On Civil Disobedience
That’s “Mr. Madden” to you, bud
This might come as a surprise to you, but that Texas Republican who’s threatening legislation to jail any gun-grabbin’ federales with a mind to violatin’ the Second Amendment in the Lone Star State actually has history on his side. Here’s the story:
A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.
“If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution,” Toth told 1200 WOAI’s Joe Pags Tuesday. He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison.
And here’s the precedent:
In the Roaring Twenties, after the passage of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, Prohibition was the law of the land — but it wasn’t necessarily the law of the states. After an initial burst of enthusiasm for shuttering bars and raiding breweries, many cities and states lost their appetite for local enforcement once they started hearing from their constituents, including the gangsters who’d quickly taken over the lucrative black market in booze. So they simply stopped enforcing the law, figuring if the feds wanted to give it a try, that was their problem.
Quite a rational, irrational fellow was Owney Madden.
Exactly!!! I am not for cops taking bribes. I am, however, very much for states asserting their rights to govern as the people who live there see fit. The Founders must be rolling over, to see such a massive bloated federal bureaucracy.
Now is the time for each of us to do THIS.
Just imagine how many ‘pensions’ were added by 70 years of Prohibition II.
No wonder it popped up without an amendment just as Alcohol ended.
The Gov is concerned about our morals, just like the Taliban and Communists are.
Profit protection, growing govt force, and money laundering have simply
no connection to cartel GSE’s. It’s purest accident that the good intent of honest
politicals is funding off-balance sheet growth of socialism globally.
So safe, so free from bad habits!
Those gangsters are so much better!
Hope they do something about obese hoarders and beserk self-loaders soon
Unfortunately, that’s not a precedent, that’s a story. A precedent would be if a court had validated the state’s position in some fashion.
Now the interesting part is going to be when the Federal Government demands that the State enforce Federal law. We’ve already come across this issue before, in reverse: the Feds don’t want their own immigration law enforced by the locals, insisting that only they can do it–and they don’t want to, so no one should. It’ll be interesting to see the Federal Government go to court and try and argue that *this* Federal law has to be enforced, while *that* Federal law should be ignored. Then again, the states on the other side of this argument are trying to take the opposite position (enforcing Federal immigration laws, because they approve of them, but ignoring presumed Federal gun laws they don’t like).
It’d be so much easier if everyone would just read the frickin’ Constitution, write laws that were actually *within* its reach, and then enforce the damn things…but I guess that’s asking too much.
Well said, sir! What a novel concept.
Here are some good precedents….
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton vs. Shelby County 118US 425 p. 442
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
“All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.”
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Actually, that principle was first stated some 400 years ago by the great English jurist Sir Edward Coke, when he wrote, “If it be against reason, it cannot be the law”, and about a century before then by another jurist, Sir John Fortescue, who declared that it was beyond the power of the king to “make strange impositions” on his subjects.
Absolutely right on. Tell the Feds its a package deal. Every gun they confiscate comes with ten illegal immigrants. Sort of a buy one-get ten free offer. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist!
Don’t comment too often, just read. But this is, hands down, the most informed, intellectually sound group of people I’ve yet come across. Gives me hope that common sense has not yet fled for the hills…
wrong ratio all illegals for the guns of the secret service only, he can keep the agents
The Constitution tells off NO authority for FedGov to meddle in firearms, anything we put into our mouths, education, undeclared waars/military “operations” in foreign lands, or “transportation security”. It DOES clearly lay out, as a FEDERAL responsibility, the taxk of protecting us from “foreign invaders”, which the drug and illegal immigrant people certainly are. Thus, states wanting to take up the normally federally assigned task of border security and foreign invader handling SHOULD. Those that want to herd FedGov back into the box the Constitution paints round them MUST. The Tenth Article of Ammendment to the Constitution states unequivocably that FedGov can ONLY meddle in those few things assigned it. If it is not so assigned to FedGov, it never says the states can NOT handle it. In contrast, it does say the states can, at their optioin, handle ANYTHING not forbidden them, or not specifically assigned to the Federal Government.
SO. feds MUST handle foreign invaders, states MAY. Feds can NOT handle anyhthing we put into our bodies, nor firearms, transportation security, school security, and a host of other things. The states MAY handle all of these, and more.
read the interstate commerce clause and how the supremes have upheld it over the years your dead wrong
Only the years since FDR. Prior to that there was a whole different approach to that clause…
The question is how to get BACK to that original interpretation.
And just where does it say that nine ninnies in skirts get to decide everything?
Politicos of all stripes LOVE that idea, because it leaves their fingerprints off of distasteful things, “The Supreme Court MADE us do it!”
All congress needs to do is pare down the federal judiciary and the things it is allowed to have an opinion on. It is well within their power to do so. THAT’S in the Constitution.
They won’t.
That’s the problem. If the nine ninnes are our real rulers, why do we have a Congress?
pecedent – prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance (Merriam-Webster’s)
Here’s a precedent: A country passed a constitution in 1824. By 1930 it had begun to keep this constitution in a haphazard arbitrary way. The people of Choahuila y Tejas found that unacceptable. September 8th, 1835 we began to do something about it.
o-bummer took an oath, to uphold and defend the constitution…he hasn’t…he won’t….he never will….he is a liar and a theif and a coward and it really upsets me that he is even allowed to breath oxygen on this planet….
This is all getting very interesting, very interesting indeed. Who knew such fun could be had by simply slipping down a rabbit hole?
Dear Mista Pwesident: I am a wittle boy seven years old. Pwease put my wetter on the television so all the people can see what a gweat poopagana twick you can make. Mommy says it will be a new wow in the histry of poopaganda.
My wetter:
“Hep us President Obama defeet the bad gun peeple.”
Tank you, your fwiend, Wittle Freddie.
Can we split the country by trimming the fat and leaving all of the dead weight to form it’s own nation?
I’m in! But I think we should just willfully tear our meat away from the fat. Hurts like hell, but we need a permament diet, don’t ya think?
Liposuction.
Sounds like a plan!
Well, maybe the government in New York State can’t roll over fast enough for its masters in Washington, but we’ll see if the people in New York State will jump like trained seals. It’s one thing to pass a law, quite another to enforce it. I wonder if the local police in upstate New York will even bother enforcing this new law, let alone put people in jail because of it. I really don’t think Obama and Biden fully understand that they are literally shoving this country towards another civil war. I guess that’s the only environment liberals can function in, one that is designed to divide this country rather than unite it. But I think the American people are a lot tougher than that and I would really recommend that the Feds to not try to enforce unconstitutional laws in places like Texas or Oklahoma or South Carolina. It won’t end well.
Always enjoy your comments.
I don’t know about the NY upstate police enforcing this new law, but I know of a couple of instances in upstate NY where the 30 and 40 yo children are badgering their 60 – 70 yo parents to comply with the new law.
Is the next step around the corner?
Sad state when the kids do not respect their parents rights.
Sad state when parents would ALLOW the kids to disrepect their rights.
I can remember disrespecting my parents three times. I wish I could take all three back.
such parents should sell out, pack up and move out of state, guns and all… leave the snivelling kids behind to fend for themselves, dole-less and defenseless. Let them see how long it takes in the coming lawless chaos in that state when “all” the guns are collected and “gone”. Sometimes some folks are too stubborn or proud to learn from other people’s mistakes and tragedies. Sometimes it just takes bad thnings happening to awaken them. Somehow, though, I think such a scenario would have a certain kind of justice.. a very amusing kind. Darwin put forth the theory that those who are best equipped to survive, will… and be the forbears of the new generationis coming. Those NOT prepared will perish, and NOT breed new members of the society of tomorrow. Most liberals strongly support their theory of Darwin’s theory….. let the REAL theory play out and see how they like it.
I’ll be interested to see what happens when a psychiatrist or therapy patient sues the government over confidentiality issues. It’s one thing to *protect* a “whistleblowing” doctor or therapist if they report a genuine threat. It’s another to *force* them to report all possible threats.
That doctor better have a good lawyer well acquainted with HIPPA law.
I believe you are naive LibertyShip. Obama has prepared well for this. Why do you think DHS ordered 1.5 BILLION hollow points and 2500 APCs??
Who’s he going to get to use all those rounds against fellow United States citizens??
That’s the problem all the people who say, “You think you can stand up to the US military with a few guns?” Psychology. It is fairly easy to get a soldier to fire on some foreigner in some strange land far away by calling the person a terrorist and giving an order. Doing the same thing to someone wearing his old Marine uniform with his wife and children is difficult. Soldiers can get “lost”, fire on the “wrong” target, have radio “failure” and such. Soldiers can go on strike or work slow, too.
