It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There was a time, in the early days of our Constitutional Republic, that the forces of monarchy and tyranny ran deeper than perhaps even today. In 1798, our would-be King John Adams and his Federalist henchmen in Congress trumped up war fever, a tyrant’s best friend, to pass a Sedition Law that made criticism of the President and Congress, interestingly the very ones who enacted this law, a jailable offense.
Vice President Thomas Jefferson, an opponent of the Federalists, who was inconveniently omitted from the protection of this law, jumped into action, but secretly for fear of the Federalists and prison where many of his colleagues in government and the press had been sent under this nefarious law.
Jefferson and James Madison drafted Resolutions that were passed by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures respectively, whose principles can be summarized by this statement from Jefferson’s pen appearing in the Kentucky version:
“The principle and construction contended for that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a NULLIFICATION by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
Exactly, the people are passing constitutional laws through their representatives in congress. Any of the examples you've given are constitutional because of the 9th amendment. The constitution grants rights not in the constitution to the people, who are represented by congress. Lincoln said it best, "Government of the people, for the people, by the people." If you have a problem with government you have a problem with the people.
Tell me, if what you say is your argument, would it not then take a Constitutional Amendment to make it so?
There is already a constitutional amendment to make it so, it's called the 9th amendemnt.
Or you just going to say that the steps to amend the Constitution are just too hard. That to break the law it is okay?
To break the law is not ok, abide by the law, even if you disagree with it but work to change it, always.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Alright, you are back to your standard self, unless you can debate properly, EVERYONE sees you for what you are.
Tell me, if the government passes blatant unConstitutional legislation, what is your obligation to follow the legislation? Are you to wait for four years or so, to get a different Congress or different President to rescind the legislation? Are you to wait for 6 or more years to let a case go to the Supreme Court, to rule that the legislation is unConstitutional?
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
What exactly is your responsibility, as the sole Constitutional empowered holder, of your rights? Not to mention the sole; TRUE, Constitutional representative of your rights. If you do not have Constitutionally defined rights, then WHO does?
I will add to the beginning of their site introduction, that many states have reasserted their 10th amendment rights. Montana has reasserted the rights of their citizens for the absolute right to bear arms and that their citizens need not follow ANY federally mandated gun regulations or restrictions.
Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Anybody out there want to debate this?
Or discuss the site I linked or Ron Paul's position on this?
I mean communicate or debate, not other frivolous things.