- Comment by on May 9, 2012 at 10:20amCorrection of my last post: The question is not only, "What constitutes "infringement"; but also, "when do you forfeit your God-given rights?" Our Declaration of Independence says that God gave you the right to life and liberty. But you forfeit those rights when you take somebody else's life, or steal their stuff, etc.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on May 20, 2012 at 10:43amYes, Mark! Right! Applause! Applause!Except that Art. I, Sec. 10 lists the things the States agreed they would not do.Beautiful! THAT's what they did! You said it the best.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on May 22, 2012 at 12:43pmI am very busy getting a 2 hour presentation ready - I'm still alive. It is also the start of my book.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on May 25, 2012 at 8:04am1. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was a federal "law" which restricted political speech.2. It was unconstitutional as (1) outside the scope of the legislative powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and (2) as in violation of the 1st Amendment which specifically prohibits Congress from making any laws restricting speech.3. SCOTUS finally overturned McCain-Feingold in the Citizens' United case (thou not on the constitutional grounds set forth above).4. Those who seek to reinstate McCain-Feingold are arguing for unconstitutional restrictions by the federal government on political speech.It has nothing to do with "states' rights" - it is about the federal government's controlling political speech. The progressives want to restrict the political speech of conservative organizations. That is why zero attacked SCOTUS at zero's state of the union address when he lied about their decision in the Citizens' United case. That is why Justice Alito said, "Not true", when he heard zero's lies.Justice Anthony Kennedy - the swing vote on the court - is the one who wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United. The hope is that Kennedy got so ticked off at hearing zero lie about the decision (which Kennedy wrote) that Kennedy (the swing vote) will strike down obamacare.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 6, 2012 at 10:59amDobson does not understand what "The Rule of Law" is if he believes it means that one must obey the federal government no matter what it does.It is the utter cluelessness of our pastors which has got us in the mess we are in.The "Rule of Law" prevails when those in the civil government obey the higher law. In this Country, the higher law is Our Constitution.So! The "Rule of Law" prevails when those in federal government obey the Constitution.When those in the federal government refuse to comply with the higher Law - the Constitution - and do whatever they want, we have the "Rule of Man" .Obama and his administration embody the "Rule of Man".Wiser men than Dobson said that "Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God"; but I would not expect Dobson to understand that.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 6, 2012 at 11:20amRe: Lesbian "weddings" & coerced photographers1. Start with the 1st word of the 1st Amendment: CONGRESS shall make no law …The 1st Amendment restrict only Congress.It was the lying US supreme Court which made up the “incorporation doctrine” where they asserted that the 14th Amendment “incorporates” the 1st Amendment so as to restrict the powers of the States. My paper on “separation of church & state” explains this lying “incorporation” doctrine.2. The case in Mexico isn’t properly a “1st Amendment” case: I haven’t read the court’s opinion, but it seems to be a case of State legislators who don’t understand what they are doing, voting for idiotic state laws which someone told them to vote for; and that it was the idiotic state laws which the photographer violated.3. It violates fundamental conceptions of liberty for a State legislature or State judges to force people to do business with other people! If I have a private business, I may refuse to do business with whomever I wish! The New Mexico Constitution may have something to say about this. I.e., the idiotic state laws which the photographer violated may be in conflict with the New Mexico Constitution.4. It was during the civil rights movement of the 1960s that the courts really got started ordering private businesses to do business with certain designated people. Many restaurants would serve only white people. The federal courts said they had to serve blacks – the restaurants were open to the public and blacks were part of the public. But this illustrates how it is always wrong to abandon Principle in order to achieve a desired result.Of course it was morally wrong to refuse to serve blacks. However! A privately owned restaurant may refuse to serve whomever they wish! Why may I not open a restaurant where I serve only redheads?Anyway, once you establish the precedent that restaurants can be forced to serve blacks; then why can’t you order photographers to photograph homosexual weddings? Why can’t you order a construction contractor to build a whore house? Why can’t you order a medical doctor to perform abortions? If child porn is legalized, why can't you force Christian bookstores to sell it?So! Even though refusing to serve blacks was morally wrong, it was even worse for the federal courts to order private restaurants to serve blacks. Social pressures, customer boycotts, the pastor at church speaking out against race segregation, etc. are the proper ways to handle such problems.I don’t know how State judges get & maintain office in New Mexico; but TP people there should look into procedures for removal of State judges.It all turns on whether WE The People will do what we need to do to curb the looney progressives who are destroying our Country.But this is properly a State issue. "Marriage", "homosexuality", "weddings", "photographers", are not among the objects of federal power.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 6, 2012 at 12:42pmI am preparing a 2 hour presentation for next week - I will present 12 Principles of God's Model of Civil Government which our Framers applied in our Declaration and Constitution. Our Framers knew the Bible. They were magnificent men. Imagine being in the same room with Geo. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, etc. !This is all old knowledge - the English Puritans figured it out and brought it here in the 1630s. But we lost that knowledge and embraced its opposite - the unbiblical doctrine of the divine right of kings. We now believe the lying doctrine that the word of the king is "law".
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 6, 2012 at 1:52pmBills of Rights are dangerous. They provide a pretext to regulate for those inclined to usurp. Federalist Paper No. 84 (9th para). http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed84.htm What Hamilton warned about has come to pass.Do you really believe that the US supreme Court protects us from the State governments? Millions of dead babies don't think so. Well, if they were alive, they wouldn't think so. But they can't think b/c they are all dead b/c of the United States Supreme Court.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 6, 2012 at 8:16pmDavid, I haven't had time to read the opinion. The 13th Amendment doesn't apply b/c it dealt with the black slavery which existed in this Country.If we take the words "slavery" or "involuntary servitude" and redefine them to include forcing restaurant owners to admit black people along with white people; or forcing photographers to photograph (for pay) this event or that event; we would be as bad as those judges on SCOTUS. They redefine words in the Constitution in order to get the result they want in the particular case before them.They unlawfully redefined "establishment of religion" from the meaning it enjoyed during our Founding Era and its ratification, and substituted a completely different meaning in order to "justify" the banning of nondenominational & voluntary prayer in the public schools.We can't EVER properly amend the Constitution by redefining the words.This case is properly a State issue.The federal courts are corrupt. They are not the solution for miscarriages of justice in the State courts. The federal courts - particularly SCOTUS - have done much harm to our Country for a very long time.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 7, 2012 at 7:10amRemember! With the Constitution, we created the federal government.The STATES already existed. The STATES pre-exist the Constitution.In the Constitution, We The People listed ALL of the powers we decided to delegate to the federal government.So! With the above in mind, can YOU find where WE delegated to the federal government the power to create "protected classes"? And as you are looking, remember what Hamilton & Madison tell us over & over in The Federalist Papers: Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. So, if the power was delegated to the federal government, you should be able to cite Article, Section and clause showing where it is listed.* * *As pre-existing political entities, the STATES (both the original 13 and the inchoate States), do NOT get their powers from the Constitution: The STATES retained all the powers they originally had which they (1) did not exclusively delegate to the federal government and (2) agree not to exercise - see list at Art. I, Sec. 10.So! You wouldn't go to the federal Constitution to find out what powers the STATES have. The powers each STATE has are set forth in its State Constitution.And yes, Mark's comments about the 200 amendments to the Texas Constitution are correct. Webster's 1828 Dictionary gives the best definition ever of "constitution":So the purpose of a Constitution is to create a government and to designate its powers. Not to micromanage, lists various "rights", etc.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 7, 2012 at 7:12amRe all the federal case law on this *rap about "protected classes of persons": Again, the federal courts are a big part of The Problem - they are not the solution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Comment by on June 7, 2012 at 5:29pmPrecisely. Our problem isn't that federal agents don't know The Federalist Papers and the original intent of the Constitution.The problem is that not enough American people know The Federalist Papers and the original intent of the Constitution.If WE The People knew it, we would laugh when Congress passed obamacare b/c we would know that it was void as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Few, if any, would scurry to obey. The disgrace is not so much that Congress passed it; but that the ignorant sheeple scurried to obey. The establishment conservatives on TV and radio babbled about compliance costs. They should have explained why obamacare was VOID as outside the powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution.Consider the UN small arms treaty. I hear everywhere that if the Senate ratifies it, it will become "the supreme law of the land". People who should know better are chanting this idiotic mantra. I haven't heard one of our "establishment conservatives" explaining how the treaty would be a nullity b/c the federal government may not do by treaty what it may not do under the Constitution - that only the enumerated powers are proper objects of treaties.I'm continuing to try to simply & explain the Constitution. The Constitution itself is simple & elegant.It is all the misinformation, misconceptions, distortions, etc. which have taken up residence in peoples' minds which makes it seem difficult. And we have far too many people who are ignorant who are spouting off as if they know all about it. And that includes establishment conservatives, as well as the people who post rubbish as "comments" everywhere on the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment