Is Secession Constitutional?

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

Justice Alito Was Right?

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 Spineless Supreme Court

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 Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court

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

Changing the Face of America

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