I grew up in the Pacific Northwest.

              BTW, and FYI – My nephew is on his second tour somewhere around you. U.S. Army WO2. Don’t know what he does, and kinda don’t want to either. My eldest is in Iraq with a V-22 outfit(USMC).

            • USWeapon says:

              Thanks for confirming it. I immediately thought it was funny and that it was not being nasty, but I had to ask…

              I should have trusted you. My apologies.

  12. USW et al: A little something to bring a smile after such a hard few months.

  13. Black Flag says:

    You are well on your way to be a Black Flag, my friend SFC Dick….

    “No surrender; no quarter asked nor given”

  14. Ray Hawkins says:

    Offered merely for the sake of argument (on just more reading – whatever suits you).

    1. Many States, led by California (SB 1386), have passed ‘breach disclosure’ laws that require companies such as the one I work for, to notify you under certain conditions, if your information that was entrusted to me (me being the company) has been breached. Many would consider this a ‘good law’ for consumers/citizens – dammit – we should know if, after swiping our credit card at the local Blockbuster, our information was stolen by some hacker or dishonest employee. However, since not all the States are ‘on the same page’, complying with these growing requirements (as each State passes its own rules) has become a nightmare since the compliance is specific to where the consumer lives. Not all States have the same requirements. People like me, responsible for dotting those i’s and crossing those t’s become frustrated and literally beg for uniform controls and guidelines as should be defined by the Feds. My wonderment is if the posters think that the Feds should or should not do so (be it it should remain a State issue or not)? As compliance complexity increases so does cost which gets passed right back to you Johnny Consumer. The wrinkle here is that I applaud California for doing so – often we need a more ‘progressive’ State to take the lead to eventually poke the Feds in the ass (figuratively) to get something done what helps the consumer but does not cripple the business. This my friends is were a high level of government intrusiveness became necessary.

    2. Maybe not a great example, but States like New Jersey are enacting very restrictive cell phone / PDA usage laws for motorists. My hope (and yours?) is that something like this gets fast tracked and uniformly passed by the Feds. I completely agree with NJ governing this ‘right’ (right? I dunno).

    • Ray,

      As for #1; When you get a federally “mandated regulation” as you speak of, there are certain costs involved – paperwork, etc. – and the feds ALWAYS tag on a lot of “ifs, ands, or, buts” that do nothing but increase the cost and confuse the issue. Not to mention cause another ton of paperwork for whoever it is that will be assigned to police the regulation – which is always too few and without any real teeth to enforce the reg.

      As for #2; Laws are great, but . . . drum roll please . . . how do you enforce cell phone laws that prohibit usage while driving? In most large civic areas, the cops are way too busy running from one radio(now computer) call to another. When I was working, one friend of mine used to spend an entire twelve hour shift running code 3 from call to call – and that was after BJ Billy supposedly put another 1000 cops on the street!

      I really don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade here, but just making a law doesn’t solve all problems. Laws should be listed by practicability, in other words, don’t make us waste time on unenforceable laws. It would be much easier to teach people responsibility, to be a good neighbor, to treat others with the mutual respect and kindness that they would like others to treat them.

      Just my humble opinion.

      • To back this up, a perfect example: NH house just passed a seatbelt law (yes, we’re the only state that doesn’t have one, and we don’t have a helmet law). Three days later a 16 yr old boy died in an accident “because” he wasn’t wearing a seat belt. We do have a “minor under 18” law. (I’m not here to argue the seat belt issue. I was an EMT for years and know the score.) Passing another law didn’t save this boy’s life.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          You’re missing my point C.Z. – State level breach laws don’t keep people from losing or stealing a data (any more than seat belts prevent all people from dying in car wrecks – belt used or unused) – what they do do when they are different is make compliance a costlier proposition. In your example that would be if all States had different requirements for seat belts (e.g. if they had to be different width, or match the State color, blah blah blah).

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        New flash relative to my example – all the things you are mentioning are already happening as a result of the State rules – different rules = more costs than one rule would. Most all of us in this example would love to have one standard to follow – if no other reason than it reduces complexity. The breach laws are not going away – as business people we are simply asking for uniformity.

        Second point – I don’t know how the hell you enforce it – as a motorist I am asking for uniformity. Its asking a lot for me to know the cell phone laws of every muni where I drive.

        Who is BJ Billy?

        • TexasChem says:

          I think the federal government has too much power allready Ray so instead of the feds regulating this why dont the companies get together and regulate it themselves by hiring an IT security company?

          point2:You enforce it by not having it since it is a victimless crime to drive while talking on the phone.If I am talking on the phone to someone and run over a jogger not paying attention then it becomes a crime called vehicular manslaughter and I get punished for it.

