Can states lawfully violate your constitutional rights?

[unknown]

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.

[devil21]

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.

[familydog]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

The worst that the FFs could be accused of is not being specific enough.

I agree. For probably different reasons, however.

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.

[unknown]

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.

[PAF]

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