|
|
Grammar Expert
  
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 6:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 5:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted!  WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed? You seem to have lost sight of the fact.... The feds are not rounding up cows that belong to the state....
Edited by smiley 2014-04-16 8:04 AM
| |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
 
| MS2011 - 2014-04-15 5:56 PM
I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
Well this should further your rage. Fox news just showed a 20 x 40 grave with cattle in it. The number unknown at this point. Now we know why the BLM needed a backhoe and a dump truck to round up cattle. | |
| | |
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | My point about Sharpton and why so many people are ticked off...is..this administration has picked and chosen who should follow the laws and who doesn't have to. If this is the only thing that has happened since 2009, there wouldn't have been such an uproar. We have a DOJ that does nothing but whine about being picked on all while he sits on his ass and has done nothing but get people killed. (Fast and Furious) The laws should be for everyone and what really ticks me off is the ones that make the laws (Congress) seem to be one of the biggest law breakers. It's gotten very old. The money and man power that they just spent is a bigger crime then what Bundy has done. All that has happened since 2009, is to divide this country all while our Great Lyin King says one thing and does the total opposite. I think the sleeping Giant isn't sleeping real well these days. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
And jsut like this story, Nevertooold, I am sure we are only getting the "right" side of Solyndra and every other issue. I'm not believing crap anymore. I have never seen a story so mangled as this one. There is no honor in journalism any longer, none. I used to think I could listen to some of these shows - like Hannity and get a fair view - I can't. They are all full of it. Daily Kos and a few others are the only ones even attempting to tell the real story.
SO, we get half the story to p*** us all off and then we react just like they plan. It's all a game, I for one am done playing.
If you don't like it - change it, not with guns and flags, but with votes and running for local office and contacting your reps and talking to others about voting. That's about all we have. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 6:09 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 6:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 5:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley -
Yes, let's make it a free for all, that worked so well before law and order came along
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
You seem to have lost sight of the fact.... The feds are not rounding up cows that belong to the state....
When they make a 'citizens arrest' against their law then I'll believe that.
We most certainly ARE the government & that includes our duty to police & stand up for ourselves.
This is important. I have every right to protect my rights when thsoewe hire to do it fail.
| |
| | |
  Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-15 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:51 AM Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
History
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.
These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended ), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.
Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.
In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C ) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies ) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA ).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.
Now to define the word dis position in a legal sense:
disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ... 
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ disposition
Disposition. Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a .
This complete post is the reason the reason I am a Constitutitonal Orginalist! Not a Constructionist. I am all about the Orginal Intent (as stated in this History research) of Our Forefathers. Not this convoluted Federal Government of Current Day!
If and when the Feds give the land to the states - and let's face it, many if not all the states are going to screw it up, and line their pockets and those of their friends. This will be a more local good old boy system of corruption vs., having at least some checks and balances through the feds who have to listen to everyone and not just rich liberals who want to be richer.
I get this argument, I can even agree with this argument, but it's not Clive Bundy's fight, it's the State of Nevada's fight and if they won't do anything about it, he's not going to win.
Good Grief Smiley!
Originally, YOU supported the BLM (FEDS) and stated their pedigree to go back to The Gov't Land Office. I research out the Orginial Intent of the GLO and Once YOU read this bit of research You suddenly employ Your Woman's Perogative to 'change your mind' and support The State of Nevada!
Now per Bundy, State Fees have been paid to the State of Nevada, so the question remains why are the FEDS involved to begin with!?
And then when confronted with evidence to implicate Senator Harry Reid, again you scoff..............You see 'I' have attempted to keep up w/ all those debunked reports in that article holding Reid's feet to the fire. And I was/am familar with everything in that article. Reid's Former Chief of Staff is The Head of BLM.......See any Conflict of Interest here? I do! All the allegations in that article are easily validated. And have been!
Just WHY do You have such a hatred for this man? Are you jealous, envious or what? Cliven Bundy has persecuted by the FEDs and you support EVERYBODY but the persecuted! I just don't understand Your obstinatance in this matter. Everything under the Sun has been presented to support this Private American Citizen and His Family and You still cannot understand that.......................................
"I" really find this strange. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 3:19 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-15 1:56 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 2:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
For the nay sayers..... If the government is on the up and up, why was this taken off the BLM website?
The other concerns are by environmentalist groups.
The most telling though, is this..
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the DRY LAKE SOLAR ENERGY ZONE utilizes Gold Butte as the location of offsite mitigation for impacts from SOLAR DEVELOPEMENT, and those restoration activities are not durable with the presense of trespass cattle.
This here is the kicker of the whole document! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 6:37 PM So you don't think the government would run them off if they continued to pay their fees? What then?
