|
phosphene
|
 |
« on: July 09, 2010, 02:08:40 PM » |
|
While interviewing Paul Babeu today, AJ was calling for "Abrams tanks on the border!". Which is it you guys? "Tanks on the border" or "no standing armies". "police state" or "habeus corpus"? make up your minds.
All i heard in that interview was Sheriff Paul Babeu begging and pleading the feds to come in and take over. The Sheriff also managed to squeeze in a request for automatic weapons, and more cops.
News flash, if you borders are unsecured, your dept has failed....not the feds. you're all fired. You were too busy extorting and terrorizing the people to notice your unsecured borders. no more guns for you. you're all fired. And Goldman Sachs is keeping your pension.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua
|
|
|
iloveyouthankyouthankyou
Member
 Offline
Posts: 5
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2010, 11:38:28 PM » |
|
Yes there has to be some security on the border. But the way to secure the borders is Arizona Law enforced countrywide, buisness license taken away for employing illeagals, deportation, and criminal prosecution for government drug runners, and then leagalizing the drugs. Not an all out boarder war. that is what they want.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2010, 11:42:24 PM » |
|
While interviewing Paul Babeu today, AJ was calling for "Abrams tanks on the border!". Which is it you guys? "Tanks on the border" or "no standing armies". "police state" or "habeus corpus"? make up your minds.
All i heard in that interview was Sheriff Paul Babeu begging and pleading the feds to come in and take over. The Sheriff also managed to squeeze in a request for automatic weapons, and more cops.
News flash, if you borders are unsecured, your dept has failed....not the feds. you're all fired. You were too busy extorting and terrorizing the people to notice your unsecured borders. no more guns for you. you're all fired. And Goldman Sachs is keeping your pension.
Let me explain something to you phosphene. The US border protection is NOT the jurisdiction of a county sheriff, or the county, or even the state of Arizona to protect and defend... it is the constitutional mandate of the federal power, as spelled out in Article IV section 4 of the Constitution... The sheriff is begging for federal help as is the state because the federal government is not living up to this constitutional mandate... He and Arizona, with HB1070 are exercising the laws of necessity to protect that states people while Washington's elite fiddle on the White House steps. That sheriff is righteously asking for help from the federal government that he should not have to ask for... It should already be done. This would be a Constitutional use of the American military, rather than guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan and murdering Iraqis. JTCoyoté "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless
one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not
the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation,
of saving our country when in danger, are of higher
obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence
to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life,
liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them
with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
~Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2010, 11:48:55 PM » |
|
Yes there has to be some security on the border. But the way to secure the borders is Arizona Law enforced countrywide, buisness license taken away for employing illeagals, deportation, and criminal prosecution for government drug runners, and then leagalizing the drugs. Not an all out boarder war. that is what they want. No, but it may come to that. The AZ law would not be necessary if the Federal Government were to do it's Constitutional duty and stop the invasion by putting troops and arms on the border. It has now become an armed invasion with state parks and border areas being taken by Mexico and off limits to Americans... Reality Check, boys! JTCoyoté "The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion,
otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword,
if the fort is taken -- I have answered the demand
with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly
from the walls - I shall never surrender or retreat.
~William Barret Travis, Lt. Col. Comdt.,
Alamo-Bejar, Feby. 24th, 1836 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phosphene
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2010, 11:58:27 PM » |
|
i dont see how tanks on the borders is a good idea. but i do see how tanks on the borders is hypocritical to the "Habeas corpus corpus" arguments....and every single "police state" documentary produced by AJ. Babeu is also contradictory to Sheriff Richard Mac, who was on just a couple days before, and was being praised for keeping the feds out of his state. which is it? tanks on the borders or habeas corpus? supremacy clause or 10th amendment? im getting mixed messages over here. Sheriff Paul Babeu : Obama Has Undermined The Rule of Law!! - Alex Jones Tv 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr_XyGsdomMSheriff Richard Mack: Fed's Can't Tell States What to do! - Alex Jones Tv 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8LjSb-4zFc |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2010, 12:12:49 AM » |
|
i dont see how tanks on the borders is a good idea. but i do see how tanks on the borders is hypocritical to the "Habeas corpus corpus" arguments....and every single "police state" documentary produced by AJ. Babeu is also contradictory to Sheriff Richard Mac, who was on just a couple days before, and was being praised for keeping the feds out of his state. which is it? tanks on the borders or habeas corpus? supremacy clause or 10th amendment? im getting mixed messages over here. Sheriff Paul Babeu : Obama Has Undermined The Rule of Law!! - Alex Jones Tv 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr_XyGsdomMSheriff Richard Mack: Fed's Can't Tell States What to do! - Alex Jones Tv 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8LjSb-4zFc"All lies in jest, 'TILL a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" Mexicans aren't the problem THE PRIVATE FED CASINO's fixed monetary "blackjack sucker-games" are. It's just that they, unlike duped, stupid us, are already awake and in open rebellion. The border is a blind man's bluff, but we just still don't realize we can no longer play poker with each other. We must play-out their blackjack game against ourselves before we'll join them. They have figured out that all the games are fixed, while we still haven't... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lamourlady
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2010, 12:24:56 AM » |
|
The AZ law would not be necessary if the Federal Government were to do it's Constitutional duty and stop the invasion by putting troops and arms on the border.
