Quote from Ron Paul

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't play a lawyer on the internet so I don't even pretend to have an opinion about the 10th amendment or the states RIGHT to secede, either.

They have no right to seceed. Issue's been done.

Ron Paul has, once again, proven himself incapable of understanding the constitution, constitutional constructions and the laws and rulings that bind us.

he also thinks we should be re-fighting the states' rights issue. that issue was done and dusted with the civil war.

i find it amusing that someone could be so self-serving as to encourage another civil war and have anyone call him a patriot.

pretty retarded.

So you're saying the founders of our nation were incapable of understanding the Constitution as well? Since I just provided quotes from two of them that state that secession is legal and valid.

The states rights issue was not "done and dusted." The war did not change the way our government is supposed to be run.

Ron Paul did not encourage another Civil War. He's encouraging legitimate discussion of the issue of secession. He's not advocating for it, and he thinks that Governor Perry was simply pandering for political purposes.

 

[jillian]

So you're saying the founders of our nation were incapable of understanding the Constitution as well? Since I just provided quotes from two of them that state that secession is legal and valid.

The states rights issue was not "done and dusted." The war did not change the way our government is supposed to be run.

Ron Paul did not encourage another Civil War. He's encouraging legitimate discussion of the issue of secession. He's not advocating for it, and he thinks that Governor Perry was simply pandering for political purposes.

No. What I'm saying is the constitution has been construed a particular way since Marbury v Madison.

And a lot of pretend "lawyers" who know nothing about the constitution and understand less have perverted what people "think" the constitution is.

The states rights issue IS done and dusted, because we wouldn't have a constitution at all if the rights of states were supposed to supercede the federal government ... we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

 

[sealybobo]

I notice you did not provide a quote from the Constitution that actually states secession is prohibited to the states. That would be because there is no such prohibition in the Constitution.

Yes, I guess I am the "stroker" who says the Civil War should not have been fought, though I'm certainly not the only one.

See, most of you libertarian types go too far with some of your ideas/enterpretations of the constitution.

Just like there are some things about us liberals you will never understand or like.

But I like you Kevin. I like your position on the Federal Reserve. I wonder how many people you have informed? Me, a lot. But they don't give a shit. That's why nothing will be done. The politicians would do what we ask if we all called them like they were trying to sell a port to Dubia. Remember that? We flooded their offices with calls.

No outrage means no solution. Its gotten me mad so I have sort of given up for the moment.

Go to far? I simply read the Constitution, history, and the words of the founders.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” – John Quincy Adams

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” – Thomas Jefferson

Would you say Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, who in the above quotes support secession, go to far in their interpretation of the Constitution?

As to the issue of the Federal Reserve, I think I've educated quite a few. Another member of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty and myself delivered over 100 signatures to our Congressman to try to convince him to support the Federal Reserve Transparency Act this morning.

Love it! I signed that petition.

 

[GHook93]

Preamble​

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for a common defense, promote the general welfare....of the United States of America,

Article I Section 10:
No state shall... <DO YOURSELF A FAVOR KEVIN AND READE IT>
Also read Article IV Section 1, 2 & 3!

Wait are you the stroker who also says the Civil War shouldn't have been fought? LOL, forget human rights, incorrect interpretations of the constitution is all that matters!

I notice you did not provide a quote from the Constitution that actually states secession is prohibited to the states. That would be because there is no such prohibition in the Constitution.

Yes, I guess I am the "stroker" who says the Civil War should not have been fought, though I'm certainly not the only one.

Maybe Ron Paul will follow Spector's lead and join the Dems. He should. Maybe they would listen to him. We know for sure the GOP will not. Remember he won the debates and they banned him from all debates from that point moving forward?

At least he should go Libertarian.

Bobo you are dumber than dirt! Ron Paul is probably the most conservative member of Congress, so you that would make sense for him to join the liberal party! Shit why doesn't he just join the Green party!

 

[sealybobo]

I notice you did not provide a quote from the Constitution that actually states secession is prohibited to the states. That would be because there is no such prohibition in the Constitution.

Yes, I guess I am the "stroker" who says the Civil War should not have been fought, though I'm certainly not the only one.