          • TexasChem says:

            I replied to your last comment in the section:
            “What did Thomas Jefferson know about the internet?”
            with regards to the POTUS btw if you would like to continue that discussion.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            TexasChem – please make sure you’re seated – in principle I agree with you. This was the approach taken by what is called “payment card industry” compliance – basically a quasi-business group that was set to standards and enforce compliance for companies that accept credit and debit for payment. Problem – they screwed it up from day one and guess who is involved now? The Feds. The only reason I support the Fed approach, in a limited way mind you, is for similar issues that have attached civil and criminal penalties to non-compliance. I don’t want to digress here – but man I just beat my head against the wall, the States make it too complex, industry tried to self-regulate and screwed it up, and no one thinks the Feds are the best answer. I merely suggested the Fed route on my original line because it is asinine to have a law per State to manage to.

            The cell phone thing? I just thought of it as a preventive action, not possible to be 100% effective (any more than speed limits are).

            Thanks,

            Ray

            • The companies can handle it, it sounds like while it is a pain for you they don’t care about the added cost. If someone hasn’t evaluated the cost of current process to a cental private or state or federal run system they should be fired.

              You don’t need regulation, state or federal. YOU NEED LEADERSHIP. Someone in the fed could provide it without passing new laws or new regualtions or setting federal standards. I have seen it work.

              States could also solve by signing interstate memorandums of understanding or agreements. Many ways to skin the cat here.

              And I would bet my bottom dollar the federal program you seek will cost more than the nightmare you now have. Always has and always will.

              I am guessing the complication you currently have is also related to some other federal rule. Otherwise why doesn’t the company just contact the customer and say hey, it looks like someone stole your stuff. YOu better take precautions.

              By the way: Internet protocols and URL issuance, etc—global—no feds. Current Cap & Trade system—global—no feds or states (I know we hate this but it is complex and has been done by pvt sector. Although feds are about to muck it up.)

              On the philisophical level….do you really want to take one more step into the pit of slavery in order to have your work go a little smoother and at less cost??? Or would you rather suffer a little and be more free tomorrow than you were today. You can journey into the pit it you like. It really is your choice as long as you don’t drag me in if I try to throw you a life line. Don’t be a pragmatist…..Be a Radical.

              JAC

          • TexasChem,
            I agree feds have too much power, but certain things, especially interstate, fall into their hands. (I can hear the jaws theme of Flag coming too. LOL!) Is this not, constitutionally, one of the things feds should have -some- control over?

        • Hi Ray,
          I am not missing your point, but understand where you think I’ve gone wrong. I feel the fed govt is limited by the constitution but there are some things they need to be read in on, if not given control over. Much like Interstate Commerce, I feel the Feds (Feeb’s – I’m sorry, is that baiting?!) should have some control over the internet as far as what is allowed. That may be a discussion we should have under last nights post, and I am more than willing to hear what you have to say, because posting my thoughts on this blog are about the extent of my computer ability!!LOL! SFC Dick has me beat hands down.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I dunno C.Z. – sort of like my response to Texas – for the breach thing I just want one rule to follow – not a different for the same problem and multiplied by every State we have. Texas suggested business solve the problem – issue becomes businesses spend minimum necessary to do business when it comes to data security and so they stay legal and compliant – anything else is best practice versus required practice. Businesses do not self-regulate well in that regard (and others ahem) and the Feds have not proven they have all the answers. Set one rule, make it clear, attach penalties to it, then let someone without political interest manage it (possible?).

            • AH-Ha-
              Welcome to the Free market system! The person/company who comes up with the “way” to do that will make a mint, no? I know I would use their system, because I don’t want Jose Illegal or Betsy Crackhead using my info, so I will not only use their system but pay a premium for it, allowing you to work for them at a higher rate of pay, because you’re so good at what you do, and may I add, BELIEVE in it.
              Ray, if we keep this up, you may become an avowed Capitalist! (I think I am too!?!?)

        • And, incidentally, BJ Billy? C’mon, how many Williams do you know of that have had their fellatial record spread worldwide?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Ah – not touching that one. Literally and figuratively.

            • BJ Billy – hint = His blushing bride is now Secretary of State.

              How young are you? Don’t you remember Monica’s Harmonica?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Oh I know the whole story – I suspect he isn’t the first nor the last to have his knob shined in the WH. He just got caught.