JTCoyoté
"The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion,
otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword,
if the fort is taken -- I have answered the demand
with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly
from the walls - I shall never surrender or retreat.
~William Barret Travis, Lt. Col. Comdt.,
Alamo-Bejar, Feby. 24th, 1836
Seriously have to agree with Coyote on this one. There is the 10th amendment right...when called for and it is called for when the republic you stand with is not doing it's job but is out on vacation and suing you instead for their own agenda. The "People" have become a lost component in this governments job description. This is outright treason. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2010, 12:35:39 AM » |
|
i dont see how tanks on the borders is a good idea. but i do see how tanks on the borders is hypocritical to the "Habeas corpus corpus" arguments....and every single "police state" documentary produced by AJ. Babeu is also contradictory to Sheriff Richard Mac, who was on just a couple days before, and was being praised for keeping the feds out of his state. which is it? tanks on the borders or habeas corpus? supremacy clause or 10th amendment? im getting mixed messages over here. Sheriff Paul Babeu : Obama Has Undermined The Rule of Law!! - Alex Jones Tv 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr_XyGsdomMSheriff Richard Mack: Fed's Can't Tell States What to do! - Alex Jones Tv 1/4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8LjSb-4zFcThe southern border with Mexico is the southern US border which is under the Jurisdiction of the federal government NOT the state of Arizona. It is the US Border Patrol, not the Arizona Border Patrol. Having tanks and troops on the border if deemed necessary, does not equate to the loss of Habeas Corpus... it equates to protecting the borders of the US against an on going invasion. And is one of the enumerated duties of the federal power. This is not telling the state what to do in this case, since the states have already made national border protection the duty of the federal government in the Constitution. It is one of the feds necessary powers... What the federal government was doing in Sheriff Mack's case was over-reaching it's enumerated powers by trying to tell County sheriffs what to do, how to do it, and then, pay for it out of the county fund... clearly overstepping federal power! Mack was right to take the feds to the supreme court, and he won! I'm listening to the Babeu interview now... since he is right on this border issue as well! Your mixed signals is a result of a misunderstanding of federal power that supports the states which is what proper border policy is designed to do. Yet telling sheriffs what to do in their county is a violation of the Constitution and outside of federal jurisdiction. In both cases here, the feds are guilty of Constitutional violations. Oldyoti "If ever time should come, when vain and
aspiring men shall possess the highest seats
in Government, our country will stand in need
of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
~Samuel Adams |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phosphene
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2010, 01:02:08 AM » |
|
The southern border with Mexico is the southern US border which is under the Jurisdiction of the federal government NOT the state of Arizona. It is the US Border Patrol, not the Arizona Border Patrol.
Having tanks and troops on the border if deemed necessary, does not equate to the loss of Habeas Corpus... it equates to protecting the borders of the US against an on going invasion. And is one of the enumerated duties of the federal power. This is not telling the state what to do in this case, since the states have already made national border protection the duty of the federal government in the Constitution. It is one of the feds necessary powers...
What the federal government was doing in Sheriff Mack's case was over-reaching it's enumerated powers by trying to tell County sheriffs what to do, how to do it, and then, pay for it out of the county fund... clearly overstepping federal power! Mack was right to take the feds to the supreme court, and he won!
I'm listening to the Babeu interview now... since he is right on this border issue as well!
Your mixed signals is a result of a misunderstanding of federal power that supports the states which is what proper border policy is designed to do. Yet telling sheriffs what to do in their county is a violation of the Constitution and outside of federal jurisdiction. In both cases here, the feds are guilty of Constitutional violations.