From a South Carolinian, AMEN! That means “So Be It” suckers in D.C….
“I really don’t think Obama and Biden fully understand that they are literally shoving this country towards another civil war. ”
I think they do, but not toward genuine Civil War, just pockets of Civil Disobedience. They are using Principles of Cause and Effect. They keep yammering about gun control, causing sales to skyrocket, they waste time and talk, it is CONSTANTLY in the media, they have cutsie press conferences, which in point of actionable fact don’t DO much except punt to Napaliltano (can you say Waco?) but they mostly talk and wait, insinuate and stir the pot.
How long did it take them to get 2000+ pages of Obamacare written and passed? C’mon folks. If new law was the goal, it would be done by now. Oh, and there are items IN OBAMACARE that prohibit additional gun control. Huh. Go figure.
Refusing to help enforce a Federal law is NOT the same thing as passing a local or state law which directly contravenes a Federal law. That would be unconstitutional.
The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause is quite clear on this latter situation:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
So if Rep. Roth’s proposed state law contradicts any Federal law on gun control, then his proposed state law is unconstitutional.
Wrong.
The powers of the Federal government are laid out in Article I, Section 8. I do not see “the power to tax, regulate, and prohibit the manufacture, sale, and ownership of firearms” among them.
The essential predicate of the Supremacy Clause is that the federal law or EO be Constitutional. Of course, the USDOJ will string out challenges and venue shop for favorable decisions in an attempt to avoid a USSC decision in the hopes of something unfortunate ocurring to one of the more conservative justices.
A nasty permutation of the string it out strategy is that one of the states friendly to Comrade Obama’s gun grabbing brings the suit against the US and shapes the subsequent adjudication by the way it brings the case. Hopefully, the AGs in the civilized states will act immediately and in concert against federal abuses and usurpations. Unfortunately, there is plenty of potential for a deeply divided USSC; Dred Scott redux. One of the little mentioned aspects of Dred Scott is that Taney invalidated a Missouri SC decision holding that voluntary transport of a slave to a free state or territory freed said slave. Scott was purchased in Missouri and the actions of his owner in taking him to first an organically free state, Illinois, formed and organised under the Northwest Ordinance and later to Wisconsin territory, a free portion of the Louisiana Purchase under the Missouri Compromise. The case was brought purposely to attempt to get the US to uphold the laws of Missouri and other states that considered a slave voluntarily brought into their territory to have been freed. John Roberts may get his chance to stand beside Roger Taney. Some people had better start with some close reading of Dred Scott and the various cases stemming from the Fugitive Slave Acts.
“So if Rep. Roth’s proposed state law contradicts any Federal law on gun control, then his proposed state law is unconstitutional.”
Wrong! The Federal Constitution literally denies Congress the power to pass any laws “regarding the right to keep and bear arms.” Therefore, any passed are unconstitutional, which would require a Constitutional Amendment, which all the states have to ratify, to make any such law legal.
I forget which of our founders wrote (paraphrased), that if Congress subsequently passed any law which denied any part of our Bill of Rights, “such law would be null and void the instant pen hit paper”. Federal law was written to limit the powers of the federal government, assuring the states and the people retained their liberties, not the reverse!
Ah! But Congress is not passing any laws to restrict our gun rights. El presidente is via executive fiat…..
The problem with Executive Orders is that the President has no Constitutional authority to make laws. See Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The phrase, “legislative powers” means the power to make laws. (just on the off chance there’s someone who doesn’t understand.) See also Section 8, same Article, which lists the scope of their law-making authority. See also Article II, Section 1, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” That phrase, ‘executive power’ refers to the execution of laws; just in case someone missed the exclusive delegation of law-making power to Congress in Article I. Section 2 of Article II lists what might be called,’extra-executive’ powers that he has. None of those include making laws.
