Conservative Political Forum

"FIFTY FLAVORS OF DEMOCRACY"

During the 2nd and 3rd Republican Primary Debates in 2012, I was alarmed by what I believe to be a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment presented there, and not a one of the candidates challenged this view.

During those first Republican Primary Debates, Mitt Romney's defended Massachusetts' "RomneyCare", by indicating that it was supported by "3/4th's" of the State's citizens, a clear appeal to democratic majority tyranny. We are deliberately not a democracy, and our unalienable rights are definitively not subject to majority whim.

Romney went beyond this, describing the 10th Amendment's "States rights" as resulting in "fifty flavors of Democracy", in which each state would have the legitimate authority to create its own legislation, resulting in fifty variations or "flavors". So far this does not seem too unreasonable, at least on the surface.

However Romney even had the temerity to expand on this, indicating that an individual's "rights" allow them to go to some other state, if they don't like what is legislated. Perhaps we should give a fascistic salute to Romney's largess regarding Freedom, and be relieved that he has not compelled citizens to remain under his state-sponsored tyranny.

Mitt Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment, and denigration of our constitutionally-guaranteed,"unalienable" individual rights, reduces American citizens to being refugees in our own country, having to flee from state-to-state in the vein hope that one state might still continue to recognize those individual rights. Such a representation of extremely "alienable" rights was not ever the vision of this Great Nation's founders, nor the U.S. Constitution itself.

This nation's  founders did not ever indicate it was "infinitely preferable to have our rights pilfered locally", rather than by a federal government. If our rights can become alienable by the states, then we have no real rights whatsoever.

• 
  "Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"
  
  Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776

First, the 10th Amendment nowhere establishes the states as having precedence over individual rights. That Amendment nowhere gives a superior authority to "states rights" over individual rights,  but rather concludes with recognizing the rights of the people, stating ".... or to the people", indicating no precedence whatsoever! 

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment is preceded by the 9th Amendment, which recognizes that individual rights exist beyond those enumerated by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment does not describe states "rights" at all, but rather "powers", which strongly implies that some things are indeed not an original power of the states, or might not be any sort of state power at all.

Beyond the proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the 14th Amendment, and Federalist #33 and #44, all support the fact that individual rights are not, and cannot be, superseded by "states rights".

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution indicates:

•     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 final clause of the Supremacy Clause, clearly indicates that the state laws must be pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and thereby have no legitimate "Power" to undermine and abrogate the individual freedoms guaranteed by that Document.

There can be no right more innate and unalienable to individuals, than the care and maintenance of their own bodies. If we do not have unquestioned ownership of our own bodies, then, by extension, all other rights become alienable, and subject to cancellation by government whim, as each of those rights are the result of our body acting upon other things.

It can be argued that every right we possess is predicated on, and a  result of the extension of the right of "ownership" over ourselves. The sovereign authority over one's own body is recognized as integral to, and the origin of, every unalienable right, with all rights, inclusive of rights of speech, religion, assembly, and property, and all which that body acts upon, stemming therefrom.

By these facts, RomneyCare is no less egregious than Obamacare itself.

I am particularly troubled by Romney's corruption of the Constitution, and thorough disregard for individual rights, given the fact that his deference to 10th Amendment "localism" also serves to enable such globalist, United Nations programs as Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, already being implemented by such corrupted local means,  in disregard to individual rights, and property, and in gross conflict to the U.S. Constitution!

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Romney that "states rights" allow the subversion of unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, or do you believe that Romney's "fifty flavors" is nothing but a state-sponsored corruption of the Constitution?

Your screed sounds 100% progressive.  Makes me wonder if you're not a carefully crafted persona, by a blueridge type.

They are the ones who hate states' rights over federal power.

The constitution overrules states' rights.  Not federal law.  Progressive liberal socialists keep writing new federal laws every day all day, toward a totalitarian state.

Prove that a state has done something unconstitutional, then put the screws to it.

The constitution needed to be written only once, and amended only once in a blue moon.

Continually liberalized and despotic and growing federal law....out of control and never meant to override states' rights.

Go ahead and tell us how Obamacare and global warming legislation should obliterate a state's rights to nullify them.

lol at the "waaahhhh I shouldn't have to move if I hate the state I'm in".  That's the whole philosophy behind living wage and unlimited welfare........you WILL give me 100K for flipping burgers, or 100K in WIC, if I want 10 kids and I like NYC.   And don't feel like ever actually working hard enough to earn or be worth 100K.

"Refugees in our own country"

"extremely alienable rights"

"our rights pilfered locally"

"subversion"

"state-sponsored corruption"

A bunch of dramatic, activist crap that reads like something babbled by Sharpton, or Pelosi, or Barney Frank.

Impressive.

Quote from: Trip on August 01, 2013, 11:36:59 PM
"FIFTY FLAVORS OF DEMOCRACY"

During the 2nd and 3rd Republican Primary Debates in 2012, I was alarmed by what I believe to be a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment presented there, and not a one of the candidates challenged this view.

During those first Republican Primary Debates, Mitt Romney's defended Massachusetts' "RomneyCare", by indicating that it was supported by "3/4th's" of the State's citizens, a clear appeal to democratic majority tyranny. We are deliberately not a democracy, and our unalienable rights are definitively not subject to majority whim.

Romney went beyond this, describing the 10th Amendment's "States rights" as resulting in "fifty flavors of Democracy", in which each state would have the legitimate authority to create its own legislation, resulting in fifty variations or "flavors". So far this does not seem too unreasonable, at least on the surface.

However Romney even had the temerity to expand on this, indicating that an individual's "rights" allow them to go to some other state, if they don't like what is legislated. Perhaps we should give a fascistic salute to Romney's largess regarding Freedom, and be relieved that he has not compelled citizens to remain under his state-sponsored tyranny.

Mitt Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment, and denigration of our constitutionally-guaranteed,"unalienable" individual rights, reduces American citizens to being refugees in our own country, having to flee from state-to-state in the vein hope that one state might still continue to recognize those individual rights. Such a representation of extremely "alienable" rights was not ever the vision of this Great Nation's founders, nor the U.S. Constitution itself.

This nation's  founders did not ever indicate it was "infinitely preferable to have our rights pilfered locally", rather than by a federal government. If our rights can become alienable by the states, then we have no real rights whatsoever.

• 
  "Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"
  
  Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776

First, the 10th Amendment nowhere establishes the states as having precedence over individual rights. That Amendment nowhere gives a superior authority to "states rights" over individual rights,  but rather concludes with recognizing the rights of the people, stating ".... or to the people", indicating no precedence whatsoever! 

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment is preceded by the 9th Amendment, which recognizes that individual rights exist beyond those enumerated by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment does not describe states "rights" at all, but rather "powers", which strongly implies that some things are indeed not an original power of the states, or might not be any sort of state power at all.

Beyond the proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the 14th Amendment, and Federalist #33 and #44, all support the fact that individual rights are not, and cannot be, superseded by "states rights".

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution indicates:

•     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 final clause of the Supremacy Clause, clearly indicates that the state laws must be pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and thereby have no legitimate "Power" to undermine and abrogate the individual freedoms guaranteed by that Document.

There can be no right more innate and unalienable to individuals, than the care and maintenance of their own bodies. If we do not have unquestioned ownership of our own bodies, then, by extension, all other rights become alienable, and subject to cancellation by government whim, as each of those rights are the result of our body acting upon other things.

It can be argued that every right we possess is predicated on, and a  result of the extension of the right of "ownership" over ourselves. The sovereign authority over one's own body is recognized as integral to, and the origin of, every unalienable right, with all rights, inclusive of rights of speech, religion, assembly, and property, and all which that body acts upon, stemming therefrom.

By these facts, RomneyCare is no less egregious than Obamacare itself.

I am particularly troubled by Romney's corruption of the Constitution, and thorough disregard for individual rights, given the fact that his deference to 10th Amendment "localism" also serves to enable such globalist, United Nations programs as Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, already being implemented by such corrupted local means,  in disregard to individual rights, and property, and in gross conflict to the U.S. Constitution!

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Romney that "states rights" allow the subversion of unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, or do you believe that Romney's "fifty flavors" is nothing but a state-sponsored corruption of the Constitution?

Trip, bullet points are fine for personal notes, but terrible for the reader on the forum.
Please use the quote function in the future.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 04, 2013, 05:35:00 AM
Your screed sounds 100% progressive.  Makes me wonder if you're not a carefully crafted persona, by a blueridge type.

They are the ones who hate states' rights over federal power.

The constitution overrules states' rights.  Not federal law.  Progressive liberal socialists keep writing new federal laws every day all day, toward a totalitarian state.

Prove that a state has done something unconstitutional, then put the screws to it.

The constitution needed to be written only once, and amended only once in a blue moon.

Continually liberalized and despotic and growing federal law....out of control and never meant to override states' rights.

Go ahead and tell us how Obamacare and global warming legislation should obliterate a state's rights to nullify them.

lol at the "waaahhhh I shouldn't have to move if I hate the state I'm in".  That's the whole philosophy behind living wage and unlimited welfare........you WILL give me 100K for flipping burgers, or 100K in WIC, if I want 10 kids and I like NYC.   And don't feel like ever actually working hard enough to earn or be worth 100K.

The Constitution supersedes both Federal law, and State law.

If those laws are in conflict with something established or enumerated by the Constitution.

Remember ladies and gents, that document was not created to list everything Government (meaning Fed there) can do.

But rather it's a document that establish's the limitations on Government, or tells us all what it cannot do.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2013, 05:52:42 AM
Trip, bullet points are fine for personal notes, but terrible for the reader on the forum.
Please use the quote function in the future.

Actually I use bullet indentation because there is no other method in this software to indent extended passages of quoted material, which is the proper way to quote material.

Whereas quoting material inside the quote tags results in the quote disappearing from the post when that post is itself quoted, and thereby makes it more difficult for the quoter.  As such it is better for the reader, and quoter, and done for both clarity and courtesy.

Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 11:16:18 AM
The Constitution supersedes both Federal law, and State law.

If those laws are in conflict with something established or enumerated by the Constitution.

Well that's sort of true.  The Constitution does not really supersede state law, but state law does have to be "pursuant to" and not in conflict with, the Constitution.

Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 11:16:18 AM
Remember ladies and gents, that document was not created to list everything Government (meaning Fed there) can do.

Well, actually, ladies and gents,  the entire purpose of the Constitution is in fact to list everything the government can do, via enumerated powers, with only those things necessary for executing those specific powers being implied.

• "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
  
  ~ Madison, Federalist #45, 1788

However nowhere in those "numerous and indefinite" powers of the States is their authority to transgress upon or deny individual freedoms.   

"Indefinite" in the Constitution does not equate to "infinite" in terms of the  States actual legitimate authority.

Quote from: daidalos on August 04, 2013, 11:16:18 AM
But rather it's a document that establish's the limitations on Government, or tells us all what it cannot do.

The Constitution establishes what the federal government can and cannot do by positive  inclusion, negative prohibition,  and sometimes by implication, or process of elimination.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 04, 2013, 05:39:50 AM
"Refugees in our own country"

"extremely alienable rights"

"our rights pilfered locally"

"subversion"

"state-sponsored corruption"

A bunch of dramatic, activist crap that reads like something babbled by Sharpton, or Pelosi, or Barney Frank.

Impressive.

Uh, the Constitution's terms were only "dramatic" and "activist" more than 200 years ago.

However you yourself would be shoulder to shoulder with Sharpton, Pelosi, and Frank in advocating State tyranny and Social Engineering dictate, creating horrors such as California, Chicago, Detroit and New York, and enabling U.N. programs like Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

Truly "Impressive."   Does this Frankenstein monster actually call itself "Conservative"?

You got anything more than empty blather. and corrupt false association tactics  to support your position?  I'm referring to any sort of actual constitutional reference here.

Quote from: Trip on August 04, 2013, 01:05:00 PM
Actually I use bullet indentation because there is no other method in this software to indent extended passages of quoted material, which is the proper way to quote material.

Whereas quoting material inside the quote tags results in the quote disappearing from the post when that post is itself quoted, and thereby makes it more difficult for the quoter.  As such it is better for the reader, and quoter, and done for both clarity and courtesy.

Absolutely disagree, I have always done it that way, as well as everyone that posts here and every forum on the web.
Just do me and others the favor, and do like the rest.
One other note, I actually skip most of your posts for this very reason, it's much more easy to distinguish where your comments end and your quote begins, or the authors.
Just humor me. :wink:

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2013, 01:48:41 PM
Absolutely disagree, I have always done it that way, as well as everyone that posts here and every forum on the web.
Just do me and others the favor, and do like the rest.
One other note, I actually skip most of your posts for this very reason, it's much more easy to distinguish where your comments end and your quote begins, or the authors.
Just humor me. :wink:

So you don't get that the quote is indented, with the source stated beforehand?  Have you the same concern about all the non-idented quotes on the forum?

And you actually skip "most of my my posts" because of that? That's rather silly.

And you want me to give up decades of writing and publishing to use quote tags, which really are not intended in forum software for quoting source material?

Just one last question: is this a request or a command?

Quote from: Trip on August 04, 2013, 02:49:44 PM

So you don't get that the quote is indented, with the source stated beforehand?  Have you the same concern about all the non-idented quotes on the forum?

And you actually skip "most of my my posts" because of that? That's rather silly.

And you want me to give up decades of writing and publishing to use quote tags, which really are not intended in forum software for quoting source material?

Just one last question: is this a request or a command?

Look, if you want to be different, that's your choice, the rest of the country has moved on from bullet type in forums.
The rest of the members don't seem to have any problem with the social agreement of posting in quotes, just don't expect this old dyslexic to strain his eyes/brain reading your posts.

Seriously, it may be standard for you, but for me, it's one long running post, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Like I say, do as you please, it's your call.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2013, 04:20:14 PM
Look, if you want to be different, that's your choice, the rest of the country has moved on from bullet type in forums.
The rest of the members don't seem to have any problem with the social agreement of posting in quotes, just don't expect this old dyslexic to strain his eyes/brain reading your posts.

Seriously, it may be standard for you, but for me, it's one long running post, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Like I say, do as you please, it's your call.

Hmm...When in Rome do as the Romans.  When writing a book do it your way.  When on the net do it the best way the average person with a laptop or IPod would have no problems following it.   You are working very hard to hold on to people that don't understand what your even saying.  Or they would have learned it in school and told the college professor there full of shit!  As an old fool who has been on the net now for 20 years.   Just remember who you're preaching to out there.    That's just my way of thinking. 

Quote from: walkstall on August 04, 2013, 09:21:00 PM

Hmm...When in Rome do as the Romans.  When writing a book do it your way.  When on the net do it the best way the average person with a laptop or IPod would have no problems following it.   You are working very hard to hold on to people that don't understand what your even saying.  Or they would have learned it in school and told the college professor there full of shit!  As an old fool who has been on the net now for 20 years.   Just remember who you're preaching to out there.    That's just my way of thinking.

After doing some research, and a lot of frustration with EZPortal's fairly unique disregard for indenting text in the forum world, I discovered a remedy that does not use a bullet list box for quotes, but it sure as hell was not in their help section.

• A block quotation (also known as a long quotation or extract) is a quotation in a written document, that is set off from the main text as a paragraph, or block of text, and typically distinguished visually using indentation and a different typeface or smaller size quotation. (This is in contrast to a setting it off with quotation marks in a run-in quote.) Block quotations are used for the long quotation.
  
  There can even be more than one paragraph in block quotations.

I assume this is acceptable to you guys, unless you're relying on the Dinosaur's Manual of Style, which involves using a chisel on a stone tablet, and does not apply any sort of indentation, wanting to use as much of that stone as possible.   :wink:

Btw, Walkstall, sincerely, if you or anyone has any question about anything I might assert, particularly what you believe may be in conflict with any one of those college professors, or you just want to know  why/how I am making any sort of assertion about the Constitution (or anything), please don't hesitate to ask.   Or just challenge me and say you think i am F.O.S. (which is probably true, given I'm Irish) but I would appreciate some specification as to why or where I might be, in that particular instance.

The Constitution was not written to be some sort of obscure, complex document only able to be understood by lawyers and judges.

Quote from: Trip on August 04, 2013, 01:22:17 PM
Uh, the Constitution's terms were only "dramatic" and "activist" more than 200 years ago.

However you yourself would be shoulder to shoulder with Sharpton, Pelosi, and Frank in advocating State tyranny and Social Engineering dictate, creating horrors such as California, Chicago, Detroit and New York, and enabling U.N. programs like Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

Truly "Impressive."   Does this Frankenstein monster actually call itself "Conservative"?

You got anything more than empty blather. and corrupt false association tactics  to support your position?  I'm referring to any sort of actual constitutional reference here.

Sorry, I don't do double-blind reverse-mojo flip-it-around on you.....kiddie nonsense.

The "nuh-uh you do" things is a blatantly liberal habit.

America, and the constitution, are built on a loose, almost impotent federation of unassailable state sovereignty and independence.  This was the only way to create a country that couldn't become despotic, if the constitution is actually followed.  As all other countries had fallen into before, hence the grand experiment to create something different.

The federation is only supposed to do, or coordinate, those things that 50 isolated independent states can't do for the entire land mass.  Virtually nothing, save a few important things involving continental security, defense, and interstate concerns.  And enforcing all aspects of the constitution on everyone.  Just about nothing else.  That's why you'll notice that about 98% of the damned federal govt. today is completely redundant with state agencies that do the same thing, and should be doing so without a federal clone to interfere.

We get it that you don't like states being able to tell the feds to pound sand.  Too bad that's the most pure and potent ingredient of America and the constitution.

You are a closeted lib, I swear.  Whether an illness, or just to give your buddies some laughs as they read your adventures behind enemy lines.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 09:18:20 AM
Sorry, I don't do double-blind reverse-mojo flip-it-around on you.....kiddie nonsense.

The "nuh-uh you do" things is a blatantly liberal habit.

America, and the constitution, are built on a loose, almost impotent federation of unassailable state sovereignty and independence.  This was the only way to create a country that couldn't become despotic, if the constitution is actually followed.  As all other countries had fallen into before, hence the grand experiment to create something different.

The federation is only supposed to do, or coordinate, those things that 50 isolated independent states can't do for the entire land mass.  Virtually nothing, save a few important things involving continental security, defense, and interstate concerns.  And enforcing all aspects of the constitution on everyone.  Just about nothing else.  That's why you'll notice that about 98% of the damned federal govt. today is completely redundant with state agencies that do the same thing, and should be doing so without a federal clone to interfere.

I agree entirely with all the above.

I agree that the compact that is the Constution is between the sovereign states, and created the fiction that is the federal government.

I agree that the authority that is granted the federal government is limited enumerated powers.

I have repeatedly stated that the Federal government has no authority whatsoever to dictate terms, nor laws, that are applicable within the territory that comprises  the several States themselves.

What I do not agree with that any part of that sovereign authority is the ability to transgress, impinge and nullify upon individual rights.

• That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note that the DOI references "any form of government", which does not just limit its reference to the "federal government",  but extends it to any form of government, inclusive of State governments.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 09:18:20 AM
We get it that you don't like states being able to tell the feds to pound sand.  Too bad that's the most pure and potent ingredient of America and the constitution.

You are a closeted lib, I swear.  Whether an illness, or just to give your buddies some laughs as they read your adventures behind enemy lines.

Of course the States are able to tell the feds to pound sand, and they should actually do that with regard to things like ObamaCare, or environmental dictates like shutting down coal plants.  And some of them have, but too few and too rarely. 

Somehow you're suffering from the mental incapacity that the state sovereignty involves the tyrannical authority of little fiefdoms, and authority to dictate every aspect of individual's lives.   You evidently  believe somehow the United States is comprised of 50 little dictatorships. 

Yet nowhere are you yet  able to provide any sort of credible evidence for this belief that the State "powers" of sovereignty involve the legitimate authroty to deny individual rights, even over oneself, one's own body. 

And you won't, because no such authority exists.  It's not a part of state sovereignty, and not a philosophy of this country.

This has nothing to do with being a "lib", except for vaguely the idea of what "Liberal" meant, when it was actually compatible with this country's principles, and supported individual rights, and rejected Big Brother government, but that's probably before when you were born.     

If that's not the case, and you're not that young, then you missed the damn boat, and there's no damn excuse for you having such a very corrupt view of this country's founding principles!  None!

Instead what you're likely representative of is the common ignorance of many in this country, and ignorance that populates the Republican party, and even has the audacity to call itself Conservative, when what they actually promote is entirely not the principles of this country, but rather a corruption born of abject ignorance and half-understandings.

lol, I musta really missed something here.

I haven't, nor has anybody, suggested that states' rights = unchecked despotism by state politicians.

Hell, we see battles against little dictators all the way down to town councils and school boards, every day somewhere.

You've just been babbling about how the feds must beat back the fiefdoms and dictatorships in the states, about 100 different random yet repetitive ways, without any real details except to say that people shouldn't have to move if they don't like a state's policies and laws.

Well yeah, they should have to move.  If they don't like the preponderence of Mormons in SLC, or Catholics in Boston, or smelly hippies in Seattle, or Hispanics in San Diego......move.  As long as they aren't ginning up something unconstitutional, then stfu and move where everything is just the way you like it.

Don't like SYG laws  ?  Move to where they don't have them.  Don't like guns  ?  Move to where they're outlawed.  Don't think there's enough diversity ?  Move to where there's more.  Don't like the fact that a state's citizens have voted to not change the meaning of marriage ?  Move to where they have voted to change it.

Trouble is, everybody claims that everybody else's right to live the way THEY want to is hateful, racist, mean-spirited, and must be outlawed by the feds.  No, it shouldn't be.  Unless you have clear, unchallengeable proof of a constitutional breach.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
lol, I musta really missed something here.

I haven't, nor has anybody, suggested that states' rights = unchecked despotism by state politicians.

Hell, we see battles against little dictators all the way down to town councils and school boards, every day somewhere.

You've just been babbling about how the feds must beat back the fiefdoms and dictatorships in the states, about 100 different random yet repetitive ways, without any real details except to say that people shouldn't have to move if they don't like a state's policies and laws.

Actually, nowhere have I been indicating anywhere the the Feds "must", or "should" beat back the states in any form!  Absolutely NOTHING I've said anywhere involves the federal government doing jack-****! 

And if you imagine that I do so anywhere, then you damn well ought to re-read this thread's OP and this time coax some of those neutered neurons into some semblance of LIFE!

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
Well yeah, they should have to move.  If they don't like the preponderence of Mormons in SLC, or Catholics in Boston, or smelly hippies in Seattle, or Hispanics in San Diego......move.  As long as they aren't ginning up something unconstitutional, then stfu and move where everything is just the way you like it.

WHY should the citizens of a state have to move in order to have their UNALIENABLE rights recognized by a given State? 

Where, oh where, do this nation's founders, or any one of our founding documents, indicate that "it is infinitely preferable for the States to deny individual rights, rather than the federal government"? 

WHERE do this nation's founders even ONCE indicate that UNALIENABLE rights may be ALIENABLE by the States?

What you assert does not exist with any legitimacy in this country.

We did not create this country in order to create Fifty separate tiny democratic tyrannies, and celebrate the enormous variance in tyranny!  We founded this country for the purpose of recognizing individual freedom, recognizing the impulse of man to engage in a whole array of despotism.

Read the damn Declaration of Independence! It clearly states what the sole purpose of government is, not just the Federal government, but ANY "FORM" of government:

• "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

Take a closer look at that simple clause.  It doesn't say "deriving their powers", but rather indicates "deriving their JUST powers", thus the "consent of the governed", or the will of the populist majority, does not define what the powers of government are, but rather only when those powers are first JUST, and by the consent of the governed are they legitimate!


Conspicuously, Jefferson himself, while sitting as President, conveyed this very same perspective in a letter to the Danbury Baptists.  Those Danbury Baptists were concerned that they would be legislated against because the Connecticut constitution included no protection against the institutionalization of a religion. And Jefferson replied that they need not worry, indicating that the freedom from religious dictate also applied to the state.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
Don't like SYG laws  ?  Move to where they don't have them.  Don't like guns  ?  Move to where they're outlawed.  Don't think there's enough diversity ?  Move to where there's more.  Don't like the fact that a state's citizens have voted to not change the meaning of marriage ?  Move to where they have voted to change it.

You're muddying rights with nonsense, as a result of your own muddied and incomplete understanding of the considerations.

SYG, or "stand your ground", was not a grant of the right to defend oneself by those states that uphold it, but rather a protection that a person should not be compelled to have to try to run first, before defending themselves with lethal force.  Every living, breathing thing has a right to defend its life when threatened with death.

GUNS, the right to keep and bear arms,  are in fact a right that has been recognized in every one of the states, and the original colonies, not to mention the Constitution's Bill of Rights, as an unalienable right of every able-bodied citizens.  The denial of this right is not a legitimate state authority, and conspicuously it is the only listed right from the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not (yet) recognized as also being applicable to the states.

"Diversity" isn't a right, unless one is a damn halfwit.  Though I did once rent a cabin in the northern wilds of Pennsylvania, at Worlds End State Park, and there in that cabin was a visitors log book in which one woman from NYC wrote at length that she was appalled by the lack of diversity in the local populace, and could not wait to get back to the city. I was stunned that there are idiots of that proportion, but it seems that wide ranging idiocy is celebrated as a blessing by more than just the "Lib" section of the populace.

States don't have the original authority to redefine words, particularly not "marriage" due to the fact that social definition of "marriage" is not a power.

However States can, and do, tell us when we cannot purchase alcohol, and numerous states have "blue laws", with this state of Pennsylvania being among them.  Liber-tards, who sing the blessings of "states rights", are conspicuously in conflict with those States Rights in going on a rant about blue laws, but fail to recognize that is no sort of right to buy alcohol whenever one wants to do so. And if they weren't such halfwits, they'd actually buy the alcohol on Saturday for their consumption on Sunday.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 04:01:40 PM
Trouble is, everybody claims that everybody else's right to live the way THEY want to is hateful, racist, mean-spirited, and must be outlawed by the feds.  No, it shouldn't be.  Unless you have clear, unchallengeable proof of a constitutional breach.

You DO have a right to live the way you want, but you don't have a right to compel the way you want to live on others, and States have no legitimate authority to deny those unalienable rights to their populace.   The ownership of one's own body, is in fact the foundation of every right in existence, and this is violated by health care dictate.

One last thing ....

Oh, I've been here in the US for 53 years now, served my country in the USAF for 22 of them.

Been to real schools several times, finished all that I've started too.

Given everything I have to make my wife and kids happy and fulfilled.  Can die happy in the next 5 minutes knowing that.

Apparently 1000-word filibusters and self-celebration are what it takes for you to be happy.  Keep on keeping on with it  !

And there's a difference between "compelling others" and having standards in the social compact.  If you can't have the citizenry by popular vote, or the votes of their elected representatives, establish standards and limits......you have anarchy.

Gay marriage is a great example.  If you tell society and the populace that citizens or reps can't draw a line as to what marriage is in a classic, functional society, then it will include polygamy, bestiality, incest, and worse.

I know that progressives have always warbled "hahahahaha paranoia, that'll never happen".  Just like partial and post-birth abortion weren't real, of course, until Gosnell and the others like him out there.

But since the SC decision, the suits have been filed for these other groups, and the new precedence will approve their pecadilloes and perversions as well.

And now you have a nice little anarchy going, since it's "despotic" to ever draw a line for social standards.

Oh, BTW, your "conservative" schtick is about done.

Once you insist that the feds have absolute dominion over the states, and that gay marriage is a right.........uh, your little charade is just about toast.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:13:32 AM
Oh, I've been here in the US for 53 years now, served my country in the USAF for 22 of them.

Been to real schools several times, finished all that I've started too.

Given everything I have to make my wife and kids happy and fulfilled.  Can die happy in the next 5 minutes knowing that.

Apparently 1000-word filibusters and self-celebration are what it takes for you to be happy.  Keep on keeping on with it  !

Only 53 years? 

Apparently you want to talk about everything OTHER than the fact of the Constitution.   I'm surprised you didn't introduce the weather.

Finishing school is great, but I had no idea that it actually considered an accomplishment except for in the bottom rung of the ladder.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:13:32 AM
And there's a difference between "compelling others" and having standards in the social compact.  If you can't have the citizenry by popular vote, or the votes of their elected representatives, establish standards and limits......you have anarchy.

Gay marriage is a great example.  If you tell society and the populace that citizens or reps can't draw a line as to what marriage is in a classic, functional society, then it will include polygamy, bestiality, incest, and worse.


I know that progressives have always warbled "hahahahaha paranoia, that'll never happen".  Just like partial and post-birth abortion weren't real, of course, until Gosnell and the others like him out there.

But since the SC decision, the suits have been filed for these other groups, and the new precedence will approve their pecadilloes and perversions as well.

And now you have a nice little anarchy going, since it's "despotic" to ever draw a line for social standards.

You apparently did not read what I've written, or at least not understood it.

My brief reference to marriage involves a support of marriage as it has always been, ya know, what is required to reproduce and populate every society throughout history, a man and woman.  I have no problem with 'drawing a line" to recognize what Marriage is, as did DOMA. 

You might want to actually read my thread about that DOMA decision being a corrupt horse and pony show (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/doma-case-was-corrupt-dog-pony-show-that-scotus-had-no-authority-to-hear/).

(In other words, you're pissing into the wind for no reason.)

Oops.

The first point of "school" is to pay attention.  This entire post of yours was a pointless gust of wind.  And you managed to not make even one reference to the Constitution.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 07:16:43 AM
Oh, BTW, your "conservative" schtick is about done.

Once you insist that the feds have absolute dominion over the states, and that gay marriage is a right.........uh, your little charade is just about toast.

Slick, the idea that those unalienable individual rights have "dominion" over the States does NOT involve the "Feds having absolute dominion over the States"!

The "Feds" didn't make up those rights.  THe Constitution itself does not create those rights! Those Bill of Rights only recognizes those rights, and only some of them, with other rights being recognized to exist beyond those enumerated, as per the 9th AMendment!  As such those rights are not a "fed" grant, not given there, but only recognized there. As indicated in the Declaration of Independence, those rights exist beyond government, and for "any form of government",  including the States!

NOWHERE have I insisted that the Feds have any sort of "absolute dominion" over the States, and in fact I've indicated quite the opposite!

What I have indicated, is that the States are NOT free to violate those rights at their whim, as RomneyCare does, and then justifiy that violation by populist majority appeal, as Romney did!  That has nothing to do with the Fed having dominion!

It has to do with the States themselves not having any sort of tyrannical authority recognized by the 10th and the limited authority of the federal government!

This is the HEART of Conservatism, and if you don't grasp it yet,  after lo those accumulated 53 years, then there's a problem with your own "conservative schtick"! 

Finishing what you start is for the bottom rung of the ladder ?  My point was that I finish everything I start, through an MA, an MS, and Air War College.  And the 50 things that I had to start and finish to get there.

lol, your teen-angst-snark is showing....spilling out of that short skirt.....

You never did address the question of what has prepared you to lecture us all.......please tell us of that PhD or JD.......

Funny thing is you appear to be regurgitating a lot of material, so you appear to know a bit, and you got it somewhere.

But my point is that you'll only have real cred if you've actually been to the real world, real academia......and not just another 20-something who has spent 1000 hours scouring wiki / et al, and lecturing on various boards.

I believe that you are the latter.  But say something that credibly proves me wrong.  I am wrong now and then, as is anyone who's making the effort.

Quote from: Trip on August 06, 2013, 08:37:31 AM
Slick, the idea that those unalienable individual rights have "dominion" over the States does NOT involve the "Feds having absolute dominion over the States"!

The "Feds" didn't make up those rights.  THe Constitution itself does not create those rights! Those Bill of Rights only recognizes those rights, and only some of them, with other rights being recognized to exist beyond those enumerated, as per the 9th AMendment!  As such those rights are not a "fed" grant, not given there, but only recognized there. As indicated in the Declaration of Independence, those rights exist beyond government, and for "any form of government",  including the States!

NOWHERE have I insisted that the Feds have any sort of "absolute dominion" over the States, and in fact I've indicated quite the opposite!

What I have indicated, is that the States are NOT free to violate those rights at their whim, as RomneyCare does, and then justifiy that violation by populist majority appeal, as Romney did!  That has nothing to do with the Fed having dominion!

It has to do with the States themselves not having any sort of tyrannical authority recognized by the 10th and the limited authority of the federal government!

This is the HEART of Conservatism, and if you don't grasp it yet,  after lo those accumulated 53 years, then there's a problem with your own "conservative schtick"!

True Conservatism is defined by the simple concept of absolute minimal federal control over states.  And smallest federal government possible.

This does not include the outlawing of popular vote, or local legislation (that you don't like), within states.  Especially just because you and other progressives label such things "tyrannical".

If anyone within the state, or lower, governments does something that's clearly unconstitutional, then file suit and win.

If it's just your favorite little social peccadillo that's being gored, no, it's not tyranny lol.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
Finishing what you start is for the bottom rung of the ladder ?  My point was that I finish everything I start, through an MA, an MS, and Air War College.  And the 50 things that I had to start and finish to get there.

My point was that if finishing what one starts is the highest one strives for excellence, then there's a problem.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
lol, your teen-angst-snark is showing....spilling out of that short skirt.....

You never did address the question of what has prepared you to lecture us all.......please tell us of that PhD or JD.......

Teen-angst, I wish it were only so.   I was certified to Scuba dive in '73 by U.S. Navy Standards,  not the half-assed nonsense it is today.  I dove with Cousteau's crew and actually appeared very briefly in their documentary on Manatees.    In 1983 I was atop Kiluaea's eruption with USGS and studying the active eruption only weeks after it began following more than 20 years of quietus, and it has been going nonstop ever since.    I've been using very expensive satellite geolocation with my geophysical equipment long before before it was available to the average person in GPS devices and cell phones.  And I've been using computers since they had to be programmed by filling in blocks with a #2 pencil on a stack of 3x5 cards.

I'm anything but the teen you imagine me to be, while you engage in rampant personal address and avoid any actual reference to the Constitution, and sourced argument.

And I have addressed my background, but that was among the volume material you quite clearly have not read.

I also have addressed the fact that a J.D. degree is not only irrelevant to studying the terms of the Constitution, but actually contrary to those constitutional principles, given the fact that the Law  relies on precedent over principle, and teaches the manipulation and abuse of law and principle, rather than regard for these.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
Funny thing is you appear to be regurgitating a lot of material, so you appear to know a bit, and you got it somewhere.

Yes, much of what I've written here has been written previously, and as such it might be said to be "regurgitated", however unless otherwise indicated, it was all written by me,  with the exception of the material obviously written by this nation's founders.

Do you imagine that I have to reinvent the wheel, and recast the sword,  every time I post here, despite the fact I've argued these issues innumerable times?  Think again.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:39:07 AM
But my point is that you'll only have real cred if you've actually been to the real world, real academia......and not just another 20-something who has spent 1000 hours scouring wiki / et al, and lecturing on various boards.

I believe that you are the latter.  But say something that credibly proves me wrong.  I am wrong now and then, as is anyone who's making the effort.

You believe quite a lot that just ain't so, inclusive of your claim to having any point at all. 

You have repeatedly, and with a great deal of dogged determination, shown yourself to be the epitome of what is wrong with the Republican party, the vocal bastion of partisan hackery, and the resilient idiot capable of nothing more than ad hominem personalized address in a conversation that is allegedly about "The Constitution", something quite clearly you know very little about.   So far you've worked hard at showing yourself to be more moron, and less neuron, by not even once attempting any sort of referenced argument, which appears to be far too great a task for your sloppy thought.  As far as that Constitution itself, you've shown you  'honor' it more in the breach, than the observance.

However if I were to accurately phrase the disdain I hold you in, something you've consistently worked at to earn,  I would undoubtedly exhaust my welcome on this forum.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 08:45:26 AM
True Conservatism is defined by the simple concept of absolute minimal federal control over states.  And smallest federal government possible.

This does not include the outlawing of popular vote, or local legislation (that you don't like), within states.  Especially just because you and other progressives label such things "tyrannical".

If anyone within the state, or lower, governments does something that's clearly unconstitutional, then file suit and win.

If it's just your favorite little social peccadillo that's being gored, no, it's not tyranny lol.

No, true conservatism is NOT defined by the absolute minimal federal control over the states! 

True conservatism is defined by the terms, and balance established by the Constitution, and it is those terms which are being "conserved".

NOWHERE in those terms of that Constitution is the States having absolute authority over their citizenry any sort of principle of this country. 

I'm fine with local legislation, which you should have picked up earlier in my previous explanation, but you seem immune to actual learning and responsible two-way communication.   The problem is your superficial analysis does not permit you to distinguish between legitimate local authority, and illegitimate local dictate. 

While the Constitution itself does not directly indicate this distinction, as it specifically addresses the federal government and not the local government, but it certainly implies it by the 10th Amendment's reference to "powers", which also involves the recognition that certain legislation is not within the state's legitimate powers.

The dictate of health care by the state, and taking over the  de facto ownership of each citizen in that state, is not any sort of legitimate "local" legislation.  In fact it is in gross violation of every principle this country was founded upon, and which Americans have given their lives to protect over centuries.

Once a state takes ownership of the individual's very body, then there are no longer any real rights to anything, because it is from that very self-ownership, that every right is created!  Such state ownership of the individual is only neo-feudalism, and the domain of statist totalitarianism, and the United Nations.

It is no coincidence that the United Nation's intent is to use this corrupt belief in unlimited local authority, in order to institute Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, which denies individual rights of property ownership, mobility, freedom of association, and much more.   If you're not informed about this program's intent, you damn well should be.

The sovereign authority over one's own body is integral to, and the origin of, every recognized unalienable right, with all rights, inclusive of rights of speech, religion, assembly, and property, and all which that body acts upon, stemming from that self-ownership.


This isn't a liberal principle. This isn't a libertarian principle. This is the very cornerstone of these United States of America, and the denial of this is the support of statist totalitarian dictate.

The idea that one can dismiss state ownership of the individual citizen, denying those unalienable individual rights, and this is only some sort of minor "peccadillo" ....

..... is why you're the poster child for the ignorance of the Republican party,...

.... and why these ignorant Republicans are every bit as much a threat to our freedoms, and this country itself,  as the Marxist Progressive Democrats.

Try to pare it down, Dostoyevsky.  3 people just fell asleep, fell out they chairs, and banged they heads.

Yes, I'm the poster child for GOP ignorance.  A regular John McCain I am.  I think everybody on this site would disagree, but that's just me lol.

I think you're the leader of a club of 1.  You, yours, and thine.

Quote from: Trip on August 06, 2013, 10:18:30 AM

Teen-angst, I wish it were only so.   I was certified to Scuba dive in '73 by U.S. Navy Standards,  not the half-assed nonsense it is today.  I dove with Cousteau's crew and actually appeared very briefly in their documentary on Manatees.    In 1983 I was atop Kiluaea's eruption with USGS and studying the active eruption only weeks after it began following more than 20 years of quietus, and it has been going nonstop ever since.    I've been using very expensive satellite geolocation with my geophysical equipment long before before it was available to the average person in GPS devices and cell phones.  And I've been using computers since they had to be programmed by filling in blocks with a #2 pencil on a stack of 3x5 cards.

Margot, is that you  ?

There's an old woman (or more likely a teen portraying such) on the other PF that knows everything about everything, has hobnobbed with ambassadors and senators and CIA agents, has genius husbands and kids who've done everything that ever gets discussed, had every possible professional victory and award, and so on.  Especially everything about Islam and the ME, since her daddy was a big oil man and she lived in a castle somewhere over there.  And hung out with the shah, lol.

Margot, you certainly get around.  Keep growing that story  !

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 12:28:15 PM
Margot, is that you  ?

There's an old woman (or more likely a teen portraying such) on the other PF that knows everything about everything, has hobnobbed with ambassadors and senators and CIA agents, has genius husbands and kids who've done everything that ever gets discussed, had every possible professional victory and award, and so on.  Especially everything about Islam and the ME, since her daddy was a big oil man and she lived in a castle somewhere over there.  And hung out with the shah, lol.

Margot, you certainly get around.  Keep growing that story  !

This is going to come as an enormous shock to your system, but the problem is not that "Margot" is actually so elevated, but rather the the problem is that you're so sub-par.   And to be blunt, your penchant for navel lint expeditions may have gotten you this far,  but therein lies the problem.

If you actually spent the time to do even a tiny bit of research to support your position that Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment is actually valid, you might then actually advance yourself.  But at this point I am quite certain that even such minimal research is beyond you. 

If there were actually more substance to you all along, we wouldn't be having this pointless discussion.  You alone are responsible for having reduced yourself to the LCD.

This may be shocking to you old buddy, but some of us don't do "research" for the purpose of trying to convince strangers on the internet how much we know.

Whatever research I do, will be for work or academic pursuits.  Not playing 'constitutional scholar" for random strangers.

It appears to have escaped you, but I was making fun of your 1000.00 an hour and your technical magnificence decades before the rest of America.  Because I think they're both silly bullshit.  To make you feel better about yourself.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 06, 2013, 02:46:12 PM
This may be shocking to you old buddy, but some of us don't do "research" for the purpose of trying to convince strangers on the internet how much we know.

Whatever research I do, will be for work or academic pursuits.  Not playing 'constitutional scholar" for random strangers.

It appears to have escaped you, but I was making fun of your 1000.00 an hour and your technical magnificence decades before the rest of America.  Because I think they're both silly bullshit.  To make you feel better about yourself.

John McCain, you and I are not buddies. 

The reason to do research is to know precisely how far advanced our sad status is, and how far we've gone from operating under the terms of the Constitution. 

It's a very small thing called your freedom,  not my own freedom, not others freedoms but your freedoms and those of your family.  It is  not at all "academic".   

Your failure to recognize this on your own is part of why you've been pegged as being nothing but the average ignorant Republican, every bit as much a hazard to this country, as the Marxist Progressive Democrats. 

You originally lept into this discussion to defend Romney, going face  first. 

You ignored the hazard Romney's 10th Amendment corruption of "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" are  to your very own rights, and those of your family.  That corruption is a direct threat of your right to own property where you choose, to live outside of clustered, crowded cities, on rural property, and to use your property as you choose, and even your right to take yourself and your family to some rural park, or go off to even more rustic spots and canoe, swim in a lake, hike, and camp!

Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment actually entirely coincides with the  U.N.s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development program, seen in the map below, where people are denied all sorts of rights that we still take for granted now.

• BLUISH-GREEN  -  "Normal Use Zone": (hard to see on small sized map), these are the limited areas where people are kept and house, areas of unrestricted use that we imagine to be our rights today, are reduced to rats in box.
  
  YELLOW-  "Buffer Zones": areas of highly restricted use, just basically for travel from one "Normal Use Zone" to another.
  
  RED - "Core Reserve Zones"  with little to no human use at all. These red areas are what can be most easily seen throughout the country. THey are where humans are prohibited!

This is what they want to do with our lives and our "freedom" under your application of localized dictate - that is how they're implementing Agenda 21.  This is what your brand of ignorance is condemning this country and your children to.  Over 2000 NGO's (non-governmental organizations) are currently operating within the US to implement Agenda 21. And this ignores the GO's that are already working to implement this program officially, within the government.

This is already going on all over the country and being instituted NOW, and being dictated by the EPA NOW!  This is what Obama and the Left are talking about when they reference Sustainable Development.   This is why they're killing coal plants.   

And this is the future YOUR abject ignorance is condemning my family, my children,  and this country to. If this doesn't wake your dumbass up, nothing will. 

This is the map of your ignorance.

OK, I'll play along............on topic, and not antagonize you any more so hopefully you'll calm down and not devote half of your 1000 words to angry insults.

-What actually ties.......anything related to Romney.......to this map  ?  Does he indorse / endorse it somewhere, somehow  ?

-What is the genesis of this map  ?  It has several randomly named agencies in a title block, but no explanation of what they actually have to do with the content.  Who actually did the graphics of the map  ?

-Is the website that this map resides at / comes from..........credible  ?  "UAFF NEWS"  ?

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 07, 2013, 07:26:05 AM
OK, I'll play along............on topic, and not antagonize you any more so hopefully you'll calm down and not devote half of your 1000 words to angry insults.

-What actually ties.......anything related to Romney.......to this map  ?  Does he indorse / endorse it somewhere, somehow  ?

-What is the genesis of this map  ?  It has several randomly named agencies in a title block, but no explanation of what they actually have to do with the content.  Who actually did the graphics of the map  ?

-Is the website that this map resides at / comes from..........credible  ?  "UAFF NEWS"  ?

As the Map itself indicates, it comes from a U.N. document, although it is somewhat illegible due to jpg compression artifacts.   The map was compiled from documents at the United Nation's Geneva Headquarters in 1994.  It was produced and shown to The United States Senate as they prepared to vote on the Global Bio-Diversity Treaty.  The Global Bio-Diversity treaty was ready to pass until Congress saw the map above.  The treaty failed because it could not be brought to the floor for a vote.  The good news is that the treaty failed...The bad news is this program is being implemented aggressively through ICLEI as Sustainable Development/Conservation Programs by unelected bureaucrats.

