A Joint Invitation to Return to States’ Rights

159089 Responseshttp://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/07/a-joint-invitation-to-return-to-states-rights/A+Joint+Invitation+to+Return+to+States%27+Rights2009-05-07+21%3A45%3A50Tenth+Amendment to “A Joint Invitation to Return to States’ Rights”

1. 

   Dale Caruso Reply 10. May, 2009 at 6:04 pm

   Arklight,
   The case is found in United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514

   Here is a first glance – from Wikipedia – which while helpful, not the end of of information but I do find it often a useful starting point.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

   Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate.

   Soon after the amendment’s adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution:
   “ No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 2), ”

   and:
   “ No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 3). ”

   Also critical to the issue is the 17th Amendment, which transferred power to select US Senators from the state legislature, to the people of the state:
   “ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ”

   Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.

   ***** My comment *******
   I find it interesting, the rational that she uses in her suit that limiting the number of consecutive terms — “unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications” ????????????????
   Also curious to me is that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” was interpreted to mean a “transfer” of power – further, implying an abdication of power. If these three qualifications are taken then as the authority for their absolute and unconstrained power.
   I really want to share this part – this is what was written by the Majority in the Supreme Court decision. In effect, they affirmed that this is a Centrist Government … and the Federal or Centrist Government is supreme;

   “The Supreme Court affirmed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority articulated different views of the character of the federal structure established in the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that:
   ‘Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. … Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.”

   It goes on to say;

   “He further noted that sustaining Amendment 73 would result in “a patchwork of state qualifications” for U.S. Representatives, and described that consequence as inconsistent with “the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure.”

   What, to me is VERY troubling was the concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He wrote that the amendment would “interfere” with the “relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government.”

   By the way, yes the ACLU was involved in the case … as one might have expected, they participated in the trial as an amicus curiae, urging it to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision.

   Why do I keep flashing on ancient Rome – and in this particular instance, when GENERAL JULIUS CAESAR was give absolute authority – supposedly by the people and became the first emperor thus ending in a very real sense the republic.
   I can’t strongly suggest enough for people wanting an understanding the patterns of history that are repeating here in the United States, it is so important to begin to look at the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Do not fixate on the characters – or even the specific events, rather the patterns … characters and events are peculiar to their particular moment in time – it is the PATTERNS that are the constant in history. (perhaps that’s why history does seem to continually repeat itself, we never seem to recognize the patterns.)

   Another thing, in reading the Wikipedia piece on Term limits in the United States

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

   … I found the Historical background section particularly interesting.
   let me quote some passages from that section;

   “In June 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen to examine forms of government for the impending union of the states. Among the proposals was that from the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, “to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress….” The committee made recommendations, which as regards congressional term-limits were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789]). The fifth Article stated that “no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years.”

   In 1776, rotation experiments also took place at the state level. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at “four years in even.” Benjamin Franklin’s influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin’s earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania’s plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.

   In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term-limits from the second national frame of government, i.e. the U.S. Constitution of 1787 to the present. Nonetheless, due largely to grass roots support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in Congress prevailed by extra-constitutional means. Also George Washington set the precedent for a two-term tradition that prevailed (with the exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four terms) until the 22nd Amendment of 1951.

   However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787-88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as “most highly and dangerously oligarchic.” Both Jefferson and George Mason advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation.” The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that “there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done….”"

   Finally – before I bore every reader to death, if I haven’t done so already .. in the section on Federal Term Limits … this line was particularly intriguing and really begs more research and explanation. In referring to the May Supreme Court decision it says this;

   “Earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress.”

   In a very broad sense … I mean we are seeing it in most every facet of, not only our economy and government – but across society as a whole … the parallels between what was Rome and what is the United States is a tad frightening.

   Dale

   “

2. 

   Jim Lunsford Reply 10. May, 2009 at 6:58 pm

   And we all know how quickly Rome recovered from her fall. May our next revolution, and there will be war again though it is not to be looked lightly upon, correct the inadequacies of the past and lay forth even more safeguards against our own inherent corruptions.

3. 

   Dale Caruso Reply 10. May, 2009 at 7:50 pm

   Jim,
   So very true … can we say “dark ages” … interestingly .. “correct the inadequacies of the past and lay forth even more safeguards against our own inherent corruptions” – the framers of the Constitution did exactly that. They knew the pitfalls and vocalized their concern and desire to avoid them. … and look where we are now … I wonder if it speaks to the notion that theories of Governing are finite in their life expectancy? No matter how grand the construct … it doesn’t last indefinitely.
   Even if attempts are periodically made to “rejuvenate” it … the father the time frame or distance from the original … the more it is bastardized. Might this even be unavoidable? How much – no matter how much might have been written by the framers – can we really know about what they thought. All too often their writings are interpreted by “scholars” .. But I am sorry … no matter the extent of one’s insight … in the end, it is just an interpretation … and opinion. No matter how well intentioned or critical and this needs to be understood with the appropriate “grain of salt.” Also .. understand that the farther one moves not only from the original document .. but the moment in time that it was conceived … the more it is subjected to the “I can make it better” syndrome. More often than nor .. the “better” really means .. “What I think is better … based on my objectives,” no matter how benign they might be. Two examples from my post above, in Justice John Paul Stevens’ remarks;
   “… that consequence as inconsistent with “the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure.”
   and in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence,
   “… the amendment would “interfere” with the “relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government.”
   Both are centrists … (and no, one cannot vilify then for that) .. and so this is the personal objective from which they interpret. Even though it could be strongly argued .. based on the document AND most especially the writings of those who framed it … that this likely was NOT their intent.
   It’s the old story of .. is the glass half full or half empty.
   It goes back to a notion I mentioned in an earlier post … truth .. is nothing more than perception – the perception of the “beholder” ..
   In its best form .. there is no “Truth” or more particularly, “Absolute Truth” … as a very wise (well, I think) professor once told me … “Truth is nothing more than the best possible GUESS … based (ideally) on the best possible information at a given moment in time.”
   I can’t help be say that we are in collapse … in every aspect .. NO I am not being an alarmist … or a fatalist .. I am being pragmatic … history is NOT on our side with this. If it is of any consolation … it has happened before, and undoubtedly … will again and again … we just happen to be witnessing a truly fascinating moment in time. But rest assured .. things will go on … and start again.
   To be VERY blunt .. I have terminal cancer .. that I have begun to think has a curiosity about all this – It is in a remission that has totally bewildered doctors, as it presently has lasted three times longer than any statistic suggests. I am willing to swear on a stack of bibles, I have heard it speak to me, saying, “this is just too damn fascinating … WE ARE STICKING AROUND to see how this all comes out! Now, get busy and go make me some more popcorn.”
   really!!! LOL
   That and I have ten grown daughters … several of whom love running and have entered “Cancer Runs” for cancer survivors and plan on doing so each year … thus compelling me to “damn, I have to stick around for the next one.” Daughter … no matter what their age .. are SO demanding of their dads.
   Dale

4. 

   Dale Caruso Reply 11. May, 2009 at 8:32 am

   If you have already read it — then it is time to dust it off and read it again … if you have never, you are in for an experience.

   Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville,
   de Tocqueville’s book is available on line at

   http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

   Written in 1835, it is a very lengthy work to be sure … but also I believe required reading.
   If you have an economy of time …. might want to read this section first, as it most applies with what is happening today … almost prophetically so.
   The section is “Section 4: Influence of Democratic Ideas and Feelings on Political Society.”

   As George Will wrote in his Sunday column in the Washington Post;

   “In “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by “an immense, tutelary power” determined to take “sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” It would be a power “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle,” aiming for our happiness but wanting “to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness.” It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in “a network of petty regulations — complicated, minute and uniform.” But softly: “It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them” until people resemble “a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

5. 

   Casey Truskunas Reply 11. May, 2009 at 1:44 pm

   Hey, trust me, I’m on board, sooo……….what’s the next move and where?
   I live in the sovereign Republic of Texas with Chuck Norris as our next President.

6. 

   Larry Hughes Reply 18. May, 2009 at 11:51 am

   To Arklight and Nancy Russell: Any Constitutional Convention could and most assuredly should have the singular purpose of repealing the 17th amendment only. No other proposal should be heard; otherwise the convention would be a free for all. Surely the state legislatures are smart enough to pre-determine that fact.
   Once the 17th is repealed, the Senators , once again representing the states, can cut off any appropriations of money the federal government needs to further impose it’s will on the states and the people.

   • 

     Michael Boldin Reply 18. May, 2009 at 1:19 pm

     Larry – I’m sure if you, personally, were in charge of what the con-con would be limited to, then we could be more confident of it being limited to this one issue.

     But, since you and I don’t personally control what’s to come, there are plenty of very interested, well-funded, people who just might want to see limitations on government removed even more…don’t you think?

7. 

   Arklight Reply 18. May, 2009 at 12:51 pm

   Larry Hughes:

   If you think that a con-con would be limited to the subject of the 17th Amendment only, then you’re inhaling/injecting/ingesting some hallucinogenic substance. Tighten up yer wig, dude! The dicks that were hot, hot, HOT for the con-con during the Ronnie Raygunz administration openly admitted that there were a lot of changes that would be made, and no one and nothing could get in the way once the opening gavel dropped. Do your research.

8. 

   NANCYRUSSELL Reply 18. May, 2009 at 1:52 pm

   WOULD ANYONE KNOW HOW TO GATHER THE FACTS ABOUT THE CON-CON? I THOUGHT WHAT I READ WAS CORRECT. I BELIEVE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLEY WROTE WHAT I READ.

9. 

   ANTICRIME Reply 18. May, 2009 at 2:56 pm

   I found a website that I believe everyone here would benefit perusing as it explains in a condensed but thorough format the ungodly grip that has our country by the throat and the delema the individual states face! Please click on: http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

10. 

    Arklight Reply 19. May, 2009 at 6:33 am

    Nancy Russel: http://www.newswithviews.com is pretty good, but if you go to ask.com, type con-con into the search bar, you’ll get any number of sites, among them the lyin’ bastards who claim that 32 states still have an active call for a Constitutional Convention. If you’ll notice, the term ‘con-con’ is a cute trick to minimize the mortal import of a Constitutional Convention; this was deliberate, and banked heavily upon the deep, dogged, impenetrable and incurable stupidity of the American electorate – - – most don’t care what happens, so long as nobody is kicking THEIR door down and beating/shooting their spouse and kids. Unfortunately, die polizei (the federalized police and sheriff’s departments) are doing that, increasingly, all over the country but it doesn’t make the mainstream news. For other sites of interest, try http://www.hawkscafe.com; http://www.rense.com; http://www.infowars.com; http://www.jpfo.org. I wouldn’t use either Google or Yahoo as the search engine, kiddo.

    Oh, yeah – - – check out the Chicago Tribune piece on the ballot initiative to demand a ‘con-con’.

11. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 19. May, 2009 at 7:37 am

    THANKS ARKLIGHT. BY THE WAY, IS YOUR NAME A REFERENCE TO OLD NOAH’S BOAT?
    I AM FAMILIAR WITH MOST OF THE SITES YOU SUGGESTED AND WILL RESEARCH THERE.

12. 

    Arklight Reply 19. May, 2009 at 7:53 am

    Nancy Russel: you’re welcome, Nancy. No, Arkight has nothing to do with Noah, although he were a righteous dude; if he parked his boat on Ararat, how did he get platypuses, kangaroos, ostriches and Koala bears to Aussie?

13. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 19. May, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    ALL OLD NOAH DID WAS TO SPEND 150 YEARS BUILDING THE ARK. THE REST WAS A SUPERNATURAL MAGIC SHOW. YOU KNOW IF GOD CREATED ALL THOSE BEASTS AND CREEPING THINGS IN ONE DAY WHY COULD HE NOT FIND A WAY TO CREATE AND DEPOSIT THOSE AUSSIE ANIMALS DOWN UNDER?

14. 

    Arklight Reply 20. May, 2009 at 3:53 am

    Nancy Russel
    Aussie critters getting from the Ark to Aussie wasn’t a serious question.
    I hope you found the info you were looking for regarding 10 A.

15. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 20. May, 2009 at 8:36 am

    TO ANTICRIME – I READ THE BAREFOOTS ARTICLE ON HOW WE GOT HERE. DID YOU WRITE IT? I AM AWESTRUCK WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE BANKRUPTCY DESIGNATION WAS FORCED UPON THE USA. WHEN MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ARE PAID WHERE DOES THE MONEY ACTUALLY GO? IS IT DIVIDED BETWEEN THOSE FAMILIES AND THE BANK WHICH ORIGINATED THE MORTGAGE? I’M TRYING TO IMAGINE MY EXPLAINING IT TO SOMEONE AND I FIND IT’S NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME TO DO SO. CAN YOU GIVE A CHRONOLOGY OF THE PAPER TRAIL? IF I PAY CASH FOR THE PROPERTY DO I BYPASS ALL THAT PUBLIC POLICY ENSLAVEMENT? THERE’S A MOVEMENT TRYING TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY TAX AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER TAX. WILL THAT RUIN THEIR SCHEME OR WILL THEY FIND ANOTHER WAY TO COMPENSATE?

16. 

    Arklight Reply 20. May, 2009 at 9:18 am

    Nancy Russel:
    If (when) you complete payment for your land, update your land patent, or get the alodial title to it. Alodial titles procurement varies from state to state, i.e. in Nevada you have to prepay the property taxes that would be ‘lost’ to the governing entities, and the title is only valid for the individual(s) acquiring the title; your kids/grandkids would have to go through the entire process again. I’m not sure, but I think a land patent is transferable, can be held by a family trust or corporation (which is not the same as a business corporation) under common law. Once you get ensnared in the equity/admiralty laws you’re sunk. I’m sure that there are groups which specialize in the common law holding of land, and you might try http://www.thepowerhour.com and check their archives, or http://www.rense.com might have something on it. Anything you have that is accompanied by a ‘Certificate of title/live birth, etc. only means that a title/birth certificate exists somewhere, but you don’t got it. Somebody, somewhere, is holding the real title or birth certificate as surety for a debt of some kind. You might try Ask.com and type ‘Alodial title’ or ‘Land Patent into the search bar. Once again, stay away from Google or Yahoo.

17. 

    ANTICRIME Reply 20. May, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Nancy, I only wish that I had the knowledge that Bob Hardison had when he wrote that essay! Unfortunatly Bob passed away on Jan 31, 09 but the bright side is that he has, and still is, educating a lot of folks through his website. Google: Barefootsworld.net and you will find an extensive listing of his writings. Like yourself, I’m still learning so I really cannot intelligently answer your questions. Another tid-bit of information that ALL active voters should know about is: http://www.gradegov.com where “we the people” can let our Congressional “employees” know what we think of them!

18. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 20. May, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    MANY THANKS TO ANTICRIME AND ARKLIGHT FOR EXCELLENT RESOURCES. MY DAUGHTER TOLD ME ABOUT GRADE.GOV LAST WEEK AND WE WENT OVER THE FAILING GRADES JUSTIFIABLY RECEIVED BY THE FLOTSAM/JETSAM IN WASHINGTON. I USE GOOGLE TO ACCESS INFORMATION – LET ME KNOW WHY THAT IS A BAD MOVE ALONG WITH YAHOO. I’M AMAZED AT HOW MUCH INFO IS AVAILABLE AND HOW MUCH I HAVE TO LEARN – THANKS AGAIN. ANTICRIME – DID YOU GET THE IDEA FROM READING MR HARDISON’S ARTICLE THAT THE BANKRUPTCY STATUS PLACED ON US AS “CITIZENS” CANNOT BE OVERTURNED AND THAT THE 9/10 AMENDMENTS ARE IMPOTENT NOW?

19. 

    Arklight Reply 20. May, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Nancy Russel:
    Google and Yahoo are very, very heavily involved with a number of alphabet soup angencies, and every search and search result is logged, somewhere. Go to http://www.thepowerhour.com and there should be a link to a secure search engine. I just use ask.com, since I’m sure I’ve got a whole page of ‘The Red List’ all to myself anyway, I don’t use Google or Yahoo just for the H-E-double toothpicks of it. Oh, yeah: if you’re wise you’ll go through and manually delete every scrap of Google and Yahoo from your hard drive. If you’ve been using you machine for anything sensitive, download ‘Eraser’ or ‘Scribble’ and learn how to use it.

    The Constitution is positive law, Nancy. It’s the botom line. Congress figured out over 100 years ago that they can pass any kind of law, and once it’s signed by the president, it has full effect until rejected by the courts; the various federal courts, even if they had the will to do so, cannot possibly hear every suit that’s brought to overturn a law, code or regulation. 9A and 10A are alive and well, but Congress skirts them under color of law – - – that’s something that looks, tastes, smells and feels like law but is not. In much the same manner that our economy is not formed around money, but it is around the color of money; you may remember years ago that the dollar sign was an ‘S’ with two vertical strokes through it, then in the sixties it suddenly dropped one of the strokes. That meant that the dollar sign no longer represented lawful money, but signified legal tender, color of money. The Brits have the same thing, where the pound sign has a single horizontal stroke through the ‘L’ where there used to be two. Once again, legal tender replacing lawful money.

20. 

    ANTICRIME Reply 20. May, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    Nancy, As you can now see that we are embroiled in a diabolical web of ensnarement that has been woven over MANY years by those hidden behind our puppet government whose intent is nothing less than total world domination and control. This was allowed to happen because man is corruptable under the influence of personal gain. Those in high places became corrupted and through their power and influence brought in those compatible with their agendas. Together schemes were perpetrated behind the backs of the American people who placed their full trust behind those who were elected to represent them and look out for their best interests. Franklin Deleno Roosevelt is a prime example of the epitome of corruption but to this day the MAJORITY of the American people still believe he was a “Great” president! TRUST is the key word that put us into the quagmire we are now in today! Most people are too busy trying to earn a living, getting up early in the morning, going to work all day and coming home dead tired and facing household problems, etc. Politics is the last thing on their minds and boring at that! They believe what they see and hear on the daily TV news and fall asleep in the chair, then start the whole routine over again the next morning. So you can see how easy it was for treacherous people to take advantage of this scenario. From the results I have been getting from Florida’s Governor and my Congressional Representative and Senators it seems that these people have no interest in protecting Florida’s sovereignty. As WE THE PEOPLE are the REAL and true source of power behind both the state and federal governments, these being ONLY a representation of us for unity purposes, WE have the RIGHT to declare our INDIVIDUAL sovereignty from ANY tyranical government if we are abandoned by either state or federal entities! WE THE PEOPLE are the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Police, etc, etc that are being USED by government, supposidly for the benifit of the country as a whole. If and when it comes to the point that government becomes despotic and exposes itself to being a “domestic enemy” of our U.S. Constitution then ALL of us that have taken the oath to defend our country from enemies, foreign and domestic, MUST enforce the Jeffersonion Constitutional rule of law as this is a mandatory DUTY! Failure to do so makes one a TRAITOR to his country! So even though the hidden hand behind the scenes fooled and tricked the American people, through their corrupted minions, and kept them sound asleep over the years, all is far from lost! Our forefathers gave us the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee that it lives into posterity so the DUTY is upon WE THE PEOPLE to ENFORCE the law of the land and bring to justice those who dared to tread on us and OUR U.S. Constitution! If need be I will stand and battle alone and die alone before I lose my freedom and my country to tyranny! I just pray that the MAJORITY of Americans will feel and ACT the same as I will. If not, then they do not deserve their freedom and will gain their just rewards for their cowardly treason! In the words of our brave Marines: “UH-RAH”!

21. 

    Arklight Reply 20. May, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    Nancy Russel: For a search engine try ixquick.com

22. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 21. May, 2009 at 5:46 am

    YOU TWO ARE AMAZING. GETTING THE CITIZENRY TO RISE UP IS CRUCIAL BUT DEPRESSINGLY DIFFICULT. I READ SO MUCH FROM AUTHORS WHO RHETORICALLY ASK WHERE IS THE RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION? I THINK HOW FEW THERE WERE WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AT THE TIME AND YET IT SUCCEEDED. WE NEED THOSE PATRICK HENRYS, NATHAN HALES, JEFFERSONS, REVERES ET AL. YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN AMERICANGRANDJURY.COM. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO SCRAP GOOGLE SEARCHES. IF IT’S SIMPLE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN, ARKLIGHT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT YOU WOULD INSTRUCT ME. THANKS AGAIN TO OUTSTANDING KNOWLEDGE AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SHARE IT.

23. 

    Arklight Reply 21. May, 2009 at 7:02 am

    Nancy Russel;
    To get the Google off your machine, have the 15 year old geek in your neighbourhood to do it for you. That’s what I did. Approximately 3% of Americans were actively involved in AR I (First American Revolution), and of the men who fought the regulars on April 19th, 1775 a very large number were veterans; the British were horrified when they saw Americans magically appear in droves, form and dress ranks, fix bayonets (those who had them) and advance with precision and determination that infantry of those days always displayed when going forward to engage the enemy at close quarters. That same fighting spirit is as much alive, here, today, as it was at Fredricksburg, Gettysburg, Belleu Wood, Chateau Thierry, Bastogne, Korea, and the numerous instances when the remnants of a platoon/company would charge a blazing tree line in Vietnam; is it any wonder that one of the top items on the agendas of Congress and the administration is that of disarming our veterans by sleazy lawyers quibbles? Our own veterans are being labeled as ‘possible domestic terrorists, and enemies of the State’. In the entire country, there are 545 people who pass the bills, sign the laws and make the final determination of whether that law complies with the Constitutional parameters; there are 300 million of us. You do the math, kiddo, and you’ll understand why the politicians are terrified. It’s when the veteran, whose courage and honour are beyond question, gets into politics that they make the fatal turn away from what they’d been, up ’til then. I actually feel sorry for Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham. At the end, I’m convinced that he understood that he had sold every personal trait of value for a few cars and a couple of houses – - – “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

24. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 21. May, 2009 at 7:59 am

    THANKS ARKLIGHT, I’LL LOOK FOR A LOCAL GEEK. IT’S RELIEVING TO KNOW IT CAN BE DONE. I ACCESSED LXQUICK AND FOUND WHAT I WANTED. FUNNY YOU MENTIONED CHATEAU THIERRY BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE MY DAD FOUGHT IN WW1. YOU AND I MAY BE CLOSE IN AGE. IT’S ALSO REASSURING TO BELIEVE WE CAN BRING OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE EDGE. I BELONG TO OATHKEEPERS AND THAT IS A BIG COMFORT. THANKS AS USUAL.

25. 

    Arklight Reply 21. May, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Nancy Russel:
    Sure, Nancy, you bet. My dad wasn’t born until 1918, but my great grand uncle fought at Chateau Thierry; he was an infantry sergeant with one lung (tuberculosis toasted one and killed his brother), and got gassed in the lung he had left. All his life he had occaccional ulcerated lesions on his legs from the nitrogen mustard, and a ropy cough in winter. I despise the people who think that chemical/biological weapons are cool; while they’re burning in Hell there should be somebody standing over ‘em with a barge pole to mash ‘em into the embers every time they raise up for a breath of air.

26. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 21. May, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    DAD WAS GASSED A NUMBER OF TIMES AND WHEN HE RETURNED TO THE STATES HE WAS ILL AND DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO FEEL BETTER UNTIL HE WENT TO A HEALTH FOOD RESTAURANT AND WAS CURED EATING SAFE, NUTRITIOUS FOOD. HE WAS A CORPORAL AND TOLD US HE NEVER HAD ANY DOUBT THAT HE WOULD SURVIVE THE WAR AND AS A RACONTEUR HE PIQUED OUR INTEREST WITH HIS MANY AND ENTERTAINING TALES. I MISS HIM.

27. 

    Arklight Reply 22. May, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Nancy Russel:
    You might want to go to http://www.hawkscafe.com and check out the archived bulletins. So far as I’ve been able to verify their material, they’ve been spot on. Also, you might want to find a copy of ‘The Antifederalist Papers’, which have, included, the Convention debates, the Consitution, and bushels of other relevant material. For comparing capatalism as it should most nearly resemble in order to be a ‘perpetual engine’, Ayn Rand’s book ‘Capitalism; the unknown ethic’ is an excellent guide, with some rather astonishing contributions by Alan Greenspan before he turned his coat. ‘Capitalism’ is probably the least readable of her works, but well worth the unwavering determination to ‘get through’ it which is required; Ayn Rand’s books warned people for many years of what could happen without the microscope focus on officials, banksters and stock weenies but did anybody listen? Yeah, the people she was warning us against, and they just tweaked their playbook about a half a degree and slid over/under/around the descriptions that would have seen them exposed, at least to those of us who paid attention.
    Oh, yeah – - – watch out for this professor what’s-his-name, the new Big WOOOO contributor, read his article very, very carefully. I’ve my own opinion of this guy, but it may be that my nose has become overly delicate from detecting the odour rats through the years. Let me know what ya think, kiddo.

28. 

    NANCYRUSSELL Reply 22. May, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    WHERE CAN I FIND THE BIG WOOOO PROFESSOR’S ARTICLE AND WHO IS THIS PERSON? I WENT TO HAWK’S CAFE AND DIDN’T SEE ANY ARCHIVE THAT MATCHED.

