Nullify Now! US tyranny defense.

triplicate post, removed by stafff

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

I would love to have 50 countries within our borders.

At one time "state" was synonymous with "country." The State of Virginia, the State of North Carolina, etc, basically meant the sovereign country of Virginia, the sovereign country of North Carolina.

The Articles of Confederation were even better than the Constitution imo. In history class they teach you that the Articles of Confederation were an inefficient system, but what they really mean is that the feds had so much trouble trying to bully the states that they just had to come up with a way to exert more power over them.

Patrick Henry was an anti-federalist. Many many other founding fathers were also anti-federalists, stood firmly against the Constitution, and REMEMBER PEOPLE it was only passed AFTER the Bill of Rights was included, and the 10th amendment guaranteed that the federal government would be very limited in its powers. Before that -- it was a no-go.

From your lips to God's ear, with a little help from us I hope.

And what you say of history class, wish I had the same history classes. Mine were filled with only recent history.

I wonder why THAT was? But I have done my due diligence and will waken as many as I can.

reply to post by GhostLancer

In the end, we are a UNION of states, not a group of states in a union. Splitting semantic hairs, but the Federal government trumps everything. Besides, the new healthcare LAW is exactly that. A law. So far, I haven't seen the death squads that Palin promised would haul away our grandparents. I'm not saying that it's a sterling and 100% perfect piece of legislation. But the way things were (in healthcare) was TRAGICALLY WRONG.

NO it does NOT trump everything. This thinking is what gets us into trouble. The federal government does NOT trump the Constitution. It does NOT trump JURY nullification.

Why do you THINK that they made the IRS tax courts with NO jury? Ever WONDER about that?

As for the REST of your argument, what keeps YOU from paying CASH for the health services a doctor provides? Do you think that all the regulations and the government interference in health care has not brought about all this.

As for your haves and have nots argument. I am a have not, and I do not want government assistance, PERIOD.

What about me? Oh, I forgot, you want the government to control everything. Where as the majority of the informed, do NOT.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Thanks for the additional vid mnemeth, you damn anarchist.

reply to post by mothershipzeta

States don't have nullification power.

If you have states deciding what federal laws do and don't apply, you have a confederation, not a union.

Don't like it? Hold a Constitutional Convention and start from scratch.

Nullification power-see the 2005 Real ID Act, see that anywhere in the US now? see the Montana passing of the Piss Off gun legislation thumbing their nose at the feds! See the Missouri ballot initiative to say Piss Off Obamacare! See the States and cities telling the feds to protect the border or ELSE movement!

Lots of nullification going on. Hey, that sounds pretty good, might have to create a song with that.

Oh by the Way-Constitutional Convention!

reply to post by die_another_day


YOU have the power!

We have the power!

Jury nullification is the last RIGHT of an oppressed people.

State nullification is the basis of our Constitutional government. The oligarchs just do not want YOU or I to know it.

reply to post by trailertrash


I am trying that route myself.

They have fired the first barrels, now they have to enforce it.

reply to post by masterp


I myself was working on it.

WHERE WERE YOU?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Then, quite a few southern states (the usual suspects when cries of 'states rights' are heard) refused to ratify the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th. North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Georgia either rejected or just didn't get around to ratifying the 21st.

You know why? Not because the people themselves wanted to keep it illegal to drink alcohol. Because the states were making bank off of all the new crime they were fighting. Al Capone wasn't the only one capitalizing on prohibition. The courts did too through all kinds of legal fines they were slapping on people.

EXACTLY!

Just as what is going on NOW.

See discussion here-If it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal, would it not also take a Constitutional Amendment to make any other substance illegal?

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

Well I'm pretty sure everyone on here has heard my thoughts on revolution in the United States, so I won't bore you again. I will say though that nullification is at least a potentially peaceful way to enact change, so for that OP, you get a star. Thanks for not just being another armchair Rambo, well done.

Never been an armchair Rambo, more an information Rambo.

I will say though that it seems the majority of the people whom want a different system than currently exists in the US want a radically different one. As such, I am wondering, and please all do chime in as I am actually genuinely curious here: Does anyone who wants a nullification or revolution or secession scenario believe in taxation?

Voluntary taxation is the only Constitutionally allowable taxation, IMO. Of course the feds call our form of taxation on personal labor income and property taxation as voluntary. Very funny to call it voluntary if they can throw you in jail or seize your property and laughingly call it voluntary.

