What if we just obeyed the Constitution?

[GunnyFreedom]

There have been a thousand theories surrounding this publicity-stunt crazed administration, as our President gets a Nobel Peace Prize on the day that we bomb the moon. Thus proving that we can make a precision ground strike from an orbiting space platform. That sounds very peaceful no?

President Obama has hastened his takeover at home, while expanding wars in two theaters, Soldiers in Afghanistan, one of them - Iraq - mostly with private mercenary forces, while opening a third theater - Pakisan - and contemplating a fourth - Iran.

I saw an article somewhere that basically postulated that almost anybody who attacks Afghanistan, gets a Peace Prize. The history of it is a bit too frightening.

Alexander the Great wants to conquer greater Persia again, it appears, and has now blessed our President with the go-ahead from Copenhagen. This warmongering is a GE-industrialized racket and it must be stopped!

to the Honorable Madame Chaiwoman Nancy Pelosi:

YouTube - Ron Paul's What If ? Remastered (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqAF-Alc7CM)

George Orwell predicted a lot of things. For one he said that that war would become peace in the popular vernacular, and that freedom would become slavery. He also predicted that the authoritarian state would take over and institute a state of perpetual war, with often-shifting alliances.

These are the things that give power to the authoritarian state. Growth in war and in control. Political power becomes manifest in the quasi police state where DHS Fusion Centers cite rationale for political discretion in law enforcement.

Now that the pushing is against the Right, Republicans can see the violations against the Republic that we should have seen six years ago. Some of us are still unwilling to admit that it used to be a problem because enforcement "agreed with us" so it was OK. IT'S NOT OK!

Simple question: Are we the American Republic or not? Simple answer: ?

Will we obey the Constitution or not? If not, then North Carolina needs to protect ourselves from the oncoming Federal onslaught now! We need to pass Tenth Amendment legislation and declare our Constitutional right to deny from the Fed any powers not listed in the Constitution, and legislatively authorizing both guard and militia support to the State's common defense in case of an egregious violation of the 10th.

YouTube - Rohrer: 10th Amendment Clearly Defines State Powers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB03MEw2_4c)




YouTube - Franklin County NC GOP Convention - Speech to support State Sovereignty Resolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgGU7hiPoV8)

Glen Bradley speaks to Franklin County GOP about supporting a State Sovereignty movement, in support of the following Resolutions eventually passed also at the State GOP level.

Even more importantly, we need a North Carolina Firearms Freedom Act, protecting from Federal reach any and all firearms transactions that take place within the borders of North Carolina.

Gary Marbut of Montana is the original Montana author of this Act, which we have expanded to strengthen the 10th Amendment argument.

YouTube - Judge Napolitano: Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act Passes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_i-vuxhh8)

Flood the State Houses with Constitutionalists NOW!

[Rael]

North Carolina has a large Parasite Class. It hit home for me when Obama won our electoral votes. Our state sucks at the teat of government as much as any other. I don't see us seceding any time soon.

[GunnyFreedom]

North Carolina has a large Parasite Class. It hit home for me when Obama won our electoral votes. Our state sucks at the teat of government as much as any other. I don't see us seceding any time soon.

because the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with secession? :confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

All we need is a strong contingent of Constitutionalists in the State Legislature and we will stop this thing in it's tracks for NC citizens.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

because the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with secession? :confused:

The 10th Amendment has everything to do with Secession. What's the point when NC'ians are getting taxed 60-70%+? While I certainly wouldn't do so at this point in time, because ultimately we still have one final shot, if that doesn't come through what are you going to do? Give up? Let Federal officials rampage all over you?

Or, are you going to have a Legislature and Governor who stands up for the rights of NC'ians, and uses what power it does have to prevent the usurption of rights? Are you going to Nullify all Federal Laws that are unconstitutional? That means, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, etc. Let the people who want those items, move. Or is it all politics?

This is why I severely doubt, nay, know, minarchism and INVOLUNTARY Confederation (What an oxymoron), will never protect rights, only usurp them. I commend you, I just don't see this having any teeth if you don't believe the 10th Amendment allows for Secession, or that voluntary states cannot then voluntary remove themselves. Secondly, if it's not even on the plate, then ultimately the whole movement fails because what if the Fed calls your bluff? Sends in agents, nullifies your laws, and runs all over your State?

[GunnyFreedom]

The 10th Amendment has everything to do with Secession. What's the point when NC'ians are getting taxed 60-70%+? While I certainly wouldn't do so at this point in time, because ultimately we still have one final shot, if that doesn't come through what are you going to do? Give up? Let Federal officials rampage all over you?

