Eric Holder Threatens Kansas

And that's why I said everyone should come together to decide what they believe is the greater good for all involved. When you have more people involved, the better the outcome becomes. When you put your faith on a select few for the masses, more people will lose. My logic isn't a problem, it's your understanding of it.

Congress members have given themselves the ability to do it, I don't see why everyone else can't do it (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/08344222725/congress-quickly-quietly-rolls-back-insider-trading-rules-itself.shtml). Again, folks put faith in the some for the many, I disagree with that notion. If everyone had a say in that, everyone would've been able to freely get inside trade tips, not just Congress. Starting to see my logic?

If it's your property, you have a right to it. No law is going to determine that otherwise. What a law should be there is to give you the ability to obtain the item back lawfully & legally, not provide a false sense of protection from theft.

False, folks don't have a right to steal the things because it's not theirs. If they made the property, they have a right to it. No law defines what's theirs or not. If you built something, does a law say that you own it? Of course not, you own it because it's your property. Laws are established to aid you in getting your property back lawfully & legally, in the event it's stolen.

You keep digging at this hole and I've already gave you my point. You may place it however you wish.

Everyone, as individuals, collectively come together and decide what's best for all. Not "voting" for someone whose interest is some corporate fat cat. Take away their power to impose their will over the masses, put the power in each American that can determine what's best for them, that's when we will see change. Not doing the same thing and expecting different results, it doesn't work.

 

So Britain didn't make a peace treaty with thirteen sovereign states after the revolutionary war? What a novel concept. And if it did then when, exactly, did the states lose their sovereignty?

A state would be in violation of the compact if did those things specified in A1S10 without congressional approval. But where's the enforcement provision? I never said the constitution was perfect...

 

Our federal Congress is only delegated the power to legislate, over anything and everything, in the federal districts; the rest of the powers are specifically enumerated.

Why doesn't our federal Congress merely fix a Standard for controversial forms of Arms and classify them as Class III?

It could be claimed, that those laws enacted by our federal Congress are only valid in the federal districts.

- - - Updated - - -

Obeying an unlawful order can be an offense.

 

1. People don't have time to put that much effort into participating in their government. That's what a republic is for. A pure democracy is impractical.
2. Even if everyone came together, do you really think they'd reach a consensus? What if they reached a majority decision? Wouldn't that be the same as it is now? One majority telling a minority what to do? Isn't that what you have a problem with?

No. There is no logic to what you're saying. You didn't address my point. You're dancing around it because you have no answer to it.

 

What I have a problem with is folks passing laws that are supposed to be the whim of the majority. Name me one policy maker you've agreed with every thing they've put forth.

Only because you don't wish to see my logic. If you understood it, you would know where my stance was, as I've clearly defined it. Since you keep asking redundant questions, I'll add some more redundancy. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Someone defaming another person shouldn't be against the law. Is it wrong to do such a thing, if it isn't warranted? Of course it is. At no point does it mean that someone has the right to take them to court and sue them over it.

Even if I went with your example, if we took away the 'property law' and I had a 'possession'. It still doesn't give you the right to take it from me, regardless if the law is there or not.

Did you not even read what I said? Laws don't define your right, plain and simple.

That's a very bad fallacy. I have a right to my things regardless if a law tells folks otherwise. If I acquire them, through rightfully means, they are mine. Stealing them from someone else doesn't constitute it as it being mine. If I make/trade for the property, it's mine. A law doesn't state it otherwise.

IP laws are something I've debated a long time. My stance is I believe something should be there to protect the physical. However, I will always err on the side of caution. If I made an item, with my bare hands and my own resources, whose to tell me that it's not mine? You say some patent, I say not so.

I'm the one whose been answering all of your direct questions, never once have I pressed you for any information. Freedom of speech is just that, freedom to speak. It's unlawful to dance at the Thomas Jefferson memorial, dancing to be a form of speech, I have videos of folks breaking that law all the time. I say congrats to them. However, just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right.

