Senate sets states' rights 'crimes' (Federal agents would be guilty of Class 6 felony)

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LCMS_No_More said:
I understand that. It’s why I work for a STATE and not the FEDS.

But let me ask you this. Are we one nation or 50? Do you believe that we should be the United States or something else? How many ways do you want to divide us?
Click to expand...
If you feel that strongly about it, make the case to jsut dissolve the states and just make us into ONE UNITED nation, rather than 50 sovereign states united under a banner of mutual aid and protection?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Nature’s Law gives people the right to abolish and reestablish government when government becomes abusive of its power. The southern states believed that the federal government was becoming abusive of its Constitutionally limited authority, and so severed ties with it. Nothing immoral about that.
Click to expand...
I have several African American friends who may want to have a word with you about the immorality of the southern states’ governments in 1860.

Also, in an independent Arizona, what rights – if any – do Mexican Americans have that the government of Arizona is bound to respect? Most Mexican Americans are catholic if that makes any difference.

Maybe the example of southern confederacy 1860-1865 is not the shining moral beacon of -]white people’s/-] states rights that you seem to think.
 
pnewton said:
Well, if as you put it, you are a Catholic first, then shouldn’t the Catholic teaching on subsidiarity supercede federalism?
Click to expand...
Well, there is this little thing about an oath I took to preserve, protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States AND California.

I don’t see federalism being opposed to subsidiarity.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
If you feel that strongly about it, make the case to jsut dissolve the states and just make us into ONE UNITED nation, rather than 50 sovereign states united under a banner of mutual aid and protection?
Click to expand...
So, do you want to dissolve the United States and make it 50 countries? You’re entitled to that opinion. I won’t come down on you for it. It will help me understand your ideas better.

I cannot support that as I am sworn, under oath, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States and of California.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
So, do you want to dissolve the United States and make it 50 countries? You’re entitled to that opinion. I won’t come down on you for it. It will help me understand your ideas better.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, that is exactly what occurred in the Treaty of Paris:
Article 1:His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, **to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.**It sure seems that Britain considered each state a separate country. The idea of nationalism wasn’t accepted at the founding of the country and only became such as the federal government usurped more and more of the duties properly delegated to the states (hmm, sounds a lot like a violation of subsidiarity to me).
 
LCMS_No_More said:
So, do you want to dissolve the United States and make it 50 countries? You’re entitled to that opinion. I won’t come down on you for it. It will help me understand your ideas better.

I cannot support that as I am sworn, under oath, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States and of California.
Click to expand...
If you read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other documented opinions written at the time of the forging of the Constitution, you will understand that our founding fathers intended it that way. That is why is it spelled united States (note the uncapitalized U in united). The founders, specifically Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very particular about spelling and grammar and the uncapitalized union was done very intentionally, i.e., they didn’t make a boo-boo.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Why don’t we give them back New Mexico and California while we’re at it. And while we are feeling so charitable, let’s give The Dakota’s back to the Sioux, the middle plains back to the Comanchee, and the East Coast back to the Chipewa, Cherokee, Powhatan (et al.) We can give New England back to the Algonquans and Iroquois, and Hurons, and Florida back to the Seminoles. That leave Texas and some of the South East left. Ooops, Texas needs to go back to the Apache and Navajo. The we can all sail back to Europe and Africa.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me! 😉
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
If you read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other documented opinions written at the time of the forging of the Constitution, you will understand that our founding fathers intended it that way. That is why is it spelled united States (note the uncapitalized U in united). The founders, specifically Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very particular about spelling and grammar and the uncapitalized union was done very intentionally, i.e., they didn’t make a boo-boo.
Click to expand...
What legally counts is the Constitution itself and subsequent decisions made by the nation created thereby. The Federalist Papers, et al, were a sort of popular communication to get people on one side of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist argument or the other. To be honest, I don’t buy into fundamentalism when it comes to my faith and I don’t buy into it when it comes to law in the secular sphere.

