Comments on: Federal Court Makes Rare Ruling in Favor of the 10th Amendment

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:50:16 +0000

I kind have been thinking for a long time that the best strategy to push localism or state's rights is to use liberal the tenth amendment argument for liberal causes. It forces them to accept this and it becomes acceptable for both sides to use the tenth amendment to justify any argument. From their we can then take down the federal government and drive all government to the local level. The key is to get the left to use the argument as much as the right because then the argument never be about the validity of the tenth amendment since both sides have accepted it as the basis for their own argument.

By: Federal Court Makes Rare Ruling in Favor of the 10th Amendment « Peace & Nonviolence Project

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:09:28 +0000

[...] Federal Court Makes Rare Ruling in Favor of the 10th Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center Blog. [...]

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:05:29 +0000

you would need the federal government to ensure that? Or, are you saying that a government (of some level) permission slip (which is exactly what a license is) is required to make a contract?

I have a rental contract with my landlord that can be enforce without the two of us going to get a government-approved license to be in business together first.

By: ParticleMan

ParticleMan — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:34:17 +0000

Interesting. Michael, what would you propose in place of government issued licenses in order to protect parental, family privacy, and property rights? I think I agree, but believe that there must be some contract or license to protect these rights from the government and others, one that is recognized by our government and court system. I don't think it necessarily needs to be tied to Judeo-Christian "traditional marriage", but call it whatever you want, I need to make sure my assets go to my partner (wife and biological mother of my children in my case) and not to the state (federal or otherwise).

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:12:43 +0000

Same here because why do we need a license for personal activities. Its like needing a license to eat unhealthy foods. I'm against gay marriage but I would have no power to stop anyone else from entering into that kind of union if they wanted to. That is the real meaning of freedom which is realizing we have no power over other people's lives. It may seem like an unfair limitation on ourselves but it actually is a protection for our own freedoms since no one else has any power over our own lives.

By: Week in Review « Craig W. Wright

Week in Review « Craig W. Wright — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:45:28 +0000

[...] courts on gay marriage and the tenth amendment. [...]

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 03:07:15 +0000

No doubt about it, Julie! The whole argument about benefits from the feds is the problem – we should also be arguing the unconstitutionality of Medicaid…

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 03:06:04 +0000

Personally, I oppose all government marriage licenses. But – getting the feds out of the issue is a step in the right direction!

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:11:22 +0000

I'm against gay marriage because I think it is immoral but this is a good ruling that will help reestablish state's rights. I think if the community of one state wants to go this route then let them as long as they let other state's go another route.

By: Julie Mercer

Julie Mercer — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:10:56 +0000

Michael–But that's the irony of this case. In the report that I read at Fox News Website, it stated that the people suing were protesting being denied Medicaid because of DOMA! Medicaid is also an "unenumerated" federal benefit–something the judge failed to mention. What could he be thinking?