Comments on: It’s the People’s Right! http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/ Concordia res Parvae Crescunt Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:41:31 +0000 hourly 1 By: A Victory for the Tenth Amendment in the Supreme Court – Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-908316 A Victory for the Tenth Amendment in the Supreme Court – Tenth Amendment Center Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:12:32 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-908316 [...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.” My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or [...] [...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.” My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or [...]

]]> By: A Victory for the Tenth Amendment in the Supreme Court – Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-630509 A Victory for the Tenth Amendment in the Supreme Court – Tenth Amendment Center Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:52:29 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-630509 [...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.” My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or state [...] [...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.” My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or state [...]

]]> By: A Victory for the Tenth Amendment in the Supreme Court | Our American Constitution http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-627672 A Victory for the Tenth Amendment in the Supreme Court | Our American Constitution Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:27:46 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-627672 [...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.” My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or state [...] [...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.” My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or state [...]

]]> By: Getting the 10th Amendment Right | Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-288516 Getting the 10th Amendment Right | Tenth Amendment Center Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:01:21 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-288516 [...] CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE If you enjoyed this post: [...] [...] CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE If you enjoyed this post: [...]

]]> By: Rob Natelson: A Constitutional Coup d’etat | Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-278790 Rob Natelson: A Constitutional Coup d’etat | Tenth Amendment Center Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:20:34 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-278790 [...] It’s the People’s Right! [...] [...] It’s the People’s Right! [...]

]]> By: Rob Natelson: Understanding Federalism | Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-257839 Rob Natelson: Understanding Federalism | Tenth Amendment Center Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:22:47 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-257839 [...] It’s the People’s Right! [...] [...] It’s the People’s Right! [...]

]]> By: Allan A. Campbell http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-257267 Allan A. Campbell Sun, 31 May 2009 17:13:29 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-257267 Rather than be redundant,all my posts upon May,23,09 blog "Tenth Ammendment Showdown" are incorporated herein for greater clarity as to my frame of reference. Am new to computing. Haven't figured out how to use computer to create paragraphs. My apologies for the tough read. Rather than be redundant,all my posts upon May,23,09 blog “Tenth Ammendment Showdown” are incorporated herein for greater clarity as to my frame of reference. Am new to computing. Haven’t figured out how to use computer to create paragraphs. My apologies for the tough read.

]]> By: Allan A. Campbell http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-257241 Allan A. Campbell Sat, 30 May 2009 23:07:11 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-257241 Sounds like a relaxed comfort zone. Lets all hope future generations become knowledgeable. Let's hope they vote for our favored candidate. Let's have another round of hanging chads. Let's entrust those that tell us what we want to hear and then opt never to vote for them again when they renege on their promises. Oh,lets go round robin Republican-Democrat doe-see-dough. Lets all file charging affidavits against the bonds which underlay tortfeasers Oaths and Affirmations to hear the court sanction us for filing bogus documents. The missing link of "force" to compel could be that which most automatically, choose to disregard,dismiss,or fail to investigate. People's power to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment. States vote their rights into existence. For sake of arguendo lets say People can't vote apart from representation. What's the procedure for people to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment? Have researched and found not one single people right has been reserved as a 10th Ammendment right. Whats wrong with this picture? On point issue of relevance is that it creates new question of law. Whether Govt. brings action to Supreme Court or a People fashioned Writ of Certiari, the question can be resolved with certainty and finality. Wouldn't you want that special class of Citizen,you consider "crap " to make the attempt to test the true meaning as to why people were made part of the 10th Ammendment? Is it truly, limited only to State's rights? Countless others have broached the question but were 12B6ed for lack of standing due to 14th Ammendment recognition. The very same court recognition which hog ties Oath challenges. Sounds like a relaxed comfort zone. Lets all hope future generations become knowledgeable. Let’s hope they vote for our favored candidate. Let’s have another round of hanging chads. Let’s entrust those that tell us what we want to hear and then opt never to vote for them again when they renege on their promises. Oh,lets go round robin Republican-Democrat doe-see-dough. Lets all file charging affidavits against the bonds which underlay tortfeasers Oaths and Affirmations to hear the court sanction us for filing bogus documents. The missing link of “force” to compel could be that which most automatically, choose to disregard,dismiss,or fail to investigate. People’s power to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment. States vote their rights into existence. For sake of arguendo lets say People can’t vote apart from representation. What’s the procedure for people to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment? Have researched and found not one single people right has been reserved as a 10th Ammendment right. Whats wrong with this picture? On point issue of relevance is that it creates new question of law. Whether Govt. brings action to Supreme Court or a People fashioned Writ of Certiari, the question can be resolved with certainty and finality. Wouldn’t you want that special class of Citizen,you consider “crap ” to make the attempt to test the true meaning as to why people were made part of the 10th Ammendment? Is it truly, limited only to State’s rights? Countless others have broached the question but were 12B6ed for lack of standing due to 14th Ammendment recognition. The very same court recognition which hog ties Oath challenges.