And, yes, I understand that the departments and agencies etc of the Federal government have on occasion had their “rule-making” and “regulatory” powers examined by the Supreme Court and that the Court has said that it’s okay. They’re wrong. Any rule or regulation that has the force of law outside of the executive branch department, agency etc is a law. Nearly all of the Supreme Court’s rulings upholding executive branch law-making either ignore the plain meaning or engage in the purest sophistry to evade it, by making a difference out of “law” and “rule” and “regulation”, where none exists. And don’t tell me that I’m wrong just because they’re the Supremes; think back of the number of decisions that were over-ruled over the years because a previous Court got it wrong. Slaver and segregation, anyone? Plessy v. Ferguson; Brown v. Board of Education. Many other examples exist. Those decisions are wrong because they are contrary to the obvious meaning of the words in the Constitution and it’s time we started making our elected representatives toe that line and making them compel the Executive Branch to toe that line, as well.
Thank you for your concise and well understood response.
You confuse ‘policy’ with enactments of law! For example, if you read most bills that attach to the executive branch for implemmentation and management, ‘policy’ transfers to the executive branch and the appropriate administering department or agency. Executive Orders/memoradums do not represent law(s)! They represent policy and in some rare occasions, are used to constitutionaly challenge a congressional enactment in the courts if the congress is so inclined to pursue such a court challenge.
it matters not a bit the SOURCE of any laws against any of the Bill of Rights. Congress, any state, certainly the executive branch, nor even the Supreme Court, can pass, or do something to appear to establish, any law contrary to any of those ammendments. ANY such law is null and void, and of no effect. Those ten Articles of Ammendment ARE the supreme law of the land, everywhere and anywhere, and cover all people within our borders, their “status” not considered. Those Articles plainly supercede ALL other laws, whatever their origin. Remember, those components of the Bill of Rights are inviolate.. they are not GIVEN to any of us by their inclusion. They preesixt and supercede ALL other laws, and even if a Constitutional Ammendment were to be passed purporting to remove our right to arms, THAT TOO would be null and void and of no effect… because these rights are unalienable… by ANYONE nor ANYTHING.
Only one law guarantees the Constitution:
The law of “Who holds the guns?”
I believe you are referring to the following….
“All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.”
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Well how about this then?
________
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG RECORD: Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov’t defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.
Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT.
No question! At some point in life people may have to make a choice where to draw the line and to what means they will protect anyone from crossing that line.
_______
I didn’t write that, got it in an email. But, it looks to me like the USSC has said long ago that what O’bummer is trying to do is not legal
And let’s just say for the sake of argument that the Federal law is unconstitutional. What then?
“All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.”
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
The Soros Junta has shown itself to be willing to ignore or defy court orders, so who knows what will happen if a court overturns one of his dictates.
The only way to test a federal law or executive order is to get it before the Supreme Court. It would seem that is the purpose of the proposed Texas law. What better way to get quick action from the Supreme Court than to putting federal agents on trial?
This is correct. Toth recognizes this. Passing the law is good theater, however. That said, a constitutionally correct law would say something like this: Local and state officials are prohibited from enforcing, cooperating or materially assisting in the enforcement of (Federal statue(s)); this to include the use of any property or material held under local or state authority.
Supreme Court to the Federal government: Thou shalt not commandeer state or local government and their authority for the enforcement of federal law, cf Printz v United States.
This point is directly relevant to the enforcement of federal law in the wake the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado.
“So if Rep. Roth’s proposed state law contradicts any Federal law on gun control, then his proposed state law is unconstitutional.”
No… federal laws are not part of the Constitution.
That’s not on point, Rob. If a federal law is Constitutional, then that federal law has supremacy over a conflicting state law. The necessary predicate for asserting or defeating a federal supremacy claim is a determination of the Constitutionality of the federal law for which supremacy is claimed.
Wait a minute. The Arizona police can’t enforce federal immigration laws, but they’re supposed to enforce the federal anti-gun laws?
” . . . which shall be made in pursuance thereof”
There it is. The fly in the ointment. The monkey in the wrench. The rock and the hard place. The gnat vs the camel.
Says so. Right there.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Gun control laws, disarming the citizenry in violation of the 2nd amendment, is not “in pursuance thereof.”
Trump.
I’d suggest that the Rep. do some reading on the checkered careers of the iterations of the Fugitive Slave Act. I can see state habeas corpus laws for gun owners arrested by federal authorities, “takings” legislation based on the state analogs to the 5th and 14th Amendments, jury nullification in federal cases brought under federal gun laws, and maybe we have an Underground Railroad to rescue gunowners from the clutches of federal authorities in cooperating states. The last time we had stuff like this, matters became quite unpleasant.
We can only hope that cases involving any ultra vires acts by Comrade Obama and his myrmidons can be gotten to the USSC before he has a chance to put another affirmative action communist on it. I fear a Rubicon is about to be crossed today.
myrmidons… what a great word… andd so very apt!
Thanks
“Silent enim leges inter arma.” – Cicero My translation: Force trumps Law.
The States command more force than the Federal government in any case
short of literal Civil War; The US military is not going to rescue Feds
in State custody, much less carry out the confiscation of arms for them.
I expect that the case will be made moot, overtaken by economic events in
the next few years, by a collapse which will destroy the Feds real power,
their legitimacy; No government can survive being seen as incompetent.
“On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June12, 1823
The Complete Jefferson, p.322)
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=875&chapter=64065&layout=html&Itemid=27
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms…”
Samuel Adams
http://archive.org/details/debatesproceedin00massrich
Talk of secession and civil war is playing into the hands of our global competitors. Would not Putin LOVE to see the UNITED States become three or four smaller entities?
Internal conflicts on the nature and degree of federalism must stay within the parameters of “The Union Forever!”
Don’t worry about Putin. He’s barely holding what he’s got…plus, in many ways, the Russian people have more freedoms than we do.
As for China, don’t let the MSM fool ya. They’re in worse shape than we are.
Except that that union must abide by the contract that created it, otherwise it is illegitimate.
That basic fact is the fundamental root of the majority of problems we currently face in this country as the federal government has usurped power from the states and exercised authority by force that it was never granted.
Not saying I would like to see Putin smiling – who among us actually WANTS the US to disintegrate?
It’s just that we shouldn’t substitute misguided notions regarding patriotism as a replacement for adhering to the Constitution.
Lose the Constitution, and you no longer have anything to be patriotic about.
Just saying, guys – “The Union – Fix it, Don’t Break it!”
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788”
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa33.htm
“Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.”
James Wilson
Lectures on Law, 1791
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1158&Itemid=284
…and you prolly won’t recognize this next one.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
“who among us actually WANTS the US to disintegrate?”
Apparently Democrats.
Again.
The libtards don’t think there is anything to be concerned about since Obama has lulled them into a false sense of security via handouts.
Don’t know whether or not the Russians know what’s what about America. We’d have to see their Cold War missile-targetting to find out. If they aimed one at Times Square, we’d immediately know they had no clue what was going on. In fact, lighting off a nuke over downtown any Big City in the US would strengthen us exponentially. The Third-World denizens of the inner cities are America’s worst weakness. If ‘we’ wanted to improve/strengthen America, we’d donate some tac nukes to Hezbollah. To paraphrase John Lenin: “Imagine there’s no Noo Yawk; imagine there’s no ACLU. Imagine there’s no Schoomer; and no Governor Goombah too.”
If the South were to secede again, then the Russians would probably be more likely to target Atlanta than New York City as the South would be far less amenable to socialism than the red states are.
The red states are the natural incubator for Russian socialist thought.
Did anyone ever find out whar Obama promised the Russians after his re-lection?
Good luck with that, Yankee.
Only goes to show that clinically paranoidal, delusional indiviuals, can be public officials.
Well, we ARE talking about democrats here….what did you expect the democrats to be like?
Yes indeed! Just like the delusionist’s and paranoid of the GOP tea party folks, the far left of the democrat party have their share.
Zeke, haven’t been here long, but why oh why do you always make the most idiotic comments? Oh, wait a minute, I think I get it…nevermind.
It’s not too difficult to figure him out…
At this point it is damn near impossible to distinguish the center-left and the left in the democrat party from the far-left. Perhaps you could give us a first hand observation that will help clarify the distinctions?
There are only a handful of centrist democrats left in congress. The tea party assisted significantly, in their removal in 2010 in addition to a systematic and systemic effort of the progressives and their allied caucuses over the past 16 to 20 years. It used to be that the GOP had a strategy to assist in retaining centrist democrats in those districts in which the GOP had little to no chance of winning. Not anymore, and now the GOP suffers the consequences. the democrat House is consumed with far left progressives and their allies. The Senate is slowly becoming the same.
Now, we have the far right equivalent of the dems progressives, of the GOP attempting to do the same within the GOP. If successful, just imagine how ALL the peoples business and government business will be conducted. Dueling pistols over social ideologies I supose, and every neighbor across the land will be enemies to one another, ready to shoot it out.
On the other hand, the progressives are experts at playing to human nature and to historic times of economic crisis, high unemployment, and high debt — all of which were overcome without division and hate between the people. The progressive majority of the dems are really enjoying the decimation of the GOP and in fact longing for a tea party overtaking of the GOP. They have a long ongoing plan for the people and the nation, like it or not, while todays GOP has nothing but hollow rhetoric and discontent for each other.
But for interest on the debt, the Clinton administration would have paid off the WWII debt. The biggest rollup of debt beyond that is the Reagan, pappa Bush and GW Bush debt and interest accumulation — then comes the debt and interest accumlation of the Obama administration — so far. For this moment, ammortising the payment schedule and including interest, the GW Bush debt alone, is aproximately $12 trillion dollars — at this moment in time, adjusted for inflation. As for debt to GDP, our nation has been here before and recovered as a unified nation just fine. Now, I worry, as we’re a ideologically divided nation and everybody is becomeing somebodys enemy. A divided nation will not stand!
Anyway, carry on with ripping the nation apart for whatever your strategy and desired outcome may be.
I will be more than happy to sacrifice myself to protect this country. Get my drift?
I found it rather interesting that the Russians were telling us not to let 0gabe take our second amendment rights, explaining that was the step that lead to the horrors of the old USSR.
Lots of folks considering ruckin’ up lately. General comment was that they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, not some damn politician or political party.
Makes me proud of the citizenry and more offended over the marxist power grabbers.
Shall Not Be Infringed. Period.
The States specifically brought the federal government into existence. In doing so, specific and limited authority and duties were GRANTED to the federal government. Indeed, these duties were mandated to the federal government. There are no RIGHTS granted to the federal government to act and assume authorities that contradict the Constitution. Not without amending the Constitution in a manner proscribed by the Constitution. My gripe with federal government is that this situation has been reversed in the extreme. Now, the federal government assumes the only ‘rights’ Citizens have are those granted by the federal government.
An Executive Order is not a law. If not acted on by congress it does not have the force of law and anybody trying to enforce such a decree is committing a felony.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes
U.S.C. 242:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
——
Truth be known… if congress actually followed the law, and had the balls to do it, this guy would be impeached and tossed into prison for what he has just done. Along with Biden, Holder and a host of senators and representatives. Not to mention an innumerable bureaucracy. Vote for me for president, guess what I will do. Under force of legitimate, constitutional law. Bloomberg and Cuomo would be sitting in prison today if I were president.
Maybe I need to send my representative a copy of this US Code and ask why he has not introduced articles of impeachment.
A ‘citizen’ is free to file in any federal court so you needn’t rely upon a simple letter to your representative. You can do it yourself. Gitt’er done!
And that is what the Federal Government said, in court, to defend itself against Hobby-Lobby’s law suit. Essentially that HobbyLobby, through it’s owners/CEO/Board of Directors has no right to the freedom to practice their religion, and must provide abortifacients as demanded by Obamacare.
And nobody even blinked.
Can’t we all put out I support Al-Quaeda and Hezbollah lawn signs and have the liberals not worry whether we have guns?
our illegitimate illegal alien kenyan is just following the plan laid out by the old commie-socio-fascists to destroy this country. he has defanged the judiciary already, replaced real justices w/ his illegal appointments, bullied the chief justice into submission, and now intends to let his e.o.’s be the law making part of government, thereby replacing congress.
he has also issued many more e.o.’s taking complete control of everything, once he declares martial law. he will not stop here, but when it ends this country will not be known as the United States of America anymore if we don’t act now. that is the plan. they don’t believe Americans will rise up and take their country back. his methods (using children) belie his intent. one day he is selling thousands of guns to mexican drug cartels, the next he is outlawing those same guns. could he be any more arrogant, or the amerikan people be any more stupid?
what bothers me most is how members of congress and the u.s.s.c. have bowed down to these basturds w/o even putting up a fight. dam lawyers. entire agencies of the government are right now committing treason by not vetting this creature. cheaply forged documents are held as genuine by men and women who know better, yet say nothing. computer experts (expert witnesses) have created videos showing how they were forged, and yet, the fear of being called names by halfwit useful idiots holds sway over oaths taken and paychecks cashed in good faith. that’s called treason. improper documentation is what it is. vetting if for everybody but the one position where it is really, really required? yeah, right.
wake me when real Americans step up. looks like either we fight or we lose our country to these illegals. don’t fight and those of us that survive will be slaves. simple as that now. time for playing games w/ these fascist groups is over. its put up or shut up time now, and the kenyan (and his bosses) know it.