Sure, that all makes sense if you believe that tanks are needed to stop immigration. lol. So, military is Ok...if its only on the border? How far in from "the border" is acceptable to you? 5 miles? 100 miles? The illegal immigrants have hijacked 18 miles of AZ...so the military should occupy 18 miles in from the border? Theyll have to add a few more miles of occupation for camps, and supplies and stuff too. Is that OK with you? tanks occupying the border, 20 to 100 miles back? that sound like freedom and liberty to you guys? besides, how can any body politic be guilty of constitutional violations in a constitution free zone? they cant.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2010, 01:19:25 AM » |
|
Hyperbole are us, eh phos...?
The map you show would be a federal violation of state jurisdiction and the majority of border and coastal states have already rejected that unconstitutional federal land grab.
The feds are to guard the border and the 5 mile federal easement inside the border.
The state police forces and the people will take care of the rest... If they are illegal they will be found out, and they will no longer be given privileged status at traffic stops. Only then will there be no place for them to hide...
If the border is protected they cannot enter. If they try to cross armed, they will be killed. Otherwise they will be detained and sent back. This will continue until they decide to enter legally by taking advantage of our liberal immigration laws. This would be a constitutional use of our troops for a change.
Oldyoti
"To argue with a person who has
renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead."
~Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2010, 02:03:39 AM » |
|
In the interview, Sheriff Babeu AGREED with Sheriff Mack, by the way.
Like I said before in another post...
"If the Feds since Gerald Ford, had been living up to their Article IV Section 4 Constitutional Mandate regarding the border, from the time they abandoned that mandate by ending the Bracero Program in 1975, we would not be having this conversation OR THIS PROBLEM. The problem will be solved when the Feds do there job, and a Bracero like program is reintroduced."
We must stop "...excusing the fact that these illegals are taking entry level jobs and higher level jobs as well, away from the American people at the profit, almost slave labor profit, of the corporations. If over the last 25 years the “FLIGHT” response to America by thirty million illegals had been a “FIGHT” response turned inward toward the corrupt power centers of Mexico… we would have a patriotic liberty loving ally in Mexico today."
Coyoté
"We the people are the rightful masters of
both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow
the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." ~Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2010, 09:26:57 AM » |
|
It's down right deceit and lies that are at issue here. There is an agenda playing out and part of it involves refusing to secure our borders except for against Americans at airports (bodyscanners, patdowns, harassment). Talk about priorities. The last 2 admins haven't a clue what the word "priority" means much less what the word "integrity" means. They only know how to follow the instructions of their unelected globalists who are destroying this country. Then we hear this: (If this is true, it is unacceptable) http://www.infowars.com/obama-told-sen-kyl-he-will-not-secure-border-until-immigration-reform-law-is-passed/This is childish gameplaying. We do not see leadership coming out of this administration or the Bush administration. These people are working for the unelected globalists and not for the American people. If they wanted to secure the REAL BORDERS (not TSA in the airports of America harassing citizens) they could. They choose not to do so because it aids their agenda. I say it is time to kick 99% of incumbents out of office, and then expose every single person who works for Obama who does the bidding of the globalists, and stay on them until they either leave office or are so discredited no one believes them anymore. Do not let them get by with what they are doing to America PERIOD! We out number them, and it's high time we started acting like it. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like JT's quote (below) and it's time we did it. Our so called leaders are despicable. We must stay on them until they either leave office or get a clue about who is really in charge. That is our duty: "We the people are the rightful masters of
both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow
the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." ~Abraham Lincoln |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2010, 09:34:31 AM » |
|
JT is absolutely on the money concerning the Feds' duty to protect the border. +100%
He is also right IMO in calling the killing of citizens in the "War On Terra" MURDER.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
molarediere
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2010, 09:39:16 AM » |
|
We are getting rolled up on the southern border from Florida to California. We are in retreat.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2010, 10:19:44 AM » |
|
We are getting rolled up on the southern border from Florida to California. We are in retreat.
Yes! And the average American does not realize that this war on America will not be characterized as a war, nor will it be televised in America... not even on FAUX News. JTCoyoté "Property: Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership;
the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; Property is
the highest right a man can have to anything."
~Black's Law Dictionary Second Edition, 1891 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TonkaTim
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2010, 11:32:09 AM » |
|
Let me explain something to you phosphene. The US border protection is NOT the jurisdiction of a county sheriff, or the county, or even the state of Arizona to protect and defend... it is the constitutional mandate of the federal power, as spelled out in Article IV section 4 of the Constitution...
JT I'll have to disagree with your interpretation of Art. IV Sec.4. Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. It only grants a positive right & obligation of the Federal for protection of the States from Invasion. Nowhere does it establish a negative right to preclude the States from self-protection. For one to claim it does is is a usurpation of power that nullifies the II, IX, & X Amendments and undermines the basic strength of the People of the US to preserve Freedom & Liberty. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phosphene
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2010, 12:37:41 PM » |
|
The feds are to guard the border and the 5 mile federal easement inside the border.
what constitution, law, code, statute, etc. grants the feds a 5 mile easement? Who's gonna make sure they stay in their pen?....the sheriff? So the sheriff has to switch from guarding the border against illegal immigration....to guarding 5 miles in from military tanks. That sounds like a good idea to you? Mexicans aren't the problem THE PRIVATE FED CASINO's fixed monetary "blackjack sucker-games" are.
indeed. If the money system worked for the populace, instead of against them, nobody would be fighting over shitty $7/hr jobs in the first place. Shit, if the money system worked, $7/hr might actually be worth something, maybe we could pay the bills with it. TPTB allow anchor babies in the US because Congress floats loans from the Federal Reserve based on the amount of birth certificates. Congress Mocking the Obama Birth Certificate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV9-bgSrV_sIt is financially in the best interest of the government to allow anchor babies...that aint gonna stop until the monetary system gets reformed. Problem - reaction - solution - and yall are begging for tanks on the border. /facepalm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua
|
|
|
|
lamourlady
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2010, 12:43:26 PM » |
|
Phospene, I understand where you are coming from. We all know that the government will take advantage of any critical situation that arises and if given the power and "area" that you are speaking about...then they are not only in a position to "protect the border" and people, but they are also in a position of using those same powers for whatever else may come to mind. Sort of like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? The trust factor here is a very thin line given what we already know about those in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2010, 07:47:37 PM » |
|
JT I'll have to disagree with your interpretation of Art. IV Sec.4.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
It only grants a positive right & obligation of the Federal for protection of the States from Invasion. Nowhere does it establish a negative right to preclude the States from self-protection. For one to claim it does is is a usurpation of power that nullifies the II, IX, & X Amendments and undermines the basic strength of the People of the US to preserve Freedom & Liberty.
First, the easement parameters of jurisdiction would be arbitrarily set by agreement with the state and would differ in each case... this sets temporary jurisdiction and gives an area where soldiers can maneuver, set up equipment and quarters etc... this is an area people would be told to leave, and to avoid. 5 miles would be the widest needed for this type of forward interdiction I would think. Yes, state jurisdiction holds sway of course... and I was not intimating that the border states have no power with regard to their international borders. With these states there is implied a unique and shared responsibility, the feds must therefore act on behalf of the state, since the State's Guard forces are deployed in fighting unconstitutional wars abroad. Foreign troops need not apply however, the states would never agree to that. There are many reasons to bring the troops home, this is one of them. Arizona is experiencing much domestic unrest as a result of this "none dare call it INVASION," BTW. In this particular case, the globalist, banker owned, usurping, foreign power we call the federal government seems to think that there is no invasion. Arizona, and other border states assure the feds with legislation and pleas for assistance, that there is an invasion, and point to the domestic unrest as evidence. The feds stonewall and two Arizona county sheriffs go on Alex Jones within a week and scream "FOUL" to high heaven! In this pissing contest as more and more states begin siding with Arizona the feds will have to false flag an obfuscation, or concede to the states demands with arms and troops to enforce US law. This could be the event that sets the stage for the 21st century globally provocateured civil war between the East and the West... Arizona and the states have every right to do what they must to stop this, with or without the help of the Washington traitors. 50 states United we will stand, divided we become a footnote in feudal history. JTCoyoté "An Unconstitutional Act is not a law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;
it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative
as though it had never been passed."
~U.S. Supreme Court,
Norton V. Shelby County
118 U.S. 425, 442 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phosphene
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2010, 08:32:25 PM » |
|
First, the easement parameters of jurisdiction would be arbitrarily set by agreement with the state and would differ in each case...
By what authority? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2010, 08:45:52 PM » |
|
First, the easement parameters of jurisdiction would be arbitrarily set by agreement with the state and would differ in each case...
By what authority?
The state and ultimately it's people ARE THE AUTHORITY (9th and 10th Amendment)... The federal government is the agent of the STATES... and the states are the agent of We The People! 14th amendment of federal enslavement, be DAMNED! JTCoyoté "To suppose that any form of government will secure
liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people,
is a chimerical idea."
~James Madison |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phosphene
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2010, 09:43:55 PM » |
|
The state and ultimately it's people ARE THE AUTHORITY (9th and 10th Amendment)... The federal government is the agent of the STATES... and the states are the agent of We The People! 14th amendment of federal enslavement, be DAMNED!
Sure, that's your opinion. The feds might disagree with you on that though. They love that supremacy clause thingy. I know what JTcoyote's stance is on state sovereignty. Its the AJ show thats sending mixed messages. "Invasion" is a lil over the top imo. I dont believe that setting up tanks on the border is a practical solution to failure on the state level. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2010, 01:40:07 AM » |
|
Sure, that's your opinion. The feds might disagree with you on that though. They love that supremacy clause thingy. I know what JTcoyote's stance is on state sovereignty. Its the AJ show thats sending mixed messages.
"Invasion" is a lil over the top imo. I dont believe that setting up tanks on the border is a practical solution to failure on the state level.
Well, actually it's not my opinion. The idea that all power is derived from the people is the essential truth revealed in the Declaration of Independence and the consensus reached by the founders during the framing of the Constitution. It is expressed quite eloquently by the preamble, which in my words, states that it is We the People, who comprise these united States, who for these reasons and to serve us in this purpose, do now create and institute this central common government. Here is the actual preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This document was 'tentatively' ratified in September of 1787 with a proviso that was initiated by several of the states. That proviso was that they would give their final blessing to the Constitution once it contained an enumerated Bill of Rights to prevent the growth of overarching federal power. Over the next four years debate spread like wildfire through out the states. Newspapers in large cities and small towns carried the debate. It wasn't just the big names that were speaking, many of the folks we know today we know only by their participation in these debates and were unknown prior to this time. These newspaper editorial debates were the Internet of the day. The result of which is eloquently introduced by the preamble to the Bill of Rights, and further reinforces that the people are the source of all political power. "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at
the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that
further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And
as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." The Constitution was fully ratified December 15, 1791 the true Constitution Day. That was when all 13 states gave full endorsement without proviso to the new constitution. As I have pointed out, only living breathing souls, people, can have rights, not governments. The Bill of Rights therefore is an enumeration of human liberties, that preexist government, an enumeration of the rights of necessity--Inalienable as life itself. The practice of extending the enumeration of amendments toward limited central power continued up to the original 14th Amendment which we now know as Lincoln's 13th Amendment. However after the Civil War, this trend reversed and the covert commandeering of the constitution and subjugation of the people began with the 14th thru the 27th amendments, all act to enhance the bloated central power, at the expense of liberty. Both Jefferson and Madison warned that any interpretation of the Constitution should be done with respect to the context of the time, and they left plenty in the way of context in the surrounding documents and letters. With these as the guide, the Constitution could not be interpreted so broadly as to negate itself. Well... That is not the case today I'm afraid. This is where the use of two clauses in the Constitution need to be looked at very closely. One of them is the 'Supremacy Clause' which you mentioned -- at Article VI, Section 2. The other clause that the Feds use willy-nilly, is the 'Necessary and Proper Clause,' the so-called elastic clause, at Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. These two when broadly interpreted would make it possible and in some eyes constitutional, to pass a law for the sacrificing of virgins at the Washington Monument every morning at sunrise before session begins, and given the mind set today, few would challenge it. The founding fathers left behind much written debate on these two constitutional clauses that should be read and understood by anyone holding political office. Unfortunately today no one reads the wisdom of the founders, and have just assumed and sermonized that these two clauses were placed in the Constitution to make it a "living breathing document"--when in truth, that was not their intent of all. The major problem we have today in this country is very few people under the age of 50 have any idea what the Constitution actually is, let alone what it means. It was written at an eighth grade level, as was most of the commentary surrounding it which includes The Federalist / Anti Federalist Papers. Well that is enough ranting for now ... but contrary to your statement above, the Alex Jones show is sending no mixed signals regarding the 10th Amendment that I have heard, and I listen to every show. I think you just got flustered with the idea of Abrams tanks on the border. That will not happen though, but 6000 or so troops with all of their combat support gear designed to stop the flow may well happen -- under the major control of the state of Arizona however. You have to understand that since 1975 the federal government has been passing broad sweeping laws, under the guise of agreements (treaties), that have tied the hands of the states, particularly the border states in dealing with illegal trespassers. Now it's time for the federal government to help fix the problem, in a constitutional way. It is also time for folks to "get into" the Founding Fathers, who wrote almost everything at the eighth grade level for reason ... You see, the Constitution was written not for the government to control the people, but so the people could control the government! Coyoté "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to
protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and
when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and
oppression." ~ Alabama, Declaration of Rights Article"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government
to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to
restrain the government -- lest it, [the government] come
to dominate our lives and interests."
~Patrick Henry"The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread
over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the
feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will
consume these engines and all who work them."
~Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821 "Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
~James Madison"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." ~James Madison
The Federalist Papers, No.45''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], [let us] carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.'' ~Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phosphene
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2010, 08:55:33 AM » |
|
Well, actually it's not my opinion.
actually, it is your opinion. The agents representing state and federal governments cant even agree on who is the higher authority. Its kinda like a big problem. ie: does the san diego police dept enforce state or federal marijuana laws? My opinion is that 10th amendment > supremacy clause. And its safe to say thats how jtcoyote feels. But im not interested in my or jtcoyotes opinion regarding the 10th amendment. Im interested in the AJ camp's opinion. And the question only comes up because Babeu came on AJs show with rhetoric contrary to AJ's entire "police state" library. Not only does Babeu represent everything the "police state" films warn us about, he was on only 2 days after another sheriff with the exact opposite rhetoric. what gives? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2010, 09:17:51 AM » |
|
actually, it is your opinion. The agents representing state and federal governments cant even agree on who is the higher authority. Its kinda like a big problem. ie: does the san diego police dept enforce state or federal marijuana laws?
My opinion is that 10th amendment > supremacy clause. And its safe to say thats how jtcoyote feels. But im not interested in my or jtcoyotes opinion regarding the 10th amendment. Im interested in the AJ camp's opinion. And the question only comes up because Babeu came on AJs show with rhetoric contrary to AJ's entire "police state" library. Not only does Babeu represent everything the "police state" films warn us about, he was on only 2 days after another sheriff with the exact opposite rhetoric. what gives?
It is a fact, and you have totally missed the point. The Law is clear, there is no ambiguity in it. Where the problem comes is in a lack of popular understanding of it. This is a result of the across the board unconstitutional 14th thru 27th amendment usurpations and obfuscations of the law that have over time created ambiguity. Like I suggested in my previous post, under certain circumstances when nothing else will do, the supremacy clause in the hands of the people's representatives in Congress, may be called on to assist the people, but by our own request. It is the peoples clause not the president's clause in the first place. Just like the Constitution belongs to the people as well. The 14th - 27th amendments I mentioned before are all articles of occupation and once you and the rest of the folks in this country realize and begin acting on this fact, the quicker we will take back this country. These two sheriffs were not speaking opposite rhetoric. They were discussing two different aspects of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment by one case, and Article IV section 4, the invasion clause, in the other. In the two cases, the federal government's responsibility is opposite in scope, that is to say in the first instance the federal government has no jurisdiction, and in the second instance the federal government does have jurisdiction. You are blaming the sheriff's for the wrong doing of the federal government in acting when it shouldn't in the first case, and not acting when it should in the second. The fact is that these sheriffs are well versed in the Constitution and shows in their ability to place the source of the problem exactly where it is, in Washington. The federal government has no power to tell a state official that he must implement and pay for an unconstitutional law. Sheriff Mack took this to the Supreme Court and won. Sheriff Babeu on the other hand is using his power as County Sheriff to get the federal government to act on its duty and responsibility to assist local governments in a time of invasion. The blocking of this by the federal for government is a display of police state tactics. All in order to manufacture a larger crisis by foot-dragging, and then enter as the overarching power that comes in to save the state by assuming all power within the state. The sheriff is stopping this possibility by making his constitutional request. The Feds do not like this because they desire to be the overarching power within the state, and can't because the sheriff by his words has assumed his lawful position and rightly so. So in true police state fashion, the federal Government is stonewalling. This is an act of treason. Both sheriffs are acting constitutionally, the federal government is acting as the unconstitutional police state by not honoring the constitutionality of both sheriff's arguments in the first place. It took sheriff Mack four years to get the Feds to obey the law. We don't have that much time with Arizona... that is a fact. Just like the clarity of the organic law is a fact. Without the voices of the knowledgeable American people acting on this fact, the Constitution may as well become just the GD piece of paper "Lil George" referred to. JTCoyoté [On the nature of democracy]
..."Hence it is that such democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever
been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short
in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
~James Madison -- Federalist Paper #10 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JT Coyoté
Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 3,039
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
|
|
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2012, 09:03:04 PM » |
|
bumped for SPP and border reference...
Oldyoti
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
