Comments on: The Individual and the Tenth

By: Obama and his Democrat Congress: Pissing on America and laughing the whole time « Veritas & Libertas

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:09:25 +0000

[...] to govern themselves away from Federal regulations when applicable, in the form of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.Â We need to revisit this fact; we need to implement this [...]

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:15:18 +0000

I wonder if we can pass state laws that forbid the IRS from confiscating property of a person for the purpose of tax collection when that property is within the state's jurisdiction.

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:45:39 +0000

Perhaps the 9th amendment can be used to destroy this because we can say that it is my right not to purchase something which would be 'rights retained by the people'. We then say that powers existing within constitution can't be used to violate that 'right retained by the peope'.

By: gigi

gigi — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:22:02 +0000

OK, so let's say we wanted to be civilly disobedient in a state that will not nullify this, what does that look like? I have no idea how you could disobey this infiltration since, if you chose not to have health insurance, not purchase it, the IRS will take it away by not distributing your tax refund. So you would have to not pay your taxes and then you would be hoisted off to jail. Not sure that will accomplish what we want unless 20 million people did the same and most people are just not willing to take the risk. So tell me how do you see individuals standing up against this?

By: David X Johnson

David X Johnson — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:51:55 +0000

I have no quarrel with the idea of "civil disobedience", but I do have a problem drawing a line to it directly from rights "retained by the people". The 9th amendment refers to rights not specifically enumerated, such as the right to privacy, the right to be left alone, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to one's own thoughts, the right to your own body etc. Connecting the 9th amendment to civil disobedience against legitimate constitutional laws is a non-sequitur.

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:57:30 +0000

I was trying to say that when people believe that it is the government or the courts that decide what powers the people have it is a recipe for enslavement but if the courts solely focus their thoughts on what powers the state has then it becomes a restraint on the government. They may at time expand that power beyond what they should but at least their focus would be on the government and the people would not have to feel they have to ask for things.

I think it is sad when you talk to 'liberals' and they tell you you have more rights in American than in Canada but in actuallity you have the same amount of rights wherever you go on the earth. The only thing that changes is that governments have more or less power in some places. Where there is more power there are less freedom but the modern liberal has inverted that into something incredibly slavish to the state.

By: Bylle

Bylle — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:00:47 +0000

If all else fails, pick up your arms, time to re-declare independence from tyrannts.

By: Tweets that mention The Individual and the TenthÂ |Â Tenth Amendment Center -- Topsy.com

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:12:19 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Christine, JICKO B. BREWSTER, Ron Paul, Gods Of Liberty, Noelle and others. Noelle said: RT @KatyinIndy: The Individual and the Tenth http://is.gd/aV3RD #tcot #tlot #sgp #gop #hhrs [...]

By: tsmackie

tsmackie — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:10:49 +0000

Michael, read Herbert Spencer, Social Statics [1851]…Chapter XIX…"The Right to Ignore the State". Would it not be a tremendous contribution to everyone to begin to speak to the jurisdiction the federal government wields over all citizens by our voluntary acceptance of any of the "programs" they offer.

By: tsmackie

tsmackie — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:05:59 +0000

unknown: you must descend from the Spencer line, i.e. Herbert Spencer, Social Statics [1851], wherein he speaks to "The Right to Ignore the State"…Chapter XIX. It is a good read and almost parallels your thought above. One must be careful, however, to seek not the protection the State may offer (your next to the last sentence) lest the courts determine from the "totality of circumstances" that you appear to be under their jurisdiction for your actions.