While we’re not enforcing these new executive orders, how about we NOT enforce Obamacare?
And that’s where we say, “Guvnor, we ain’t needin’ no cream or shugah.” Unfortunately, it’s all about reelection or familial dynasty. Show me an incorruptible man/woman, I’ll show you God.
No, I’ll show you George Washington.
Indeed.
King George calmly predicted that no man, once he was made President, would willingly relinquish it.
G.W. proved him wrong.
Obama, methinks, may prove him right.
I’ve never seen an actual drawing and quartering. I wonder how much the rights to Pay-per-view would be?
Don’t you Americans ever allow any government to limit your rights; you fought too many wars, lost too many men not to hand in your rights and liberty just at a snap of the fingers.
Took this excerpt from somewhere above “federal gov’t defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation”
Y’all know why we states are defined as subdivisions of a corporation? Oh, wait a minute, that must be where the income tax comes in where you buy property, and even when you pay it off, still rent it from the government. I want to know where my pool and golf membership is.
And on and on the yammering legalese goes. . . . . the real question is: When the thugs come to kick down your door, what are you going to do?
It’s a matter of cost, Rick. Hitler never invaded Switzerland because he was sure to lose 5 divisions in house-to-house fighting. You just have to be willing and able to take a few of them with you. They are not gods and we are more numerous.
I understand and agree, Catino. I am just afraid most will spend their time arguing semantics rather than preparing for the coming storm.When the house is on fire, you can’t spend all your time arguing on the correct way to unroll the fire hose.
I already posted this elsewhere, but to repeat…
The local news had a story on a local group that held a meeting and invited three local sheriffs to speak. They held the meeting at a local steakhouse and expected about 80 people to show up.
They got 400 – and from the news clips it looked like every one of them was pi$$ed off madder than hell. The local sheriffs know, in no uncertain terms, that trying to confiscate guns is a really bad idea.
This meeting was not widely advertised, and was by a group I doubt many had ever heard of – yet again, I repeat that 400 people showed up and were having to stand in the parking lot due to lack of room.
Imagine that on a national scale.
“Imagine that on a national scale.”
In todays times nothing would suprise me — even that so many people are ill-informed and so easy to manipulate to the ignorant side of life. Only the delusional proclaim that the government is trying to ‘ban’ gun ownership and repeal the Second Amendment.
Wow, good to see another Carolinian here, Rick. I would imagine this will likely happen rather all at once when just the right fuse has been lit. So far, they’re backing off (at least on the gun issue) which is rather unfortunate, imo. Something has to happen to really push this one over the edge. It might be economic collapse.
Hehe…North Carolina here.
Where have you been?
Since they did away with dry counties and opened all the 24 hour titty bars , you’ve all gotten so damn lazy and mellow that we cannot rely on your innate patriotism to take down one measly usurping administration.
Robert E. Lee is weeping today.
I will not even mention Stonewall Jackson.
Southern Manhood: well past its expiration date.
C’mon guys. It’s what you’re supposed to do.
Not chase alligators for Discovery. Or compare BBQ recipes like gay restaurateurs.
My God!
You all actually listened to that pothead, commie-loving Young!
We’re F@@@ed royally, then.
Burn your Confederate money, boys, the South has a lapdance scheduled, so they ain’t coming to the Revolution.
Look, in the Virginia Senate yesterday or today (D) rep from henrico Joe Morrisey brought a huge gun with him. Now I want you to know Mr. Morrisey has a past history of anger and actually hit someone while as an attorney. Not sure of that outcome but here is the pot calling the kettle black here. With his past anger management problem, should he really be the one bringing guns to the Va. Senate? The left is really going hard in each of the states to restrict high capacity guns. I had to laugh when I saw it on Drudge…
Good blog post. Things i would like to make contributions about is that computer system memory must be purchased should your computer can’t cope with whatever you do with it. One can deploy two good old ram boards with 1GB each, as an illustration, but not one of 1GB and one with 2GB. One should always check the company’s documentation for the PC to be sure what type of memory space it can take.