Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 57
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SW MO.
    Posts
    5,201
    Just had a thought. What's to stop someone from suing to stop Presidential elections seeing that there is no Constitutional right to vote. And if the court did agree, then who would get to vote. I guess Congress would just pass a Constitutional Amendment to grant us the right to vote.

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    12,248
    Are you making a joke? That is just more of the same problem - giving more of our rights over to federal governmental restriction. Way too much of that silliness has gone on - and has gotten us the horror we already have. Voting is a States Rights function. All the federal BS about discrimination and all the rest was just an end run around states rights. Which rights were clearly intended to preserved - reserved for the states.

    This whole thing has gotten twisted. It should be the other way around - the towns or counties should collect all the taxes, then send some on to the states, and the states would in turn fund the federal government. They way it is now we send all the money far away and hope that at least some of it comes back.

    There is specifically no Constitutional right to vote because the basis of our system was States Rights. What does the tenth amendment say?

    PHM
    --------



    Quote Originally Posted by chaard View Post
    Just had a thought. What's to stop someone from suing to stop Presidential elections seeing that there is no Constitutional right to vote. And if the court did agree, then who would get to vote. I guess Congress would just pass a Constitutional Amendment to grant us the right to vote.
    PHM
    --------
    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

  3. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    Are you making a joke? That is just more of the same problem - giving more of our rights over to federal governmental restriction. Way too much of that silliness has gone on - and has gotten us the horror we already have. Voting is a States Rights function. All the federal BS about discrimination and all the rest was just an end run around states rights. Which rights were clearly intended to preserved - reserved for the states.

    This whole thing has gotten twisted. It should be the other way around - the towns or counties should collect all the taxes, then send some on to the states, and the states would in turn fund the federal government. They way it is now we send all the money far away and hope that at least some of it comes back.

    There is specifically no Constitutional right to vote because the basis of our system was States Rights. What does the tenth amendment say?

    PHM
    --------
    Looks like someone understands the Constitution... good post PHM!
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    LSD (lower slower Delaware)
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    All the federal BS about discrimination and all the rest was just an end run around states rights...
    What do you mean by this? Just curious.

    Thanks!

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SW MO.
    Posts
    5,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodle Head Mikey View Post
    Are you making a joke? That is just more of the same problem - giving more of our rights over to federal governmental restriction. Way too much of that silliness has gone on - and has gotten us the horror we already have. Voting is a States Rights function. All the federal BS about discrimination and all the rest was just an end run around states rights. Which rights were clearly intended to preserved - reserved for the states.

    This whole thing has gotten twisted. It should be the other way around - the towns or counties should collect all the taxes, then send some on to the states, and the states would in turn fund the federal government. They way it is now we send all the money far away and hope that at least some of it comes back.

    There is specifically no Constitutional right to vote because the basis of our system was States Rights. What does the tenth amendment say?

    PHM
    --------
    Several states have introduced various resolutions and legislation in protest to federal actions.[8] Despite this, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ." Thus, state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_A...s_Constitution
    My feeling is that the States have little to no Sovereignty. Despite what the Tenth amendment says. Look at Roe v. Wade. States had banned abortions. The Federal Gov says that the law is Unconstitutional even though there is no Federal law protecting abortion and its not even mentioned in the Constitution.
    Arizona cant even ask for an ID. Why! Cause the Fed Gov said so.

    The idea that we have any rights as citizens is a joke. We don't have any rights except those granted to us by the Gov. That is directly from John Locke and Thomas Payne. Neither may have been Founding Fathers but they are highly regarded for there beliefs and writings.

    I'm obviously no political scholar so if I seem ignorant, pardon me.
    Discipline your child so that other parents don't have to.

    We're awl pawthetic and kweepy and can't get giwrls. That's why we fight wobots.

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SW MO.
    Posts
    5,201
    Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

    The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, 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.





    The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution. There are two sections of the essays that deal with the Supremacy Clause. Within these Alexander Hamilton argues that the Supremacy Clause is simply an assurance that the government's powers can be properly executed, saying that a law itself implies supremacy, and without supremacy it would amount to nothing. James Madison similarly defends the Supremacy Clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He noted that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government.
    States are subservient to the Fed Gov. Therefore States are not Sovereign.
    Discipline your child so that other parents don't have to.

    We're awl pawthetic and kweepy and can't get giwrls. That's why we fight wobots.

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,550
    Quote Originally Posted by chaard View Post
    My feeling is that the States have little to no Sovereignty. Despite what the Tenth amendment says. Look at Roe v. Wade. States had banned abortions. The Federal Gov says that the law is Unconstitutional even though there is no Federal law protecting abortion and its not even mentioned in the Constitution.
    Arizona cant even ask for an ID. Why! Cause the Fed Gov said so.

    The idea that we have any rights as citizens is a joke. We don't have any rights except those granted to us by the Gov. That is directly from John Locke and Thomas Payne. Neither may have been Founding Fathers but they are highly regarded for there beliefs and writings.

    I'm obviously no political scholar so if I seem ignorant, pardon me.
    Well the Supreme Court has been steadily destroying the Constitution ever since socialist and commie lover FDR packed the Supreme Court with the likes of Fredric Douglas (true communist justice if there ever was one) Hugo Black, etc. Then the commie loving Democrats in the Senate filibuster and keep out any conservative justices from being approved by Republican Presidents. Bork was one and there are a least a dozen others.

    Now with a liberal court it is hard to maintain the true meaning of the Constitution and States Rights. If Obama gets another 4 years then it will be a Communist dominated Supreme Court for sure. Republicans don't fight hard to keep them off. The press gangs up on them and paints them black so they cave in unlike the commie loving Democrats who have the support of the leftest press. That's my . Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,550
    Quote Originally Posted by chaard View Post
    States are subservient to the Fed Gov. Therefore States are not Sovereign.
    Yeah but not according the the true meaning of the Constitution. Thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Well the Supreme Court has been steadily destroying the Constitution ever since socialist and commie lover FDR packed the Supreme Court with the likes of Fredric Douglas (true communist justice if there ever was one) Hugo Black, etc. Then the commie loving Democrats in the Senate filibuster and keep out any conservative justices from being approved by Republican Presidents. Bork was one and there are a least a dozen others.

    Now with a liberal court it is hard to maintain the true meaning of the Constitution and States Rights. If Obama gets another 4 years then it will be a Communist dominated Supreme Court for sure. Republicans don't fight hard to keep them off. The press gangs up on them and paints them black so they cave in unlike the commie loving Democrats who have the support of the leftest press. That's my . Thank you, thank you very much
    This Fredick Douglass?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SW MO.
    Posts
    5,201
    Quote Originally Posted by AC5096 View Post
    That guy died long before FDR.

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,550
    Quote Originally Posted by AC5096 View Post
    Hey cut me a little slack here. I had a few belts. Sorry I met William O Douglas. He was a communist if there ever was one. He wanted to cast his red vote till his last breath. Wanted to vote even after his forced retirement due to his incapacity before he died. They had to wheel him into the chambers half dead before he had to go to the hospital. He refused to resign or retire. A very dedicated true believer in communism and destroying our country. Their were two attempts to impeach him one because of his trying to keep the Rosenbergs from being executed Just like Obama. Thank you, thank you very much

