Check out topic: Joe Biden REJECTION Bombshell
The 10th Amendment.
Aug 18, 2014 22:06:11 #
LoboVNVMC wrote:
If you are talking about the War of Aggression by the North, it did not really settle anything. Nullification is not the same as session.
War of aggression my ass, it was a war of liberation!
Aug 19, 2014 08:13:23 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
For what it's worth to those who choose not to believe in the authority of state and federal agents over county or local authorities, I give you this: My cousin, a 30-year retired veteran of McClennan County, Texas, Sheriff's Department, assures me that a sheriff is the ultimate authority in his county...until he is usurped by state or federal authority regarding state or federal issues. Usually, a sheriff will acquiesce to their authority without question. If one chooses to question...he/she will lose, unless it is a local issue only. Usually, every effort is made to work together.
This is the same cousin who manned the gate at the David Koresh/Branch Davidian siege. As then, the Attorney General of the U.S. is the ultimate law enforcement officer...and he/she works for the President. That is my cousin's experience, and I would agree. For example, his former boss, the Sheriff, would yield to the authority of a Texas Ranger in state matters, who would yield to the authority of a federal agent in any matter determined to be federal in scope.
Also, courts at the state and federal level, including the SCOTUS, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification. Although the Civil War was not fought over that issue, it has been moot since the ending of that war. The subject is not unlike the issue of eminent domain.
As usual, each will believe as they choose. :wink: And, the courts could reverse previous rulings. Time will tell.
This is the same cousin who manned the gate at the David Koresh/Branch Davidian siege. As then, the Attorney General of the U.S. is the ultimate law enforcement officer...and he/she works for the President. That is my cousin's experience, and I would agree. For example, his former boss, the Sheriff, would yield to the authority of a Texas Ranger in state matters, who would yield to the authority of a federal agent in any matter determined to be federal in scope.
Also, courts at the state and federal level, including the SCOTUS, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification. Although the Civil War was not fought over that issue, it has been moot since the ending of that war. The subject is not unlike the issue of eminent domain.
As usual, each will believe as they choose. :wink: And, the courts could reverse previous rulings. Time will tell.
Aug 19, 2014 14:48:54 #
Within the Constitution of the United States; one thing was assured regardless, a Separation of Powers did not allow the centralized state, B.J. Clinton was the precursor to the selective use of the Constitution by a "borderline legality" that made the 1090's a joke, the terror attacks against the U.S., the capitulation of the country to a barbaric Medieval Ideology, yes the Branch/Davidian siege, was an example of the abuse of Federal Law, without the mention of Military Armor from Fort Hood, commanded by Gen. Wesley Clark an illegal act, by the Constitutional Amendment of 1873 'The Possee Comitatus Act' (spelling may or may not be correct) it forbade the use of Military Force against civilians, this was an act of desperation on the part of Clinton's capitulation to Islamic Terrorism and his total indiscriminate cooperation with the Afghan Muhajadeen, his disregard for human life ended in the "Algerian Genocide" the forming of Al'Qaeda, Rwanda, Embassy Bombings, various terror attacks on U.S. assets; military and civilian but his attack on the Davinians was more important than the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000 or the first W.T.C. Bombing in 1993, Somalia and the various platitudes that went with the totally corrupt Clinton Administration led up "front and center" by Janet Reno, manipulated by now A.G. Eric Holder, whose last act of office was to pardon drug dealers and terrorists, a custom he has exercised throughout the 2001-2008 Bush-Cheney years defending enemy combatants some of whom were identified by the serial numbers on their G.I. Prosthetic legs or arms recovered from the battlefield in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the concept of Federal Omnipotence, is an Unconstitutional one, if the Constitution were followed as written, law enforcement would be simplified and effectively implemented as the Letter and Rule of Law not some questionable obscure aspect, never before encountered, well maybe not as a flexible concept, the legalized illegality of the "amended" Constitution for convenience and politically-corrected-loopholing is why since the 2008 "election" there has been an enemy combatant in the White House not Guantanamo Bay. The Tenth Amendment would be viable if only this was still a Constitutional Government for and by the People, not the Fascist Tyranny it has become since the 2008 and 2012 coups d'e'tat and the current "U.S. Armed Forces Purges" that have removed over 20,000 Military Personnel for "morals charges" an operation that became critically questionable within two months after the 9-11-01 Benghazi Attack, good to know that 1936-1938 Stalin Purged (he killed the proof) over 40,000 of the professional military personnel from the Soviet Russian Military; Hitler did the same, first the political opposition then the paramilitary and military not members of the N.S.D.A.P., the S.A. were executed for "moral reasons" their High Command and rank and file were openly homosexual by a majority, but more importantly the "morals" involved also Hitler's questionable past in post war Vienna where he met many of that S.A. High Command before the Nazi Ascendancy, there will always be the Federal Government Higher Authority in some cases, this natural within the "Normative State" however from the Clinton's Constitutional violations to Obama's Constitutional disregard, there is no plausible justification for the Executive Branch to exercise "Total Power" one that defies the Constitution while it abridges the very concepts of the Constitution's Separation of Powers, it is a central-autocratic rule not the Democratic Republic that we had before 2009's Emirate began.
The critical-mass here is how this "administration" enforces the Unconstitutional State, the Vertical Power structure of either dictatorship or tyranny, take your pick the Omnipotent Government by Decree will not care for any Amendment be it the 1st. or the 10th. their rule of law is that of total control, their proof of purchase is and has been an imminent one.
The critical-mass here is how this "administration" enforces the Unconstitutional State, the Vertical Power structure of either dictatorship or tyranny, take your pick the Omnipotent Government by Decree will not care for any Amendment be it the 1st. or the 10th. their rule of law is that of total control, their proof of purchase is and has been an imminent one.
Aug 19, 2014 18:28:35 #
Great article today by Rob Natelson
Failure to Call Amendments Conventions Helps Explain Modern Federal Overreaching
If president after president failed to veto bills, would it surprise you if congressional power grew at the expense of the presidency? If the Senate never blocked the presidents appointments, would it surprise you if presidential power expanded at the expense of Congress? If the courts refused to enforce the Constitutions ban on ex post facto laws, would it be strange if the states passed more ex post facto laws?
And if the states failed to use the Constitutions convention for proposing amendments -- a device inserted in the document to correct and check federal excesses and abuses -- would it astonish you if there were federal excesses and abuses?
Of course not. Each of the Constitutions checks is designed to ensure that the system operates in a balanced way while preserving liberty. Disabling any of these checks violates the Founders design.
Although presidents often veto bills, senators sometimes block nominations, and the courts enforce the ban on state ex post facto laws, the Article V procedure by which a convention of states bypasses Congress and proposes corrective amendments has never been used to completion. The neglect helps explain the size and dysfunction of the modern federal government.
There are, of course, social, political, and economic explanations for expansion of federal power. There also are constitutional explanations. The three most common constitutional explanations are:
1.The 16th Amendment (ending the apportionment rule for federal income taxes) granted the federal government a massive new revenue source.
2.The 17th Amendment, by transferring senatorial elections from the state legislatures to the people, reduced the role of the states in the federal system.
3.In the late 1930s and (especially) the 1940s, the Supreme Court abdicated its responsibility to police the boundaries of federal jurisdiction.
The 16th Amendment explanation falls short in a number of respects. Although the Amendment provided a new revenue source, it did not otherwise expand federal enumerated powers. Moreover, during the late 19th century (1865-95) and much of the early 20th century (1913-29) Congress enjoyed the de facto ability to impose non-apportioned income taxes. Yet federal spending shrank to (approximately) historic peacetime size after both the Civil War and after World War I.
The 17th Amendment reduced direct state legislative influence over the U.S. Senate, but it also provided some compensating advantages to the states. Some pro-small-government scholars believe the Amendments unbundling of state legislative and senatorial elections actually increased the relative power of the states. In other words, despite all the rhetoric on the subject, the net effect of the 17th Amendment on the federal state balance is still uncertain.
As for the Supreme Courts abdication of its duty to police federal limits in the late 1930s and 1940s: This was a crucial development, but it fails to explain the previous actions of Congress and the President. Beginning around 1930 (and despite unfavorable Supreme Court precedent), federal politicians were able to leverage a financial crisis to seize far more power than federal politicians ever had before. During World War II, they were able to hold and expand that power.
The failure of state legislatures to trigger the Article V process in the midst of depression and war is understandable. Less justifiable was state inaction during the decades after World War II, when the federal government refused to retreat to traditional peacetime levels -- especially since that sort of intransigence was precisely the kind of crisis for which the convention device was created.
To be sure, there were some efforts to trigger the convention procedure. The first was the state-based movement for presidential term limits, which became unnecessary when Congress proposed the 22nd amendment.
The other two were the campaign for a balanced budget amendment and for reversal of Supreme Court apportionment decisions. Both were defeated when apologists for the status quo filled gullible activists with runaway convention hysteria.
Neglect of the Article V convention procedure has caused incalculable damage to the constitutional system. The recent surge in convention of states activity -- at least 15 new state applications since 2011 -- may signal that the cure has begun.
Failure to Call Amendments Conventions Helps Explain Modern Federal Overreaching
If president after president failed to veto bills, would it surprise you if congressional power grew at the expense of the presidency? If the Senate never blocked the presidents appointments, would it surprise you if presidential power expanded at the expense of Congress? If the courts refused to enforce the Constitutions ban on ex post facto laws, would it be strange if the states passed more ex post facto laws?
And if the states failed to use the Constitutions convention for proposing amendments -- a device inserted in the document to correct and check federal excesses and abuses -- would it astonish you if there were federal excesses and abuses?
Of course not. Each of the Constitutions checks is designed to ensure that the system operates in a balanced way while preserving liberty. Disabling any of these checks violates the Founders design.
Although presidents often veto bills, senators sometimes block nominations, and the courts enforce the ban on state ex post facto laws, the Article V procedure by which a convention of states bypasses Congress and proposes corrective amendments has never been used to completion. The neglect helps explain the size and dysfunction of the modern federal government.
There are, of course, social, political, and economic explanations for expansion of federal power. There also are constitutional explanations. The three most common constitutional explanations are:
1.The 16th Amendment (ending the apportionment rule for federal income taxes) granted the federal government a massive new revenue source.
2.The 17th Amendment, by transferring senatorial elections from the state legislatures to the people, reduced the role of the states in the federal system.
3.In the late 1930s and (especially) the 1940s, the Supreme Court abdicated its responsibility to police the boundaries of federal jurisdiction.
The 16th Amendment explanation falls short in a number of respects. Although the Amendment provided a new revenue source, it did not otherwise expand federal enumerated powers. Moreover, during the late 19th century (1865-95) and much of the early 20th century (1913-29) Congress enjoyed the de facto ability to impose non-apportioned income taxes. Yet federal spending shrank to (approximately) historic peacetime size after both the Civil War and after World War I.
The 17th Amendment reduced direct state legislative influence over the U.S. Senate, but it also provided some compensating advantages to the states. Some pro-small-government scholars believe the Amendments unbundling of state legislative and senatorial elections actually increased the relative power of the states. In other words, despite all the rhetoric on the subject, the net effect of the 17th Amendment on the federal state balance is still uncertain.
As for the Supreme Courts abdication of its duty to police federal limits in the late 1930s and 1940s: This was a crucial development, but it fails to explain the previous actions of Congress and the President. Beginning around 1930 (and despite unfavorable Supreme Court precedent), federal politicians were able to leverage a financial crisis to seize far more power than federal politicians ever had before. During World War II, they were able to hold and expand that power.
The failure of state legislatures to trigger the Article V process in the midst of depression and war is understandable. Less justifiable was state inaction during the decades after World War II, when the federal government refused to retreat to traditional peacetime levels -- especially since that sort of intransigence was precisely the kind of crisis for which the convention device was created.
To be sure, there were some efforts to trigger the convention procedure. The first was the state-based movement for presidential term limits, which became unnecessary when Congress proposed the 22nd amendment.
The other two were the campaign for a balanced budget amendment and for reversal of Supreme Court apportionment decisions. Both were defeated when apologists for the status quo filled gullible activists with runaway convention hysteria.
Neglect of the Article V convention procedure has caused incalculable damage to the constitutional system. The recent surge in convention of states activity -- at least 15 new state applications since 2011 -- may signal that the cure has begun.
Aug 19, 2014 18:42:50 #
Not fast enough to avert the disaster we are headed to, we are at a loss to regain what was lost in 2010 if you prove me wrong, well then what can I say, I've seen this before, two continents; three countries, the ascendancy of tyranny has no variation or alternate recipe, it is an irrevocable repeat of unlawful Omnipotent Government, no reverse gear nor an explanation for how Tyranny got here.
Aug 19, 2014 18:48:53 #
AuntiE wrote:
Let me give you a question. Do you know who the law enforcement officer is who is the highest ranking officer in the Unitrd States?
The Attorney General?
Aug 25, 2014 09:37:07 #
A post on another thread that is worth sharing. This from a newcomer and a young person but showing a good deal of wisdom.
---------------------------------------------------------
I am so sorry that I have to leave this OPP, as I now will be moving after college! I can NOT believe you "so-called older folks" with all that "EXPERIENCE" that you seem to boast about! Tell me, oh "learned" folks what exactly have YOU LEARNED!! You spend COUNTLESS hours insulting one another BUT the important thing is "what have you ACHIEVED???" If you would spend as much time solving problems or attempting to problem solve instead of taunting one another, maybe we would have a better outcome! I have learned a lot!! --- What NOT to do! I will try to look at everyone's ideas. Maybe they are not mine but that doesn't mean they don't have some validity! I found that I fell into the same trap! It is like a world wind that draws you in!!! I joined in the insults!!! and for that I apologize! STOP CUSSING OUT EACH OTHER!! All you are doing is increasing vitriol and division which are our country's greatest threats! Many of you I assume, are retired. What are you doing with your time. How about getting other seniors together and hashing out the problems --- then bombard your congressmen and senators with your ideas! I wish you all 'Good luck and God Bless!'
---------------------------------------------------------
I am so sorry that I have to leave this OPP, as I now will be moving after college! I can NOT believe you "so-called older folks" with all that "EXPERIENCE" that you seem to boast about! Tell me, oh "learned" folks what exactly have YOU LEARNED!! You spend COUNTLESS hours insulting one another BUT the important thing is "what have you ACHIEVED???" If you would spend as much time solving problems or attempting to problem solve instead of taunting one another, maybe we would have a better outcome! I have learned a lot!! --- What NOT to do! I will try to look at everyone's ideas. Maybe they are not mine but that doesn't mean they don't have some validity! I found that I fell into the same trap! It is like a world wind that draws you in!!! I joined in the insults!!! and for that I apologize! STOP CUSSING OUT EACH OTHER!! All you are doing is increasing vitriol and division which are our country's greatest threats! Many of you I assume, are retired. What are you doing with your time. How about getting other seniors together and hashing out the problems --- then bombard your congressmen and senators with your ideas! I wish you all 'Good luck and God Bless!'
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.