Comments on: Standing on the Moral High Ground

By: Covering the Supremacy Clause – Tenth Amendment Center

Covering the Supremacy Clause – Tenth Amendment Center — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:15:24 +0000

[...] a question: why can’t reporters like Barnard ever find a source who will make the following equally historically accurate [...]

By: pentale

pentale — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 23:38:46 +0000

With all this shenanigans, who stands to gain the most? Who stands to gain from the borrowing of money that is now known as the“National Debt?;” did you know that under the Constitution before the so called adoption of the 14th Amendment that the State Citizens and (as) Citizens of these united States of America were not liable for Congress’ debt? The states were liable and had to pay it through apportionment to each state. But, the states controlled the debt through the Senate, whose representatives were appointed by the state legislatures. The Senators were not elected under the unlawful 17th Amendment. Every Amendment since the 14th is unlawful. Verify it. “The “Repeal The 17th” movement is a vocal part of the overall tea party structure,” TPM http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea-party-call-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment-causing-problems-for-gop-candidates.php/ Nullify the 14th Amendment, you can’t repeal that which never existed, and all Amendments following it will vanish. apenstale.wordpress.com

By: Taking the Moral High Ground – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Taking the Moral High Ground – Tenth Amendment Center Blog — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:06:54 +0000

[...] The Robert Scott Bell Show Mike Maharrey Bringing the Republicans back to their nullification roots Standing on the Moral High Ground John Avery Emison’s book: Lincoln Uber [...]

By: onetenther

onetenther — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:26:54 +0000

@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment Have you ever heard of the madison amendment. It was proposed by madison and it allows states to amend the constitution directly without calling for a full blown constitutional convention. LINK: http://www.madisonamendment.org/index.html

By: Mike Maharrey

Mike Maharrey — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:50:53 +0000

@onetenther I can’t disagree with you, my friend. It’s really just a matter of where we choose to focus our resources at this point. If a strong amendment movement develops, I certainly wouldn’t oppose it!

By: onetenther

onetenther — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:32:49 +0000

@Stogie It also puts kids with other kids from different parts of the city. When I went to school it was a shock to go from neighborhood kids that I knew to kids who were a part of gangs. Pretty damn scary and it actually hurt the education process and, as I got older, I realized being scared to go to school isn’t normal. I wish states would not comply with supreme court decisions that violate the powers they have under the constitution. Seriously..what is justice stab-me-in-the-back Roberts going to do? Is he going to order an invasion?

By: onetenther

onetenther — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:28:03 +0000

@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment The way I see it is that federal laws and the constitution are really a compact among the states. States agree to have these laws and a repeal amendment will allow states to collectively decide to invalidate these laws. I feel that nullification kind of runs into this in that the states might agree to something and can’t allow a state to go rogue. Its a part of what the states PERCIEVE as a part of the lawful compact and because of that they won’t tolerate any states going rogue. Its the strongest resistance to state nullification which is people fear a state being out of control. I think a repeal amendment would alleviate those fears by allowing the states to have some control over the process.

I also think states are within their right to put up resistance to federal laws even ones that are constitutional but why not have both? We should have a repeal amendment that includes nullification. It should say if a majority of states declare a law void then the law is repealed. This way it combines the best of both worlds. That is just my opinion on this.

By: Stogie

Stogie — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:43:07 +0000

The Northern states in pre-Civil War America certainly had the right to nullify the fugitive slave laws. The South also certainly had the right to secede. I agree with the other commenter that the South had a right to nullify the Brown vs Board of Education decision, especially since the latter was “legislating from the brench.” The Brown decision was not remotely constitutional, though it produced (or so some argue) a good result. What it led to was more draconian federal intervention through forced busing and taking control of the education of several states, costing those states billions of dollars while disrupting and destroying neighborhood schools. Integration went from a right (with which I agree, as long as one lived in the school district) to a federally forced condition (where students were bused miles from their neighborhoods, with which I disagree, merely to force a multiracial student body).

By: Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:29:08 +0000

I continue to say the way to address federal usurpations is through separation of power (between the States and their federal government) resolutions adopted by the States and submitted to the feds with nullification as the action to be taken to negate the usurpations…followed by a constitutional amendment…yes a Convention can be called and restricted to a single issue.

“The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer.” [Emphasis not added]

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Essay No. 83.

By: Mike Maharrey

Mike Maharrey — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:37:17 +0000

@onetenther But a repeal amendment only applies to the specific object(s) repealed. Nullification is a legitimate and necessary check on federal power in general. My biggest difficulty with those who champion the amendment process as the panacea (while I don’t philosophically oppose the idea) is that the federal government ignores the Constitution we have. I’m not convinced adding to it will restrain the feds. Even with amendments limiting federal power, we still need the threat of state nullification to hold them in check. Paper chains won’t do the trick.