The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

[longknife]

There is no doubt this piece comes from a right wing source. But, there can be no doubt that it makes a whole lot of sense – and seeks to return this nation to the way it was viewed by the men – and women – who shed their blood to make it exist. A Federation of States.

The Federal government was envisioned to have two basic and powerful duties – defend the constitution and our borders and to settle disputes between the several states. No more. No less.

And over the years, those basic beliefs have been bastardized by progressives and socialists who despise individual freedoms. Either from the states or the people of this nation.

We are seeing an example of this government tyranny right now in the European Union. An effort to take away national values and authority to centralize them in a central government no longer responsive to the individual countries.

Read more of this article @ The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

 

[Skylar]

There is no doubt this piece comes from a right wing source. But, there can be no doubt that it makes a whole lot of sense – and seeks to return this nation to the way it was viewed by the men – and women – who shed their blood to make it exist. A Federation of States.

The Federal government was envisioned to have two basic and powerful duties – defend the constitution and our borders and to settle disputes between the several states. No more. No less.

And over the years, those basic beliefs have been bastardized by progressives and socialists who despise individual freedoms. Either from the states or the people of this nation.

We are seeing an example of this government tyranny right now in the European Union. An effort to take away national values and authority to centralize them in a central government no longer responsive to the individual countries.

Read more of this article @ The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

The role of the Federal government was expanded to include protecting the rights of US citizens from the States with the 14th amendment.

The Constitution didn't apply the Bill of Rights to the States or any federal protections of citizens from the Statesunder the Constitution.

 

[regent]

So why did the Constitution establish a new government, we had the Articles of Confederation which gave states sovereignty and the framers changed it to the Constitution, and the Constitution was duly ratified by the states.

 

[Iceweasel]

The debate over how strong the central government should be occurred at the beginning. John Adams was more into the federal power, Jefferson stronger states rights. There's no question they wouldn't recognize the monster we have now as we become more like Europe and states are just places on a map.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no doubt this piece comes from a right wing source. But, there can be no doubt that it makes a whole lot of sense – and seeks to return this nation to the way it was viewed by the men – and women – who shed their blood to make it exist. A Federation of States.

The Federal government was envisioned to have two basic and powerful duties – defend the constitution and our borders and to settle disputes between the several states. No more. No less.

And over the years, those basic beliefs have been bastardized by progressives and socialists who despise individual freedoms. Either from the states or the people of this nation.

We are seeing an example of this government tyranny right now in the European Union. An effort to take away national values and authority to centralize them in a central government no longer responsive to the individual countries.

Read more of this article @ The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

Well that is an interesting analogy- but interesting in a flawed way.

In the EU, a Belgian thinks of himself as a Belgian- who happens to be part of the EU.

IF Italy were to be attacked, the Belgian wouldn't think- "my country is under attack"

In the United States, a Californian or a Texan might have different politics- but if Texas was attacked, Californians would still consider that an attack on our country- the United States of America.

Why you would want less of a national identity- to be more like the EU than like the United States- I do not understand.

 

[Syriusly]

The debate over how strong the central government should be occurred at the beginning. John Adams was more into the federal power, Jefferson stronger states rights. There's no question they wouldn't recognize the monster we have now as we become more like Europe and states are just places on a map.

The United States of 1776 was more like today's EU, than the United States of today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Before the civil war, America was a union, and after the civil war, a nation emerged.

 

[MarathonMike]

Just consider what the name of our country is. The United STATES of America, not the United FEDERATION of America. The original intent was that states were to have more power and the Federal government limited power except in cases of interstate commerce, currency, border management etc. Well somewhere along the way that got tossed and we have have a beast of a central government that would make the Founders roll over in their graves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just consider what the name of our country is. The United STATES of America, not the United FEDERATION of America. The original intent was that states were to have more power and the Federal government limited power except in cases of interstate commerce, currency, border management etc. Well somewhere along the way that got tossed and we have have a beast of a central government that would make the Founders roll over in their graves.

If you say so.

 

[regent]

The debate over how strong the central government should be occurred at the beginning. John Adams was more into the federal power, Jefferson stronger states rights. There's no question they wouldn't recognize the monster we have now as we become more like Europe and states are just places on a map.

The United States of 1776 was more like today's EU, than the United States of today.