The means they seek to apply and employ the terms of this map, is the same means that Romney corrupted rights, through the ignorance of the American people that "states rights", and local autonomy, somehow amount to the ability of states and localities to dictate whatever terms.


Stakeholder Councils vs Roberts Rules
- Restructuring American Government

The way that Sustainable Development is carried out in local communities around the world, and particularly in this country, is  alarming, especially to those who seek accountability in government that recognizes individual rights. Operating within a system of stakeholder councils, organized to give community members a "stake" in the control over property in their neighborhood, proponents of Sustainable Development systematically promote their own ideas and marginalize any local opposition, particularly those individuals who advocate the freedom to use and enjoy private property. The product of a stakeholder council, often called a "consensus statement" or a "vision statement," is typically approved by local governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the questionable conclusions of a non-elected regional authority that is not accountable to the voters.

The "vision" of these stakeholders councils has quite a lot to do with Romney's utopian vision of what government should give to the people of the state under RomneyCare, in disregard to the oglibation of the state to perserve the rights of every citizen thereof, regardless of whether or not Romney supports Agenda 21 himself.  In fact the Agenda 21 plan is entirely enabled by Romney's corrupt ideology corruption of the 10th Amendment, and disregard for individual rights, something every American should be alarmed by, whether done on the State or Federal level.

Stakeholder council meetings are typically arranged under the auspices of soliciting input from community members on a project. This project may be initiated by local public officials, a local non-profit organization, a national or regional non-profit organization, or an NGO. 14 It is very rare for community members to instigate the stakeholder "visioning" process.

A typical stakeholder council meeting is run by a trained facilitator. 15 It is not the facilitator‟s job to make sure that all views are entered into the record. Thus, those facilitators abandon Robert's Rules of Order at the outset, and instead engage a sort of corrupt airing of the interests of the community, but only those that align with their agenda.

The facilitator's job, instead, is to guide the group to arrive at a consensus on the project. The consensus process has no mechanism for recording minority views, such as those who want to use their property in the manner they choose. Since he is being paid by the organization responsible for the project, it is in his interest to arrive at a consensus sympathetic to the desired outcome of the project, that being the promotion Agenda 21, Sustainable Development,  and bio-diversity, while subverting and denying individual freedoms. 

Tactics vary between the facilitators, but consensus generally is reached by using subtle means to marginalize opposition, such as recording only the "good" ideas, and allowing criticism only for the "bad" ideas.

Romney's RomneyCare and corruption of the 10th Amendment is a very "bad idea", and its embrace provides no obstacle to this sort of statist dictate, but rather invites it.

Agenda 21/Sustainable Development

Sustainable development seeks to establish a welfare system which undermines free enterprise to establish this new economy of "social equity" (from Socialist/Communist regimes), a "new" economic system involving partnership of government and industry (from Fascist regimes), and environmnental justice trumping human need and humanitarian concerns. This modern war on Liberty fosters confusion in our schools and politics on the nature of "what is a moral government. It causes division by dividing us into groups: They assert "social justice" ahead of "equal justice", and to promote a "social welfare" that replaces free enterprise and private property. The Green Goal - the "Rio Earth Summit" 1992 ".. modern lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are NOT sustainable" Think about that, above, each one of those commonly-accepted modern conveniences and what they mean for you and what their denial and control will mean for your life and living standard. What else is not sustainable according to the UN Global Bio-Diversity Assessment report?:

♦ Golf courses
♦ Ski Lodges
♦ Irrigation
♦ Monotheism (!)
♦ Commercial Agriculture
♦ the Family Unit (!)
♦ Private Property

- all are not sustainable!

Yes, the UN is committed to abolishing private property. The UN's 1976 Habitat One Conference report states:

• "Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land us is therefore indispensable."

Tenets of Sustainable Development:

Two major components of Sustainable Development are de-population/population control and bio-equity. As Cass Sunstein announced: "animals and all living creatures have equal rights to humans." We may laugh, but they are laughing harder as the re-shape the map of the United States in nefarious ways to meet the objectives of Sustainable Development.  (i.e. "The Map")

The political goal (in the name of 'climate change') is to have all population living in government-controlled urbanized enclaves, where private transportation choices will become a thing of the past. We are to live, work, and socialize within these cities, brought to you under the lexicon of 'smart growth'.

This can't be true, you may say. Yes it is. The San Joaquin Valley is being starved as their economy is shut-down to protect the smelt. Logging villages are being shut-down in Oregon to preserve the spotted owl (as if they could not fly anywhere else). Over 400,000 square miles of the United States is currently being ,,grabbed‟ by the Government in the name of the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project, referred to hereafter as TWP. (The Wildlands Project).

While our attentions were focused on "Cap and Trade" and "Universal Health Care" and "Bailouts", Cass Sunstein has added 681 new species to the Endangered Species List (and these are old statistics). Compare this to the 27 species added to the list over the previous decade. The end goal is a totally new design of these United States, one having no regard for individual liberties, and an entirely new map even lain out here showing how our country is to be organized, and how our population is to be re-distributed. We get to live in ,,Normal Use -Zones of Cooperation‟. (again, "The Map")

VIDEO: "America's Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development" (http://youtu.be/JafpzBom2O8?t=12m31s)

The issue at hand,  "Who Decides?" Who decides the terms of your life, is it the individual, or is it the State?  This is the same issue at stake in RomneyCare.

Implementing UN Agenda 21 (partial list)

U.S. Government Agencies
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
- U.S Fish and WIldlife Service
- U.S. National PArk Service
- Housing and Urban Development Department of Education
- United States Geological Survey (USGS) (yes, amazingly!)

NGO - Non-Governmental Organizations
- Nature Conservancy
- Sierra Club
- National Audobon Society
- American Planning Assoc.

Foundations
- Rockefeller
- Pew
- Turner
- Ford
- Packard
- Irvine
- Carnegie
- Macarthur
- Community


The 3 E's of Sustainable Development

• 1) EQUITY (SOCIAL) - (Communism) Which is taken from Communism, where all assets, including property and land are taken over by the state and used for the state. The Supreme Court has already supported taken over privately owned property for transfer even to another private ownership, to be then used for the "public good". This is an anathema to our freedom.
  
  2) ECONOMY - (Fascism)This is an economy that is not a Free Market economy, but rather a Fascist Economy from Mussolini and later advanced by Hitler in NAZI Germany. It is the union of government and business interests. We see this today in GE/NBC and its CEO, Jeffrey Immelt's, involvement in the Obama administration. GE's investment in Carbon Credit and "Green Energy" technologies is being aggressively advanced by GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt, which is made far easier by Immelt also being on the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. GE has interest in a carbon exchange credits through its new finance venture "Greenhouse Gas Services" as well as wind turbine engines. GE is also a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which advocates cap and trade and leads the push for greenhouse gas restrictions. Despite GE's stock falling 30% in 2008, it spent $18.66 million on lobbying. This same organization gives us our "climate warming" news and Obama insight from NBC coverage. Colossal conflict of interest, anyone?
  
  3) ENVIRONMENT - This is not a consideration of the environment where personal and corporate private rights are exercised in a responsible manner, but rather a tyranny where there are NO private rights and where any human occupation is contained within very limited zones and many areas are prohibited ANY AND ALL human interaction. (SEE MAP) This is not "sustaining" our environment for future generations, but rather prohibiting those resources to every and all generations and relegating human beings to huddled rats on a ship.

I did read all of that, and I should get a prize for doing so.

It looks to be nothing but cut & paste from a hard-core website.  Which is not evil or anything, just that you're delivering that instead of answering the questions I offered.

I still can't see any connection to Romney, except that you appear to be equating Romneycare, and his "50 flavors" comment, with the stakeholder councils.

I don't see it.  Especially without a rational explanation as to why/ how they're connected.

The stakeholder councils seem to be a corruptible process, but I'd need to see where they've been used to sell Agenda 21 stuff in America.  Or selling anything so far.  That would be useful info, for it to be a proper boogeyman.

And we all know that the UN does nothing but sell communism bullshit.  So that's nothing new / not news.......but what have they specifically accomplished with Agenda 21 in America  ?  What & where  ?

Quote from: Trip on August 07, 2013, 12:35:38 PM
As the Map itself indicates, it comes from a U.N. document, although it is somewhat illegible due to jpg compression artifacts.   The map was compiled from documents at the United Nation's Geneva Headquarters in 1994.  It was produced and shown to The United States Senate as they prepared to vote on the Global Bio-Diversity Treaty.  The Global Bio-Diversity treaty was ready to pass until Congress saw the map above.  The treaty failed because it could not be brought to the floor for a vote.  The good news is that the treaty failed...The bad news is this program is being implemented aggressively through ICLEI as Sustainable Development/Conservation Programs by unelected bureaucrats.

The means they seek to apply and employ the terms of this map, is the same means that Romney corrupted rights, through the ignorance of the American people that "states rights", and local autonomy, somehow amount to the ability of states and localities to dictate whatever terms.


Stakeholder Councils vs Roberts Rules
- Restructuring American Government

The way that Sustainable Development is carried out in local communities around the world, and particularly in this country, is  alarming, especially to those who seek accountability in government that recognizes individual rights. Operating within a system of stakeholder councils, organized to give community members a "stake" in the control over property in their neighborhood, proponents of Sustainable Development systematically promote their own ideas and marginalize any local opposition, particularly those individuals who advocate the freedom to use and enjoy private property. The product of a stakeholder council, often called a "consensus statement" or a "vision statement," is typically approved by local governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the questionable conclusions of a non-elected regional authority that is not accountable to the voters.

The "vision" of these stakeholders councils has quite a lot to do with Romney's utopian vision of what government should give to the people of the state under RomneyCare, in disregard to the oglibation of the state to perserve the rights of every citizen thereof, regardless of whether or not Romney supports Agenda 21 himself.  In fact the Agenda 21 plan is entirely enabled by Romney's corrupt ideology corruption of the 10th Amendment, and disregard for individual rights, something every American should be alarmed by, whether done on the State or Federal level.

Stakeholder council meetings are typically arranged under the auspices of soliciting input from community members on a project. This project may be initiated by local public officials, a local non-profit organization, a national or regional non-profit organization, or an NGO. 14 It is very rare for community members to instigate the stakeholder "visioning" process.

A typical stakeholder council meeting is run by a trained facilitator. 15 It is not the facilitator‟s job to make sure that all views are entered into the record. Thus, those facilitators abandon Robert's Rules of Order at the outset, and instead engage a sort of corrupt airing of the interests of the community, but only those that align with their agenda.

The facilitator's job, instead, is to guide the group to arrive at a consensus on the project. The consensus process has no mechanism for recording minority views, such as those who want to use their property in the manner they choose. Since he is being paid by the organization responsible for the project, it is in his interest to arrive at a consensus sympathetic to the desired outcome of the project, that being the promotion Agenda 21, Sustainable Development,  and bio-diversity, while subverting and denying individual freedoms. 

Tactics vary between the facilitators, but consensus generally is reached by using subtle means to marginalize opposition, such as recording only the "good" ideas, and allowing criticism only for the "bad" ideas.

Romney's RomneyCare and corruption of the 10th Amendment is a very "bad idea", and its embrace provides no obstacle to this sort of statist dictate, but rather invites it.

