It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bill of Rights...structural, and emphasises States' Rights. The Feds are too powerful!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   

The Ideology of Nationalism
We inhabit a world whose constitutional terrain is dominated by landmark supreme Court cases that invalidated state laws and administrative practices in the name of individual constitutional rights. Living in the shadows of Brown v. Board of Education and the second Reconstruction of the 1960s, many lawyers embrace a tradition that views state governments as the quintessential threat to individual and minority rights, and federal officials - especially federal courts - as the special guardians of those rights.


This ideology is completely against the views of the founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 28 wrote about a typical nonfederal regime:


If the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which the nation consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource....


This is why the founding fathers established a Union that did not "remove the States". Rather the States were sovereign entities that comprised the Union and had rights. The rights of States were fundamental, and were more important than the rest of the Bill of Rights:


The First Congress proposed a Bill of Rights that contained tweleve amendments, but only the last ten were ratified by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures in 1791, thereby becoming "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of the Constitution." Thus the words that we refer to as the First Amendment really weren't "first" in the minds of the First Congress....This would-be First Amendment obviously sounds primarily in structure; it is an explicit modification of the structural rule set out in Article I, section 2, which mandates that the "Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" constituents. Had this original First Amendment prevailed in the state-ratification process rather than suffering a narrow defeate in the 1790s - it fell one state short of the requisite three-fourths - it would no doubt be much harder for twentieth-century citizens and scholars to ignore the Bill of Rights' emphasis on structure, for the Bill would begin and end with structural provisions. As it stands instead, the fact that the most evident structural provision (our Tenth Amendment, their Twelfth) sits at the end of the decalogue may mislead us into viewing it as an afterthought, discontinuous with the perceived individual-rights theme of the earlier provisions. The original First Amendment suggests otherwise. It is poetic that this amendment was first, for it responded to perhaps the single most important concern of the Anti-Federalists.


(Emphasis in bold added)

The Bill of Rights, as stated in the Preamble to said rights, are "declaratory and restrictive clauses", not securities of individual freedoms. They were intended to be restrictions upon the Federal Government, for very good reasons, to protect us all from Federal Tyranny which will happen as soon as Partisan power shifts to one party instead of its current bi-partisan power system. It is poised for such a time, since the Democrats are becoming overwhelmingly more powerful than the Republicans.

The Bill of Rights were structural amendments, securing the rights of States from the possibility of power usurpation by the Federal Government (read Federalist No. 28).

Some more comments on States' Rights.


Twentieth-century Americans are still living with the legacy of the Civil War, with modern rhetorical battle lines tracking those laid down more than a century ago. Thus, in the tradition of Thaddeus Stevens, twentieth-century nationalists recognize the need for a strong national government to protect individuals aganist abusive state government but often ignore the threat posed by a monstrous central regime unchecked by competing power centers. Conversely, in the tradition of Jefferson Davis, twentieth-century states' rightists wax eloquent about the dangers of a national government run rampant, but regularly deploy the rhetoric of states' rights to defend states' wrongs. Sadly, states' rights and federalism have often served as code words for racial injustice and disregard for the rights of local minorities - code words for a world-view far closer to Jefferson Davis's than James Madison's.


(emphasis in bold added)

I believe in Madison when I speak of States' Rights, not Davis, that is important, we should all believe in the Founding Fathers, and not the men of the 1860s who have defined our current struggle along lines of moralism and immoralism, institutionally we must have States' Rights.


What has been lost in this twentieth-century debate is the crucial Madisonian insight that localism and liberty can sometimes work together rather than at cross-purposes.


So true, we should not let slavery be the "tragic flaw" of our heros, the states.

The Bill of Rights were drastically altered by the 14th Amendment, the book I have so-far quoted from:

The Bill of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar, published by Yale

;greatly explains the 14th Amendment's involvement in changing the Bill of Rights.

It has "incorporated" them to incorporate the States. This is wrong because the 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified, proposed and signed.

It was forced upon this Union, and destroys the hopes of attaining a Madisonian Federal system.

We must fight to remember the Bill of Rights as they are, without the unconstitutional 14th Amendment, without the bloated Federal Government.