]]> By: Allan Hampton http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-257240 Allan Hampton Sat, 30 May 2009 21:04:57 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-257240 Allan A Campbell, I appreciate your input, thanks. I suppose it all depends on what Voters want government to do. Voters are lead to think they have a Democracy run by their "Will" and they vote to elect a Lawmaker depending on their side of a political issue. Do you know of a political issue Voters can resolve? I do - the Oath of Office and none other to my knowledge. Consider only Congress is delegated the power to Legislate, that means voters cannot legislate. That also means only Congress, not voters, can repeal federal legislation - it requires legislation to repeal legislation. Consider only three fourths of the State Legislatures, or Conventions thereof, can amend the Constitution. That means Voters cannot amend the Constitution. Dieboldt - There always was some voter fraud (it's called) and or some sort of corruption involved in all, or most, elections but it is "impossible" to rig all the ballot boxes in all, or even a majority, of the 435 voting districts across the USA in electing Congressional Lawmakers every two years. It is much easier to rig Voter's mind (brainwash) than it would be to rig the ballot box. What do you suggest Voters do about dieboldt? I suggest ignore it and vote to elect only Lawmakers that will honor the Constitution's Oath of Office - or do not vote to elect an Incumbent that has dishonored their Oath. Maintaining this Constitutional Republic and Liberty is really that simple. What is not so simple is getting Voters to do it; evidently Voters love their Democracy and unconstitutionality (it really isn't a Democracy but voters think it is). Allan Allan A Campbell, I appreciate your input, thanks.

I suppose it all depends on what Voters want government to do. Voters are lead to think they have a Democracy run by their “Will” and they vote to elect a Lawmaker depending on their side of a political issue. Do you know of a political issue Voters can resolve? I do – the Oath of Office and none other to my knowledge.

Consider only Congress is delegated the power to Legislate, that means voters cannot legislate. That also means only Congress, not voters, can repeal federal legislation – it requires legislation to repeal legislation. Consider only three fourths of the State Legislatures, or Conventions thereof, can amend the Constitution. That means Voters cannot amend the Constitution.

Dieboldt – There always was some voter fraud (it’s called) and or some sort of corruption involved in all, or most, elections but it is “impossible” to rig all the ballot boxes in all, or even a majority, of the 435 voting districts across the USA in electing Congressional Lawmakers every two years. It is much easier to rig Voter’s mind (brainwash) than it would be to rig the ballot box.

What do you suggest Voters do about dieboldt? I suggest ignore it and vote to elect only Lawmakers that will honor the Constitution’s Oath of Office – or do not vote to elect an Incumbent that has dishonored their Oath. Maintaining this Constitutional Republic and Liberty is really that simple.

What is not so simple is getting Voters to do it; evidently Voters love their Democracy and unconstitutionality (it really isn’t a Democracy but voters think it is).

Allan

]]> By: Allan A. Campbell http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/comment-page-2/#comment-257238 Allan A. Campbell Sat, 30 May 2009 19:49:51 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=1839#comment-257238 Attn : Allan Hampton. My aforesaid posts relates to alternative solutions no one's considered. It's thinking outside the box. What happens if all State actions fail? What then? We're required to exhaust all non-violent remedies. Its understandable having blind faith in ballot box tallying amidst questions of Dieboldt vote machine accuracy or claims of vote fraud/engineering. We've all seen the effect of cards,letters,phone calls,e-mails,assemblies,protests,ad. nauseum. Key point is not to limit 10th Ammendment discussion/discourse to State's rights. There may come a time State power can't effect change unless it is vested with an infusion of new sovereign empowerment. If Federal Govt. suceeds in right to bully State's and People, then its only logical to take the fight internationally. Perhaps it takes another country to do for us what neither State's nor American people can do from within. Granted,its a worse case scenario, but it gets people to think outside govt. box. Can appreciate your mindset to not contaminate the current State's rights actions. All what was sought to convey is to prepare for a multiplicity of nonviolent battle fronts. People are the last line of defense. New question of law. Why can't people vote to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment? Are'nt people a seperate party within the 10th Ammendment? Why are we limited to civil right vote to representation? Its not the inalienable right to vote. State's aren't helping to inform,instruct,or provide process/procedure to likewise participate in curtailing Federal expansionism. Question of impunity is befuddling. People submit to civil authority conditioned reciprocally upon recognition of aforementioned in posts above. There is no forcing anyone. It's about laying foundation to record as a matter of public record all govt. abuses and disobedience. Object is to charachterize govt. as an organized criminal entity at international law level. Don't advocate it,but final remedy is Federal Govt. disbandment by reclaiming powers vested. The more govt. resists the more evidence against it to warrant all redress. Attn : Allan Hampton. My aforesaid posts relates to alternative solutions no one’s considered. It’s thinking outside the box. What happens if all State actions fail? What then? We’re required to exhaust all non-violent remedies. Its understandable having blind faith in ballot box tallying amidst questions of Dieboldt vote machine accuracy or claims of vote fraud/engineering. We’ve all seen the effect of cards,letters,phone calls,e-mails,assemblies,protests,ad. nauseum. Key point is not to limit 10th Ammendment discussion/discourse to State’s rights. There may come a time State power can’t effect change unless it is vested with an infusion of new sovereign empowerment. If Federal Govt. suceeds in right to bully State’s and People, then its only logical to take the fight internationally. Perhaps it takes another country to do for us what neither State’s nor American people can do from within. Granted,its a worse case scenario, but it gets people to think outside govt. box. Can appreciate your mindset to not contaminate the current State’s rights actions. All what was sought to convey is to prepare for a multiplicity of nonviolent battle fronts. People are the last line of defense. New question of law. Why can’t people vote to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment? Are’nt people a seperate party within the 10th Ammendment? Why are we limited to civil right vote to representation? Its not the inalienable right to vote. State’s aren’t helping to inform,instruct,or provide process/procedure to likewise participate in curtailing Federal expansionism. Question of impunity is befuddling. People submit to civil authority conditioned reciprocally upon recognition of aforementioned in posts above. There is no forcing anyone. It’s about laying foundation to record as a matter of public record all govt. abuses and disobedience. Object is to charachterize govt. as an organized criminal entity at international law level. Don’t advocate it,but final remedy is Federal Govt. disbandment by reclaiming powers vested. The more govt. resists the more evidence against it to warrant all redress.

]]>