Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Your BS gets deeper as we go.
STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.
You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.
JWK
Lookin' in the mirror Mr Name-Caller?
I posted exactly from the 10th Amendment Center:
Got it now?It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.
There is no spoon.
Name-caller? What name?
You posted an opinion piece from the 10th Amendment Center, a piece which offers no argument justifying the actions of California's AG who is threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.
Got it? The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".
JWK
Last edited by johnwk; 01-20-2018 at 07:08 PM.
YOU brought up the 10 Amendment.
The 10th Amendment is to INSURE STATES RIGHTS.
Under the 10th, the feds have no right to invade a state and tell them what they can or cannot do- especially when common law prevails. The "Civil" War took away the remaining rights of States and made the US into a corporate entity with elites who are only there for themselves. This is completely AGAINST the 10th Amendment that you brought up.
There is no spoon.
There is no spoon.
There you go again switching the subject and posting an unsubstantiated assertion. The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".
Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?
JWK
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".
Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?
JWK
There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
I actually don't have a problem with sanc. cities. Only the talk about letting any old joe vote in national elections crosses the line.
In general, though, I think it is nice to have examples to point to and compare with so you can tell people, "see, I told you all this shiit wouldn't work."
T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me
Originally Posted by Philhelm
You surely don't.
STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.
You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
I'm not confused- I'm for Liberty for All. And I remember exactly what I posted.
YOU are for Big Gov taking care of you and what you are advocating is totally against State's Rights. If you are "sick and tired of being made into a tax-slave to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth", then start doing something to help get rid of Big Gov- and especially in entitlements, medicine, corporate capitalism, etc. THAT is the problem.
The freedom of the states, and of all humans, does NOT come from the Constitution. Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.
The Amendments were added because most of the colonists, including famous forefathers such as Patrick Henry, did not trust Hamilton OR the new law they wanted to put into place for a ruling central government.
There is no spoon.
Absolutely wrong! What the Constitution recognizes is to apply the “rules of the common law”, as distinguished from common law. For example, one of the most fundamental rules of the common law is to adhere to “legislative intent”.
In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."
It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:
But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
The rules of the common law applies to procedure.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
Legislative intent lets judges redefine original intent.
The issue of illegal immigration is a political minefield. There are many causes and therefore no one solution can resolve them. As Dr. Paul has said on multiple occasions, the first problem that has to be addressed is birthright citizenship. You can’t do that without replacing or amending the 14th amendment with something that repudiates Supreme Court decisions holding that rights are conferred by birthright citizenship.
The 14th amendment is an abomination as was the legal opinion of the Supreme Court that incented its creation. It isn’t terrible because it presumes to tell states that their citizens have rights. It doesn’t do that at all. It is terrible because it legitimizes the milestone Supreme Court decision, Scott v. Sanford. Justice Taney in that decision "discovered" a legal loophole. You see, in spite of the plain words of the constitution, Taney argued that "people" and "persons" really meant "citizen." Since there was no legal decree making people citizens by birth, Dred Scott, who was born in the U.S., had no rights. What Taney meant to say, was that Dred Scot, a black man, was not human.
In a better world, Congress would have impeached all of the Justices who supported that decision. Instead, they proposed an amendment legitimizing the decision though intending to remedy the injustice wrought by the decision. The Dred Scot decision has never been overturned. If you don’t believe me, read US v Verrdugo-Urquidez decided in 1990. The court claimed that "people" is a "term of art" meant to describe citizens. In other words, rights are conferred by citizenship.
To work and to travel internationally, you must prove to authorities that you are a citizen. This renders you guilty until you can prove your innocence. Due to other abominable laws and decisions, you are also forced to pay to educate, feed and care for citizens who are such by consequence rather than allegiance.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/...-constitution/
Judge Nap on the Constitution:
Marshall was one of the worst Judges of all time.Daily Bell: Some say the Constitution was a step backward from a less structured federation of states. Agree or disagree – and why?
Judge Napolitano: I agree. I do agree. I think that we would be far happier today under the Articles of Confederation than under the current Constitution, but we would also be happier today under the Constitution were it interpreted as it was intended to be. Unfortunately, almost from the beginning, and certainly with Chief Justice John Marshall, we bear witness to the march away from state sovereignty, the march away from individual liberty and the march toward federal dominance. This march has accelerated and decelerated at various times in our history. Usually at wartime it becomes more accelerated. But from the end of the Civil War and certainly from and after the FDR era, the march has consistently been away from state sovereignty away, from individual liberty and toward federal dominance.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/06/...vernment-lies/
There is no spoon.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
I was actually going by Aristotle.
Natural Law – The History
The Greeks -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φъσις) and "law," "custom," or "convention" (nomos, νуμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).
There is no spoon.
Connect With Us