There are over 200 years of history as well as social, economic and technological development between then and now.
 
SamH said:
Does anyone else know there is insurrection in Arizona?
Click to expand...
Yes, Governor Brewer refuses to lick the feet of el Presidente, therefore, Arizona is in a state of full rebellion. Send in the Marines.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The citizens of Arizona created the State of Arizona. The federal government allowed them into the union. That is the way the process works. Just like Puerto Rico. The federal government cannot just unilaterally MAKE PR a state. The people of PR need to vote to see if they even want to be a state, which thusfar has not happened.

My guess, just based on past postings, is that you prefer the tyranny of the majority and would have worn blue.
Click to expand...
The Confederates were hardly noble rebels, they attempted to leave the Union and start their own nation because they were afraid that President Lincoln would take their slaves away.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
There is a name for that world, its called Fantasyland and I believe its featured in one of the Disney theme parks.
Click to expand...
😃

Let’s see…

Fantasyland census:
Disneyland, Check.
Walt Disney World Magic Kingdom, Check.
Disneyland Paris, Check.
Tokyo Disneyland, Check.
Hong Kong Disneyland, Check.

Wrong again, it’s in all FIVE Magic Kingdom style Disney parks. 😉

Sorry, as a 10 year Disneyland annual passholder (the only extravagant purchase I make each year), I couldn’t resist.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
The Confederates were hardly noble rebels, they attempted to leave the Union and start their own nation because they were afraid that President Lincoln would take their slaves away.
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what the initial cause of the Uncivil War was, do you? YOu just swallow up the pro-Union, cult of Lincoln propaganda like it was candy.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
😃

Let’s see…

Fantasyland census:
Disneyland, Check.
Walt Disney World Magic Kingdom, Check.
Disneyland Paris, Check.
Tokyo Disneyland, Check.
Hong Kong Disneyland, Check.

Wrong again, it’s in all FIVE Magic Kingdom style Disney parks. 😉

Sorry, as a 10 year Disneyland annual passholder (the only extravagant purchase I make each year), I couldn’t resist.
Click to expand...
Well there you go then, now you have your choice of Fantasyland in different cultures! Which, by the way, can we get off this topic. I just got back from the “Happiest Place on Earth” and spent the last 5 days walking 42 miles just to hear my kids complain that they didn’t get all the souveniers they wanted. 🤷
 
a_priori said:
“PHOENIX – Setting the stage for a fight, the Arizona Senate voted Thursday to make felons of officials who try to enforce federal laws on what lawmakers here consider to be matters of strictly local concern. SB1178 spells out that all service performed in the state, and all goods grown or made here for consumption within Arizona “are not subject to the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the several states.” State Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said that includes everything from wheat and lettuce to toilets, light bulbs and guns if manufactured, sold and used entirely within Arizona. But the measure, approved on a 21-8 vote, is more than a statement of protest. It says that any federal agent or employee who attempts to enforce any federal act, rule or regulation over these activities is guilty of a Class 6 felony. While the measure does not seek jail time, it allows fines of up to $2,000. And any state official that tries to enforce a federal law could face a $500 fine.”

azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/article_f93ab8d8-dc5b-56ff-b3ea-d2d98274fdd6.html

The Federal government has become the new “Massachusetts Bay Colony/Puritans” and the states need to turn into the new “Roger Williams/Anne Hutchinson.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson
Click to expand...
so when does the federal government have the right to pass and enforce laws even if it violates a state constitution?Remember Kennedy called in the army to enforce the governments right to allow black students to attend colleges in Alabama which was in violation of Alabama’s right.
 
SamH said:
Actually that war was over the ability of a minority of the states to disolve the union - an item not addressed in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
yes but the only reason they wanted to dissolve the union was that the federal government was enforcing laws that the confederacy disagree with.(abolishment of slavery for one)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top