States have morphed into a mass of federal laws that make it impossible to distinguish one from another. This is evident by the cookie cutter look of the nation.

For the people, examples of the lack of individualism can be seen from everything from the way roads are constructed, to the way we energize our cites. One state cannot be distinguished from another because virtually everything has federal guidelines.

There have also been numerous attempts to call constitutional convention all of them ending up with just 1 short.

Perhaps we should challenge the courts on that ground calming congress did not do its duty in formally calling one. Cause artificial 5 specific no specific issue, no expiration date therefore there could have been the required 38 calls by now.

Constitutional Amendments? I don’t get that. The federal government doesn’t follow the constitution – or amendments – as it is today. What makes anyone think that new amendments will be followed long either?

I can answer that. They won’t.

Until the States band together in a Majority and sue the Federal Government on 10th Amendment grounds there is ZERO chance of change.

The way to stop the Federal take over is 10th amendment lawsuits and new constitutional amendments.

I don’t think the governors and state legislatures have the grit to do that but only they can do it – we can only apply pressure and get pro-10th amendment legislators and govenors elected.

This is the non-violent path and is wholly constitutional – Once this movement has the clout like the NRA has (had?) on the 2nd Amendment momentum can be gained.

Get 5 million dues paying members and you got something.

1. “This remark confuses me more, if we the people could overrule the agent, then why is it that we are so easily thrown in jail by the same?”

I’m talking about the majority, not the minority. As long the majority consents by silence and inaction, then the federal government’s actions against individuals in a state are taken as legal.

2. “I’m afraid such a body does exist, or at least they once did, and it is known as the state government, and they are the agent of the constitutional contract the people of a given state made between each other for themselves and their posterity ceding a defined position of their individual sovereign authority to be ruled under the system therein defined.”

I’m afraid this is incorrect. The Constitution was not ratified by state legislatures– as was the Articles of Confederation– but rather by conventions elected for this purpose by the popular will of each state.

Likewise, as I’ve stated before, any agent can be overruled at the behest of the delegating principal– which is the PEOPLE of the indvidual state.

As for “ceding a defined position of their sovereign authority,” this is simply an oxymoron which misdefines sovereignty as divisible, rather rthan absolute supreme ruling authority. Your entire position is nonsensical and incoherent.

“I am not talking about “states” as state governments (i.e. “state’s rights”)– but the PEOPLE of the particular state, forming together a single sovereign nation, separate and distinct from any other state.”

From this I could deduce a distinction describing the state government as the agent of the compact made between the people of a given State.

If this deduction in regard to what you said is correct then we are in agreement.

“Otherwise, I really don’t know where you’re getting these odd claims, which appear to be pure nonsense; the basic fact of the matter, is that the principal (i.e. the people of a particular state) does not REQUIRE an agent in order to act against another agent: on the contrary, the sovereign principal delegates authority to an agent entirely at its behest– and can overrule the agent at any time.”

This remark confuses me more, if we the people could overrule the agent, then why is it that we are so easily thrown in jail by the same? we the people are as you might have notest individually weak, if we were to appose such a government were it be by force of vote or by force arms we would have to organize ourselves into coordinated and sizable forces under a principle which you might call an agent and/or compact in order for us to work together. To this end n the interest of se curity we have already done this in the formation of our states, and our states have already done this in the interest of protecting themselves from greater foes in the form of our federation.

From this perspective there can be little distinction between the individual states and the people which formed and supposedly rule them, but as few could deny there is a distinction between the organization created and the people who create and empower it.

This distinction comes largely from a combination of the difference between the members of that group and the corruption which has enabled a small few of them to obtain and secure power long term.

“As for “we the people,” this is a common lay misconception which needs no discussion, since no such sovereign body exists. The individual States are peoples operating in their highest sovereign capacity, and as a result each state recognizes no superior.”

I’m afraid such a body does exist, or at least they once did, and it is known as the state government, and they are the agent of the constitutional contract the people of a given state made between each other for themselves and their posterity ceding a defined position of their individual sovereign authority to be ruled under the system therein defined. They can take back such rights by acts of secession/revolution. But doing so pragmatically requires the establishment of a new compact between them because individually they are too weak to overthrow the establish order.

This is why if we are to take back the rights wrongfully taken from us by the FEDERAL government in violation of its constitutional contract we will require the assistants of our State Governments, and even more so then that a collation between them.

“Over the last 100 years, through judicial decisions, constitutional amendment and by simply ignoring it, the 10th amendment has been watered down significantly. Much of this can be changed if the people demand these changes with clarity.”

I have to say that this isn’t either a clear or productive solution; and likewise each state is STIL a popularly sovereign nation by law. The reason this was retained, is simply that a federally-interpreted Constitution is simply NO Constitution, as the federal majority cannot and will not limit itself.

In the words of the Hon. JLM Curry:

“Each State must have the right to interpret the agreement for itself unless it has clearly waived that right in favor of another power. That it has not been waived has been placed beyond refutation, for otherwise the powers of the government at Washington are universal and the enumerations and reservation are idle mockeries. And so a writt en constitution, however carefully guarded the grant and limitations, is no barrier against the usurpations of governments and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. Restrictions are contemptuously disregarded, or undermined by the gradual process of usurpation, until the instrument is of no more force, nor any more respected than an act of Congress. Constitutional scruples are hooted at, and suggested bar-tiers of want of authority are ridiculed as abstractions or the theories of political doctrinaires. The Federal judiciary, the Congress, the Executive, the Constitution, the Union, are but emanations of the sovereignty of the States, and the States are not bound by their wishes, necessities, action, except as they have agreed to be bound, and this agreement was made, not with the Union, the Federal government, their agent and creature, but with one another. “Vicious legislation must be remedied by the people who suffer from the effects of it and not by tho se who enjoy its benefits.” (Bryan.)

They made their compact as sovereign States, and as such they alone are to determine the nature and extent of that agreement and how far they were to be bound. Each State was grantor and grantee receiving precisely what it had granted. The Federal government was in no sense a party to the Constitution; it has no original powers and can exert only what the States surrendered to it, and these States, from the very nature and structure of the common government, are alone competent to decide, in the last resort, what powers they intended to confer upon their agent. The States were not so stupid as to confer upon their creature, the Union, the power to obliterate them, or reduce them to the relation of dependence which counties sustain to the State.”

And so, all 10th Amendment claims will likewise be “hooted at,” and your suggested “bar-tiers of want of 10th Amendment authority” will likewise be be “ridiculed as abstractions or t he theories of political doctrinaires.”

In other words, the fed well simply say “you don’t UNDERSTAND the Constitution like we do; so just go away, shut up, and pay your taxes, peasant; you’re quaint, but better seen than heard. Don’t try to teach your betters; thank you for writing.”

Yes, the AGENT– but the people of the individual states remained the PRINCIPAL, and hence can overrule the federal agency at any time.

I am not talking about “states” as state governments (i.e. “state’s rights”)– but the PEOPLE of the particular state, forming together a single sovereign nation, separate and distinct from any other state.

Otherwise, I really don’t know where you’re getting these odd claims, which appear to be pure nonsense; the basic fact of the matter, is that the principal (i.e. the people of a particular state) does not REQUIRE an agent in order to act against another agent: on the contrary, the sovereign principal delegates authority to an agent entirely at its behest– and can overrule the agent at any time.

As for “we the people,” this is a common lay misconception which needs no discussion, since no s uch sovereign body exists. The indididual states are peoples operating in their highest sovereign capacity, and as a result each state recognizes no superior.