Yes in 1776 there was no United States and the Confederation was indeed more like the EU, but then in 1787 they changed the whole thing making the new Constitution and the enumerated laws of Congress the supreme law of the land.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty"

Ignorant nonsense, lies, and hyperbole – there is no 'Washington tyranny.'

It was the original intent of the Founding Generation that the Federal government be supreme, that the states are subject to Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, where the rights of the American citizens residing in the states be safeguarded by the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.)

It was never the intent of the Framers that the states be 'sovereign,' they created one National government, immune from attack by the states, representing all the American people, citizens of one Republic, undivided.

This is a 'solution' in search of a problem.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty"

Ignorant nonsense, lies, and hyperbole – there is no 'Washington tyranny.'

It was the original intent of the Founding Generation that the Federal government be supreme, that the states are subject to Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, where the rights of the American citizens residing in the states be safeguarded by the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.)

It was never the intent of the Framers that the states be 'sovereign,' they created one National government, immune from attack by the states, representing all the American people, citizens of one Republic, undivided.

This is a 'solution' in search of a problem.

This is ignorant lies and stupidity.

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers that the Federal Government have limited reach in specific and defined areas.

All other powers were reserved to the states.

State Soveriegnty is not release from the obligation to behave like a member of the U.S.A. and obey it's laws. It was, however, a guaranteed that the Federal Government would not ingress on the powers called out in the 10th.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just consider what the name of our country is. The United STATES of America, not the United FEDERATION of America. The original intent was that states were to have more power and the Federal government limited power except in cases of interstate commerce, currency, border management etc. Well somewhere along the way that got tossed and we have have a beast of a central government that would make the Founders roll over in their graves.

Wrong.

There's nothing in the text, history, or jurisprudence of the Constitution which suggests or supports any such thing.

This is a myth contrived by an errant, wrongheaded minority of reactionary conservatives for subjective partisan reasons, having no basis in fact.

 

[Flopper]

There is no doubt this piece comes from a right wing source. But, there can be no doubt that it makes a whole lot of sense – and seeks to return this nation to the way it was viewed by the men – and women – who shed their blood to make it exist. A Federation of States.

The Federal government was envisioned to have two basic and powerful duties – defend the constitution and our borders and to settle disputes between the several states. No more. No less.

And over the years, those basic beliefs have been bastardized by progressives and socialists who despise individual freedoms. Either from the states or the people of this nation.

We are seeing an example of this government tyranny right now in the European Union. An effort to take away national values and authority to centralize them in a central government no longer responsive to the individual countries.

Read more of this article @ The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

I rather doubt many Americans would prefer your federation of states to the United States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty"

Ignorant nonsense, lies, and hyperbole – there is no 'Washington tyranny.'

It was the original intent of the Founding Generation that the Federal government be supreme, that the states are subject to Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, where the rights of the American citizens residing in the states be safeguarded by the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.)

It was never the intent of the Framers that the states be 'sovereign,' they created one National government, immune from attack by the states, representing all the American people, citizens of one Republic, undivided.

This is a 'solution' in search of a problem.

This is ignorant lies and stupidity.

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers that the Federal Government have limited reach in specific and defined areas.

All other powers were reserved to the states.

State Soveriegnty is not release from the obligation to behave like a member of the U.S.A. and obey it's laws. It was, however, a guaranteed that the Federal Government would not ingress on the powers called out in the 10th.

Also wrong.

The supremacy of the Federal government, the Federal courts, and the Federal Constitution is beyond dispute:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. US Cont., Article VI

The states are afforded their rights and responsibilities subordinate to the Constitution and its case law, state laws and measures must comport with Constitutional jurisprudence, as the inalienable rights of American citizens residing in the states are paramount: citizens do not forfeit their fundamental rights and protected liberties merely as a consequence of their state of residence.

And when the states err and act in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts, whose rulings are binding on the states, and where such repugnant acts of the states are invalidated, as originally intended by the Founding Generation (see Cooper v. Aaron).