The Founding Fathers were also highly against tyrannical governments. In my opinion, the Constitution isn't a perfect document to assume all things should be so. My views might align directly with the Constitution, but that's only because of my beliefs. I don't align myself in one direction or the other, I let my positions state where I am, even though I claim to be a libertarian.

If it seems I'm against the founding fathers directives, than so be it. My position is the ability to get away from the mess that we're currently in. You might like the current system, I don't. If I can voice my opinions on the matter, I will do just that. You don't have to like them, I don't expect any to like them. All I'm aiming for is to ensure that my voice [words] is [are] heard, simple as that.

 

No, it made peace with a sovereign nation. The Articles of Confederation - which declared the Union perpetual - being in force when it was signed, the states were not sovereign no matter what the Treaty of Paris said, since by agreeing to the Articles they had forever abrogated their right to secede unilaterally.

Not at all.

Not later than 3/1/1781.

Actually some of those prohibitions apply regardless of congressional approval.

I'd say the take care and militia clauses of A2 and the power of Congress "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" pretty well cover it.

No, you just implied it's meaningless.

 

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." - Article II, Articles of Confederation

Oops

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. " - Article III, Articles of Confederation

A union of sovereign nations, not a sovereign nation.

That is correct.

I agree that a state would be wrong to oppose the legit federal powers by force. That does not trump a state's ultimate right and authority to secede, which is what it should do if no longer wants to comply with the provisions of the compact. Federal authority is limited authority. The people of each state retain ultimate authority over their state and that includes taking it out of the union.

I implied no such thing.

BTW, the US Constitution superceded the Articles of Confederation, rendering that documet's perpetuity provisions null and void.

 

You need to have a look at Article 6.

Obviously their operating definition of sovereignty was not what yours is, since even neglecting Article 6, given the tenor of the times any state which seceded and then proceeded to exercise its sovereign right to accommodate British regiments would most surely have answered to the higher authority of the remaining states.

That is exactly what it does; and ironically enough, one need hardly read anything outside of 10A to realize it.

You most certainly did.

 

You're going to have to quote the relevant text because I don't see anything in there that supports your position.

After the war was over? Why would they do that? What is the relevance of this hypothetical?

Then you a reading something that is not there. Cite the text that says a state cannot secede.

Did not.

 

It's all relevant. That Article is practically a template for A1S10 of the Constitution.

What would you have me do, pry your eyelids open?

Doesn't matter, since a sovereign has the legal right to do anything for any reason.

Swell, first you wanted me to spoon feed you, now you want me to chew it first.

If it could, it could legally disregard "[t]he powers [] delegated to the United States"; and since it clearly cannot do that, neither can it secede unilaterally.

 

though you are right on, unfortunately you need a government court to agree with you, and that works as well as politicians enacting the will of their constituents rather than their own.

nafta, borders, ruin the economy then give us state regulated health care when no one can afford to pay their medical bills.

 

It is found in some State Constitutions.

 

read the preamble to the constitution.

While the States were important, it was the people of the several states which came together to ratify the Constitution, and the Constitution States in it's body that it is the ultimate authority, with the States subordinate to it. (Article VI section 2)

 

Please read Article 7: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Between the states. That's what it says.

 

In other words you can't back up your assertions with detailed arguments and specific citations so you resort to insulting remarks and gibberish. Got it. Moving on.

 

That's the best you can do?

 

And it was the people of those states who were to select the delegates to the state ratification conventions. I don't deny the role of the individual states, but ultimately it was the eligible voters in those states that ratified the Constitution, thus it was the People of the United States (eligible voters) who ratified the Constitution. It is a subtle but important distinction. It was the people of the individual states (at the time, effectively individual nations) that approved the Constitution through their representatives.

 

State Constitutions are the supreme law of the land of the State; it should require a new State Constitution to change that.

- - - Updated - - -

Our federal Constitution was a hybrid for its time; it has both federal and national characteristics.

 

No other words are needed, except to confuse the issue - which of course is your only option at this point.

 

Still no citation, eh?

 

Did you miss the part about State Constitutions?