Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 8:38 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Theodoric (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,091 Year: 9,127/19,786 Month: 1,549/2,119 Week: 309/576 Day: 112/98 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4100
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 136 of 218 (551482)
03-22-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
03-22-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Guns
Why would the court consider a case that was not filed or argued?

In the case of Haynes the court held its question to the narrow focus of the Fifth Amendment. They ruled the registration requirement to violate the Fifth. If, as in the case of Freed, they had found no violation of the Fifth for Haynes SCOTUS could have invalidated the entire act as a violation of the Second. They did not in either case.

This does leave open a possible challenge to the NFA strictly on the grounds of the Second Amendment, but, since SCOTUS passed up such scrutiny in Freed, and now with the opinion in Heller and the rights of Congress in Article I there isn't much point. The lower courts would dismiss and SCOTUS would most probably refuse certiorary.

Also,

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

(The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.)

All acts of the Congress are proper until the court rules otherwise.

You may not like it, but this is our system of rule by law.

Edited by AZPaul3, : clearification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 9:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 137 of 218 (551483)
03-22-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
03-22-2010 2:05 PM


Re: Guns
The federal government can not change the Constitution.

No, but the Supreme Court can interpret the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights based on the historical and present day context and understanding of fundamental human rights. And the Legislative branch can pass laws that regulate how these rights are practiced as long as these underlying rights are not fundamentally violated.

The rights of one cannot overshadow the rights of another at the expence of both an individual and society at large. There is always a balancing act between the needs and rights of the individual and that of the entire society.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 2:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 138 of 218 (551571)
03-23-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
03-22-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Guns
But the States can amendment the Constitution without input from Congress.

Yes, but this has never taken place.

US Constitution, Article 5 writes:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Basically there are two ways of amending the US Constitution, either at least 3/4 of all the state legislatures through a special Constitutional Convention accept an amendment proposal without going through the US Congress for approval or 3/4 of both houses of Congress agree upon an amendment proposal which then gets is radified when 3/4 of all the state legislative bodies accept it. However, none of the current amendments to the US Constitution have been passed using a special convening of 3/4 of state legislatures. They all have used the second approach. Not to say they can't but it is highly unlikely unless there is a serious breakdown in the federal legislative system or breach of trust between the national and state level.

Here is a good link that spells all this out: Constitutional Amendments

So actually we the people delegate authority to the federal government through the States.

Of course, that is a given. Through public elections the people have power over all branches of government. If we have a shitty government it is our own damn fault for voting them into office and not upsetting the status quo. Reform has to start at the grassroots level and work its way up. Not the other way around.

If you don't like our government either:
a. start or join a grassroots movement to change our government (legally) or
b. run for public office

I don't know about you guys but I am learning a lot reading all the stuff about our Constitution.

So have I


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 9:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 218 (551652)
03-23-2010 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
03-22-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Guns
Hi ICANT,

The week before, last Thursday HB0095 was passed into law in Wyoming.

I don't much give a crap what the legal opinions of the lib loons on this board are as I live under the laws of the state of Wyoming.

What does HB0095 say?

A BILL
for
AN ACT relating to the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act; 1
establishing a Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act; providing that 2
specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, 3
possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be 4
exempt from federal regulation, including registration 5
requirements; providing exceptions; creating offenses; 6
providing penalties; authorizing the attorney general to 7
defend specified actions; providing legislative findings 8
and declarations of authority; and providing for an 9
effective date.

Lets look at this:

(a) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or 2
ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately 3
in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders 4
of Wyoming is not subject to federal law, federal taxation 5
or federal regulation, including registration, under the 6
authority of the United States congress to regulate 7
interstate commerce. It is declared by the Wyoming 8
legislature that those items have not traveled in 9
interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a 10
firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured in 11
Wyoming from basic materials

I'm sure the BATF, the FBI and Federal Marshalls will like this part:

(b) Any official, agent or employee of the United
States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any
act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United
States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm
accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially
or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within
the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and,
upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not
more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both.

You know if those BATF, FBI guys screw wih me they will be spending 2 years in the Wyoming State Prison in Rawlins.

Now I may have to pay for this myself, no problem for me, but the state might actually front the bill.

(c) The attorney general may defend a citizen of 1
Wyoming who is prosecuted by the United States government 2
for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, 3
sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm 4
accessory or ammunition manufactured and retained 5
exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.

6-8-406. Legislative findings and declaration of 8
authority.

Let's take a quick look at why Wyoming has the RIGHT to do this:

(i) The tenth amendment to the United States 14
constitution guarantees to the states and their people all 15
powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in 16
the constitution and reserves to the state and the people 17
of Wyoming certain powers as they were understood at the 18
time that Wyoming was admitted to statehood in 1890. The 19
guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between 20
the state and people of Wyoming and the several states 21
comprising the United States as of the time the Act of 22
Admission was agreed upon and adopted by Wyoming and the 23
several states comprising the United States in 1889; 24
2010 STATE OF WYOMING 10LSO-0274
8 HB0095
1
(ii) The ninth amendment to the United States 2
constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in 3
the constitution and reserves to the people of Wyoming 4
certain rights, as they were understood at the time Wyoming 5
was admitted to statehood in 1890. The guaranty of those 6
rights is a matter of contract between the state and people 7
of Wyoming and the several states comprising the United 8
States as of the time the Act of Admission was agreed upon 9
and adopted by Wyoming and the United States in 1889; 10
11
(iii) The regulation of intrastate commerce is 12
vested in the states under the ninth and tenth amendments 13
to the United States constitution, particularly if not 14
expressly preempted by federal law pursuant to article 1, 15
section 8 of the United States constitution.

Further the law states:

(i) The tenth amendment to the United States 14
constitution guarantees to the states and their people all 15
powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in 16
the constitution and reserves to the state and the people 17
of Wyoming certain powers as they were understood at the 18
time that Wyoming was admitted to statehood in 1890. The 19
guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between 20
the state and people of Wyoming and the several states 21
comprising the United States as of the time the Act of 22
Admission was agreed upon and adopted by Wyoming and the 23
several states comprising the United States in 1889; 24
2010 STATE OF WYOMING 10LSO-0274
8 HB0095
1
(ii) The ninth amendment to the United States 2
constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in 3
the constitution and reserves to the people of Wyoming 4
certain rights, as they were understood at the time Wyoming 5
was admitted to statehood in 1890. The guaranty of those 6
rights is a matter of contract between the state and people 7
of Wyoming and the several states comprising the United 8
States as of the time the Act of Admission was agreed upon 9
and adopted by Wyoming and the United States in 1889; 10
11
(iii) The regulation of intrastate commerce is 12
vested in the states under the ninth and tenth amendments 13
to the United States constitution, particularly if not 14
expressly preempted by federal law pursuant to article 1, 15
section 8 of the United States constitution.

I know that was a lot to read, but to me as a legal resident and citizen of Wyoming it states my rights, and tells the Feds to Fuck off./qs

The entire law can be found here:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Introduced/HB0095.pdf

What the liberal loons on this board think has NO EFFECT ON THE LAWS IN THE STATE OF WYOMING.

I'll fight for that, no problem.

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 9:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 2:37 PM petrophysics1 has responded
 Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 3:13 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 3:17 PM petrophysics1 has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 140 of 218 (551656)
03-23-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by petrophysics1
03-23-2010 2:10 PM


Re: Guns
Heh, that's cool.

Remeber when the SCOTUS was hearing the case in DC where they were interpreting whether or not the right to arms was an indiviual or collective right? I heard that Wyoming had some clause in their contract to become a state of the union, whatever thats called, that if the individuals gun rights were infringed then the contract would be void, and further that if SCOTUS ruled it a collective right, that Wyoming could seperate from the union, or something like that. I'm going from memory here.

You ever heard anything about that? Can you give me a link to something because I never did find anything about it but I thought it was interesting.

People were all packing up and getting ready to move out there


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by petrophysics1, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM petrophysics1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by petrophysics1, posted 03-24-2010 12:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 141 of 218 (551660)
03-23-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by petrophysics1
03-23-2010 2:10 PM


Re: Guns
I know that was a lot to read, but to me as a legal resident and citizen of Wyoming it states my rights, and tells the Feds to Fuck off./qs

The entire law can be found here:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2010/Introduced/HB0095.pdf
What the liberal loons on this board think has NO EFFECT ON THE LAWS IN THE STATE OF WYOMING.

I'll fight for that, no problem.

another Waco, TX guaranteed to happen. Does this surprise me from the region of the Matthew Shepard incident? Not really.

Why don't you just secede and see how long you can exist without financial aid from the US Federal government or interstate commerce.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by petrophysics1, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1352 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 142 of 218 (551661)
03-23-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by petrophysics1
03-23-2010 2:10 PM


Re: Guns
...wow. That was a rather large quantity of highly concentrated stupid.

Federal law supersedes State law.

That's why the Feds can still arrest Californians for pot possession regardless of a prescription.

That's why the Feds were able to force the Southern states to integrate their schools.

Your state can make all the "Exemptions" it wants, but if it were ever challenged, you'd be forced to follow the Federal law, end of story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by petrophysics1, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM petrophysics1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 4:29 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2010 7:34 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 156 by petrophysics1, posted 03-24-2010 12:47 AM Rahvin has responded
 Message 161 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-24-2010 10:11 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 167 by onifre, posted 03-24-2010 1:18 PM Rahvin has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 143 of 218 (551667)
03-23-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
03-23-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Guns
What is interesting is that almost all of these same idiots who protest and advocate for no restrictions/regulations on weapons, no health care reform, no or little income tax, etc have no problems taking social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment and many other substities and aid from the federal government.

What a crock of shit. Bunch of hypocrites. Put your money where your mouth is and back up your stupid rhetoric with actions i.e. refuse to accept social security or any other federal aid. You will also have to remove your kids from public schools (because most recieve federal aid) and basically live off of the land. Do that and you might, just might have some credibility.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 3:17 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 5:06 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 218 (551672)
03-23-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by DevilsAdvocate
03-23-2010 4:29 PM


Re: Guns
What is interesting is that almost all of these same idiots who protest and advocate for no restrictions/regulations on weapons, no health care reform, no or little income tax, etc have no problems taking social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment and many other substities and aid from the federal government.

I call bullshit. Sounds like you're talking out your ass.

Almost all? Where's your data?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 4:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 145 of 218 (551674)
03-23-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Guns
I call bullshit. Sounds like you're talking out your ass.

Almost all? Where's your data?

Show me a group of protesters who vow to refuse to take any type of federal aid of any sort i.e. social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, etc, etc.

Are you saying that you will refuse to collect social security when the time comes?

The only people who don't accept social security are the filthy rich who don't need it. I have yet to meet a middle class or lower class income earner who either states that they will never apply for social security or who have done so. There may be some out there but they are few and far between the average American citizen.

If you can show me a group who actively state they refuse all forms of federal aid, I will recant my statement.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 5:43 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded
 Message 147 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2010 7:24 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 218 (551678)
03-23-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate
03-23-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Guns
So you were talking out your ass...

I smelled it!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 5:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 8:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 147 of 218 (551687)
03-23-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate
03-23-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Guns
Hi DA,

DevilsAdocate writes:

Are you saying that you will refuse to collect social security when the time comes?

Why would anybody that has been forced for 50 years to pay into a fund that they were told would be their reitirement fund not collect their money plus interest.

Had I been allowed to take the same money that I was forced to pay into the Social Security Fund and invest it I would not have to worry about having enough to last me until I die. I was self employed and had to pay the employer part as well as the employee part.

It is no fault of mine that our government has spent all the monies taken in and at the present owe the Social Security Trust fund 2.7 trillion dollars. Social Security is not an entitlement it is funded by payroll deductions.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

federal aid

There is no such thing as federal aid.

All monies the federal government gives away is taken from
"WE THE PEOPLE" It is called redistrubition of the wealth which is marxism. Have you ever noticed how much the government takes out of every dollar they redistribute?

Our federal government is out of control and it is time the States got together and clipped their wings.

It is time they had to balance their budget each year.

It is time our Senators and Representives become appointed representatives of their respective States rather than the special interest that put money into campaigns to get elected. Seems our founding fathers had that one right.

In Message 138 you said:

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Basically there are two ways of amending the US Constitution,

The process can start in different ways.

There is only one way the Constitution can be amended. The proposed amendment has to be RATIFIED BY 3/4'S OF THE STATES.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Yes, but this has never taken place.

Well maybe it is time the States did and began to say "NO YOU CAN'T". Do anything that we don't want done. All it takes is 38 states.

As far as your suggestion of working for change I already do.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 5:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 9:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 148 of 218 (551690)
03-23-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
03-23-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Guns
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

Federal law supersedes State law.

A lot of people think that.

The fact is that 38 States can change any federal law by amending the Constitution.

Everybody in Washington are the employees of the States of the United States. That includes the President and all his men, Congress and all their helpers, and the Supreme Court. Literally everyone who draws a Federal Paycheck.

That means they could fire the entire bunch if they so desired or they can limit everything that they can do.

They have let Washington bully them around and it is time to put a stop to it.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 3:17 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 7:55 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 150 by AZPaul3, posted 03-23-2010 7:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 9:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1352 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 149 of 218 (551692)
03-23-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
03-23-2010 7:34 PM


Re: Guns
The issue of States Rights vs. Federal Rights is nothing new. We've been hashing this over since before we had a Constitution in the first place.

Hi Rahvin,

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Federal law supersedes State law.


A lot of people think that.

Because it's true. Federal law overrules State law.

The fact is that 38 States can change any federal law by amending the Constitution.

Changing the COnstitution isn't the same as changing a Federal law. It simply makes a new law that supercedes the Federal one. It;s all part of our system of checks and balances.

But yes, 38 states together can change the Constitution and thereby overrule any other law of the land.

That doesn't in any way dispute the point that Federal law overrules State law. If your state says that it's perfectly legal to possess a widget, but Federal law says it's illegal, an FBI agent who finds you in possession of a widget can still arrest you, try you in Federal court for Federal crimes, and sentence you to Federal prison. And while your state can make all the annulment laws it wants, it has no power to enforce them or interfere with the duties of a Federal law enforcement officer.

End. Of. Story.

Everybody in Washington are the employees of the States of the United States.

I prefer to think of them as employees of the People, not just the States. More direct that way...and for the most part, we do elect them directly as our own representatives (except for the Persident with that wonky electoral college).

That includes the President and all his men, Congress and all their helpers, and the Supreme Court. Literally everyone who draws a Federal Paycheck.

That means they could fire the entire bunch if they so desired or they can limit everything that they can do.

It's called "Election Day." That's how we decide who gets the big jobs. We also have procedures like "Impeachment" and "recall" if we want to fire them without waiting for the end of a term.

Still doesn't in any way dispute the fact that Federal law overrules State law.

They have let Washington bully them around and it is time to put a stop to it.

Are you mad as hell, ICANT? Are you not going to take it any more?

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this whole "Constitutional Republic" thing might mean that you, individually, won't always get your way? After all - I had to put up with 8 years of Bush. Certainly you can put up with a few years of someone a little less right-wing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2010 7:34 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4100
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 150 of 218 (551693)
03-23-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
03-23-2010 7:34 PM


Re: Guns
That means they could fire the entire bunch if they so desired or they can limit everything that they can do.

So true.

And good luck with that.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2010 7:34 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019