    "On December 31, 1974, while on vacation in the Bahamas, Douglas suffered a debilitating stroke in the right hemisphere of his brain, which paralyzed his left leg and thus rendered him as a wheelchair user. Douglas, severely disabled, nonetheless insisted on continuing to participate in Supreme Court affairs despite his obvious incapacity. At the urging of Fortas, Douglas finally retired on November 12, 1975, after 36 years of service. It was Douglas's old nemesis, then-President Gerald Ford, to whom he submitted his resignation, and who appointed his successor, John Paul Stevens.
    The retirement of Douglas from the court introduced much confusion and difficulty, when he assumed that he could take senior status, and when he tried to continue serving. According to Woodward and Armstrong, Douglas refused to accept his own decision to retire, and he tried to continue participating in the Court's cases well into 1976, after Stevens had taken his seat. Douglas reacted with outrage when returning to his old chambers to discover that his clerks had been reassigned to Stevens, and attempted to file opinions in cases whose arguments he had heard before his retirement. Chief Justice Warren Burger ordered all Justices, clerks, and other staffers to refuse to assist Douglas in these efforts, and when Douglas attempted in March 1976 to hear arguments in a capital punishment case (Gregg v. Georgia), the nine sitting Justices signed a formal letter informing him that his retirement had ended his official duties on the Court. It was only then that Douglas stopped attempting to participate in Supreme Court business."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
    Barry Goldwater

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    21,018
    Quote Originally Posted by chaard View Post
    My feeling is that the States have little to no Sovereignty. Despite what the Tenth amendment says. Look at Roe v. Wade. States had banned abortions. The Federal Gov says that the law is Unconstitutional even though there is no Federal law protecting abortion and its not even mentioned in the Constitution.
    Arizona cant even ask for an ID. Why! Cause the Fed Gov said so.

    The idea that we have any rights as citizens is a joke. We don't have any rights except those granted to us by the Gov. That is directly from John Locke and Thomas Payne. Neither may have been Founding Fathers but they are highly regarded for there beliefs and writings.

    I'm obviously no political scholar so if I seem ignorant, pardon me.
    Declaration of Independence, second paragraph (paraphrased):

    Each citizen has rights given 'by the creator' (meaning GOD, which is a higher power than mankind, so also a higher power than govt).
    There is a HUGE difference between a govt that believes it is their job to guarantee the rights granted by God, and a govt that thinks (incorrectly) they have the power to give and take away rights.

    The difference is in what we expect and are willing to accept. If enough citizens realize they are being fooled and lied to... they will vote the bums out and replace them with folks who believe and respect the words noted in this post.

    Only then will we get our country back.
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Quality work at a fair price with excellent customer service!

    Romans Ch's 5-6-7-8

    2 Chronicles 7:14

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    12,248

    This is exactly right

    "The difference is in what we expect and are willing to accept."

    The problem is ingrained selfish greed. That is: the secret internal belief of the voter that something can be had For them personally - for nothing From them personally.

    Our system of elected officials is purely based on the buying of votes. The only possible first-step towards the elimination of the effects of the above fact is for every vote to strictly apply this rule to their own actions: Never Vote For An Incumbent.

    Obviously this is not the perfect answer - as perhaps we will be substituting bad for good - but it is a good first step towards avoiding systemic vote buying.

    Who gets re-elected? And why? What is said about them?

    "He/she has really done good things for us. They got those funds for rebuilding the county building - my electrician brother was over there three years on that project. They got this funding, they got that funding. All that government money has revitalized the whole area. Etc. etc. etc."

    What is meant is: they got us somebody else's money for free - so let's vote for them so we can get more of the same.

    Who gets elected? Why; the guy who promises the most stuff. The greatest Santa Claus who is running.

    People in general are stupid and they like being stupid. They much prefer to hide inside their stupidity and then blame everything on some mysterious force outside themselves. The live and die by the credo: No decisions = No mistakes. Why? Because they are terrified of thinking. Thinking is hard work. Thinking is unsettling because in brings into question all the beliefs that people count on as being absolutely true every second of their lives.

    That is what the Founding Fathers knew and which is why they specifically tried to create a system which limited governance to those best equipped for the job.

    I agree with you when you: "If enough citizens realize they are being fooled and lied to... they will vote the bums out and replace them with folks who believe and respect the words noted in this post. Only then will we get our country back."

    But I don't have high hopes for the present system fulfilling that dream.

    PHM
    ------
    PHM
    --------
    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event