Thursday, March 7, 2013
Written Testimony on Behalf of Nullification
Via David G.
Here is the text of the statement delivered by Professor Donald Livingston — who has been an important intellectual influence on me — on behalf of state nullification before the House Judiciary Subcommittee in South Carolina two weeks ago:
State nullification is not a violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That clause says that laws made by the United States “in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land which means that acts not in “pursuance” of the Constitution are not laws at all. But who is to decide whether an act is or is not in “pursuance” of the Constitution? Some would say the Supreme Court.
The Court may, indeed, express an opinion, but it cannot have the final say. That can only be vested in the supreme authority that ratified the Constitution and gave it the force of law, namely the people of the several states.
What did the states ratify? They ratified a compact between the States to create a central government to which were delegated only enumerated powers, leaving all other powers to the states. Article VII leaves no doubt that the Constitution is a compact between the states, for it says the compact will hold “between the states so ratifying the same.” The powers delegated by the compact to the central government, as Madison said, are “few” and “defined.” The powers reserved to the states are indefinite in number and undefined.
..........by a simple majority, Congress could, under Article III, nullify the Supreme Court’s control over school prayer, abortion, law enforcement, gun control, and a hundred other things by removing those topics from the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Here is the text of the statement delivered by Professor Donald Livingston — who has been an important intellectual influence on me — on behalf of state nullification before the House Judiciary Subcommittee in South Carolina two weeks ago:
State nullification is not a violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That clause says that laws made by the United States “in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land which means that acts not in “pursuance” of the Constitution are not laws at all. But who is to decide whether an act is or is not in “pursuance” of the Constitution? Some would say the Supreme Court.
The Court may, indeed, express an opinion, but it cannot have the final say. That can only be vested in the supreme authority that ratified the Constitution and gave it the force of law, namely the people of the several states.
What did the states ratify? They ratified a compact between the States to create a central government to which were delegated only enumerated powers, leaving all other powers to the states. Article VII leaves no doubt that the Constitution is a compact between the states, for it says the compact will hold “between the states so ratifying the same.” The powers delegated by the compact to the central government, as Madison said, are “few” and “defined.” The powers reserved to the states are indefinite in number and undefined.
More @ Tom Woods
A Dozen GOP Senators #DineWithObama While Rubio and Cruz #StandWithRand
A dozen Republican senators, including John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Corker (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ron Johnson (R-WI), chose to dine with President Obama at a Washington hotel Wednesday evening rather than join Senator Rand Paul on the Senate floor to provide him brief ten-minute question breaks during his historic filibuster.
Paul took the Senate floor at 11:17 am on Wednesday and held the floor for nearly thirteen hours. Republican Senators who stayed with Senator Paul and provided him short respites during his filibuster (under the Senate rules, a filibustering Senator may allow brief questions without yielding the floor) included Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and John Thune (R-SD).The dozen GOP Senators who dined with Obama while Paul filibustered CIA Director nominee John Brennan in opposition to the unconstitutional authorization of drone killings of American citizens on American soil may have expressed a spirit of bipartisanship, yet the imagery and optics juxtaposing the two events could prove difficult to overcome.
More @ Breitbart
In Louisiana, a conservative backlash against gun control
In the gun-friendly state of Louisiana, the backlash against President Barack Obama's proposed restrictions on firearms seems to be everywhere.
It can be seen in the frenzied sales and empty racks at Jim's Firearms store in the state capital, Baton Rouge, where customers have rushed to make purchases as Congress weighs several gun-control bills.
It is abundantly clear in the sea of hands that pop up when a congressman asks an overflow crowd in Baton Rouge how many are worried about their constitutional right to bear arms being threatened.
Obama's call for Americans to stand up against gun violence after the December massacre of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school reignited a national debate over gun control, and drew calls for expanded background checks on gun buyers and a ban on military-style "assault" weapons.
A Senate committee will take up at least four gun-control proposals on Thursday.
But in Louisiana and other states where traditions of gun ownership and hunting run deep, the Democratic president's efforts have not just failed to register: they have galvanized opposition to any attempts to restrict firearms - and complicated the prospects for gun-control measures in Congress.
More @ Reuters
Sen. Paul ends nearly 13-hour filibuster of Brennan nomination
The Little Boy's Room called.:) Congratulations, Sir!
Paul used the rare talking filibuster for nearly 13 hours on Wednesday, spilling over into early Thursday morning, when he finally yielded the floor at 12:39 a.m.
The Kentucky senator said he believed the White House would give him a response on the drone program in the morning. Paul wants President Obama to say he will not kill U.S. citizens on American soil with drone attacks if they are non-enemy combatants. He says U.S. citizens deserve due process under the Fifth Amendment.
More @ The Hill
Malaysia Invaded: Hundreds of Terrorists Land on Beaches, Western Media Mute
Roundabout via Billy
The West’s woeful, irresponsible coverage of a burgeoning region-wide destabilization, fits in nicely with its coverage of US-Saudi funded/armed terrorism around the world, including in Syria where US-funded terrorists of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” have just taken dozens of UN peacekeepers hostage in the Golan Heights – just days after the US announced it would fund the terrorists further, to the tune of $60 million and the West’s Arab partners have just granted the terrorist faction Syria’s seat at the “Arab League.”
Terrorists are US-Saudi Funded Extremists – Part of Engineered Destabilization.
While the West pleads ignorance over the identity of the militants held up in the jungles of Malaysia’s Sabah state, the militant organizations themselves have declared thousands more in reinforcements are being arranged in the Philippines to join and exasperate the conflict. The Free Malaysia Today newspaper reported in its article, “10,000 Tausugs to sail to Sabah,” that :
The Philippines’ terrorist organizations, located amongst the country’s southern islands have long held ties to Al Qaeda and receive funding and support from Saudi Arabia. AFP reported in their 2010 article, “WikiLeaks: US suspected Saudi ambassador to the Philippines of terror link,” that:
Malaysia has called in air support and armor to confront a bizarre terrorist invasion in its eastern state of Sabah.
The West’s woeful, irresponsible coverage of a burgeoning region-wide destabilization, fits in nicely with its coverage of US-Saudi funded/armed terrorism around the world, including in Syria where US-funded terrorists of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” have just taken dozens of UN peacekeepers hostage in the Golan Heights – just days after the US announced it would fund the terrorists further, to the tune of $60 million and the West’s Arab partners have just granted the terrorist faction Syria’s seat at the “Arab League.”
Terrorists are US-Saudi Funded Extremists – Part of Engineered Destabilization.
While the West pleads ignorance over the identity of the militants held up in the jungles of Malaysia’s Sabah state, the militant organizations themselves have declared thousands more in reinforcements are being arranged in the Philippines to join and exasperate the conflict. The Free Malaysia Today newspaper reported in its article, “10,000 Tausugs to sail to Sabah,” that :
Thousands of Tausug from Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi have sailed to Sabah to reinforce members of the so-called royal army of the sultanate of Sulu who are fighting it out with Malaysian security forces, a Moro National Liberation Front official said Tuesday.The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) of course, is one of several of Al Qaeda’s franchises in Southeast Asia, and spun off the notorious terrorist organization, Abu Sayyaf, a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization with direct ties to Al Qaeda.
The Philippines’ terrorist organizations, located amongst the country’s southern islands have long held ties to Al Qaeda and receive funding and support from Saudi Arabia. AFP reported in their 2010 article, “WikiLeaks: US suspected Saudi ambassador to the Philippines of terror link,” that:
The United States suspected a Saudi Arabian ambassador to the Philippines of potential involvement in funding terrorists, according to US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks this week.The report would also state:
More @ Global Research
Bishops Throwing Another $800K Behind Amnesty Fight
Via Matthew
Apparently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is rolling in dough. It's giving $800,000 more to propaganda efforts "aimed at mobilizing regular Catholics to push for the bishops' immigration platforms", i.e., mass legalization and open borders.
That comes on top of the $3.5 million the group has already spent to promote mass amnesty. For some wacky reason, this political money gets labeled "antipoverty" activity. That's really bizarre. And it flies in the face of the facts.
Our current legal immigration system hands out visas to an original
immigrant's adult brothers and sisters, grown kids, cousins, aunts,
uncles, etc. — on no basis whatsoever beyond their being related, even
distantly — and without regard whatsoever to their education level,
skills, talents, resources, etc. This chain migration contributes to the
importation of poverty, not poverty's alleviation.
Illegal aliens are likely to be even poorer and less educated and less skilled. Their legalization further boosts the poor population, because then former illegals can sponsor their relatives for visas — again, based solely on familial ties.
