So many official conservatives fall into the category of double agents for the regime: Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, and so on. And here Antonin Scalia denies secession. He is replying to a screenwriter’s query about a possible court case on secession: I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem,…Details
On LewRockwell.com, Brian Stanley wrote an interesting article on Texas v White and the court system’s view of the Constitutionality of secession. Here’s an excerpt: In the 1868 case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, a case dealing with the title to some U.S. bonds, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’, and hence…Details
So says Judge Andrew Napolitano – on the recent Citizens United case, that is. Here’s an excerpt of his recent article: The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups,…Details
The concept of natural rights is perhaps the most basic in the entire structure of the governments of the people of the United States. This concept formed that foundation upon which the nation grew and flourished into the most prosperous and powerful in the entire history of the world, and it happened in a relatively…Details
Tenthers are constantly reminded by worshipers of the Judicial Supremacists on the highest Court that we’re re-arguing areas that were settled long ago by those black-robed deities. Yet Tenthers reject the notion that the federal Court can rewrite the Constitution for the entire nation if 5 politically connected lawyers agree. Besides the fact that this…Details
The video says it all.
These days it’s hard to differentiate between the foreign and the domestic enemies…although I think the domestic ones are a little more dangerous.
As the Tenth Amendment becomes the platform to stop an over reaching federal government, do we trust the Supreme Court to be a fair arbiter?
The Supreme Court, according to many constitutionalists, has been delinquent in its responsibility to protect the intention of the U.S. Constitution. Many past Supreme Court decisions have become bad precedent, and that bad precedent continues to be the bases for big government advocates to site as a justification for a continued trampling of state, and individual rights.
People that believe the constitution is a “living document” historically have utilized the commerce clause to feed their insatiable quest to trample individual and state’s rights. The constitutional clause under section 8 of the powers delegated to Congress simply states; “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
The intention was not to be a conduit to suppress the rights and freedoms of the fifty states and their citizens. But that is exactly how the federal government gets its tentacles into places it has no right to be. If there was an intention to regulate internal state activity the word “among” would have been “within” the several states.Details
On Friday, November 6th 2009, I called into a conference call hosted by The Federalist Society (I’m a member) which featured speakers such as Peter Urbanowicz and David B. Rivkin, Jr on the topic on National Health-care. The speakers really knew their stuff but they and the callers who asked questions basically accepted the notion…Details
Jim Davies at Strike the Root makes the case that Marbury v Madison changed the face of America: Here’s where the brain begins to bend. Marshall’s Court rejected Marbury’s suit, on the grounds that a mere act of Congress cannot delegate power to SCOTUS; that’s the right of the Constitution writers or amenders only (so…Details