Comments on: The Plain Meaning of the Constitution

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 03:53:14 +0000

"The question is how do we restore those original meanings today after the original text has been so distorted and abused by the Supreme Court?"

Only one way: the people of each state must assert their rightful sovereignty of their state as a sovereign nation. Until then, NOTHING ELSE WILL MATTER.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:34:48 +0000

I think two new amendments are in order to restore teeth to the 10th Amendment.
First, restore the ability of States to succeed from the Union. As radical as this idea is, it is not only necessary to restore power to the States, but would likely be used as a threat more that actually implemented. Consider how a President would view his legacy if it meant he would be remembered as the President that lost Texas from the Union. Restoring the horizontal separation of powers as well as the vertical one is critical to save the Union.
Second, redesign the US Supreme Court so that its members are elected by the States, not appointed by the Federal government. Anyone who thinks that being appointed for life immunes the justices from being influenced by the Federal government is a fool. The court that determines if a federal law is constitutional or not should be one controlled by the States, not the Feds.

By: The Plain Meaning of the Constitution | Liberty Spot

The Plain Meaning of the Constitution | Liberty Spot — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:58:51 +0000

[...] Sourced from:Â Tenth Amendment Center [...]

By: Timely Renewed

Timely Renewed — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:48:17 +0000

That is a very concise and forceful summary of the correct original meanings of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses of the Constitution. The question is how do we restore those original meanings today after the original text has been so distorted and abused by the Supreme Court? Even supposedly "conservative" Congresses and Supreme Courts have failed to do much to roll back the vast unconstitutional expansion of the national government. We can not rely on politicians or judges to do it voluntarily. Rather, we need to amend the Constitution to restate those original meanings, and thereby overturn all those decades of abuse by the Supreme Court and put clearly stated limits on Congress and the President which reflect the original constitutional allocation of powers in language which can not be misconstrued. See www.timelyrenewed.com.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:53:22 +0000

I don't know why I am replying to this because you guys really won't count anymore but there has been no effort to arrest democrats. All there has been is people not agreeing with the socialist platform of the democratic party. That is not the same as imprisoning them or even wanting to imprison them but it is interesting to observe that 'liberals' can actually equate what people think as some kind of force that can inhibit other people from thinking or believing something. Its collectivism on display that assumes that no individual can have a thought that doesn't belong to the collective mind.

By: The Plain Meaning of the Constitution « Secession and Nullification â€” News & Information

Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:52:52 +0000

[...] article by Michael Maharrey on TenthAmendmentCenter.com. …Â Proponents of nationalized health care mangle two Constitutional provisions to justify [...]

By: Tom EE

Tom EE — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:40:54 +0000

To site case law on Constitutional issues, which is used in many of these cases, is ridiculous! Courts, even the Supreme Court cannot change the meaning of the Constitution much less grant the federal government more power.

By: Cheryl Johnson

Cheryl Johnson — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:41:19 +0000

Thank you for the clarification. I think everyone should have access to quality health care, but not the way the government is trying to do it. When you consider the fact that death by medicine is the leading cause of death in America one has to wonder how beneficial this unconstitutional law is to anyone. I am very annoyed over the fact that the government is forcing me to pay for a service I do not feel I need. I take care of myself-eat right, exercise and with effort manager life's stress; why should I be penalized for being healthy? Forcing everyone to purchase health insurance while big agriculture and big pharm is making everyone sick is BS. Why should we all have to pay for what the poison in the food and the toxins in the drugs are doing to the majority of people in this country? The government needs to focus on cleaning up those two industry, something that would guarantee a healthier society and lower cost.

By: TextualistDude

TextualistDude — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:34:24 +0000

Exactly!! The last sentence is the point everyone should remember. They may not be coming for me today but when they do, who will be left to speak for me?

By: Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:58:16 +0000

The last sentence is the dagger in the heart of their assertion.