Apparently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is rolling in dough. It's giving $800,000 more to propaganda efforts "aimed at mobilizing regular Catholics to push for the bishops' immigration platforms", i.e., mass legalization and open borders.
That comes on top of the $3.5 million the group has already spent to promote mass amnesty. For some wacky reason, this political money gets labeled "antipoverty" activity. That's really bizarre. And it flies in the face of the facts.
Illegal aliens are likely to be even poorer and less educated and less skilled. Their legalization further boosts the poor population, because then former illegals can sponsor their relatives for visas — again, based solely on familial ties.
More @ CIS
The Antifederalists: North Carolina's Other Founders
It is tempting to dismiss the Anti-Federalists, for the U.S. Constitution that they opposed is a sacred document to most modern Americans. Under that Constitution, the United States grew rapidly in population, wealth, and territory to become, by the late twentieth century, the world’s only superpower. Whatever its failings, no other political regime, by most conventional measures of accomplishment, has been more successful.
North Carolina’s Anti-Federalists have been too easily dismissed. One Federalist described them as a “blind, stupid set that wish Damnation to their Country.” They were among the most bitter of the bitter-enders, blocking ratification of the Constitution at the Hillsborough convention of July 1788, even after the document had been approved by eleven other states. Not until November 1789, after George Washington had been president for seven months, did North Carolina finally join the Union.
More @ North Carolina History
“We need not justify the exercise of our rights to would-be tyrants”
Via WRSA
by Frank Sharpe
Fortress Defense Consultants
Need? We need not justify.
When asked what I do for a living I reply: I teach people how to shoot people. I teach people how to shoot people because some people need to be shot – and they need to be shot NOW.
I have found that in the long run sugarcoating reality rarely produces good results. Yes, it might make some people “feel” better, but feelings and reality are often polar opposites. Pretending something is what it is not only postpones judgment day, and the longer it’s ignored, the higher the price.
Twenty-six years ago I began my involvement with “gun rights”. I had a good grasp on what Article II of the Bill of Rights was about then, and my thoughts haven’t changed since. Article II is about the individual’s ability to shoot tyrants – plain and simple.
It has nothing to do with hunting, collecting or competition. And tyranny, as I define it, may appear in the form of a rapist in the alley, a mob during civil unrest, an invading military, or one’s own government.
I personally own no “sporting arms.” I own and train with auto-loading, magazine fed weapons; rifles and pistols which are designed to get hot and function during conflict. Most are black and “scary looking”, and that suits me just fine – I’m not in the rainbows and unicorns business, I’m in the force business.
What I, and thousands of other instructors around the country do, is provide the necessary skills that Americans need to deploy firearms in tyranny’s direction. We don’t teach people how to play games or take quail; we teach people how to effectively launch bullets into the bodies of tyrants.
And to such tyrants, my advice is this: If you don’t want to find yourself on the business end of my rifle, then behave yourself.
by Frank Sharpe
Fortress Defense Consultants
Need? We need not justify.
When asked what I do for a living I reply: I teach people how to shoot people. I teach people how to shoot people because some people need to be shot – and they need to be shot NOW.
I have found that in the long run sugarcoating reality rarely produces good results. Yes, it might make some people “feel” better, but feelings and reality are often polar opposites. Pretending something is what it is not only postpones judgment day, and the longer it’s ignored, the higher the price.
Twenty-six years ago I began my involvement with “gun rights”. I had a good grasp on what Article II of the Bill of Rights was about then, and my thoughts haven’t changed since. Article II is about the individual’s ability to shoot tyrants – plain and simple.
It has nothing to do with hunting, collecting or competition. And tyranny, as I define it, may appear in the form of a rapist in the alley, a mob during civil unrest, an invading military, or one’s own government.
I personally own no “sporting arms.” I own and train with auto-loading, magazine fed weapons; rifles and pistols which are designed to get hot and function during conflict. Most are black and “scary looking”, and that suits me just fine – I’m not in the rainbows and unicorns business, I’m in the force business.
What I, and thousands of other instructors around the country do, is provide the necessary skills that Americans need to deploy firearms in tyranny’s direction. We don’t teach people how to play games or take quail; we teach people how to effectively launch bullets into the bodies of tyrants.
And to such tyrants, my advice is this: If you don’t want to find yourself on the business end of my rifle, then behave yourself.
More @ Guns Save Lives
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)