Comment

Comment by J.R. on March 23, 2011 at 8:26pm

Wrong!  Just because Madison wrote a case against nullification doesn't mean it isn't viable in some situations or has never been successful in others, for it has. Sometimes it results in a compromise that serves the purpose of those seeking the nullification, as was the case in which the South threatened to secede from the union due to excessive tariffs. The compromise brought about a gradual reduction of the tariffs and the South did not secede at that time. Read about it here:  

 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h333.html

 

The below is an excellent analysis that disproves the canard that nullification has never been successful and shows that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a lawful right to nullification by a sovereign state of any law that is not based on rights expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution.  You can read about it at the link below:

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/3842-a-brilli...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/3842-a-brilliant-exposition-on-the-effectiveness-of-nullificationhttp://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h333.html





Comment by J.R. on March 23, 2011 at 7:41pm

Great video, Roma and Tom!  Unfortunately, the self-elevated elitists among us, believing themselves to be the all-knowing chosen few, have made it their mission to push, shove, or drag us kicking and screaming into a full-blown democracy,  They do this by fomenting hate, racial division, and discord, while giving us a glimpse of what anarchy looks like... in their ultimate rapid march to the tyranny of a socialist oligarchy.  It has to be rapid and chaotic in order to succeed. Their system depends on control of the many by the few, with only the few having all the rights and freedoms and the many becoming slaves who are beholden to the few for their right to exist at all.  History tells us that the seeds that bring oligarchy to fruition, bear bitter fruit, the seeds of which ultimately bring its downfall. But "ultimately" can be a very long time. Better to fight to save our freedoms now, than try to regain them once they are lost and well beyond our reach.

Comment by JL Gawlik on March 23, 2011 at 3:41pm

Normally the Supreme Court does what is called a "Judicial Review"

But, not necessarily, Congress has the authority to define, expand and narrow the jurisdiction of judicial tribunals.

During the ratification battle, Rufus King and Nathaniel Gorham,  both of whom represented Massachusetts in the federal convention, wrote that "in a few enumerating instances the supreme Court have original &  final Jurisdiction - in  all other cases which fall within the  federal Judicial, the supreme court may or not may have appellate Jurisdiction as congress may direct."

(Refer to Farrand-Supp., p. 283 also 2 Farrand,p.431 (showing that "Exceptions" modifies "appellate," with "Law and Fact" inserted for other purposes.) Around the same time, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, who had played a key role at the federal convention, observed that the judicial powers "cannot be extended beyond the enumerated cases, but may be limited by Congress." 

 

This is all from the book "The Original Constitutional: What It Actually Said and Meant" by Robert G. Natelson.

 

It goes on to state Congress enjoyed discretion to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Checks and Balances. 

 

Natelson goes on to name four other limitations on Judicial power.

 

This is ONE BIG reason we should elect representatives who KNOW the U.S. Constitution. I would bet that over 80% are clueless, at least that number in the 110th and 111th Congress were.

Comment by michael gable on March 23, 2011 at 3:22pm

Judges are not infallible, they can get it wrong.  If states have no protection as long as the Fed govt says we are doing this so that's that, there are no protections against usurpation.  At some point it may be up to the states, or the people, to say "no more", we aren't going along.  That's why the "nullification" movement is gaining some ground.  This stuff is not necessarily settled just because the feds and some appointed, supposedly "progressive" judges say so.  Wait and watch, my boy.

Comment by JL Gawlik on March 23, 2011 at 10:08am

Thanks Roma for posting the url for Wall Builders i have forgotten all about that group.

J.R. i give him a zero minus for breaking his oath of office, period.

Comment by J.R. on March 23, 2011 at 9:37am

To put it simply, the U.S. Congress makes the laws, the Supreme Court interprets the laws, and the President enforces the laws.  What grade would you give this president on his enforcing of the laws? I would give him a big fat F- ZERO.  He has dragged this country into a military morass, following his already having dragged it down into a new and extremely damaging zeitgeist.

Comment by JL Gawlik on March 23, 2011 at 9:22am

It is also interesting to note that in the Declaration of Independence the words "... and the pursuit of happiness." were supposed to be "... pursuit of property." But, the founding fathers' realized that many slave owners would call slaves their property thus never ending slavery. A LOT of thought went into every word of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and our U.S. Constitution. Truly the most incredible documents ever written by man.

 

J.R., this whole mess being coordinated by the United Nations says it all. President Obama has handed over our leadership of the Free World to the U.N. period. That is a very dangerous and questionable move in my opinion. Wow, i just listened to former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld just stated that he does not think that it was taken to Congress because the coalition that was formed for the Libya No Fly Zone, does not know what they  would ask for, they have not even given the mission in Libya a cause. They are creating it as they go. Not good.

Comment by J.R. on March 23, 2011 at 9:04am

Taking this country into war IS a real issue, this is not a state vs. federal government issue, states and American citizens have every right to challenge unconstitutional acts taken by the President of the United States, and we have every right to demand that our president follow and enforce the law, and follow the U.S. Constitution to the letter. 

Today, we learn that President Obama has now put Marine boots on the ground to fight and die in Libya.  Being the socialist narcissist that he is, he probably thinks taking this country into war will improve his flagging poll numbers and give impetus to his 2012 presidential run, as a "war president," in a war he unconstitutionally helped start and prosecute.  Sending our troops to war is not a political chess game and our military men and women are not pawns to be used in an unconstitutional war. 

Further, President Sarcozy of France has now proposed having this illegal war run by a "political committee."  That tells us everything we need to know about this war and its so-far undefined mission.

Just have a look at today's war news, in linked articles at http://www.drudgereport.com, to read and understand the disarray in the incompetent "coalition" and who has pulled out of it... at the same time Obama has taken ownership of the fighting by putting American boots on the ground in Libya.  

Comment by JL Gawlik on March 23, 2011 at 8:48am

Just a note also, a great group that is standing up for our Constitution and State Sovereignty which our founding fathers' fully supported is:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

 

Comment by Winston on March 22, 2011 at 11:00pm

Even Farrahkan knows what is happening a guy i usally dont agree with.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page