    • Ray,
      See my points above, as I think they apply here. Let California or any/all states pass what laws they like.
      Then let Darwin judge them. Are they effective? Both in cost and accomplishing their goals? If so, other states will follow. If not, they will eventually repeal them and move back in the direction the other states have gone.

      It would be good if the federal government recommended guidelines.

      California is a good example, since they would be bankrupt now if Polosi had not got that spendulous passed without being read.

  15. TexasChem says:

    Gov. Perry still strutting and ruffling his feathers but its election time and he knows the majority of Texans are against big government because we have had it so good in Texas without it.No state income tax.State government helping to protect our constitutional rights.Life is good here in Gods country and the economy is still strong.Anyways just wanted to post this for your reading pleasure 🙂 I found it amusing that Gov. Perry called the federal government oppressive!

    Weekly roundup from the Texas Legislature
    4/11/2009 4:56 PM
    By: Associated Press

    Governor’s Remarks

    Republican Gov. Rick Perry joined a group of lawmakers Thursday in speaking out against the federal government and for a Texas House resolution that supports states’ rights in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Weekly Review

    News 8’s Catie Beck has your weekly roundup from the Texas Legislature.

    “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive. I believe it’s become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Perry said.

    He said Texas has economic strength, while Washington has a “federal budget mess.”

    Perry’s anti-Washington remarks have been heating up lately, in his race for re-election against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican, and in his rejection of $550 million of federal economic stimulus money for unemployment insurance.

    Perry said the unemployment money comes with mandates from the federal government that the state change the way it runs its unemployment system. He contends Texas employers would be left paying that bill long after the federal money runs out.

    Answering a question from a news reporter, Perry suggested that Hutchison is part of the federal government’s expansion.

    Hutchison’s campaign spokesman, Hans Klingler, responded, “Texans know Kay Bailey Hutchison works tirelessly for our great state. Unfortunately, this is another example in a long history of Rick Perry choosing the political low road.”

    The House resolution for states rights is by Reps. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe; Ryan Guillen, D-Laredo; Leo Berman, R-Tyler; Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola; and Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown. Perry joined lawmakers at a Capitol news conference.

    Sales Tax Trouble

    Texas’ largest source of state money continues to decline, Comptroller Susan Combs reported Thursday.

    Combs announced that sales tax revenue to the state declined 3.8 percent in March compared to the same month in 2008. She cited continued weakness in several important sectors, including retail trade, mining and construction. Combs noted that sales tax revenue is up about 2 percent year to date, but said further declines are expected.

    The news comes a week before the Texas House plans to take up the next two-year state budget. Combs’ office said the decreasing sales tax is not yet severe enough to lower the projected revenue estimate for the budget being drafted.

    Food Stamp Delays

    Rising demand for food stamps has the state stopping expansion of a social services computer system blamed for a backlog in food stamp applications, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission said Thursday. The commission said further rollouts of the TIERS system are on hold indefinitely.

    Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the commission, said the delay was needed because an uptick in food stamp and Medicaid applications since the first of the year has dragged down both the new and the old system.

    The new Web-based Texas Integrated Eligibility and Redesign System, or TIERS, was meant to help those in need get better access to welfare benefits like food stamps and Medicaid by cutting costs and the time in the application process.

    Instead, some lawmakers, the Texas State Employees Union and welfare advocates have called the system to task for failing to meet federal requirements that 95 percent of food stamp applications be processed within 30-days.

    Rep. Abel Herrero, D-Robstown, filed legislation calling for the commission to review operations, figure out staffing needs and prove the system is functional before it can expand.

    Guns on Campus

    The House Public Safety Committee voted 5-3 on Thursday to send to the full House a proposal allowing those licensed to carry concealed handguns to do so on college campuses.

    Supporters said the bill could help prevent another massacre on the scale of what happened at Virginia Tech and another mass shooting last year at Northern Illinois University.

    Texas issued 73,090 concealed gun licenses in fiscal year 2008. The state requires applicants to pass a training course, pass a criminal background check and be at least 21 years old. Texas campuses are gun-free zones.

    The college campus measure by Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, has been retooled to allow private colleges to opt out of the proposed law. Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, is pushing a similar proposal in his chamber.

    Wrongful Convictions

    A proposal by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, to create a commission to investigate and prevent wrongful convictions has been approved 8-3 by the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.

    The commission would be named the Timothy Cole Innocence Commission in honor of the Army veteran who served ten years of a 25-year sentence after being wrongfully convicted of a sexual assault he did not commit. Cole died in prison in 1999, before he was cleared.

    Laser Hunting

    The House approved legislation Thursday that would allow hunters who have vision problems and aren’t able to use a traditional firearm sighting device to use a laser sighting device.

    Disabled hunters using the artificial light must be assisted by a non-disabled hunter and have a doctor or optometrist statement certifying the extent of the sight disability. The measure goes next to the Senate.

    Veggie Legislation

    The House gave final approval Thursday to a bill intended to improve the safety efforts of Texas packers and producers of fresh fruits and vegetables. The proposal now goes to the Senate.

    The measure by Rep. Tracy King, D-Eagle Pass, establishes the Texas Department of Agriculture as the lead agency in charge of setting up food safety education programs for Texas farmers.

    IDs for the Dead

    Everybody knows that death and taxes are unavoidable. Now the requirement to carry ID could also follow Texans to the grave.

    Under legislation unanimously passed by the Texas Senate Thursday, SB1539, all caskets would have to contain the name, date of birth and date of death of the deceased. The bill is aimed at ensuring caskets and bodies can be reunited in the events of floods and hurricanes, when coffins sometimes float to the surface.

    Outta Here

    House members decided to give themselves a little extra time, until Tuesday night, to file proposed amendments to the House budget bill, scheduled to be debated later next week. That allows legislators and their staff members to take some time off during the Easter weekend, instead of having to write budget amendments that initially were due Monday.

    Both the House and Senate are taking a long holiday weekend and will return Tuesday.

  16. Alright! I missed this post yesterday due to prior baseball double header commitments. I have really enjoyed reading the posts! My yake is this. I am going to shock all, ut I find myself in agreement with something BF told me a while back on a different post.

    I don’t think Any State Soveriegnty Bills will do any good because the Feds will simply declare them all Unconstitutional. We haven’t had States Rights since 1865. Before then we were “THESE United States” after the war we were “THE United States”. Woodrow Wilson, and FDR polished off any Rights issues we might have had. Throw in Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obutthead, and Alakazam! We’re screwed!

    I sincerely, and I mean this, hope it doesn’t resort to violence to change things because I do not believe it will work. The Fed’s will ruthlessly crush any attempt at seccesion. Any who were involved would be branded Domestic Terrorists by the MSM. Their (or our) side of the story would never be told. Obama’s spin machine would make sure History would be written branding us Criminals and Terrorists.

    • USWeapon says:

      An interesting position to take. On what grounds would you claim the state’s rights could be declared unconstitutional? I cannot see how they would be given that they are being done based on power granted to the states by the constitution.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I guess US I am going on the premise that the Pres and Congress are already running roughshod over the Constitution as it is. If they get the Supreme Court in their favor, it can be interpreted any way they see fit. If they can call a “Moment of Silence” Law unconstitutional. If they can forbid The Ten Commandments from being on the Courthouse wall the same, then what’s stopping them? The Supremes are not in their favor yet. That’s all IMO.

      • Black Flag says:

        I agree withe Esmon.

        It has already been ‘proven’ by the Civil War that the 10th has no power.

        It would take another civil war to prove otherwise.

        (See ‘Secession’ Story)

  17. I am new to this site so I will be brief. All anyone has to do to find out if secession is legal or not is to read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independance. If the South had taken their case to the Supreme Court instead of opening fire, they may have got their independance.

    • Black Flag says:

      Contrary to popular myth, the Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution.

      Each body of government has equal right to apply the Constitution as they see fit. The design was that if one body of government felt another was misusing their power, they had the power to reverse those policies.

      So it is up to the Legislative Branch to watch over the Judiciary and the Executive.

      It is up to the Judiciary to watch over the Legislative and the Executive.

      It is up to the Executive to watch over the Judiciary and the Legislative.

      And it is the duty of all to obey the Constitution.

      However, this only works if all the Branches are independent. With a two-party system – even back in 1860 – this system breaks down. Also remember, the Lincoln arrested the Supreme Court. The Executive controls the military – and that pretty much answers any question of who, actually, has the final authority over ‘interpreting’ the Constitution.

      So, since Lincoln brought in the Military to enforce his position upon the South, the South had no other option but to resist.

  18. m2171323 says:

    If anyone is interested in some of Lincoln’s less discussed policies read ” The Real Lincoln ” by Thomas J. Dilorenzo. Most everything he says about Lincoln is backed up by an extensive bibliography. It appears that the south played into his plans. I have read many books on Lincoln including Carl Sandburg’s 6 volume history and hardly any of them showed any of the things that behind the scenes. He was very much in favor of big government at the expence of states rights. He was a master of the political game and even did away with habius corpus.

%d bloggers like this: