Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: Can states lawfully violate your constitutional rights?

  1. #91
    Tom Woods talks about the true intent of the FFs in regards to the constitution and says that the meaning is very clear when you look at the minutes/debates/logs from the ratifying conventions.

    Where federal power and states' rights were heavily debated prior to ratification.

    I'm going to see what I can find from those sources in regards to this issue.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    This guy is trying to assert that the FFs didnt care about, nor do constitutional protections extend to individuals, regardless of the state in which they reside.

    The constitution only restricts the federal government's ability to infringe on your rights.

    According to him, the original intent of the FFs was that states are free to violate whatever rights they wish as long as their state constitution allows it.

    And if you as an individual dont like it, you can either move to a different state or overthrow the state government as the FFs did with Britain...
    I'm not clear what your point is. Am I "this guy?" The legal system in this country is VERY different than people (are encouraged to) think it is. I'm happy to expand further to enlighten you but I assure you that the people that are "violating your rights" are following the legal guidebook that now allows them to, due to a person's VOLUNTARY choices to not recognize their inherent rights as a creation of the Creator, but instead live life as a taxable unit of commercial property. I say again, stop entering their contracts (you do have a right to freedom of association and contracts are a form of voluntary association) if you want protection of inherent rights. You can give up your rights voluntarily, even if out of ignorance and/or failure to know who you are.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Not congress. Congress is not allowed to pass laws which violate the constitution (lol).
    Congress does this each and every day. The federal court system protects their unconstitutional actions. In a centralized and nationalistic state, there is no recourse for the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    "Subservient" in that states are also prevented from infringing on constitutionally protected rights so long as a state chooses to remain a part of the union.
    That's not what the Founders/Framers designed. If you want to stray from their vision, that's a valid argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    They can secede at any time and then proceed to infringe on whatever rights they want.
    There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents them from leaving, I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Article 1 Section 10 refers to establishing various agencies (for example), most of which are unlawful on the federal level.
    Article 1, Section 10 lists everything that the States are prohibited from doing. Every other power is left to the States. Hence, the reason the 10th Amendment exists. 20th Century federal courts have veered off into a different direction than a federal republic.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    The worst that the FFs could be accused of is not being specific enough.
    I agree. For probably different reasons, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Your premise, that the original intent of the FFs was that a state can lawfully violate the BOR. And if the individuals in that state object to it, they can move to a different state and ultimately move to a different country if all of the states turn tyrannical.
    Ah, I see. So it is better to have a system where the centralized government has more power than the States, so when the centralized government becomes tyrannous (as it has), then we can move to a different country....or something.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Am I "this guy?"
    No, I was referring to that clown familydope.

    His premise is that the states have full independence to violate rights protected by the BOR and constitution and this was the intent of the FFs.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    I'm not clear what your point is. Am I "this guy?" The legal system in this country is VERY different than people (are encouraged to) think it is. I'm happy to expand further to enlighten you but I assure you that the people that are "violating your rights" are following the legal guidebook that now allows them to, due to a person's VOLUNTARY choices to not recognize their inherent rights as a creation of the Creator, but instead live life as a taxable unit of commercial property. I say again, stop entering their contracts (you do have a right to freedom of association and contracts are a form of voluntary association) if you want protection of inherent rights. You can give up your rights voluntarily, even if out of ignorance and/or failure to know who you are.
    It is too bad that this goes in one ear and out the other, deer in heads lights syndrome...

    Even among “liberty” folks
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2017, 08:40 AM
  2. Did A&E violate section 7 of the Civil Rights Act?
    By torchbearer in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 12-25-2013, 03:53 AM
  3. Civil Liberties: Can states violate their citizen's constitutional rights in a Ron Paul world?
    By noxnoctum in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2012, 09:48 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-01-2011, 11:57 AM
  5. Does Obama Care violate your rights?
    By Napoleon's Shadow in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •