Comments on: Freedom in One Word

By: Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell – Tenth Amendment Center

Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell – Tenth Amendment Center — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:04:47 +0000

[...] 1996, when my home state of California decided toÂ opt outÂ of Federal drug laws by allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes, it was going it alone. [...]

By: Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell | GrassrootsHeadlines.com

Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell | GrassrootsHeadlines.com — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:00:13 +0000

[...] 1996, when my home state of California decided toÂ opt outÂ of Federal drug laws by allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes, it was going it alone. [...]

By: AN OPINE LETTER TO A FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE – DEAR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: GO TO HELL | HENRYPATRICK1736

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:35:27 +0000

[...] 1996, when my home state of California decided to opt out of Federal drug laws by allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes, it was going it alone. [...]

By: LibertyAtStake

LibertyAtStake — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:40:24 +0000

This is essentially, the outlook for 2011. Starve the beast. http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/ "Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

By: LibertyAtStake

LibertyAtStake — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:38:53 +0000

As I read the Consitution, anything that comes out of a Convention still requires ratification by 3/4 of states. So, I am unworried about radicals stocking the pond at a convention. Am I wrong about the Contstitutional requirement? http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/ "Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

By: LibertyAtStake

LibertyAtStake — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:37:08 +0000

What abuse do you have in mind correcting with the "ban" clause? http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/ "Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

By: JFHUNT

JFHUNT — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:53:05 +0000

Regarding case law and supreme court decisions, recall that the Dred Scot decision represents the supreme court "changing it's mind" related another court's interpretation.

By: JFHUNT

JFHUNT — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:41:35 +0000

HIDING your activity is a good idea to avoid being the lightning rod" for aggressive prosecution. However, such does not make the point that the federal government has no legal right, according to the constitution's original intent.

By: JFHUNT

JFHUNT — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:37:30 +0000

A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS!!! Ever since my college days in the 1960s, the radical left (I was fairly radical at the time and know the intentions of the left) has been wanting a constitutional convention. You never know what the outcome would be. We could lose many rights of give the federal government more power if the radical left, the Communists, are able to co-opt the process. It is much, much safer to amend the constitution – or better yet, simply clarify and reinforce the 2nd and 120th amendments.

By: JFHUNT

JFHUNT — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:30:06 +0000

How about attempting, on parallel paths, to NULLIFY and DE-FUND any LAWS and AGENCIES, respectively, that are inconsistent with the original intent of the constitution?