As for the 10th Amendment:

“The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.” US v. Darby

Again, the 'reserved powers' of the states are subject to the Constitution, when the states exceed those 'powers' the Constitution authorizes the Federal courts to invalidate state measures determined to be un-Constitutional, 'reserved powers' do not 'trump' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts, those 'powers' do not authorize the states to 'ignore' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts, and those 'powers' do not authorize the states to violate the rights and protected liberties of American citizens, as “national citizenship has privileges and immunities protected from state abridgement by the force of the Constitution itself.” (US Term Limits v. Thronton)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The debate over how strong the central government should be occurred at the beginning. John Adams was more into the federal power, Jefferson stronger states rights. There's no question they wouldn't recognize the monster we have now as we become more like Europe and states are just places on a map.

And this is likewise wrong.

The United States exists now as envisioned by the Framing Generation: a National government supreme in its role and responsibilities, the states afforded their 'powers' subordinate to the Federal government and the Federal Constitution, a National government 'controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States."' (US Term Limits)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The federalists wanted a national government much stronger than the confederation government.

So they made one. The anti-federalists made what become know as amendments 9 and 10 as part of the deal for ratification.

In the 228 years since then, we still have folks who don't like the power of the federal government.

Tough.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty"

Ignorant nonsense, lies, and hyperbole – there is no 'Washington tyranny.'

It was the original intent of the Founding Generation that the Federal government be supreme, that the states are subject to Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, where the rights of the American citizens residing in the states be safeguarded by the Federal Constitution (see Article VI, US Cont.)

It was never the intent of the Framers that the states be 'sovereign,' they created one National government, immune from attack by the states, representing all the American people, citizens of one Republic, undivided.

This is a 'solution' in search of a problem.

This is ignorant lies and stupidity.

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers that the Federal Government have limited reach in specific and defined areas.

All other powers were reserved to the states.

State Soveriegnty is not release from the obligation to behave like a member of the U.S.A. and obey it's laws. It was, however, a guaranteed that the Federal Government would not ingress on the powers called out in the 10th.

Also wrong.

The supremacy of the Federal government, the Federal courts, and the Federal Constitution is beyond dispute:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. US Cont., Article VI

The states are afforded their rights and responsibilities subordinate to the Constitution and its case law, state laws and measures must comport with Constitutional jurisprudence, as the inalienable rights of American citizens residing in the states are paramount: citizens do not forfeit their fundamental rights and protected liberties merely as a consequence of their state of residence.

And when the states err and act in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in the Federal courts, whose rulings are binding on the states, and where such repugnant acts of the states are invalidated, as originally intended by the Founding Generation (see Cooper v. Aaron).

As for the 10th Amendment:

“The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.” US v. Darby

Again, the 'reserved powers' of the states are subject to the Constitution, when the states exceed those 'powers' the Constitution authorizes the Federal courts to invalidate state measures determined to be un-Constitutional, 'reserved powers' do not 'trump' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts, those 'powers' do not authorize the states to 'ignore' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts, and those 'powers' do not authorize the states to violate the rights and protected liberties of American citizens, as “national citizenship has privileges and immunities protected from state abridgement by the force of the Constitution itself.” (US Term Limits v. Thronton)

You are correct.....you are wrong.

From Madison in Federalist in 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

*************

None of which is inconsistent with the development of the constitution or the behavior of the Federal Government for almost a century.

Darby was rendered in 1941 by FDR's crooked court. 150 years after the USC was written. You had to wait a long time to get something that met up with your backwards view of the world.

Thorton was rendered in what ? 1995. 200 years post the constitution and you somehow think it speaks to what the Founders intended.

Why don't you wait another 200 and they'll tell you what an jerk you are (were) ?

I'll enjoy the day that Obama leaves so he can stop wiping his ass with the work of our founders.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Just consider what the name of our country is. The United STATES of America, not the United FEDERATION of America. The original intent was that states were to have more power and the Federal government limited power except in cases of interstate commerce, currency, border management etc. Well somewhere along the way that got tossed and we have have a beast of a central government that would make the Founders roll over in their graves.

Absolutely correct.

The Supremacy Clause was not all encompassing.

Neither was the so called "General Welfare Clause".

The revisionist left (and right) would have people believe otherwise and are winning the propaganda war.

Both were applied to the limited, defined, specific powers of the Federal Government.

It's when morons like Harry Blackmun take on abortion....and create privacy laws that they essentially turn the constitution into a doormat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following is a mere assertion and not an accurate description of the development of SCOTUS jurisprudence: "It's when morons like Harry Blackmun take on abortion....and create privacy laws that they essentially turn the constitution into a doormat."