Corporations are voluntary entities. Why not ONLY tax them? As an individual sole proprietorship has almost become a ghost of itself, the Corporations have become a monstrosity. Why not eliminate the individual taxation on sole proprietorships and individuals and enact sales taxation with corporate taxation?

You know, quit STEALING everyone's LABOR. Which is the VERY definition of property and according to THIS-

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I will say though that it seems the majority of the people whom want a different system than currently exists in the US want a radically different one.

Is re-affirming the 10th amendment really that radical?

It's simple. Any federal law that isn't a Constitutional amendment, is at the states' individual discretion to enforce.

Unless I'm in the minority here and most people are saying something completely different.

NOPE, that pretty much covers the argument in a nutshell.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

NOPE, that pretty much covers the argument in a nutshell.

Except it's a moronic argument that completely ignores what is written in the Constitution, especially Article I Section 8.

Which proves that the nutcases that agree with the horse crap promoted by this thread, hate the Constitution, hate freedom, and hate America.

reply to post by whatukno


What, is someone talking?

You keep NITPICKING one component. It has to be taken with the ENTIRETY of the Constitution.

You cannot just take one component out and apply it. It has to be used in CONTEXT.

You get CONTEXT don't you?

Or do you like to take wild stabs in the dark or take things out of CONTEXT?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I am not the one that is nitpicking what parts of the constitution are to be used or not. It's this lot of people who support this idiocy.

You have even said it yourself before when you were under your old login as endisnighe there are certain enumerated powers given to the federal government by the constitution. One of those powers is the ability to pass laws.

Not everything has to be a constitutional amendment to be a legal law. That's just absurd.

excellent post.

what i get from it is that if i buy one thing, i go to jail, but if i don't buy health-care(when the law goes into effect) i still go to jail. all BS to me.

what can a single citizen do? especially a normal, hard working, HS diploma or less just trying to live Joe????
what can one person do, to fight something he thinks is unlawful.?

i guess it has to always take a majority.

very enlightening

i really should run for some form of office to change things, but does normal joe have the money for schooling, or funding from lobbyist, or even where to get the right forms. not really, unless you rich and have the right connections. like most all of us, agian, he's trying to just live

i know I'm not quite on topic. but this thread make me a little mad and more people should read content like this.

flag

reply to post by whatukno


Just because YOU call something idiotic does not make it so, I would call that ignorant on your part.

Just because the feds are allowed to pass legislation, does not mean they are NOT restricted to what is in the Constitution.

As I have said, if ANY PART of the Constitution is deviated from, that legislation is not law, because it breaks the Constitution. You can bloviate on and on and on and on and on all you want, but it does not make it true.

If any federal legislation infringes on the RIGHTS of the individual or the states that are defined in the Constitution, or gives the federal government MORE power than is IN the Constitution, that legislation is UNLAWFUL. Period.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


And as I have said and many others have said before, if the legislation is unconstitutional it's up to the SCOTUS to strike it down as such.

Not YOU.

reply to post by whatukno


Wrong again!

I can be picked for a jury and find the law to be repugnant, just as Wisconsin folk back in the day found the fugitive slavery laws to be repugnant, so can I find federal laws to be repugnant.

But of course you, would advocate killing American Citizens without a fair trial. Hmmm?

Oh, I guess if a soldier was told to shoot an American Citizen and then was brought up on charges, I suppose YOU would want me to convict said criminal, because the SCOTUS had not made a decision yet?

Is this YOUR argument or debate tactic?

Originally posted by links234
The beauty of the constitution; where in the 9th amendment it says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I would interpret this as saying that, even if it's not in the constitution, it still is constitutional if the people wish it to be so. If the people, represented by congress, want any of those that you listed or any that you did not, then it's constitutional...simply because the 9th amendment says so.

You only believe that, because you believe law is democratic, and not republic in nature. Majority rule has no authority to make something which has no victim a crime.

Majority rule may decide on administrative proceedings, not what constitutes a crime.

51% of people can make blue shoes illegal? Unlawful
51% of people can decide where tax money is spent. Lawful

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Just because you want to destroy this Union and set up a fascist regime doesn't mean that the rest of us do.

I know, you would like it if juries all across the country would use their power of nullification to the extent that society is crawling with serial killers, murderers and rapists. But common decency would dictate otherwise. I believe your want for this to occur is because you hate the Constitution, hate freedom and hate America.