Article V Convention Of States

[bripat9643]

History shows that the people almost always are morons and cheerfully vote to march themselves all into the abattoir.

Why should the minority who are more intelligent be held hostage to the whims of a mob of morons?

You want maybe 1,000 extremist assholes to tell the rest of the country what's best for them?

Sounds like you want to do exactly what you accuse Congress of doing.

No. I and others like me simply want to be left alone. We want to go our own way. We don't want a mob of imbeciles telling us what to do. That's what secession is all about. Of course, those who worship the state will never allow it.

 

[bripat9643]

What kind of person says that 100 million voters are wrong and they alone are right?

A Fascist. Or a Communist. Or an Absolute Monarch.

If the mob is so wise, then how does it constantly get bamboozled by dictators and tyrants? The fact that the mob voted for Obama and Harry Reid is proof enough of its sheer idiocy.

 

[Victory67]

If the mob is so wise, then how does it constantly get bamboozled by dictators and tyrants? The fact that the mob voted for Obama and Harry Reid is proof enough of its sheer idiocy.

Yes, Fascists and Communists always think they know what's right and The People are dumb and must be told what to think, do, and say.

Do you realize how foolish your attack against the American people looks?

 

[Victory67]

The funny and sad thing about you guys is that you have never joined a campaign to get more Americans to vote, you've never joined a campaign to convince more Americans to accept your ideas, you've never joined a campaign to get a certain candidate elected.

You ignore all of that and jump right to the idea of a violent revolution, because you think the people are dumb and you have all the truth.

You guys are both lazy and arrogant.

 

[The Rabbi]

The funny and sad thing about you guys is that you have never joined a campaign to get more Americans to vote, you've never joined a campaign to convince more Americans to accept your ideas, you've never joined a campaign to get a certain candidate elected.

You ignore all of that and jump right to the idea of a violent revolution, because you think the people are dumb and you have all the truth.

You guys are both lazy and arrogant.

You make generalized statements about people here you cannot possibly know and then accuse us of being lazy and arrogant??

 

[The T]

History shows that the people almost always are morons and cheerfully vote to march themselves all into the abattoir.

Why should the minority who are more intelligent be held hostage to the whims of a mob of morons?

You want maybe 1,000 extremist assholes to tell the rest of the country what's best for them?

Sounds like you want to do exactly what you accuse Congress of doing.

Project much do you?

 

[The T]

The funny and sad thing about you guys is that you have never joined a campaign to get more Americans to vote, you've never joined a campaign to convince more Americans to accept your ideas, you've never joined a campaign to get a certain candidate elected.

You ignore all of that and jump right to the idea of a violent revolution, because you think the people are dumb and you have all the truth.

You guys are both lazy and arrogant.

You make generalized statements about people here you cannot possibly know and then accuse us of being lazy and arrogant??

Maybe a retread...?

 

[Victory67]

Project much do you?

I'm not the one talking about supporting a violent revolution because the people are "dumb lemmings and sheep".

That's you guys.

I however understand that we have millions of options in order to make serious political change in this country in a totally peaceful and democratic fashion.

 

[The Rabbi]

The funny and sad thing about you guys is that you have never joined a campaign to get more Americans to vote, you've never joined a campaign to convince more Americans to accept your ideas, you've never joined a campaign to get a certain candidate elected.

You ignore all of that and jump right to the idea of a violent revolution, because you think the people are dumb and you have all the truth.

You guys are both lazy and arrogant.

You make generalized statements about people here you cannot possibly know and then accuse us of being lazy and arrogant??

Maybe a retread...?

You misspelled "retard."

 

[The T]

What kind of person says that 100 million voters are wrong and they alone are right?

A Fascist. Or a Communist. Or an Absolute Monarch.

If the mob is so wise, then how does it constantly get bamboozled by dictators and tyrants? The fact that the mob voted for Obama and Harry Reid is proof enough of its sheer idiocy.

As long as the MOB gets their boubles and trinquets from the Politicians courtesy of the taxpayer? They're fat dumb, and happy at OUR expense.

 

[Victory67]

What kind of person says that 100 million voters are wrong and they alone are right?

A Fascist. Or a Communist. Or an Absolute Monarch.

If the mob is so wise, then how does it constantly get bamboozled by dictators and tyrants? The fact that the mob voted for Obama and Harry Reid is proof enough of its sheer idiocy.

As long as the MOB gets their boubles and trinquets from the Politicians courtesy of the taxpayer? They're fat dumb, and happy at OUR expense.

We can do sit ins. We can vote in much higher numbers.

We can lobby for change. We can contribute to campaigns.

We can make phone calls. We can hold protests.

We can engage in acts of civil disobedience.

But no, you just want dead people and revolution. How lazy of you.

 

[bripat9643]

Project much do you?

I'm not the one talking about supporting a violent revolution because the people are "dumb lemmings and sheep".

That's you guys.

I however understand that we have millions of options in order to make serious political change in this country in a totally peaceful and democratic fashion.

Secession is peaceful. It's the invasions and mass slaughter by those who want to maintain the dominion of the empire over its subjects that is violent.

 

[Victory67]

Secession is peaceful. It's the invasions and mass slaughter by those who want to maintain the dominion of the empire over its subjects that is violent.

That is true. A Secession can be very peaceful.

 

[bripat9643]

If the mob is so wise, then how does it constantly get bamboozled by dictators and tyrants? The fact that the mob voted for Obama and Harry Reid is proof enough of its sheer idiocy.

As long as the MOB gets their boubles and trinquets from the Politicians courtesy of the taxpayer? They're fat dumb, and happy at OUR expense.

We can do sit ins. We can vote in much higher numbers.

We can lobby for change. We can contribute to campaigns.

We can make phone calls. We can hold protests.

We can engage in acts of civil disobedience.

But no, you just want dead people and revolution. How lazy of you.

No, those who insist on maintaining the dominion of the empire over it's subjects are the ones who want people dead. They threaten mass slaughter if anyone even suggests that remaining in the empire isn't the best thing for the people.

 

[bripat9643]

If the mob is so wise, then how does it constantly get bamboozled by dictators and tyrants? The fact that the mob voted for Obama and Harry Reid is proof enough of its sheer idiocy.

As long as the MOB gets their boubles and trinquets from the Politicians courtesy of the taxpayer? They're fat dumb, and happy at OUR expense.

We can do sit ins. We can vote in much higher numbers.

We can lobby for change. We can contribute to campaigns.

We can make phone calls. We can hold protests.

We can engage in acts of civil disobedience.

But no, you just want dead people and revolution. How lazy of you.

You're delusional if you think sit ins are going to convince the people in power to give up their privileges.

 

[Victory67]

As long as the MOB gets their boubles and trinquets from the Politicians courtesy of the taxpayer? They're fat dumb, and happy at OUR expense.

We can do sit ins. We can vote in much higher numbers.

We can lobby for change. We can contribute to campaigns.

We can make phone calls. We can hold protests.

We can engage in acts of civil disobedience.

But no, you just want dead people and revolution. How lazy of you.

No, those who insist on maintaining the dominion of the empire over it's subjects are the ones who want people dead. They threaten mass slaughter if anyone even suggests that remaining in the empire isn't the best thing for the people.

So you're against all democratic and peaceful methods of changing how our government functions?

I see. Nice stupid hyperbole by the way. "dominion of the empire over it's subjects" God you guys are fucking hilarious!! LOL

 

[bripat9643]

We can do sit ins. We can vote in much higher numbers.

We can lobby for change. We can contribute to campaigns.

We can make phone calls. We can hold protests.

We can engage in acts of civil disobedience.

But no, you just want dead people and revolution. How lazy of you.

No, those who insist on maintaining the dominion of the empire over it's subjects are the ones who want people dead. They threaten mass slaughter if anyone even suggests that remaining in the empire isn't the best thing for the people.

So you're against all democratic and peaceful methods of changing how our government functions?

I see. Nice stupid hyperbole by the way. "dominion of the empire over it's subjects" God you guys are fucking hilarious!! LOL

When have these "democratic methods" every decreased the power of the state?

 

[Victory67]

When have these "democratic methods" every decreased the power of the state?

California's May Issue CCW laws were just tossed out by the 9th Federal Appeals Court.

The Supreme Court told Obama that he can't force the States to expand Medicare.

Public outrage forced Congress to back down from giving the President fast-track trade deal power, to regulate the internet further, and to enact a new Assault Weapons ban.

 

[Victory67]

The Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence restored limits to the Interstate Commerce Clause that were removed in post-New Deal decisions, based primarily on concerns of federalism and Congress encroaching on the Several States' Police Powers. It upheld Congress's plenary authority to legislate in Indian affairs that was derived from the Worcester decision's interpretation of the Indian Commerce Clause, but modified Worcester by giving the several states some jurisdiction over Indian affairs beyond what had been granted to them by Congress. Another view is that the Court was compelled to define limits to address Congressional legislation which sought to use the Interstate Commerce Clause power in new and unprecedented ways

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus the federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in Lopez. This was the first time in sixty years, since the conflict with President Roosevelt in 1936–37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.

The Lopez decision was clarified in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), in which the Supreme Court invalidated § 40302 of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"). The VAWA created civil liability for the commission of a gender-based violent crime, but without any jurisdictional requirement of a connection to Interstate Commerce or commercial activity. 42 U.S.C. § 13981(c). Once again, the Court was presented with a Congressional attempt to criminalize traditional local criminal conduct. As in Lopez, it could not be argued that State regulation alone would be ineffective to protect the aggregate impacts of local violence. The Court explained that in both Lopez and Morrison "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision." Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in neither case was there an " 'express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach (to those instances that) have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.' " Id. at 1751. In both cases, Congress criminalized activity that was not commercial in nature without including a jurisdictional element establishing the necessary connection between the criminalized activity and Interstate Commerce.

The Court found in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) that, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states.

 

[Victory67]

On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation," which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."[19] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.

Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Govt. power is limited all the time.