As soon as one party controls the Federal Government, our rights will mean nothing to it, and we will beg for our states, and our militias, and our freedom. Only by then it will probably be too late.

So educate yourself now!

States' Rights!




posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I wish the old Republican form of government before George Washington took office, would return. The Federal Governmnet is a corporation and sure acts as one! It is now the Federal Administrative Government which is running he show from around the time of F.D.R. We are not even flying the real flah but a "banner". Sad.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Somewhat correct MOOR, more importantly though is that the states currently are becomming Federal Districts, and this must stop. We must save our Constitutional Union before it is utterly destroyed.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The states still have power per their constitution. However, D.C. operates beyond it's territorial jurisdiction. Congress as the average person knows it does not exist. It is but a mere standing committee with defacto powers. The legal definition of the Federal government is defined in 28 USC 3002 (15). Their is also more than one version of the constitution. The original is the Preamble and the 7 articles. Everything else after was not ratified by "the United States in Congress Assembled", or the Congress (legal formal Congress) but by simply Congress(informal defacto).



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Outstanding. Leaves behind the question of how to go about fixing the problem.


P.S.- having one of the real flags made, gonna fly it in my yard. Was thinking about having a bunch made and selling themfor cheap/giving them away with info about the flag vs. the battle flag we now fly over non military gov. buildings

[edit on 13-7-2004 by cavscout]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Well lets keep the current discussion to another thread, this is about the "Bill of Rights" and how it really stands for States' Rights, not individual rights.

But someone do explain to me what the "real flag" is? The "non-battle flag" as it were????



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Well lets keep the current discussion to another thread, this is about the "Bill of Rights" and how it really stands for States' Rights, not individual rights.

But someone do explain to me what the "real flag" is? The "non-battle flag" as it were????

The real flag is defined in 4 USCS Ch 1 Sec 1 "The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag should be forty-eight Stars, white in a blue field". The actual points of the stars were different but that is another topic. The current Federal Administrative flag was not passed by the Congress but Presidential Executive Order in contradition to the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution. And the so called British Union Jack was used by the united colonies and the Federal Corporation. The banners yousee with gold fringes in the courtroom are maritime war time flags. When you step in that courtroom and proceed to take the oath, you have just waived your rights. Sorry if I missed your point earlier Freemason. This topic spreads to so many things and I have stidied this for years and am currently working with others on cases to bring this before the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights is connected to what used to be called the declaration of rights. Each stae has one but you have to look it up as it may be hard to find.


df1

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A man who told his doctors that he drinks more than a six-pack of beer per day is now fighting to get his driver's license back because the physicians apparently reported him to the state.

Keith Emerich, 44, said Tuesday that he disclosed his drinking habit in February to doctors who were treating him at a hospital for an irregular heartbeat.

"I told them it was over a six-pack a day. It wasn't good for me -- I'm not going to lie," Emerich said in a telephone interview from his home in Lebanon, about 30 miles east of Harrisburg.

Emerich received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in April that his license was being revoked effective May 6 for medical reasons related to substance abuse.
www.cnn.com...

The above article shows just how wonderful it is to have states rights. And we've also seen the wonderful benefits achieved by california voters which passed legal medical marijuana laws only to get hosed by the feds. Why should I give a damn whether I am a slave to federal government, state government , a federal district or a local form of government? Government needs to be massively curtailed at all levels. The debate over state rights is nothing but an excercise of self abuse designed to obfuscate the real issue which is individual rights. The states rights issue is a dead horse. The federal government and the states are in a conspiracy to enslave americans by causing citizens to fight the same battles in multiple localities then in each of 50 states and if they win those battles then refight the same battle at the federal level. Lets toss out all state and local laws, so we only need to win the battle for individual rights at one level of government. States rights Indeed... ha ha ha ha ha ha
.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
The states rights issue is a dead horse.


Couldn't agree more, and it becomes more evident every day.

Take Gay Marriage. We're fighting over who has the right to deny it?


The Federal Government or the State of Alabama. What a nontroversy.

Please get some new material FreeMason. Nothing personal, I just don't know what to do with all your retread threads.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by df1
The states rights issue is a dead horse.