Or, are you going to have a Legislature and Governor who stands up for the rights of NC'ians, and uses what power it does have to prevent the usurption of rights? Are you going to Nullify all Federal Laws that are unconstitutional? That means, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, etc. Let the people who want those items, move. Or is it all politics?

This is why I severely doubt, nay, know, minarchism and INVOLUNTARILY Confederation (What an oxymoron), will never protect rights, only usurp them. I commend you, I just don't see this having any teeth if you don't believe the 10th Amendment allows for Secession, or that voluntary states cannot then voluntary remove themselves. Secondly, if it's not even on the plate, then ultimately the whole movement fails because what if the Fed calls your bluff? Sends in agents, nullifies your laws, and runs all over your State?

State secession and the 10th Amendment are completely different sections and applications of law that bear no resemblance to one another??? :confused:

I see a 10th with teeth authorizing the guard and militia to post at the border and keep Uncle Sam and his evil machinations OUT -- all the while falling within the law of the American Constitutional Republic, and making no such requirement to secede.

I have always been perplexed by the equation of 10th Amendment State Sovereignty - a condition that exists within the Constitution, and secession, a condition of being without the Constitution. To my understanding they are wholly incomparable.

Secession is a different tool, also not to be cast out of our toolbox, but it is a saw, while the 10th is a hammer. I don't grasp the idea of equating them, or making them equivalent. They could not be more different.

[Rael]

because the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with secession? :confused:

I guess what I mean is I don't see us standing up to government. For God's sake, they might take our federal highway money away. Lets not piss them off.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

State secession and the 10th Amendment are completely different sections and applications of law that bear no resemblance to one another??? :confused:

I see a 10th with teeth authorizing the guard and militia to post at the border and keep Uncle Sam and his evil machinations OUT -- all the while falling within the law of the American Constitutional Republic, and making no such requirement to secede.

I have always been perplexed by the equation of 10th Amendment State Sovereignty - a condition that exists within the Constitution, and secession, a condition of being without the Constitution. To my understanding they are wholly incomparable.

Secession is a different tool, also not to be cast out of our toolbox, but it is a saw, while the 10th is a hammer. I don't grasp the idea of equating them, or making them equivalent. They could not be more different.

If the 10th doesn't grant the right of secession to the people / states, what part of the Constitution allows this then? Secondly, why would you want to be a part, or associated with, an entity that is bent on total domination and even forcing you to actively patrol NC borders...? At that point, you might as well seceede, at least then you would have hundreds of thousands of people flock to NC to join you.

I also commend you for your struggle, I just wish this day never had to come, but it is incumbent on our generation to fight the travesty that is currently being foisted upon the American people and the people of NC. Remember, the 10th delegates all powers not enumerated to the Federal Government specifically to the people and the States respectively. This means, the 10th is directly associated with the right of voluntarily leaving the Union that NC voluntarily joined. Hence, the previous "Confederated Republic", meaning, each individual member can at any time remove themselves from the Confederacy, hence early America being these United States.

[GunnyFreedom]

I guess what I mean is I don't see us standing up to government. For God's sake, they might take our federal highway money away. Lets not piss them off.

North Carolina's highways were miles better before the Fed ever got this involved. I remember that directly, don't you?

[Rael]

North Carolina's highways were miles better before the Fed ever got this involved. I remember that directly, don't you?


yeah I'm just saying theres alot of candy ass people in NC now its not like it used to be. not enough people in this state give a shit to enforce their 10th amendment rights. NH or MT maybe.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

yeah I'm just saying theres alot of candy ass people in NC now its not like it used to be. not enough people in this state give a shit to enforce their 10th amendment rights. NH or MT maybe.

Remember, the Revolution was a minority. A third of the country was against it; they were Tories. Another significant portion was indifferent.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” - Sam Adams

[GunnyFreedom]

If the 10th doesn't grant the right of secession to the people / states, what part of the Constitution allows this then?

The fact that it's a voluntary contract in the first place. Unfortunately, it is not explicitly written. It should be. The USSC screwed us with a bad decision:


http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html

A. The Constitution does not permit a state to secede once it is a part of the Union. However, it does not prevent it either. It could be argued either way. The Supreme Court added its opinion in Texas v White (74 US 700 [1869]). It said that the entry of Texas into the United States was its entry into "an indissoluble relation." It said that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union (it is interesting to note that Texas benefited from the decision that it had unconstitutionally attempted to leave the Union).

but the proper interpretation of Constitutional principle is that the Constitution does not give Fed.gov the right to prevent secession. Unfortunately, at the time of fully sovereign States, I do not believe the Founders foresaw that as even being a question.

The Constitutional right to secession is found only in the fact of the Constitution itself being a voluntary contract, plus the lack of that explicit power being granted to the Fed. I am, in fact, in favor of a Constitutional amendment describing the States explicit and peaceful right to secede. But that is a different battle, with different ammunition.

[GunnyFreedom]

yeah I'm just saying theres alot of candy ass people in NC now its not like it used to be. not enough people in this state give a shit to enforce their 10th amendment rights. NH or MT maybe.

Tell that to Tennessee. We have more juice int he grassroots than you can imagine. The people in general desperately want a return to Constitutional principle, they just don't trust anybody to keep their word. All we need to do is to elect State reps as Constitutionalists who DO keep their word, and we'll have a landslide by 2012, being thus able to secure our state from Federal overreach.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

North Carolina's highways were miles better before the Fed ever got this involved. I remember that directly, don't you?

Have you ever thought about (GOP establishment, that is) selling, or transferring the road infrastructure to the market?

Perhaps if you introduce them to this:

http://mises.org/story/3416

Privatization of Roads and Highways - Walter Block

They may be more willing to even think about it. This means you can reduce taxes even further, and at the same time have the best road infrastructure in the Nation. Pioneering the way for other States. Hey, if Massachussets can have socialized healthcare, NC can have privatized roads....

[GunnyFreedom]

yeah I'm just saying theres alot of candy ass people in NC now its not like it used to be. not enough people in this state give a shit to enforce their 10th amendment rights. NH or MT maybe.

Not to mention this beautiful example given to us by the Obama stimulus.

Our reps brag about bringing $2.5 Million into Franklin County to repave US 1. Wonderful! Only problem is US 1 was in near-pristine condition still, and there are a hundred other roads in Franklin County in desperate need of repaving.

But no -- FedGov project was to repave the near-perfect US #1 highway because it was the most visible in the county. But they had more money than the project required, so what did they do? They gouged these big holes in Hwy 1 and patched them all up first, and then they repaved the road.

nevermind that we should widened 401 with that money instead of taking it from Franklin County taxpayers....

And how many Franklin County jobs came from the Stimulus project? ZERO!

So the next time you hear Lucy Allen brag about bringing $2.5 Million in stimulus to repave US 1 in the county, please ask her why? Why not 401? Why not the shattered road to my neighborhood that actually needed it?

Federal highway money is a joke, and it absolutely costs the recipient far more than it earns him. We will do well to remember that. :)

[randolphfuller]

Not one of the fifty states would let their highway money go for the 21 drinking statue sponsored by the sainted Ronald Reagan. It was widely ignored all over New Orleans, particularly the French Quarter, to such an extent that the feds threatened withdrawal of the highway funds, and New Orleans immediately complied. How can we ever have states rights if no one is willing to forego their highway money?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Not to mention this beautiful example given to us by the Obama stimulus.

Our reps brag about bringing $2.5 Million into Franklin County to repave US 1. Wonderful! Only problem is US 1 was in near-pristine condition still, and there are a hundred other roads in Franklin County in desperate need of repaving.

But no -- FedGov project was to repave the near-perfect US #1 highway because it was the most visible in the county. But they had more money than the project required, so what did they do? They gouged these big holes in Hwy 1 and patched them all up first, and then they repaved the road.

nevermind that we should widened 401 with that money instead of taking it from Franklin County taxpayers....

And how many Franklin County jobs came from the Stimulus project? ZERO!

So the next time you hear Lucy Allen brag about bringing $2.5 Million in stimulus to repave US 1 in the county, please ask her why? Why not 401? Why not the shattered road to my neighborhood that actually needed it?

Federal highway money is a joke, and it absolutely costs the recipient far more than it earns him. We will do well to remember that. :)

With all sincerity and honesty. Pitch this to those in the political spectrum:

Proposition to sell off all public roadways, highways, thoroughways, avenues, streets, etc. The contract of sell would specify the sole use and agreement to purchase is to only use the land and the provided infrastructure as transitways, thoroughfares, and roadways. By agreeing to purchase you agree to these terms.

Sell each mile of roadway for 1,000$. Or whatever monetary value that is respectable for NC. All money received from the sell of these roadways would then be sent back to the people of NC via state check. Yes, even children. So, say you raised 25 million. Divide that by the number of residents, and cut the checks. I'm sure thats an easy 2,000$ to each person. In this economy who would say no?

Secondly, propose along with the sell the annullment of ALL State taxation on gas. Voila, gas is now cheaper, and the residents have checks. Who can say no?

Now, that the roads are in private hands, presumably mostly construction companies, contractors, or investors, they then have a stake and self-interest to make a profit off that investment. If their roads are horrible and no one drives on them because of such, they will fix them and much better and faster than the "public" way, where those taxation funds for maintenance are spent on other projects such as welfare (Pitch this also, show them that the taxes for maintenance are used on other things and thats why the roads are so horrendous, that and you don't have enough money to fund everything the State does).

I'm dead serious. Pitch this. It would be such a vast improvement to your State and many States would soon follow.

[GunnyFreedom]

Problem is you can't just stop driving on a road because it's poorly maintained. Generally, one has to grit their teeth and hope the frame doesn't bend. By following your suggestion, you would create a dozen little monopolies, where you have to drive through the "X" highway coop, and "X" can charge whatever the hell they want because they own the only routes in.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Problem is you can't just stop driving on a road because it's poorly maintained. Generally, one has to grit their teeth and hope the frame doesn't bend. By following your suggestion, you would create a dozen little monopolies, where you have to drive through the "X" highway coop, and "X" can charge whatever the hell they want because they own the only routes in.

You can certainly go around, take alternate routes, etc. Secondly, the State can sell other public land for road entreprenuers. Seriously, it's a much better solution. Try and get a hold of Block's book.

Lastly, a monopoly isn't inherently bad. A State GRANTED monopoly is. Do you know, if there is a law that disbars any private entity from building roads, connecting them to public roadways, etc.?

Also, does NC have a property tax?

Seriously, just sell off the land with the contractual agreement that its sole purpose will be for transit. Then it's wholly owned and operated by private interests. That means current land and infrastructure, and other land used for infrastructure.

Lastly, name one monopoly that is wholly free-market, that charges ridiculous fees? There isn't one, because someone can always come in and compete and undercut, which always happens.

In any event. I would be remis if I didn't assuage your fears; I would recommend to go get Block's book. Think outside of the box if you want solutions. You hate the roadways? They suck? Money being siphoned off for welfare and other works? Gas prices too high? NC'ians in rough shape? Public land sitting there not being used?

If the free-market can produce every other good and service more reliably, cheaper, and in better quality than the Government, why would you suddenly fear the market in this instance? Remember, all the roadways *cough* railways in the US were once wholly private. Once Government got in on that, they deteriorated significantly due to granted monopolies, by the Government.

[Dr.3D]

So what is to keep the state from telling it's citizens not to pay federal taxes and instead send some of that money to the state to maintain the roads? Seems the state could tell the citizens they would be protected from the federal government if they did not pay federal taxes.

The federal government tells the state, we are going to cut off your highway funding and the state says, no problem, we are going to cut off your federal funding.

[Rael]

So what is to keep the state from telling it's citizens not to pay federal taxes and instead send some of that money to the state to maintain the roads? Seems the state could tell the citizens they would be protected from the federal government if they did not pay federal taxes.

The federal government tells the state, we are going to cut off your highway funding and the state says, no problem, we are going to cut off your federal funding.

It's a great idea, but the state will cave as soon as a court says the state has no power to do so, which would happen before lunch time.

[Socratic Method]

Who is "we" ?

The Principle of Methodological Individualism by Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/story/3409

I and We


"The Ego is the unity of the acting being. It is unquestionably given and cannot be dissolved or conjured away by any reasoning or quibbling.

The We is always the result of a summing up which puts together two or more Egos. If somebody says I, no further questioning is necessary in order to establish the meaning. The same is valid with regard to the Thou and, provided the person in view is precisely indicated, with regard to the He. But if a man says We, further information is needed to denote who the Egos are who are comprised in this We. It is always single individuals who say We; even if they say it in chorus, it yet remains an utterance of single individuals.

The We cannot act otherwise than each of them acting on his own behalf. They can either all act together in accord, or one of them may act for them all. In the latter case the cooperation of the others consists in their bringing about the situation which makes one man's action effective for them too. Only in this sense does the officer of a social entity act for the whole; the individual members of the collective body either cause or allow a single man's action to concern them too.

The endeavors of psychology to dissolve the Ego and to unmask it as an illusion are idle. The praxeological Ego is beyond any doubts. No matter what a man was and what he may become later, in the very act of choosing and acting he is an Ego.

From the pluralis logicus (and from the merely ceremonial pluralis majestaticus) we must distinguish the pluralis gloriosus. If a Canadian who never tried skating says, "We are the world's foremost ice hockey players," or if an Italian boor proudly contends, "We are the world's most eminent painters," nobody is fooled. But with reference to political and economic problems the pluralis gloriosus evolves into the pluralis imperialis and as such plays a significant role in paving the way for the acceptance of doctrines determining international economic policies."

Cheers,
SM.

[Dr.3D]

It's a great idea, but the state will cave as soon as a court says the state has no power to do so, which would happen before lunch time.
I guess that would depend on if the state determines the SCOTUS to be representing the Federal Government or the state. If it only represents the Federal Government, then the state can say SCOTUS has no jurisdiction on the case and ignore it.

[Rael]

I guess that would depend on if the state determines the SCOTUS to be representing the Federal Government or the state. If it only represents the Federal Government, then the state can say SCOTUS has no jurisdiction on the case and ignore it.

They can, but they know that the feds would send troops in or at minimum, send in the FBI to arrest certain elected officials. So its unlikely they would ignore the ruling. Even if they did they would almost certainly back down ones guns were involved.

I think you have a great idea but I don't see any states with enough balls to do this. it would have to be done with the full knowledge that refusal of the feds to comply will result in secession backed up with force of arms.

[Dr.3D]

They can, but they know that the feds would send troops in or at minimum, send in the FBI to arrest certain elected officials. So its unlikely they would ignore the ruling. Even if they did they would almost certainly back down ones guns were involved.

I think you have a great idea but I don't see any states with enough balls to do this. it would have to be done with the full knowledge that refusal of the feds to comply will result in secession backed up with force of arms.

In essence, not paying the Federal Taxes would be defacto secession. The state should be militarily ready for Federal invasion. If enough states got together in doing what was suggested, they could come to the aid of those being invaded.

[awake]

The mountains of post constitutional regulations and laws have buried it 6 feet under. Got a shovel?

[GunnyFreedom]

The mountains of post constitutional regulations and laws have buried it 6 feet under. Got a shovel?

Anytime you go into politics as a Constitutionalist, you have to carry a dung-shovel. Mine's ready! :)

[GunnyFreedom]

In essence, not paying the Federal Taxes would be defacto secession. The state should be militarily ready for Federal invasion. If enough states got together in doing what was suggested, they could come to the aid of those being invaded.

I was thinking you legislatively back up the 10th Amendment with the teeth of the National Guard, State Guard, and various militia, plus sanctions on federal taxation, by writing the 10th Amnd Act to authorize such forces as may be necessary.

If push comes to shove you tell the reporter, "No, this is NOT secession, this is the 10th Amendment. We are doing this precisely BECAUSE we have no desire to secede from the union. If we had wanted to secede we would have just left, and not put all these men and women in danger." (pointing at the lines of troops and militia) "We are here today because the strength of the union is found in the 10th Amendment, and we believe that by preserving the 10th Amendment, we will likewise be preserving the union. That is precisely the opposite from secession -- we are doing this to save America, not to dissolve it."

[klamath]

Selling the roads to a private company sounds like a great idea but there is one little thing that always gets me thinking. Thousands of acres of private land was seized through eminent domain for those road ways. Now the government is selling the roads to a private company that can deny people the right to use those roads. This is much like the supreme court decision to allow eminent domain takings for private corporations. I am not to sure that the people that had owned millions of homes, farms and front yard property would feel to happy when the road in front of their house became private and subject to being closed to their use. Being that the road is a private business now nothing would stop them from denying service or charging a use fee of a $1 a foot.

Just something to think about.

[Dr.3D]

I was thinking you legislatively back up the 10th Amendment with the teeth of the National Guard, State Guard, and various militia, plus sanctions on federal taxation, by writing the 10th Amnd Act to authorize such forces as may be necessary.

If push comes to shove you tell the reporter, "No, this is NOT secession, this is the 10th Amendment. We are doing this precisely BECAUSE we have no desire to secede from the union. If we had wanted to secede we would have just left, and not put all these men and women in danger." (pointing at the lines of troops and militia) "We are here today because the strength of the union is found in the 10th Amendment, and we believe that by preserving the 10th Amendment, we will likewise be preserving the union. That is precisely the opposite from secession -- we are doing this to save America, not to dissolve it."

This is what I was thinking about when I said that. There would be a difference between secession and the enforcing the 10th. The Federal Government would think it was defacto succession, when in fact it would be simple enforcement of the 10th.