Maybe Ron Paul will follow Spector's lead and join the Dems. He should. Maybe they would listen to him. We know for sure the GOP will not. Remember he won the debates and they banned him from all debates from that point moving forward?

At least he should go Libertarian.

Bobo you are dumber than dirt! Ron Paul is probably the most conservative member of Congress, so you that would make sense for him to join the liberal party! Shit why doesn't he just join the Green party!

Because like the Democrats, Ron Paul wants to take back this country from the Corporations that control it now.

The GOP are the party for mega corporations and for mega rich people.

Who is Ron Paul for? Everyone? The masses you could say?

Us Progressives agree with SOME of the things Ron Paul says.

How did the GOP treat Ron Paul?

What does the GOP agree with Ron Paul about? The Federal Reserve? Iraq?

You are under the assumption that the GOP is conservative. That makes you the dumb fuck. They only talk conservative. Was Reagan? Was Bush 1 or 2? Was the GOP Congress in 2004-2007 when they were breaking pork records?

Tea bag yourself idiot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you're saying the founders of our nation were incapable of understanding the Constitution as well? Since I just provided quotes from two of them that state that secession is legal and valid.

The states rights issue was not "done and dusted." The war did not change the way our government is supposed to be run.

Ron Paul did not encourage another Civil War. He's encouraging legitimate discussion of the issue of secession. He's not advocating for it, and he thinks that Governor Perry was simply pandering for political purposes.

No. What I'm saying is the constitution has been construed a particular way since Marbury v Madison.

And a lot of pretend "lawyers" who know nothing about the constitution and understand less have perverted what people "think" the constitution is.

The states rights issue IS done and dusted, because we wouldn't have a constitution at all if the rights of states were supposed to supercede the federal government ... we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

You're right that Marbury v. Madison changed the landscape, so to speak. The Supreme Court giving itself the power of judicial review certainly empowered the court.

I disagree that we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution still kept us as a confederation of independent states, and the ideas of federalism and nullification kept the federal government (not national government) in check.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

"Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless"

that's from his yesterday's myspace blog.

as always Ron Paul is right.

Nonsense. And he knows better. It is not like Paul is unaware of the US Constitution and our other foundation documents. The quote could have been taken out of context.

The quote is not taken out of context whatsoever.

Congressman Ron Paul - Secession: the Ultimate States' Right - Texas Straight Talk

Ok. But he should know better. Pretty odd coming from him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nonsense. And he knows better. It is not like Paul is unaware of the US Constitution and our other foundation documents. The quote could have been taken out of context.

The quote is not taken out of context whatsoever.

Congressman Ron Paul - Secession: the Ultimate States' Right - Texas Straight Talk

Ok. But he should know better. Pretty odd coming from him.

What should he know better? And why is it pretty odd for a Libertarian to talk about states' rights?

 

[sealybobo]

So you're saying the founders of our nation were incapable of understanding the Constitution as well? Since I just provided quotes from two of them that state that secession is legal and valid.

The states rights issue was not "done and dusted." The war did not change the way our government is supposed to be run.

Ron Paul did not encourage another Civil War. He's encouraging legitimate discussion of the issue of secession. He's not advocating for it, and he thinks that Governor Perry was simply pandering for political purposes.

No. What I'm saying is the constitution has been construed a particular way since Marbury v Madison.

And a lot of pretend "lawyers" who know nothing about the constitution and understand less have perverted what people "think" the constitution is.

The states rights issue IS done and dusted, because we wouldn't have a constitution at all if the rights of states were supposed to supercede the federal government ... we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

You're right that Marbury v. Madison changed the landscape, so to speak. The Supreme Court giving itself the power of judicial review certainly empowered the court.

I disagree that we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution still kept us as a confederation of independent states, and the ideas of federalism and nullification kept the federal government (not national government) in check.

I have read that the Supreme Court gave themselves some of the powers they have today. Like, when Congress has an argument they can't settle, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to be the final decider. Do you have anything on this Kevin? I think I read it in a Thom Hartmann op ed.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

The quote is not taken out of context whatsoever.

Congressman Ron Paul - Secession: the Ultimate States' Right - Texas Straight Talk

Ok. But he should know better. Pretty odd coming from him.

What should he know better? And why is it pretty odd for a Libertarian to talk about states' rights?

It is odd because what he said is not the reality, and I am sure he knows that as do many that have already thoughtfully responded on this thread.

 

[HUGGY]

"Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless"

that's from his yesterday's myspace blog.

as always Ron Paul is right.

As usual RP is as crazy as bat shit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. What I'm saying is the constitution has been construed a particular way since Marbury v Madison.

And a lot of pretend "lawyers" who know nothing about the constitution and understand less have perverted what people "think" the constitution is.

The states rights issue IS done and dusted, because we wouldn't have a constitution at all if the rights of states were supposed to supercede the federal government ... we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

You're right that Marbury v. Madison changed the landscape, so to speak. The Supreme Court giving itself the power of judicial review certainly empowered the court.

I disagree that we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution still kept us as a confederation of independent states, and the ideas of federalism and nullification kept the federal government (not national government) in check.

I have read that the Supreme Court gave themselves some of the powers they have today. Like, when Congress has an argument they can't settle, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to be the final decider. Do you have anything on this Kevin? I think I read it in a Thom Hartmann op ed.

Yes, in the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall essentially stated that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, which means that they have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. However, it was taken for granted at the time that the other branches were also responsible for dealing with matters of constitutionality, along with the individual states. For instance, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Bank of the United States, which was a national bank on par with the Federal Reserve today, was constitutional, but President Andrew Jackson disagreed and put an end to it. Also of note should be the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were authored by Thomas Jefferson. Which state:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The entire document is a firm defense of states' rights and absolutely opposed to the view Jillian takes that apparently the Constitution did away with the idea of Federalism. I recommend reading the whole thing.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok. But he should know better. Pretty odd coming from him.

What should he know better? And why is it pretty odd for a Libertarian to talk about states' rights?

It is odd because what he said is not the reality, and I am sure he knows that as do many that have already thoughtfully responded on this thread.

The reality is that the Constitution does not prohibit secession and that the 10th amendment states that any power not given to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution is reserved to the states or to the people. Therefore, we can safely say that secession is a legitimate right of the individual states.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless"

that's from his yesterday's myspace blog.

as always Ron Paul is right.

As usual RP is as crazy as bat shit.

Yes, anyone that takes the Constitution literally must be crazy!

 

[sealybobo]

You're right that Marbury v. Madison changed the landscape, so to speak. The Supreme Court giving itself the power of judicial review certainly empowered the court.

I disagree that we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution still kept us as a confederation of independent states, and the ideas of federalism and nullification kept the federal government (not national government) in check.

I have read that the Supreme Court gave themselves some of the powers they have today. Like, when Congress has an argument they can't settle, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to be the final decider. Do you have anything on this Kevin? I think I read it in a Thom Hartmann op ed.

Yes, in the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall essentially stated that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, which means that they have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. However, it was taken for granted at the time that the other branches were also responsible for dealing with matters of constitutionality, along with the individual states. For instance, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Bank of the United States, which was a national bank on par with the Federal Reserve today, was constitutional, but President Andrew Jackson disagreed and put an end to it. Also of note should be the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were authored by Thomas Jefferson. Which state:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The entire document is a firm defense of states' rights and absolutely opposed to the view Jillian takes that apparently the Constitution did away with the idea of Federalism. I recommend reading the whole thing.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

And in the new reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act - a piece of legislation almost certain to eventually come before the Supreme Court - Section 3605 expands the Secret Service (SS) from a Presidential protection detail to a national police force with the power to designate anyplace where people are meeting in the USA as a SENS (Special Event of National Significance).

Once a SENS is established - anywhere, anytime, at the sole discretion of the SS (and it's not even necessary that the President or any other Executive Branch member be present) - the SS shall have the power to (quoting the new PATRIOT Act provisions) "carry firearms" and "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

Samuel Alito not only would support such expansions of Presidential power on the Supreme Court, he was the author and/or principle proponent of several of the devices used today by Bush to secure such power (including the argument that the power of the Presidency is "unitary").

The vote this week about Samuel Alito is not a vote about Republicans versus Democrats. It's a vote about the future of democracy in the United States of America.

Do we accept Madison's vision of a nation in search of peace and with personal privacy intact, or do we embrace Sam Alito's vision of questionable elections, concentration camps, spying on citizens to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, repression of women's and minority rights, and war without end?

As our legislators vote, we must carefully note their positions on this issue. Their oath of office is not to the President or even to "protect the people," but to the Constitution. And it is the Constitution - and the future of our democratic republic - that is at stake here.

 

[sealybobo]

"Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless"

that's from his yesterday's myspace blog.

as always Ron Paul is right.

As usual RP is as crazy as bat shit.

Yes, anyone that takes the Constitution literally must be crazy!

Here is what I was trying to show you regarding the Supreme Court giving themselves the authority/power:

The Framers of the Constitution didn't give to the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws made by Congress. The Supreme Court itself did this, in an unanimous opinion written by the notorious Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbry v. Madison in 1803. This decision - handed down when Thomas Jefferson was president - so upset Jefferson that he suggested (in a letter to Abigail Adams on 9/11/1804) that if the Court were to fall into the wrong hands, it "would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

He noted in that letter that he tried to prevent this sort of danger within the courts in general by achieving balance between his own Democratic Republican Party (now called simply the Democratic Party) and the Federalists (who today are reincarnated as Republicans). "In making these appointments," he wrote, "I put in a proportion of federalists, equal, I believe, to the proportion they bear in numbers through the Union generally."

Jefferson added: "Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object - the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. ... One [the Federalists] fears most the ignorance of the people; the other [the Democratic Republicans], the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove."

The new Federalists - Bush's Republicans - clearly fear We The People, and cherish their own power to rule independent of us. And if they can seize control of the Supreme Court before the next elections, their power may become nearly absolute.

Supreme Court - Media Ignore Possible "Fascist" Play

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have read that the Supreme Court gave themselves some of the powers they have today. Like, when Congress has an argument they can't settle, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to be the final decider. Do you have anything on this Kevin? I think I read it in a Thom Hartmann op ed.

Yes, in the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall essentially stated that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, which means that they have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. However, it was taken for granted at the time that the other branches were also responsible for dealing with matters of constitutionality, along with the individual states. For instance, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Bank of the United States, which was a national bank on par with the Federal Reserve today, was constitutional, but President Andrew Jackson disagreed and put an end to it. Also of note should be the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were authored by Thomas Jefferson. Which state:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The entire document is a firm defense of states' rights and absolutely opposed to the view Jillian takes that apparently the Constitution did away with the idea of Federalism. I recommend reading the whole thing.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

And in the new reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act - a piece of legislation almost certain to eventually come before the Supreme Court - Section 3605 expands the Secret Service (SS) from a Presidential protection detail to a national police force with the power to designate anyplace where people are meeting in the USA as a SENS (Special Event of National Significance).

Once a SENS is established - anywhere, anytime, at the sole discretion of the SS (and it's not even necessary that the President or any other Executive Branch member be present) - the SS shall have the power to (quoting the new PATRIOT Act provisions) "carry firearms" and "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

Samuel Alito not only would support such expansions of Presidential power on the Supreme Court, he was the author and/or principle proponent of several of the devices used today by Bush to secure such power (including the argument that the power of the Presidency is "unitary").

The vote this week about Samuel Alito is not a vote about Republicans versus Democrats. It's a vote about the future of democracy in the United States of America.

Do we accept Madison's vision of a nation in search of peace and with personal privacy intact, or do we embrace Sam Alito's vision of questionable elections, concentration camps, spying on citizens to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, repression of women's and minority rights, and war without end?

As our legislators vote, we must carefully note their positions on this issue. Their oath of office is not to the President or even to "protect the people," but to the Constitution. And it is the Constitution - and the future of our democratic republic - that is at stake here.

Yes, the Patriot Act certainly is an assault on the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As usual RP is as crazy as bat shit.

Yes, anyone that takes the Constitution literally must be crazy!