Apparently they did everyone else who ran cattle there. He's just the last man in their way.
This is a huge government overreach, I don't care who's side you are on.
I should have stayed out of it like I said I would on page 12. 
This is historically true. All the other ranchers in this region paid their fees and were 'shut out' due to the AUMs allowed being reduced (for whatever stated reason) until Economically speaking The Ranchers could not make a living. This equates to being forced out of business by The Federal Gov't. I thought there were Fair Trade Practice Laws and Anti-Trust Laws in place (from The Federal Gov't) to prevent these scenarios from happening in the first place. This ain't Capitalism Folks! | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 8:50 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR.
I think Contempt of Court will come into play as well...2 court orders to remove his cattle. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 8:50 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR.
Dam/n sure a sight different than a felony ain't it? Such as selling stolen property? Or transporting stolen property across State Lines. These actions are exactly what The BLM was in the process of doing! Or how about Obstruction of Justice (The removal of 'that' webpage.)
Folks, the Misdemeanor of Trespassing ain't a pimple on a gnat's azz compared to the Felonies I just described........................... | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| komet. - 2014-04-15 8:56 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 8:50 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR.
I think Contempt of Court will come into play as well...2 court orders to remove his cattle.
It may but not yet. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | George Washington's Original Cabinet consisted of just positions to include:
U.S. Treasury (Money collection/management)
War Department (Currently Dept. of Defense)
State Department (Foreign Affairs)
Attorney General (America's Chief Law Enforcement Officer)
and now look at all The Alphabet Agencies The Federal Gov't consists of! Does the term "Bloated" mean anything to anyone in regards to the current Federal Gov't?! | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea.. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying "A Gov't of The People for The People By The People". And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People! The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I would like a Constitutional Convention. However, a CC can be a 'double edged sword' due to people like Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who supports 'correcting' the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.guns.com/2014/04/15/retired-supreme-court-justice-advocates-correcting-second-amendment-guns-militias/
Retired Supreme Court Justice advocates ‘correcting’ the Second Amendment; guns for militias only
4/15/14 | by Chris Eger 0 812
Justice John Paul Stevens served on the Supreme Court from 1975-2010.
Justice John Paul Stevens served on the Supreme Court from 1975-2010. (Photo credit: Politico)
One of the longest serving justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, now retired, is calling for a change in Second Amendment to limit it to militia use only.
Stevens, 93, retired from the Court in 2010 after having served 35 years in its chambers, proving himself the third longest-serving justice in history. In his time on the bench, he dissented against such high profile gun rights victories as Heller v District of Columbia and McDonald v Chicago.
“I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges,” wrote Stevens in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post April 11.
Stevens was, just before his retirement, called the “arguably most liberal justice,” and led the opposition on a number of polarizing 5-4 decisions by the court.
He currently maintains in his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” that the Second Amendment, which has since its inception in 1791 read:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Be changed to include five extra words that, he argues, will change the scope of how it is currently interpreted. Steven’s version would read:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.
The retired Justice states that, “The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia,” and, in effect, does not support the current views on self-defense and gun ownership held by the Court in rulings like Hellar and McDonald.
Further, it would seemingly limit the right to bear arms to only those in state National Guards, the body that replaced the regulated militia in the Dick Act in 1916.
Current law also details that the Unorganized Militia of the United States includes all able-bodied males over 17 year of age who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Stevens maintains that this would be the best way to prevent wide spread use of “high-powered automatic weapons” that he maintains were used in the “massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.”
While the original op-ed piece has since been corrected to strike the incorrectly used word ‘automatic’ from Stevens’ piece, the larger implied meaning remains.
Guns.com asked some in the gun rights community to weigh in on this proposed change.
“Justice Stevens decries Congress’s failure to enact legislation to ‘limit the availability of automatic weapons.’ He is apparently unaware that Congress did so in 1934, with the very strict registration and tax system of the National Firearms Act, and did so again in 1986 (banning the sale of new automatics to the general public),” said Second Amendment scholar, Professor David Kopel to Guns.com Tuesday.
Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute, an Associate Policy Analyst with the Cato Institute, and adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
He continued, “Justice Stevens imagines that current proposals to ban self-loading firearms like AR-15 are about automatic weapons. This is obviously incorrect. Justice Stevens is apparently a victim of the President Obama’s untruths regarding the matter, since the President has inaccurately referred to his gun prohibition plan as involving automatic weapons.”
“Justice Stevens is an example of the accuracy of President Lincoln’s observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time, even retired Supreme Court Justices,” Kopel concluded.
The firearm industry would tend to agree with Professor Kopel’s statements.
“Respectfully, Justice Stevens demonstrates why he was in the dissent in Heller,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade industry for firearms manufacturers in the United States.
This is the kinda crap that would be detrimental to American Citizen's Rights!
And also Mark Levin's 'Liberty Amendments' more or less empower the Feds to continue operating in 'business as usual' mode.
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2014/04/14/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/comment-page-1/
Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny
Posted on April 14, 2014 by TMH
in
Share
.
By: Publius Huldah
Publius-Hulday’s Blog
For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.
What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?
Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by delegating to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?
Mark Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.
And each of his six amendments does the opposite of what its title promises. I’ll show you. 1
Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of his book]
George Washington’s cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those functions are authorized by our Constitution. 2
But today there are numerous agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government. Where is the constitutional authority? What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD, DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?
There is no constitutional authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand that these agencies be closed, and their functions returned to the States and The People, right?
But Mark Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all these agencies. It says:
“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
As long as Congress periodically “reauthorizes” the agencies – they remain.
Levin’s amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated power [as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President wants and Congress agrees to. Do you see?
Now look at Section 2 of Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy”. It says:
“All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.”
Article I, §1, of our Constitution says only Congress may make laws. 3 But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government have been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives. These comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.
All these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1! 4
Well then, one would expect that a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of existing regulations and an end to all future rulemaking, right?
Not Levin! Section 2 of his amendment legalizes all existing regulations and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix” is merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations before they are imposed on the American People.
And so, federal executive agencies will continue to churn out millions of pages of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.
Do you see? Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and does the opposite of what he claims.
Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending” (p 73 -74)
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?
The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits – already set forth in the Constitution – on its spending.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?
But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:
“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”
Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.
Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections 6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt. 5
Levin’s amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)
Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to levy taxes so that Congress and the President will have the funds to spend on whatever they want.
Congress may lawfully levy taxes only to raise the funds to carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 say:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States …” [and] “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
Immediately after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large. 6
Add to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census); the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; and you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large. 7
So! Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue for its constitutional functions. If Congress restricted its spending to those few powers delegated in the Constitution, the federal government would need very little money from us.
One would expect that a person who wants to “limit federal taxation” would demand that the federal government stop taxing to raise money to spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?
Not Levin! While his amendment limits the federal income tax to 15% of income – it institutionalizes the present practice where Congress lays & collects taxes for any purposes whatsoever. 8
Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)
The federal government has no lawful authority to own land for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution: Article I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to own the District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”], and Places purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the erection of forts, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal courthouses, post offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.
The federal government has no lawful authority to own national parks, grazing areas, forests, and such. 9
And the federal government has no lawful authority to restrict peoples’ use of their own land. Nowhere in our Constitution did we delegate that power to the federal government! Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations (EPA, etc.) which pretend to restrict an owner’s use of his land are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.
Furthermore, the States’ and local governments’ powers of eminent domain and other “takings” of private land are addressed in their own State Constitutions and laws. This is NOT a federal issue!
But Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” changes all of the above. It says:
“When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.”
Levin’s amendment:
Changes the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from carrying out an enumerated power to whatever someone in the federal government deems a “public use” [which can be anything];
Legalizes what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the federal government – such as grazing lands;
Legalizes “takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations on the use of private lands – by all levels of government;
Takes from the States and The People their retained powers over eminent domain and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the control of the federal government; 10 and
Provides that as long as a taking does not reduce the value of the property by more than $10,000, the governments don’t have to pay the property owner one red cent. So! If your local or State or federal government takes some of your land, or restrict its use by regulation, Levin’s amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking” exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than $10,000, you eat the loss. The amendment legalizes government theft of private property.
Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)
Before our Constitution was ratified, the States qualified & registered voters. Qualifications were set forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements differed from State to State. This power was expressly retained by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. 11
The four voting amendments reduced this retained power of the States, and delegated to the federal government power to stop States from denying suffrage to citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th Amendment).
Except as restricted by these four amendments, the States retain their pre-existing power to set qualifications for registering citizens to vote, as long as they do not deny it on account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or more. States remain free to deny registration on other grounds – such as conviction of a felony or illiteracy. And of course, States retained power to restrict voting to citizens!
But the retained powers of the States to set voter qualifications for registration were diminished far beyond the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations by the federal government, and because the States forgot that they retained at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to qualify & register voters.
In Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument, I show how the federal government infringed upon the States’ retained powers over voter qualifications & registration; and how the two judges in that case wrongly ruled that Arizona could not require applicants for registration to provide proof of citizenship!
So! What should we do about non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all currently registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse to register new voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce the Constitution we have!
But Section 1 of Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” says:
“Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”
Levin’s amendment (it has 5 Sections) rewards the federal government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications & registration to the federal government. 10
But Levin’s amendment does even more harm than vesting in the federal government a power it already usurped – it ushers in a national ID card. Who thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card and keep copies? [Do you really think a national ID card is a great idea?]
To add insult to injury, Levin’s amendment doesn’t even prohibit non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens to get an ID card before they can register to vote. Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court (which will now lawfully have judicial power over this issue) will decide whether aliens can vote.
Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)
In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a full proof of the original intent of that clause and the story of how the supreme Court usurped power over interstate commerce.
The original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land! 12 So the States must man up and enforce that original intent. They must ignore – nullify – all pretended federal laws, regulations, and judicial opinions which are contrary to that original intent.
Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” says:
“SECTION 1: Congress’ power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a specific grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.
“SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.”
Section 1 broadens the powers of the federal government from prohibiting States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling, to prohibiting the States from doing anything which “impedes” commerce and trade between and among the States.
Many things can be said to “impede” commerce and trade. And who will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t “impede”? Five judges on the supreme Court.
Section 2 mentions two instances where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal maxim, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).
Accordingly, Congress’ power to regulate commerce would extend to other instances. Which ones? We don’t know – the supreme Court will decide – on a case by case basis.
Conclusion
Levin’s amendments legalize – make constitutional – the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally change the constitutional design.
Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written.
Endnotes:
1 Telling the Truth about a person’s proposals isn’t “demonizing” him. People angrily reject valid criticism of Levin’s proposals because they have made an idol of him. If their loyalty were to Truth – instead of to their idol – they would want to be set straight.
2 Article II, §2, and:
Secretary of State: Art. I, §8, cl. 3
Secretary of Treasury: Art. I, §2, cl. 3; Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. I, §9, cl. 4-7; Art. VI, cl. 1
Secretary of War: Art. I, §8, clauses 11-14
Attorney General: Art. I, §8, cl. 6, 10 & 17; Art. III, §§2 & 3; Art. IV, §2, cl.2
3 Article I, §1, says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” [emphasis mine]
4 They are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.
5 I explain the problems with “balanced budget” amendments here.
6 These are the enumerated powers over the Country at Large listed at Art. I, §8:
• Clause 3: regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
• Clause 4: uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcies;
• Clause 5: coin money & regulate its value, and fix standard of weights & measures;
• Clause 6: punish counterfeiting;
• Clause 7: establish post offices & post roads;
• Clause 8: issue patents & copyrights;
• Clause 9: set up federal courts inferior to the supreme court;
• Clause 10: punish piracies & felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
• Clauses 11-14: war, letters of marque & reprisal, Army & Navy, and rules for the military
• Clause 15-16: the Militia.
7 The anti-federalists objected to Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & 2. They claimed:
“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”
James Madison answered in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) that clauses 1 & 2 permit Congress to levy taxes & borrow money only to carry out the enumerated powers! Madison said:
“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? … Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” [boldface mine]
So! Article I, §8, cl.1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it. In other words, clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; and clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2. Do you see?
8 Levin’s amendment also corrects – on behalf of the feds – the following: When the 16th Amendment was ratified, “income” apparently didn’t include “wages”. Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional to force people to pay “income” taxes on “wages” – and such would thus be a proper object of nullification by States. But Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and rips this remedy from the States.
9 When our Constitution was ratified, the new federal government acquired (from its predecessor) the Western Territory (Federalist No. 7, 2nd & 3rd paras, and Federalist No. 43 at 5.) over which the new federal government was delegated, by Art. IV, §3, general legislative powers. As the Territory was broken up into new States, the general legislative powers would expire and sovereignty [except as to the few powers delegated exclusively to the new federal government] would be transferred to the new State.
10 Amendments to the Constitution generally increase the powers of the federal government: They usher in implementing federal statutes & executive agency regulations, and judicial power over the issue is transferred to the federal courts. Art. III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …” Do you really not see?
11 Article I, §2, cl. 1, says:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [boldface mine]
So! Whoever votes in elections for their State House, is eligible to vote for members of the federal House of Representatives. See also Federalist No. 57 (5th para) & Federalist No. 52 (2nd para).
12 Article VI, cl. 2, the “supremacy clause”, states that only our Constitution, federal laws made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, and Treaties made “under the Authority of the United States”, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Supreme Court opinions are NEVER part of the supreme Law of the Land! But we have wrongly made them the only Law of our Land. PH
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | komet. - 2014-04-15 9:27 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea..
We don't agree on much, but on this subject I am not sure we are that far apart! | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line