Wednesday, December 5, 2018

The Problem with Lawyers and the Constitution


 
Think Progress would prefer civil war to peaceful dissolution, yet they refer to Michael Boldin from the Tenth Amendment Center as an extremist. What secessionists have in common, on both sides, is the desire to exist under a system of “consent of the governed.” So we have two sides here: Think Progress, who prefers the status quo, even if it will lead to inevitable violence, and those seeking a peaceful solution where liberty can be realized and enjoyed by all. Now tell me, who is the extremist?

On November 10, 2018, the Abbeville Institute hosted an event called The Revival of Nullification and Secession in Dallas, TX. The purpose was to educate people on the means by which we can escape the hatred and hostility that is consuming not only headlines, but our very souls. The population of these United States is split pretty much equally in terms of core political values, the Left/Right paradigm. When legislation over social issues, whether within the delegated powers (see Article I, sec. 8) or not, are handed down from Washington, D.C., matters intended to be left with the States become a matter of contention, nationwide. And as we are seeing now, contention is leading to violence.

There is talk of another Civil War, arguments over whether secession is a viable option to prevent such a scenario, but little cohesion when it comes to accurate and historical analysis of the problem, how it came to be, and how it may be resolved peacefully.

6 comments:

  1. "....whether secession is a viable option? For "free and independent States" in a voluntary Union, of course it is. The United States has NO delegated powers to prevent a State or Stae from leaving the Union. According to the plain, grammatical wording of the 10th Amendment, without enumerated delegated power, the Federal Government may lawfully do NOTHING! It's quite plain and unambiguous IF one can read the words of the Law according to the rules of basic English grammar! --Ron W

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IF one can read the words of the Law according to the rules of basic English grammar!

      That's the problem.:)

      Delete
    2. Tell that to the 700,000 men that Lincoln caused to be killed.

      Delete
  2. The problem is that we have a history of lawyers attempting to "interpret" the Constitution to fit their own personal agenda. Reading it plainly, and without trying to read between the lines and trying to dictate what the founding fathers intent was, is what is needed.
    A very large percentage of the population in our country is totally ignorant of what the Constitution actually says.
    Long, long ago, when I was in 8th grade, to move on to 9th grade, we had to pass an extremely comprehensive exam on the Constitution. We studied it, hard, all school year to pass that exam. That was a goal that I achieved, and am glad that the public school system required it.
    It is a sad commentary on the current school system that not only does not teach students to think for themselves, but instead does not teach them even the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic.
    Enough ranting for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the 'rant'.:)I agree with all and being tested on the Constitution is indeed remarkable as it is not easy reading! :)

      Delete