Here is what I was trying to show you regarding the Supreme Court giving themselves the authority/power:

The Framers of the Constitution didn't give to the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws made by Congress. The Supreme Court itself did this, in an unanimous opinion written by the notorious Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbry v. Madison in 1803. This decision - handed down when Thomas Jefferson was president - so upset Jefferson that he suggested (in a letter to Abigail Adams on 9/11/1804) that if the Court were to fall into the wrong hands, it "would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

He noted in that letter that he tried to prevent this sort of danger within the courts in general by achieving balance between his own Democratic Republican Party (now called simply the Democratic Party) and the Federalists (who today are reincarnated as Republicans). "In making these appointments," he wrote, "I put in a proportion of federalists, equal, I believe, to the proportion they bear in numbers through the Union generally."

Jefferson added: "Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object - the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. ... One [the Federalists] fears most the ignorance of the people; the other [the Democratic Republicans], the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove."

The new Federalists - Bush's Republicans - clearly fear We The People, and cherish their own power to rule independent of us. And if they can seize control of the Supreme Court before the next elections, their power may become nearly absolute.

Supreme Court - Media Ignore Possible "Fascist" Play

I disagree with your assertion that todays Democratic Party bears any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans. There is no major party today that has any resemblance to Jefferson's Republicans, and todays Republicans and Democrats are far closer to the Federalist and Whig parties of the past.

 

[sealybobo]

You're right that Marbury v. Madison changed the landscape, so to speak. The Supreme Court giving itself the power of judicial review certainly empowered the court.

I disagree that we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution still kept us as a confederation of independent states, and the ideas of federalism and nullification kept the federal government (not national government) in check.

I have read that the Supreme Court gave themselves some of the powers they have today. Like, when Congress has an argument they can't settle, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to be the final decider. Do you have anything on this Kevin? I think I read it in a Thom Hartmann op ed.

Yes, in the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall essentially stated that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, which means that they have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. However, it was taken for granted at the time that the other branches were also responsible for dealing with matters of constitutionality, along with the individual states. For instance, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Bank of the United States, which was a national bank on par with the Federal Reserve today, was constitutional, but President Andrew Jackson disagreed and put an end to it. Also of note should be the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were authored by Thomas Jefferson. Which state:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The entire document is a firm defense of states' rights and absolutely opposed to the view Jillian takes that apparently the Constitution did away with the idea of Federalism. I recommend reading the whole thing.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Ha! Its the same case!!! WOW!! I'm telling you Kevin, you probably have a lot more in common with progressives like Thom Hartmann than you think.

Just like a liberal/progressive like me agrees with you, but good luck getting any neo con corporate Republican to go along with this kind of thinking. Not gonna happen. That's because most of what they say is untrue. I may be wrong, but I 100% believe what I am saying. In other words, if you come up with a good idea, I'm open and willing to agree and go along with your plan. I don't have an agenda that is much different than you. I want things fair. I want the government to follow the constitution. I want them to stop spending so much money. Etc.

I am sorry for hating the GOP so much. Can you really blame me?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have read that the Supreme Court gave themselves some of the powers they have today. Like, when Congress has an argument they can't settle, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to be the final decider. Do you have anything on this Kevin? I think I read it in a Thom Hartmann op ed.

Yes, in the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall essentially stated that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, which means that they have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. However, it was taken for granted at the time that the other branches were also responsible for dealing with matters of constitutionality, along with the individual states. For instance, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Bank of the United States, which was a national bank on par with the Federal Reserve today, was constitutional, but President Andrew Jackson disagreed and put an end to it. Also of note should be the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were authored by Thomas Jefferson. Which state:

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

The entire document is a firm defense of states' rights and absolutely opposed to the view Jillian takes that apparently the Constitution did away with the idea of Federalism. I recommend reading the whole thing.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Ha! Its the same case!!! WOW!! I'm telling you Kevin, you probably have a lot more in common with progressives like Thom Hartmann than you think.

Just like a liberal/progressive like me agrees with you, but good luck getting any neo con corporate Republican to go along with this kind of thinking. Not gonna happen. That's because most of what they say is untrue. I may be wrong, but I 100% believe what I am saying. In other words, if you come up with a good idea, I'm open and willing to agree and go along with your plan. I don't have an agenda that is much different than you. I want things fair. I want the government to follow the constitution. I want them to stop spending so much money. Etc.

I am sorry for hating the GOP so much. Can you really blame me?

Nope, I don't much like the Republican Party myself.