Agenda 21/Sustainable Development

Sustainable development seeks to establish a welfare system which undermines free enterprise to establish this new economy of "social equity" (from Socialist/Communist regimes), a "new" economic system involving partnership of government and industry (from Fascist regimes), and environmnental justice trumping human need and humanitarian concerns. This modern war on Liberty fosters confusion in our schools and politics on the nature of "what is a moral government. It causes division by dividing us into groups: They assert "social justice" ahead of "equal justice", and to promote a "social welfare" that replaces free enterprise and private property. The Green Goal - the "Rio Earth Summit" 1992 ".. modern lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are NOT sustainable" Think about that, above, each one of those commonly-accepted modern conveniences and what they mean for you and what their denial and control will mean for your life and living standard. What else is not sustainable according to the UN Global Bio-Diversity Assessment report?:

♦ Golf courses
♦ Ski Lodges
♦ Irrigation
♦ Monotheism (!)
♦ Commercial Agriculture
♦ the Family Unit (!)
♦ Private Property

- all are not sustainable!

Yes, the UN is committed to abolishing private property. The UN's 1976 Habitat One Conference report states:

• "Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land us is therefore indispensable."

Tenets of Sustainable Development:

Two major components of Sustainable Development are de-population/population control and bio-equity. As Cass Sunstein announced: "animals and all living creatures have equal rights to humans." We may laugh, but they are laughing harder as the re-shape the map of the United States in nefarious ways to meet the objectives of Sustainable Development.  (i.e. "The Map")

The political goal (in the name of 'climate change') is to have all population living in government-controlled urbanized enclaves, where private transportation choices will become a thing of the past. We are to live, work, and socialize within these cities, brought to you under the lexicon of 'smart growth'.

This can't be true, you may say. Yes it is. The San Joaquin Valley is being starved as their economy is shut-down to protect the smelt. Logging villages are being shut-down in Oregon to preserve the spotted owl (as if they could not fly anywhere else). Over 400,000 square miles of the United States is currently being ,,grabbed‟ by the Government in the name of the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project, referred to hereafter as TWP. (The Wildlands Project).

While our attentions were focused on "Cap and Trade" and "Universal Health Care" and "Bailouts", Cass Sunstein has added 681 new species to the Endangered Species List (and these are old statistics). Compare this to the 27 species added to the list over the previous decade. The end goal is a totally new design of these United States, one having no regard for individual liberties, and an entirely new map even lain out here showing how our country is to be organized, and how our population is to be re-distributed. We get to live in ,,Normal Use -Zones of Cooperation‟. (again, "The Map")

VIDEO: "America's Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development" (http://youtu.be/JafpzBom2O8?t=12m31s)

The issue at hand,  "Who Decides?" Who decides the terms of your life, is it the individual, or is it the State?  This is the same issue at stake in RomneyCare.

Link?

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 07, 2013, 01:45:16 PM
I did read all of that, and I should get a prize for doing so.

It looks to be nothing but cut & paste from a hard-core website.  Which is not evil or anything, just that you're delivering that instead of answering the questions I offered.

I still can't see any connection to Romney, except that you appear to be equating Romneycare, and his "50 flavors" comment, with the stakeholder councils.

I don't see it.  Especially without a rational explanation as to why/ how they're connected.

The stakeholder councils seem to be a corruptible process, but I'd need to see where they've been used to sell Agenda 21 stuff in America.  Or selling anything so far.  That would be useful info, for it to be a proper boogeyman.

And we all know that the UN does nothing but sell communism bullshit.  So that's nothing new / not news.......but what have they specifically accomplished with Agenda 21 in America  ?  What & where  ?

Actually, what was written  is from a PDF that I wrote up several years ago, based on the video lecture that I posted above.  I can link to it online, if you like. 

This is not some obscure, "hard-core" web site's extremism. This is the reality going on all around us, and seen everywhere, every day.

I expressed how they were connected in the two previous posts, but evidently you need a more direct bonk on the head.

They are connected in that both rely on the idea that the States (and localities) are somehow free from any obligation to recognize individual rights - right to property, and even right to self -- just as Romney did in his promotion of RomneyCare,  reducing citizen's "rights" to being able to flee from state to state like refugees in their own country.

Both Agenda 21 an RomneyCare rely on the same corruption of the 10th Amendment "states rights", which is nowhere what that 10th Amendment indicates!   Every American should be able to recognize this.

This is not an inconsequential distinction, but an enormous corruption of the Constitution, resulting in our country being able to institute Communist dictate, in disregard to freedoms and rights to property.

How you can ask what they've accomplished via this communist view in America, after all I've posted, after we hear daily in the news things like  some swale depression that only holds water runoff in the midst of floods is now a wetlands and the property owner cannot alter the entire property or else he is changing water flow, or that home owners cannot catch water coming off their own roofs, or are taxed for rain...   is astonishing.

Watch the video. Open the news.  Listen to our coal plants being methodically shut down, CO2 being declared a pollutant, and the government dictating what "green industries" our tax dollars will support.  Look at the two most recent justices appointed to the Supreme Court and recognize they both  openly indicated their intent to engage Social Justice over the rule of law.

It's all over the place, and it has one intent, the same intent as Romney's RomneyCare: to deprive us our freedoms, and even our ownership to our very selves, making us wards of the state, nothing but a unit in a collective.

Quote from: Solar on August 07, 2013, 01:50:34 PM
Link?

VIDEO: "America's Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development" (http://youtu.be/JafpzBom2O8?t=12m31s)

"The issue at hand,  'Who Decides?' Who decides the terms of your life, is it the individual, or is it the State?"  This is the same issue at stake in RomneyCare.



Notes taken from that video and elsewhere  America's Choice (PDF)
(http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3800219/agenda-21-259k?da=y)

Quote from: Trip on August 07, 2013, 02:08:59 PM
Both Agenda 21 an RomneyCare rely on the same corruption of the 10th Amendment "states rights", which is nowhere what that 10th Amendment indicates!   Every American should be able to recognize this.

I still see nothing that makes this claim obvious, or why every American should be able to recognize it.

As plain old conservatives, everybody on this board knows all about the various socialist, communist, progressive gambits going on around us.  We also know that there's a UN gaggle doing the same crap.

And you can hate Romneycare, Obamacare, whatever you want to hate, no complaint from me.  It is socialistic garbage, all of it.

I just don't see the conspiracy between states' rights and Romney's comment and the rest of it.  I think that's where you're jumping the shark / screwing the pooch / choking the chicken / etc.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 07, 2013, 03:33:29 PM
I still see nothing that makes this claim obvious, or why every American should be able to recognize it.

As plain old conservatives, everybody on this board knows all about the various socialist, communist, progressive gambits going on around us.  We also know that there's a UN gaggle doing the same crap.

And you can hate Romneycare, Obamacare, whatever you want to hate, no complaint from me.  It is socialistic garbage, all of it.

I just don't see the conspiracy between states' rights and Romney's comment and the rest of it.  I think that's where you're jumping the shark / screwing the pooch / choking the chicken / etc.

If everyone in this board, those "plain old conservatives" can recognize that the socialist, communist, and progressive agnedas going on around us....  and the U.N. is doing the same crap....

... then what the flock is wrong with you when you see someone under the Republican flag doing that same crap, and denying citizens self-ownership? It is NOT somehow different!

Are you that big of a tool that you don't recognize that Romney was deliberately chosen to be the GOP candidate for this very reason,  even now, so long after that campaign, with the overall intention of prohibiting the Republicans from attacking ObamaCare?

• VIDEO: "America's Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development" (http://youtu.be/JafpzBom2O8?t=12m31s)

Michael Shaw indicates in this lecture (13:55): "Today Americans know that something is wrong. What we need to do is understand where those problems originate. But to do so we need to start at the beginning, with an understanding of Liberty itself."

"You see, that Liberty presumes that government powers must be strictly limited in scope, and that the law be applied equally to each citizen.""

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi425.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp337%2Ftjmccann%2FA21-selfownership.jpg&hash=83680465ca24af249b2ff7e415cc905db24800b8)

At this point, the speaker Michael Shaw shows the slide, above.  In the upper right hand corner of that slide, it recognizes for there to be liberty, there must be "self-ownership".

Seriously, are you implying that it is really all that far above "plain old conservatives" to recognize that if you don't have self-ownership, then there is no liberty whatsoever?

Both RomneyCare and ObamaCare, as well as Agenda-21,  are all about denying self-ownership.  There is no "one better the the other".   RomneyCare doesn't have some sort of bizarre license under "States Rights", and people have no clue as to the Constitution if they believe it does.

Both RomneyCare and ObamaCare deny that self-0wnership, then immediately deny our own constitutional guarantee of "freedom of association, and then preceded to deny a full 80% of the Bill of Rights!

And somehow you think that ROMNEYCARE is supported by the Bill of Rights, and such a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy"?  We're deliberately not even a Democracy!   

This is not some obscure argument unintelligible to the average mortal "plain conservative".  This is the very foundation of this country!

The problem is that what you're talking about IS NOT "STATES RIGHTS"! And you're far more than "screwing the pooch"; your ignorance, and that of the Republican party, is screwing the last of our freedoms.

Show me, please, where your corruption of "states rights" is somehow more important to this nation's founding principle  than "self-ownership"? 

You still haven't shown anything rational to connect Romney to the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy.

Yeah, he's a RINO essentially, and he was chosen by the MSM because they thought people would vote for the real Marxist in Obama, rather than a half-assed version.  This is something we need to change ourselves during the primary, not fixate and self-flagellate on conspiracy theories.

But he is a fiscal conservative in most respects, as shown by his successes on many fronts.  That's why he was worth voting for.

We would have benefited from a Romney victory in the most important sector, the economy.

Self ownership can't exist in a vacuum anymore than any other aspect of our original constitutional system.

There still will always be some balance between purely individual rights and ownership, states' needs to govern (called states' "rights" I suppose, vs. federal oversight), and the limited federal involvement.  No one of these can just override the others' important functions.

I do agree that private property, unassailable ownership, unencumbered estates, and so on....are the building blocks of our capitalism-based, democratic, republic.

Just not that we have to see states' rights as some kind of direct threat to it.  Only in the fantastic conspiracy theories.

As far as I understand, senators are supposed to advocate for independent states' rights and operations, and congresscritters for the concerns / rights of the individuals in their districts.  Yes...no....maybe  ?

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 08:01:46 AM
You still haven't shown anything rational to connect Romney to the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy.

Try and follow along, slick. I didn't say Romney was connected to the Agenda 21 program (not a conspiracy).   What I indicated was that Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment, allowing the local or state denial of individual rights, provides perfect cover for Agenda 21, and to no surprise  those promoting Agenda 21 use Romney's very argument of a corrupt 10th Amendment, and utter disregard for rights to property and self-determination.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 08:01:46 AM
Yeah, he's a RINO essentially, and he was chosen by the MSM because they thought people would vote for the real Marxist in Obama, rather than a half-assed version.  This is something we need to change ourselves during the primary, not fixate and self-flagellate on conspiracy theories.

If Romney is giving away our self-ownership by his promotion of ROmneyCare, and denying the GOPs chance to root out ObamaCare by his presence,  it matters not if we die a fast death or a slow death, the Republic is going to die.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 08:01:46 AM
But he is a fiscal conservative in most respects, as shown by his successes on many fronts.  That's why he was worth voting for.

He's not any sort  fiscal conservative if he advocates  social engineering and redistribution of wealth, and that is what both RomneyCare and ObamaCare do, even by the admission of the Democrats! 

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 08:01:46 AM
We would have benefited from a Romney victory in the most important sector, the economy.

Self ownership can't exist in a vacuum anymore than any other aspect of our original constitutional system.