Couldn't agree more, and it becomes more evident every day.


It is dead and left to die.

The citizen rights were protected by the states militia granted by the constitution.

Then they were combined into the National Guard. Still with militia status, limited to operating only within the borders, and generally delegated to controlling riots, helping during natural disasters etc.

But guess where many of them are right now...Iraq? By the thousands! And acting as a standing army in a foreign country, and for extended periods.

And who is left to do the originally intended work of the states militias?

Nobody.

So how can anyone expect to have citizen rights. Or worry about eroding constitutional rights? Or even have a method to protect against a rogue governemnt?

The rights that are always to question, have been gone since the early 1900's (1931 I think.) What has been left is minimal pacification to keep the masses appeased.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
RANT and df1, I would please ask you that if you can not realize how important States' Rights are, to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and to please understand what the Constitution means. I have posted a good deal about the Bill of Rights to do away with any confusion you may have on the meaning of those Amendments.

I would like people who only have opinions, to simply shut-up.

"Why should I give a damn whether I am a slave to federal government, state government , a federal district or a local form of government?"

"Couldn't agree more, and it becomes more evident every day."

Opinions, and crappy ones that that.

James Madison explained thuroughly how important States' Rights are and why.

"And who is left to do the originally intended work of the states militias?

Nobody.

So how can anyone expect to have citizen rights. Or worry about eroding constitutional rights? Or even have a method to protect against a rogue governemnt?

The rights that are always to question, have been gone since the early 1900's (1931 I think.) What has been left is minimal pacification to keep the masses appeased."

Smirkley, as opposed to you others, states unlike yourselves, an opinion grounded in context.

That context is that the founding fathers strongly believed that the only way to maintain freedom was to do it yourself, the way to do that was State militias. Which needed State sovereignity.

So whn States argued to maintain their sovereignity, the founding fathers were more than happy to let them keep it, all that needed to be worked out was a Federal Government they thought would NOT usurp that sovereignity.

However on the date 1867, it did.

Now stop posting crap, worthless opinions that have no context or historical backing.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Now stop posting crap, worthless opinions that have no context or historical backing.


We've discussed this before. Your particular interest in providing a subjective historical context for topical discussions, may be about as worthless to some as you find their opinons that don't indulge in forefather worship.

I'm not calling your opinon worthless. Just reminding you it's an opinon. No better or worse than anyone elses.

So here's a context for you. I read your post and the quote about "State's Rights" unfairly being labeled a code word for racial injustice... but given the context of today's gay marriage debate, how can you still deny the potential erosion of civil liberties by rogue states?

You're so scared of a rogue federal government. Well I live in south, and these people scare the hell out of me.


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
I would like people who only have opinions, to simply shut-up.


The truth of matter is that you would like those who do not have their opinions crafted into your narrowly defined box to simply shut up. And while it is your right to live in the state of confusion, you have no right to demand that others live in that same sorry state in silent acceptance of your edicts.

The War Is Over Boy. You Lose.

General William T. Sherman
.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
I would like people who only have opinions, to simply shut-up.


FreeMason, you are in no position to determine who can and can't post on ATS threads.
Let's not be saying things like that anymore, mmkay?

-B.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   
(disclaimer - not getting between personal differences, but still enjoying constitutional arguements, I have to reply ...but only to state my opinions and not take any other position.)


Originally posted by RANT
... but given the context of today's gay marriage debate, how can you still deny the potential erosion of civil liberties by rogue states?



The gay rights issues as well as other hot issues, are commonly decided by non-elected liberal judges, and usually find their way to the supreme courts for final decision or denial of consideration. Most states ARE held 'hostage', in order to dictate application of federal belief of what laws should exist at the state level. Remember the 55 mph speed limits? States faced losing federal highway funding if they did not comply with the perception that 55mph was the only choice. It took many years to reverse that particular example.

And those good ol' boys in the south, they should be scary.

I cant imagine any government(s) being concerned about some middle managers driving an SUV with the 'baby-on-board' sticker, living in the burbs of Chicago, with a debt load bigger than a lifetime of earnings, stating that he wants less federal control, just as long as it doesnt go past 5pm so the kids can be picked up at daycare, and doesnt interfere with his 401k or vacation plans.

The confederacy was about anti-federalism (not just slavery),...the south lost, and so did the whole country, on many levels. IMO.

(and yes, I am a born yankee.
)



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I don't know about states being "held hostage". In the Drive 55 example, they agreed for Federal highway funding. Sure thats kind of bribary, and the same thing they did with raising the drinking age.

I can remember all these battles. Especially, when I couldn't drive to Ohio anymore during college to drink legally. But as I recall people here were mad their 19 year old kids were driving to Ohio to drink legally! And would be again if it changed.

So there's that. The "conservative" states are still going to be mad about the other states. And what about the reverse? Go into a state for NASCAR (or whatever) and suddenly you can't buy beer on Saturday after midnight wearing a yellow T-shirt (or whatever), or you just can't buy alcohol at all.

It's like that now, and I think that's wrong as hell. I want to be saved from these people, not give them more power.


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
The confederacy was about anti-federalism (not just slavery),...the south lost, and so did the whole country, on many levels. IMO.


The confederate powers-that-be cared little or nothing about states rights. States rights was a convenient political slogan designed to insure that the poor ignorant white trash stayed poor while their betters continued sitting on the veranda sipping mint juleps. And the poor ignorant white trash bought it hook, line and sinker. But what is most amazing is that the poor ignorant white trash are still buying the same tired states rights slogan today as they continue to keep the ancestors of the plantation masters in power to this day.

Without a doubt that northerner driving his SUV home from the office to his large suburban home has it much better than the poor ignorant white trash in the south driving his truck with big wheels from the tyson chicken plant to his mobile home.

The only real issue of the civil war was economics and economics is still the only real issue today.

Wake up ya'll, the civil war is over. The people of south lost and they are continuing to lose today, because they've not figured out who is the real enemy. All the southern politician needs to do to win an election is repeat the mantra "jesus" and "states rights" three times real fast and them southern boys will be squealing with pleasure like the fat man in the "deliverance" movie.
.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Well it's 'bribery' if they offer the money, to 'update' the laws,...It's 'hostage' if they already give the money, and then threaten to pull the funding unless you comply.

And I agree, when I turned 18, the state I lived in just raised it to 21. So we just went to Indiana for our libations. And a year later I moved to another state while going to school, it was 18 there .....for a few month's, ... then I had to wait another couple of years to be legal again.


But the blue laws still in the books, only prevents those who do not properly prepare for attending a race. And there are plenty of folks who show up overly prepared.


The SUV family I spoke of, are they really better off? Really?

And those poor ignorant white trash ?!... well to continue with that only shows that both sides still hold much resentment and ignorance of each other.


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
Well it's 'bribery' if they offer the money, to 'update' the laws,...It's 'hostage' if they already give the money, and then threaten to pull the funding unless you comply.

Take the states out of it completely. Changing the highway speed laws should only require dealing with one level of government.


And I agree, when I turned 18, the state I lived in just raised it to 21. So we just went to Indiana for our libations. And a year later I moved to another state while going to school, it was 18 there .....for a few month's, ... then I had to wait another couple of years to be legal again.


But the blue laws still in the books, only prevents those who do not properly prepare for attending a race. And there are plenty of folks who show up overly prepared.

Again lets make it a federal issue. If it is mandated that you can vote and die for your country at 18, surely the federal courts will rule you have the right to drink at that age. Your rights should not vary as you cross the state line.





The SUV family I spoke of, are they really better off? Really?

Go out to the backyard and ask, they are sitting around the pool. They'd be glad to toss an extra steak on the grill for you.



And those poor ignorant white trash ?!... well to continue with that only shows that both sides still hold much resentment and ignorance of each other.

Damn right I resent those dumb butts. They keep sending idiot legislators to congress that want to shove their christian agenda down my throat. Civil rights are not just for minorities, but those poor ignorant white trash voters aren't smart enough to understand that fact. The Bill of Rights is for everybody and state legislators shouldn't be allowed to mess with them at all.
.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by df1]



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Df1, while occasional colorful commentary as punctuation is okay...


I think we've hit our quota for the day with the "poor white trash" thing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join