29. 

    Rob Reply 01. Jul, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    May I suggest that states specifically declare that they have not delegated to the federal government the power or authority to require residents to divulge to census information to anyone other than federal employees (thus excluding ACORN and other political advocacy groups), and that such information shall be limited only to that specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. May I suggest that states further make it a state crime for federal agents to claim legal authority to declare any additional information for the purposes of a census without a judicial order based on powers specifically enumerated by the states.

30. 

    Jim Lunsford Reply 01. Jul, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Awesome idea on the census. Personally, I never give them any data whatsoever. Ignore them completely. Of course, though I would be ecstatic over a return to the Constitution, my actual political leanings are of Anarchy. So, I have absolutely no use for any governmental body whatsoever. However, if we are going to have one, at least make them follow the rules they set down for the rest of us.

    • 

      Michael Boldin Reply 01. Jul, 2009 at 9:29 pm

      And, Jim, if it’s going to exist, it needs to be as small in size and scope as possible. That way, if it gets out of hand, it’s easier to “escape”

31. 

    Skip Bilson Reply 11. Jul, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    Amen, Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    States rights is what the Civil War was all about. Regardless of the hype President Lincoln put on the situation.

    A lot of people have had enough of BIG government!!!!!!!!!!!!!

32. 

    Dale Zylman Reply 08. Sep, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    I may need to eat crow. My thanks to Rep. Workman for sponsoring a States Rights Resolution in the Fl house. When U.S. Rep. Bill Posey initiated the Town Hall meeting in Melbourne(much thanks, Bill) Rep. Workman received the loudest ovation after mentioning the “States Rights” resolution. Other sites if you’re not familiar: campaignforliberty.com, tenthamendmentcenter.com, 1911usa.com, and so many others. Don’t forget the ACLJ-American Center for Law and Justice. Do your research. I don’t intend to slight anyone, just too many to list(and remember). Don’t forget “Freedom Watch” Wed. at two on Fox Streaming News with Judge Andrew Napolitano whose frequent guest Peter Schiff is making a run for Chris Dodds CT Senate seat. Together we can take back this country! God Bless you all.

33. 

    Dale Zylman Reply 08. Sep, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Sorry, the site is usa1911.com. My apologies.

34. 

    John T Reply 16. Dec, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    below is the essence of an email I sent to Minnesotan Rep. Kahn (D) who authored a Bill for lowering the legal age limit for consumption of alcohol in the State of Minnesota:

    Dear Ms. Kahn,
    I noticed the Federal government response to a rising interest in lowering the legal drinking age limit:
    "…Congress, which has decreed that any state with a drinking age below 21 will forfeit 10 percent of its federal highway funds."
    Yet another example of Congress usurping the power of the State (indirectly) through blackmail. What has seriously been needed for a long time is to rein in Congress. The Tenth Amendment CLEARLY STATES that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People. I just can't, off the top of my head, think of any retaliatory moves that states like Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota might make. I'm wondering if collectively they might be able to sue the Federal Government on the basis of blackmail or something? Or perhaps abuse of power by interfering where they have no jurisdiction? That it's unconstitutional? I feel that somehow it is illegal to blackmail the States into doing Congress' bidding. This is in fact, what Congress is doing. It's not like Congress said "Well, we need to cut your Federal highway funds because of the budget" or something like that. They're saying "If you don't comply with our wishes we will cut your Federal highway funds." Clearly that's blackmail.

    The long and short of it: if you could, take a small bit of time to explain to me how monetary coercion be used legitimately by the Federal government? In other words, in your experience, what is the legal basis and rationale from the Federal government's viewpoint ?
    If in fact they can do this: what stops the Fed from interfering with other state laws? where does it end? I've just never understood that !! It's VERY irritating!

    Thanks for your attention.

    Sincerely,
    John R. Townsend

    It is not the lowering of the legal age limit that I am concerned with here. But I question the response of the Federal government to laws made by a State in which the Fed finds itself in disagreement. Laws that are clearly out of the bounds of Federal jurisdiction and belong to the State only – and so the Federal government responds with blackmail.
    I can't imagine how the States ever let the Federal government get into the superior position where they can exert this sort of coercion in the business of the individual states – where clearly they have no jurisdiction.

Leave a Reply