THe "most important sector of the economy is self-ownership! That is the entire basis of Capitalism - freedom of choice!    If Romney was such a champion of both the economy and health care, he would have nullified the federal law that insurance companies cannot trade across state borders.

What does that even mean "self ownership can't exist in a vacuum"? What you're essentially saying is we actually have rights of our own decisions, and to engage our own associations freely, when the government's say's it's okay?  What the hell is THAT?   

How exactly are you anything but a Progressive RINO yourself?

Quote from: AndyJackson link=topic=12125.msg140488#msg140488
There still will always be some balance between purely individual rights and ownership, states' needs to govern (called states' "rights" I suppose, vs. federal oversight), and the limited federal involvement.  No one of these can just override the others' important functions.

Uh, here's some fundamental constitutional principle for you to chew on:

ALL rights are "purely individual".   Rights are not collective,  they are the innate authority of the individuals over themselves,  and those rights cease when they conflict with another individual.  And these rights are recognized to be "unalienable", meaning unable to be forfeit or taken, not even if the individual themselves wants to give them up, or barter them.

"States rights" are not really rights at all, they are a misnomer for what the 10th Amendment actually addresses, which is "powers".   

Those Powers of the States are the result of state sovereignty.  However the curious thing about that State sovereignty is it's not  even really the state's own sovereignty either.  That State sovereignty is really the cumulative sovereignty of each and every citizen of the States.  The State is actually the agent of the sovereign citizenry. 

::THEREFORE:: by this facts above regarding  "rights" and sovereignty, the State government has absolute ZERO authority to act against the rights of the citizens, and deny those rights.  The State cannot act to do what the citizens themselves cannot act to do. Since those citizens cannot act to take other's property, or their freedom, or deny their self-ownership, as the rights of those citizens end when they conflict with another citizen's rights, then the State does not have that authority either!

• "At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people;
  and they are truly the sovereigns of the country,
  but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . ."
  
  Chief Justice John Jay
  Chisolm v Georgia, 179

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 08:01:46 AM
I do agree that private property, unassailable ownership, unencumbered estates, and so on....are the building blocks of our capitalism-based, democratic, republic.

Just not that we have to see states' rights as some kind of direct threat to it.  Only in the fantastic conspiracy theories.

As far as I understand, senators are supposed to advocate for independent states' rights and operations, and congresscritters for the concerns / rights of the individuals in their districts.  Yes...no....maybe  ?

If "states rights" are not some kind of direct threat to individual rights, then why would you yourself choose to allow the denial of the most intimate and unalienable at all individual rights, and the source from which all rights stem, ownership of self?

It sure as hell seems like you don't really "agree" with private property, and unassailable ownership, because by your own declaration you believe that Romney forcing citizens to flee from state to state so as to maintain that self-ownership, is a legitimate interpretation of the 10th Amendment!

Sure, Senators are supposed to be representing State interest in the federal government, however that pretty much ended with the 17th Amendment and the popular election of Senators.   

But what the hell do Senators have to do with the States, or "a state" itself,  actually denying citizens their rights?    The Senators are only supposed to represent the States interests in the federal government, but that's not true anymore.

Sorry, I can't even make heads nor tails of your megalith posts anymore.

I told you what I believe, and you've dumped 1000 words of refuse that claims that I don't believe what I believe.

Nobody can have unfettered "self-ownership".  Whether you're talking about literally owning stuff, or owning one's actions and path through life, completely unfettered.

This would be anarchy.  It's also why textbook libertarianism is no more possible than textbook communism.

Even a conservative knows this, unless your brand of conservatism is to see a blue hat behind every bush that's about to carry you off to a FEMA camp.

I'm a conservative.  You appear to be Ron Paul, not even Rand.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 11:10:26 AM
Sorry, I can't even make heads nor tails of your megalith posts anymore.

I told you what I believe, and you've dumped 1000 words of refuse that claims that I don't believe what I believe.

Nobody can have unfettered "self-ownership".  Whether you're talking about literally owning stuff, or owning one's actions and path through life, completely unfettered.

Why not? Why can't  anyone, and everyone, have "unfettered" self-ownership? 

We conservatives often call tjat umfettered self-ownership  "personal responsibility", but it's actually more than that.    It's the blessing of freedom and being able to succeed without first having an obligation to the government.   

Your last sentence, above, is not only an irrational thought, it is an incomplete sentence.   "Self-ownership" is not about owning "stuff', it is about owning oneself.    Owning stuff is "stuff ownership".   

One "owns one's actions" because they own themselves, and are responsible.

These are fundamentals of Conservativsm, and you don't even recognize them possible. No wonder you're calling ideas that are not conservative at all, conservative.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 11:10:26 AM
This would be anarchy.  It's also why textbook libertarianism is no more possible than textbook communism.

WOW, you're mouthing Progressive ideology and actually imagine it Conservative.

It is NOT any sort of anarchy to own oneself, and be responsible for oneself. That's what is known as F-R-E-E-D-O-M !   

What you're  expressing, is actually feudalism, Progressivism being only a neo-feudalism, where the government actually gives us our identity by our obligation to that government, which in feudal times was known as 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'fealty,' and oblige,  or obligation to the King, and those above us representing the King.  Today's so-called "Progressives" express it as bureaucratic dictate, and a complex maze of laws.   

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "libertarianism", and not only is it more than possible, but it is the founding principle of our country!~   For it to be Libertarianism, it would have to involve a self-ownership in disregard of responsibility, elevated to being the most important thing,  without any personal responsibility, and even in disregard of outcome,  even in disregard of country itself.  Nowhere do I do that.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 11:10:26 AM
Even a conservative knows this, unless your brand of conservatism is to see a blue hat behind every bush that's about to carry you off to a FEMA camp.

I'm a conservative.  You appear to be Ron Paul, not even Rand.

No,  every conservative does NOT know that, much less believe that!   What you're espousing isn't even  conservative at all. It's nothing but Statism.

Which would tend to make you not any sort of conservative, but more of a RINO, or CINO. which explains why you stand with Romney, and believe that the States might deny self-ownership,  our very right to ourselves, and dictate the most intimate aspect of our lives.

"Uh, HELLO?  Can we have a 'price check' in Isle 5? " I need someone else to corroborate what I've written above. 

Conservatives have standards and order, as promulgated by police, military, religion, and so on.

Increasing levels of liberalism trend toward anarchy, as they hate and reject that order and its agents.

There's no way you don't get this / know this.

You're just being an obstinate, annoying knucklehead at this point, just for giggles apparently.  Just bringing Agenda 21 foolishness and pretending that it represents constitutional conservatism.

Nobody on this board will agree with that.  Which is why you beg them to, in closing.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 07:34:40 PM
Conservatives have standards and order, as promulgated by police, military, religion, and so on.

Increasing levels of liberalism trend toward anarchy, as they hate and reject that order and its agents.

There's no way you don't get this / know this.

You're just being an obstinate, annoying knucklehead at this point, just for giggles apparently.  Just bringing Agenda 21 foolishness and pretending that it represents constitutional conservatism.

Nobody on this board will agree with that.  Which is why you beg them to, in closing.

Among those standards and order is the foundation of this country: the shared individual rights, which are all contingent upon ownership of self.

What you're discussing is  nothing more than statist fascistic dictate, and is not at all "conservative".

If anyone on this board agrees with the corrupt idea that States have the legitimate authority to deny people their individual rights,  then they are a part of the problem, and not any part of the solution, as you yourself are.

At this point, you're quite clearly not sort ofconservative; you've established yourself to be a progressive statist "neocon".

More particularly, the Founders themselves did not agree with the idea that the States have any authority to abrogate or annul those individual rights which they recognized to be "unalienable".  (You really should look up that word.)

In point of fact,  the founders NEVER indicated it would be "infinitely preferable to have our rights denied locally, than have them denied by a federal government", which is a thoroughly ridiculous argument, but nonetheless the one you are making.

I was talking about standards of behavior, decency, ethics, morals, fair play, etc.

Nobody, even true conservatives, are perfect in their dedication to these things.

The human nature of every person makes us all fail, often and significantly.  If you're religious.....we're all sinners to varying degrees.

We will always need some controlling mechanisms over our absolute rights.  State and local primarily, federal minimally.

If you want minimal authority, in the perfect constitutional setup, there will be states with very little.  Move there.

Such a thing actually exists now, as imperfect as our situation is today.  Like wide open spaces, guns, shooting, 100 acres , not very many cops or busybodies  ?  Go to Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Iowa.  Like just the opposite ? Go to NYC, IL, CA, DET.  Luckily, all of those stupid bastards are going broke.  And that's how the "50 Flavors" marketplace works.......shazam.

For you to suggest otherwise just shows that you're pulling our legs, or that you're completely untethered to reality.

You may actually believe that no state or local laws is awesome.  The website for that is over yonder, right next to one that has the UN setting up secret FEMA camps as we type.  Or maybe it's the same website, lol.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 05:58:28 PM
I was talking about standards of behavior, decency, ethics, morals, fair play, etc.

Nobody, even true conservatives, are perfect in their dedication to these things.

The human nature of every person makes us all fail, often and significantly.  If you're religious.....we're all sinners to varying degrees.

We will always need some controlling mechanisms over our absolute rights.  State and local primarily, federal minimally.

Fortunately those "controlling mechanisms are set up as a part of our rights, and they don't need any subjective control of man.

While we have Freedom of speech, the that does not include the defamations of slander and libel.

While we have freedom of assembly, that does not include freedom to riot.

While we have freedom of religion, that does not involve our having to accept an all-encompassing social system of tyrannous dictate as a religion, particularly when it allows no freedom of faith.

While we have a right to keep and bear arms, we do not have the right to kill another in cold blood.

And while the states are viewed as having certain powers, and being a sovereign authority, those states do not have unfettered power, and most certain not any legitimate power to deny the rights of their own citizens, as the sovereign authority of those states actually comes from the cumulative sovereign authority of each citizen over themselves, but which does not extend over other citizens. 

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 05:58:28 PM
If you want minimal authority, in the perfect constitutional setup, there will be states with very little.  Move there.

Such a thing actually exists now, as imperfect as our situation is today.  Like wide open spaces, guns, shooting, 100 acres , not very many cops or busybodies  ?  Go to Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Iowa.  Like just the opposite ? Go to NYC, IL, CA, DET.  Luckily, all of those stupid bastards are going broke.  And that's how the "50 Flavors" marketplace works.......shazam

I've a better idea.  we should pack you into a boat, ply it with pitch, light that pitch to better brighten your journey, and then give you a swift kick in the backside to speed you on your way.  There are plenty of nations across the Atlantic and Pacific that do embrace your brand of totalitarian dictate.  May you find one before you draw your last breath. 

Until that time, your claims of being any sort of a conservative are beyond a joke, and actually insulting to free Americans and the Constitution.

• 
  If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
  the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom,
  go home from us in peace.
  We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.
  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
  May your chains set lightly upon you,
  and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
  ~Samuel Adams

.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 05:58:28 PM
For you to suggest otherwise just shows that you're pulling our legs, or that you're completely untethered to reality.

You may actually believe that no state or local laws is awesome.  The website for that is over yonder, right next to one that has the UN setting up secret FEMA camps as we type.  Or maybe it's the same website, lol.

If you actually believe I in any way advocated "no state or local laws", then your mother gave birth to an idiot.

If not, you seriously need to gather your intellect, or find some other country, and  certainly some other moniker emblazon your backside beyond "conservative".

Trip I think you overlook one important fact in this issue of states rights.

That being that here in America state Governments are the second closest thing to self rule. With local government being the actual self rule.

Yes the tenth ultimately preserves the right of the people. But state government was also seen as an extension of the will of the people too.

That is why the founders in my own opinion saw fit to preserve the rights of the states to do that which the federal government is prohibited in our Constitution.

Quote from: daidalos on August 10, 2013, 07:38:40 AM
Trip I think you overlook one important fact in this issue of states rights.

That being that here in America state Governments are the second closest thing to self rule. With local government being the actual self rule.

Yes the tenth ultimately preserves the right of the people. But state government was also seen as an extension of the will of the people too.

That is why the founders in my own opinion saw fit to preserve the rights of the states to do that which the federal government is prohibited in our Constitution.

First, I really appreciate you putting obvious thought into this response.

However, I think that you are presuming things that support your conclusion in the terms. 

For instance, what is "self rule" exactly?  It is rule of self, or rule of selves? Is it popular majority ruling as the majority sees fit, or an extrapolation of each person's legitimate authority over themselves, then collectivized.

Would the Founders recognize an authority for the people or government  to do to themselves and others, that they do not see as the authority of persons to do for themselves.

While we can government our own maximum speed in a vehicle (or carriage) which is us governing  ourselves,  can we also dictate that our neighbor has too much property (too much wheat), or dictate that he his speaking too much, or dictate that he his criminal about speaking out of against what we are doing with our government  dictate upon others?

This is a crucial philosophy at the root of this country. One of the things that brought people here is the Chruch of England, and the dictate by the Crown, the head of that church, of what the only legitimate church was.  We chose something different for this country - something differen than democratic tyranny of the majority.   We chose individual freedom.

This was seen when Jefferson wrote his now somewhat famous response to the Danbury Baptists, who expressed their fear about the majority religion of Connecticut being able to impost their will on the other religions of the state, since the State's constitution had no provision for Freedom of Religion.

In his response Jefferson, as President, wrote back and spoke in favor of frreedom of Religion, but then he did a curious thing, he basically referenced that 1st Amendment to the federal Constitution, but as somewhat of a rewrite in its application to the State. Instead of indicating "Congress shall enact no law", he wrote "legislatures":

• ..  that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Here Jefferson  is obviously referring, not just to the limited powers of the federal government, but to the powers of government in general, and he has changed "Congress" in the 1st Amendment, to "their legislature"(i.e. that of each State), and rather than referencing the federal government as "state"(lowercase), he is referencing each individual State (uppercase), in a consistency with the Constitution's capitalization itself.

By the U.S. Constitution, the federal government only has limited powers,  but the states also have limited powers, and are not boundless fiefdoms

This recognition is why we do not see any sort of expansion in the Federalist papers, that about state sovereignty (which they discuss) involving the state government's being able to create whatever fiefdoms of tyranny they might choose to create.

The rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are applied there to the federal government , and only expressed in application to that federal government because that is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution - to constitute that federal government.   However those referenced Rights are not simply applicable to the federal government alone, but from a larger "well" of rights, that are indeed applicable to "any (and every) form of government".

That is the founding principle of this country.  It is not a state sovereignty to do whatever it wants, but rather state sovereignty do what it wants without federal dictate of laws upon the people.  Those individual people of a state  have no more right to dictate the terms of religion upon their neighbors, than the States themselves do. Nor do those people of a State have the authority to confiscate other persons property in that state, or take over their self-ownership.

As I point out in this thread's OP, what I believe to be an important distinction, nowhere did the founders indicate in their recognition of rights, that it was "infinitely referable to have their rights taken by local government, rather than a federal government".    Such an idea just does not exist anywhere in the founder's lengthy public writings on the Constitution, nor in their private communications to one another!

The fact of the matter is that individual rights are recognized to be "unalienable", which has real application to the States, and oneself too.  The State governments have no such authority to deny those real rights to their citizens, than any citizen has the right to deny those rights to a neighbor, and take his property, or attack him for his religion, or dictate what food he might have, and what medicine he might receive.

While land my be taken from a person for public use under eminent domain, that public use must involve fair payment for that land, and is not done by mere statute, having removed all chances of due process.  Yet you would reduce and individual's ownership of self, the basis of each and evyer other right, to being subject to the dictate of the State, without any sort of due process, without any chance of remuneration of any kind, and with the only recourse being to flee to some other tyrannous state.

Were such an authority to exist, as you posit, then Rights themselves would have no meaning, and the founders would have only fought the Revolutionary war to create what is today Fifty Fiefdoms all the equivalent in tyranny to the tyranny of the British Crown, and that is not what they fought for.

As a result, the belief that such a state authority, "states rights",  to do whatever a State might want in that state, is a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment and nowhere implied by it.  Even that 10th Amendment itself concludes with "... or to the people" which indicates that State authority actually is contingent upon and limited by those individual rights, which do take precedent in this country, not an unbound authority of those Fifty Fiefdoms themselves.

Thus "self rule" is literally, rule of self, and does not incorporate for the State government in that "rule of self" an authority to dictate over others that each individual does not have on their own.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 12:43:29 PM
First, I really appreciate you putting obvious thought into this response.

However, I think that you are presuming things that support your conclusion in the terms. 

For instance, what is "self rule" exactly?  It is rule of self, or rule of selves? Is it popular majority ruling as the majority sees fit, or an extrapolation of each person's legitimate authority over themselves, then collectivized.

Would the Founders recognize an authority for the people or government  to do to themselves and others, that they do not see as the authority of persons to do for themselves.

While we can government our own maximum speed in a vehicle (or carriage) which is us governing  ourselves,  can we also dictate that our neighbor has too much property (too much wheat), or dictate that he his speaking too much, or dictate that he his criminal about speaking out of against what we are doing with our government  dictate upon others?

This is a crucial philosophy at the root of this country. One of the things that brought people here is the Chruch of England, and the dictate by the Crown, the head of that church, of what the only legitimate church was.  We chose something different for this country - something differen than democratic tyranny of the majority.   We chose individual freedom.

This was seen when Jefferson wrote his now somewhat famous response to the Danbury Baptists, who expressed their fear about the majority religion of Connecticut being able to impost their will on the other religions of the state, since the State's constitution had no provision for Freedom of Religion.

In his response Jefferson, as President, wrote back and spoke in favor of frreedom of Religion, but then he did a curious thing, he basically referenced that 1st Amendment to the federal Constitution, but as somewhat of a rewrite in its application to the State. Instead of indicating "Congress shall enact no law", he wrote "legislatures":

• ..  that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Here Jefferson  is obviously referring, not just to the limited powers of the federal government, but to the powers of government in general, and he has changed "Congress" in the 1st Amendment, to "their legislature"(i.e. that of each State), and rather than referencing the federal government as "state"(lowercase), he is referencing each individual State (uppercase), in a consistency with the Constitution's capitalization itself.

By the U.S. Constitution, the federal government only has limited powers,  but the states also have limited powers, and are not boundless fiefdoms

This recognition is why we do not see any sort of expansion in the Federalist papers, that about state sovereignty (which they discuss) involving the state government's being able to create whatever fiefdoms of tyranny they might choose to create.

The rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are applied there to the federal government , and only expressed in application to that federal government because that is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution - to constitute that federal government.   However those referenced Rights are not simply applicable to the federal government alone, but from a larger "well" of rights, that are indeed applicable to "any (and every) form of government".

That is the founding principle of this country.  It is not a state sovereignty to do whatever it wants, but rather state sovereignty do what it wants without federal dictate of laws upon the people.  Those individual people of a state  have no more right to dictate the terms of religion upon their neighbors, than the States themselves do. Nor do those people of a State have the authority to confiscate other persons property in that state, or take over their self-ownership.

As I point out in this thread's OP, what I believe to be an important distinction, nowhere did the founders indicate in their recognition of rights, that it was "infinitely referable to have their rights taken by local government, rather than a federal government".    Such an idea just does not exist anywhere in the founder's lengthy public writings on the Constitution, nor in their private communications to one another!

The fact of the matter is that individual rights are recognized to be "unalienable", which has real application to the States, and oneself too.  The State governments have no such authority to deny those real rights to their citizens, than any citizen has the right to deny those rights to a neighbor, and take his property, or attack him for his religion, or dictate what food he might have, and what medicine he might receive.

While land my be taken from a person for public use under eminent domain, that public use must involve fair payment for that land, and is not done by mere statute, having removed all chances of due process.  Yet you would reduce and individual's ownership of self, the basis of each and evyer other right, to being subject to the dictate of the State, without any sort of due process, without any chance of remuneration of any kind, and with the only recourse being to flee to some other tyrannous state.

Were such an authority to exist, as you posit, then Rights themselves would have no meaning, and the founders would have only fought the Revolutionary war to create what is today Fifty Fiefdoms all the equivalent in tyranny to the tyranny of the British Crown, and that is not what they fought for.

As a result, the belief that such a state authority, "states rights",  to do whatever a State might want in that state, is a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment and nowhere implied by it.  Even that 10th Amendment itself concludes with "... or to the people" which indicates that State authority actually is contingent upon and limited by those individual rights, which do take precedent in this country, not an unbound authority of those Fifty Fiefdoms themselves.

Thus "self rule" is literally, rule of self, and does not incorporate for the State government in that "rule of self" an authority to dictate over others that each individual does not have on their own.

I agree the States are not fiefdoms free to do what they wish willy nilly.

State Government has it's limitations too. But those limitations are not imposed upon the States by the U.S. Constitution but rather the citizens themselves, and their own independent State Constitutions.

Lastly, contrary to popular belief by many today, we DO NOT live in a democracy, we live in a Republic.

In a republic such as ours yes, it is rule of the majority.

This is why the person who gets one vote more than the other guys/gals, wins public office. Our entire system is predicated upon majority rule.

And there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever, so long as that will of the majority is carried out within the bounds of our established rules of law.

And that will of the majority stops, where the individual human rights as enumerated in our bill of rights, begin.

However that said, a Republic is not what one has, when a majority as our current majority in the Executive is doing for example, simply ignores and outright violates that rule of law.

To impose it's own will upon everyone, no matter how badly it trample's the human rights of not only the minority but the majority itself to do so.

Just wanted to share this here, as it ties in to the constitutional topics.

Mark Levin's Dangerous Constitutional Convention Proposal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoaIVaHqpnU#)

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 05, 2013, 09:18:20 AM

America, and the constitution, are built on a loose, almost impotent federation of unassailable state sovereignty and independence.  This was the only way to create a country that couldn't become despotic, if the constitution is actually followed.  As all other countries had fallen into before, hence the grand experiment to create something different.

The federation is only supposed to do, or coordinate, those things that 50 isolated independent states can't do for the entire land mass.  Virtually nothing, save a few important things involving continental security, defense, and interstate concerns.  And enforcing all aspects of the constitution on everyone.  Just about nothing else.  That's why you'll notice that about 98% of the damned federal govt. today is completely redundant with state agencies that do the same thing, and should be doing so without a federal clone to interfere.

Can I assume then - that you are appalled by the federal governments drug war?
(or will you use the good old "interstate commerce" argument that the Dems use for Obama care, Medicade, gun control.....ect)

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 05:58:28 PM
You may actually believe that no state or local laws is awesome.  The website for that is over yonder, right next to one that has the UN setting up secret FEMA camps as we type.  Or maybe it's the same website, lol.

Yes, people should only discus political philosophy with other people that they agree with. That's how the free exchange of ideas works best; and it's so interesting to talk politics where everyone agrees on everything  :thumbdown: