|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 2:24:25 GMT -5
opf gave the challenge of giving examples of non-violent efforts to preserve/restore our Constitutional Republic, which are successful. Here are some, there are many similar. If one is seeking a "solution" to be enacted over night, that is not likely possible under any circumstances. What I hope to offer are successes in the effort to remove power from the federal government, which it has usurped, and restore it to the rightful, Constitutional owners, the People. (they will not be in any specific order, so please don't assume that the order is an indication of significance or success.) Many of these topics/examples can get complicated. I will attempt to include links to sources so that those who are genuinely interested can follow up for themselves. 1) Sheriffs First: The goes to the heart of the elected Sheriff being the closest to the people, and under a limited Constitutional government, the one who should have the most direct contact with the people, and the most accountability to the people. Most notable of the individuals involved in this effort is Sheriff Richard Mack. He has launched the County Sheriff's Project www.countysheriffproject.org/ On this site are many examples of this concept being applied, with success. Here is a link to a news story of this process being successful: americanvisionnews.com/571/local-sheriff-defends-farmer-from-fda-intrusion Here is a link to the Tenth Amendment Center, their "Legislative Tracking" section, where you can see that several states have introduced legislation to codify this concept within their state's borders: tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/sheriffs-first-legislation/ It has been introduced in six states thus far. However, do note that there are already successes in this arena, even without state laws, as this approach does not truly need any additional state laws to be both Constitutional and effective. (It is late, and I will add more later, this was just to get this thread started. My intention is not to engage in a lot of argument over these, but rather to give the examples, links and information, for folks here to see.)
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 4, 2012 3:51:20 GMT -5
My intention is not to engage in a lot of argument over these, but rather to give the examples, links and information, for folks here to see.) Good post, followed Mack for many years Speaking of that, with election time coming up, time to grab a couple more of his books for the local sheriffs. Knowledge gives one power... the power to destroy or the power to give "life".
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 4, 2012 8:27:59 GMT -5
avordvet Perhaps as a part of that packet you could include a copy of the Declaration of Independence, the state law that has his Oaths of Office, and a copy of a letter where you can add a name to accept his oath. Let him understand early what it should mean to become a Sheriff.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 9:20:04 GMT -5
I think it is critical to point out that even the best Sheriff is worthless if the People of his county are not of the right mind and heart. A Sheriff gets his/her power and authority, and protection, from the people of their county. So this power ultimately rests with the People, and upon the shoulders of the People. On to another example (again, these are not in any order of significance or importance, simply the ones that I wish to work on at the moment of sitting before the key board.) Kelo or more appropriately, stopping abuse of eminent domain.Here is a fair rundown of what "Kelo" is, for your back ground understanding: civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm And this one is useful as well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_LondonBasically, a city was over reaching and abusing "eminent domain", taking private property from one individual, and transferring it to another individual/corporation. Rather than taking the property for "public use", like a road or even a park, they were taking it for "public good", so they could have a nice development and extra taxes. Without getting into the pros/cons of this argument, it is easy to see this was a step away from private property rights, and toward centralizing power, and contrary to the plain reading of the 5th Amendment of the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that such a power grab was "constitutional". This opened the flood gates for government confiscation of private property, at will. The reaction by the People of this country was harsh and swift. Recognizing that their private property was no longer secured, the People started demanding a "fix". As the articles above point out, there were only 8 states prior to Kelo which had laws which restricted eminent domain use, the others relied upon the 5th Amendment to give guidance for such government action. Upon seeing the Supreme Court's lack of respect for private property rights, and their expansion of government power (on all levels), the People of the various states engaged in political processes (not violence) to correct this situation. As illustrated on this map: www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/legislation/US_States_ED_Legis_Map_2007.pdf 42 states (as of July of 2007) had enacted laws (some state Constitutional amendments: www.johnlocke.org/agenda2010/eminentdomain.html What this map, and associated actions represent is the swiftness of what the People can accomplish, as well as the benefit of a "state level movement" vs. national or federal movement. To date, I don't believe there has been any federal laws addressing this issue, though several have been introduced, however, with this Kelo case being decided by the Supreme Court in June of 2005, and having 42 states take actions by July of 2007, the swiftness of this approach is very impressive. This is merely one issue, but the facts remain that a "fix" in many states was enacted in relatively short time with no violence.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 4, 2012 9:35:48 GMT -5
The matter of "Constitutional Sheriffs" is a rather interesting one that has been discussed on other forums. The problem that arises, as it does with "OathKeepers", is, which Constitution have they sworn to uphold. Most state constitutions, if they reference sheriffs at all, only create the office. They don't spell out his duties. If the duties are spelled out, they are spelled out in statutes. So, each state would have to look into the specific statutes to see if the position of sheriff was actually fully constitutional, By that, I mean are they even able to enforce the Constitution. Now, even though they have taken an oath, as have all elected and appoint officers in government, we need to understand just what the ramifications of that oath are -- to what constitution have they taken an oath and will defend. Have they taken an oath to the: 1) The Constitution as explained by their superior? 2) The Constitution as explained by the Supreme Court? 3) The Constitution as written and intended by the Framers? I'll just offer a couple of examples of what I mean. Let's deal only with the 4th Amendment (pertinent part): " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Did you ever wonder what that meant? If I cannot be arrested (held to answer) for a capital or infamous (felony, over one year in prison) crime, can I be arrested for a misdemeanor? Or, does murder require Grand Jury and stealing bread not require such consideration? In 1899, a man shot and killed a deputy. The deputy had come to arrest him without a warrant. The deputy never raised his gun but the intended arrestee raised his, shot and killed the deputy. He was convicted within the state, however, when the matter went before the United States Supreme Court, the Court said that killing an officer who was making an unlawful arrest (without a warrant) was a misdemeanor, or no crime at all. So, why do cops routinely arrest people, often for simply talking back to the officer? Do Sheriffs uphold the true principle? References: The Right to Self-Defense www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=347John Bad Elk 177 U.S. 529 Are Cops Constitutional? www.outpost-of-freedom.com/library/index.htmNow, to another part of the 4th Amendment, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". When was the last time a Sheriff required, say, a cop, or federal agent, who had killed (deprived of life...without due process) someone to stand trial before a Jury? After the Boston Massacre, the soldiers, including the officer, stood trial -- and, they belonged to the King. Now, clearly, the examples are as the Framers intended (Constitution 3#, above). The Supreme Court, though it has never overruled the John Bad Elk decision, has set another precedence that doesn't support the intent --and allowed cops to shoot people with no consequences and people to get electrocuted for shooting a cop, regardless of the circumstances. That, then, would be Constitution #2, above. Now, for Constitution #1, stealing property that has been accused of "committing crime". Money is taken from travelers, on a regular basis in some jurisdictions, because it is alleged to have committed a crime, without benefit of trial. The cost to recover that money, from a legal standpoint, would be more than the value of the money in attorney's fees. This also applies to other property taken under the same excuse. This, along with arresting someone for talking back, has resulted simply from instructions given by "the boss" and yet to be tested in some instances, though I have little doubt how the Court will rule. Given that, what oath is it that we believe will be our salvation? Absent a very thorough explanation of his position, as sheriff will only uphold the law as he sees it.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 10:07:45 GMT -5
No gun confiscation during a state of emergency -- Laws to prevent what happened in New Orleans during Katrina We are all likely very familiar with the illegal gun confiscation which took place in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. While the 2nd Amendment is not restrictive to just the federal government, like other amendments are, it is a universal recognition of a Right and Freedom, which applies to states and localities. The events of New Orleans demonstrated that local abuse of powers are not likely to be protected from the federal level, even though in this case, they should have put an end to these seizures immediately. This was another demonstration that in practice, there were failings in the protection of the Rights of the People, so the People got busy to fix these failings. As a result of this event, over 29 states have enacted "Emergency Powers Firearm Owner Protection Act." suburbansurvivalist.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/nra-ep.jpg There are likely more than 29 states who have enacted this sort of protection, but the link above was the quickest/easiest definitive link I could find. Here is a link to a source which may include more states, and allows you to search your state: www.handgunlaw.us/Here is a link to model legislative wording: alecexposed.org/w/images/0/09/7J8-Emergency_Powers_Firearm_Owner_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdfBasically, the states (the People of the state demanding and supporting such actions) have stepped up to bring these protections to a more local level, making it easier for the People to enforce their wills. Another example of the states stepping up to fix a situation where the federal government refuses to do their job. While my understanding is that this sort of legislation has been enacted on the federal level now, it is important to note that the state laws represent the will of the People in that state, and again, each state can move to effect this change at the pace which suits them, not having to engage in a battle on the national scene getting a majority of the states to come on board with this effort. Some of these state laws were enacted very shortly after Katrina.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 10:19:54 GMT -5
The matter of "Constitutional Sheriffs" is a rather interesting one that has been discussed on other forums. ..... .By that, I mean are they even able to enforce the Constitution.Evidently, they can and they are....with success, and no violence Given that, what oath is it that we believe will be our salvation? Absent a very thorough explanation of his position, as sheriff will only uphold the law as he sees it. This is a "red herring". If someone wishes to abuse their powers, to abdicate their responsibilities, to violate their oaths, or as you suggest, make oaths which they do not understand or intend to uphold, that is a vastly different situation than a situation where they can not perform as expected. The point being, you site all kinds of "examples", which are a failing of individuals, not the system. I am pointing to successes of the system and the individuals who are engaged in that system. Your argument relies upon corruption. If such corruption exists (and indeed it does), then after the violence, and the re-establishment of "the plan", the corruption will still exist, cause we are dealing with human nature. Anyways, I will continue to post the positives, and the successes. I will also await your separate thread on where violence to over throw a legitimate government, which has the consent of the People, and then the re-establishment of the same/similar government has proven successful.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 4, 2012 10:38:44 GMT -5
I don't see any success in what you have persisted. During the nineties, 27 states proclaimed state sovereignty. Some of them have done so, again. The point is, they say it, they get voted back in, they don't enforce what the vote in. Now, you suggest that sheriffs take an oath then you dismiss those individuals under those sheriffs who violate those oaths. There is a missing step, here. Why have the sheriffs done nothing to remove those who violate their oaths (corruption)? Isn't corruption a crime? Ask your sheriff if he makes arrests without warrants, or take property without due process. He will explain to you what the Supreme Court has "told" him, at beast, or he will conjure up an excuse that implies that he is protecting your rights, or some similar bullshit. After you have spoken to your sheriff, get back with us. There are laws in US Code that prohibit illegal entry. Are they enforced? There are thousands of laws that local, state and federal governments refuse to enforce. Passing laws, absent proof that they weren't passed simple for the purpose of getting reelected means nothing. That is the illusive phantom of hope that Patrick Henry spoke of. You suggested that history would prove that there were peaceful means. All I see in this thread is denigrating attempts of unsubstantiated hope that things will change, even after they have not changed, one bit. Next time a cop is shot in Indiana, let's see what happens to that law -- if there will be consideration that the cop was wrong in what he was doing, or, if the law will be ignored, as is happening in Florida, right now.
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Jul 4, 2012 11:01:29 GMT -5
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Mao Tse-Tung
Unfortunately, this is the way government thinks.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 11:03:29 GMT -5
Anti-REAL ID LegislationThis issue gives us several examples to look at. First, here is some background info for those wishing to read up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act and www.realnightmare.org/ Basically, this federal legislation was to be enacted and in place by May of 2005. Many states oppose this law, some on philosophical basis, some on the basis that it is an unfunded mandate. As you can see here, over 25 states have passed laws or resolutions barring its application in their state: www.realnightmare.org/news/105/Again, the effort to stop federal intrusion and abuse has come from the People, leveraging their states, against the feds. Even those states which have yet to enact legislation/resolutions and have only introduced such legislation, represent a success, in that the People have been able to get such introduced into their legislative bodies. The process of protecting Rights and Liberties is on going. This is demonstrated by the fact that states continue to introduce legislation to bar REAL ID, and the federal government continues to change parameters of this legislation to try to make it more acceptable. Another interesting aspect of this example is how it demonstrates the power of an individual state to thwart a complete national effort to abuse Rights. This federal law was to apply universally to all the states, however with one or two states barring it, that renders the federal program rather ineffective. Also, with just a few states not implementing this law, they would realize the financial and Liberty benefits of not doing so, and rather quickly People from surrounding states would see such benefits being enjoyed by their state neighbors, and want it for themselves. This is a good illustration of the infection like progression of Liberty and Freedom. The themes associated with this example are common in several others, and give a bit of a road map for future successes. Each by themselves may be minimally significant, but as a whole, quite telling. It is also interesting to note in some of the readings that while some states have petitioned the feds for extensions, the feds have also simply given extensions to states without them asking. This is a common theme from the federal government to "save face". They have done this in many other cases. Essentially what they do is accept that the states will not comply, but rather than close the door on the issue and admit defeat, they give "permission" to the states to be victorious, thus they can claim at a later time that the refusal to comply were under the "permission" of the federal government, thus not really a success at all, just merely benevolence on the part of the federal government. Again, this gives testimony to the fact that protection of Rights and Liberties is a constant battle, never "won", and has to be taken up by each generation to preserve what they have inherited, to pass on to the next generation. There is no ultimate "fix", there is only persistent protection.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 11:13:39 GMT -5
I don't see any success in what you have persisted. .... You suggested that history would prove that there were peaceful means. All I see in this thread is denigrating attempts of unsubstantiated hope that things will change, even after they have not changed, one bit. You can deny the facts, the tangible examples, but they still exist. You can claim there is "no change", but the proofs are in the actions of those who are having success. I lack an understanding your dogged persistence to be blind to what is going on in this country, as a result of the People increasingly exercising their roles as "Owners", and having tangible and obvious success. Now, I do understand that you have some preconceived vision of what you define as success. You have yet to start your separate thread with your many examples of "success" via violence and rebuilding. You can move the goal posts of success if you wish, or you can even define success in such a manner which is it unachievable, but the examples I am giving are real, historical (most quite recent) and are changes from the previous state of condition, for the better. Also, they are non-violent and Constitutional, as well as within the will of the People....and obviously achievable by the People. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 11:19:48 GMT -5
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao Tse-Tung Unfortunately, this is the way government thinks. The "government" in America is a reflection of the People. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”? Is this how your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers think? The successes illustrated here are not emanating from the barrel of a gun, but rather from the will of the People. Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." In these cases, the "governed" are not consenting to unjust laws, and are using their consent to support positive actions on the part of their representatives on the state and local level.
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Jul 4, 2012 11:36:47 GMT -5
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao Tse-Tung Unfortunately, this is the way government thinks. The "government" in America is a reflection of the People. Do you honestly believe that statement? Wow. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”? Is this how your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers think?Perhaps you need to go back and read my original post since you feel the need to attempt to put words into my mouth. That's always the method of those with a weak argument.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 4, 2012 11:40:58 GMT -5
How does the government enforce its political position? What you call successes are simply bones thrown to the dogs. Until there is effective change, and the government is held accountable for their actions (like trial of someone dies, just to mention one shortcoming of the juridical.political system), there is no change. That is appeasement, and, it sure suits you well.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 13:04:44 GMT -5
How does the government enforce its political position? What you call successes are simply bones thrown to the dogs. Until there is effective change, and the government is held accountable for their actions (like trial of someone dies, just to mention one shortcoming of the juridical.political system), there is no change. That is appeasement, and, it sure suits you well. Interesting. First, you have yet to start your own separate thread on all the successes of violence overturning a legitimate government, and installing a "similar" government. The successes I am providing are in fact changes in the way the government is operating and a change in the political processes happening in real time. BTW, we are in agreement that all is not well, there are very serious issues in this country, is that not the very reason there is a forum like L&P? Is that not the very reason there are people seeking successful resolutions? Is this not the very task that every American generation faces, the preservation of our Republic....which the Founders have promised us would be an on going effort. For whatever reason you are wedded to the notion that all is bad, to the exclusion of reality. You demand violence and death, in order to measure success, no wonder you can not see success in these non-violent and successful actions. Anyway, I will continue to point to the many, many non-violent successes. You can cling to your mistaken notion that only violence will work. Unfortunately, your path does not lead to success, only death and violence.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 4, 2012 13:29:48 GMT -5
However remember! Non-violence when used when the opposition is aware you have the capability to choose another road is much more effective that Non-violence when you have no other choice or are seen by your opposition to be unwilling to use Violence if needed.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 4, 2012 13:29:54 GMT -5
busboy, You are, once again, moving the discussion away from where it was intended. You opened this discussion with a minor error in what was discussed on the other thread. I let that go. Now, however, you are going far astray. The question that evolved toward this discussion was to point out, in history, where effective change came peacefully. History cannot be told while the war goes on. Likewise, the "history" that you are alluding to in this discussion is, well, the winner has yet to be determined. It is not, however, historical fact that supports your claims. It is only fact in that the laws have been passed. The war is not even close to over. With that in mind, I see no reason to sit here and continue a discussion, though implied to be my idea that I perceive as a waste of my time.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 13:34:51 GMT -5
55 MPH federal mandate:This one goes back a few years, but it offers another twist to the whole effort to correct usurped powers of the federal government. Initially, in the 70's, the federal government mandated that the states pass laws limiting their speed limits to 55 mph. The feds used the threat of removing federal highway funds to "convince" the states to participate in such an action. In the mid 80s, several states started asking why they were driving at 55 mph across their vast states...the answer was because they passed a law to such limits....so they passed laws to raise the limits. True to form, the federal government informed the states that they would lose their federal highway funds if they did not adhere to the "federal mandate" of 55 mph. The states, concerned they would lose many millions of federal funding, would abandon their efforts to raise the speed limits. Finally, one state, when threatened with the loss of their federal highway fund, pointed out to the feds they the very highway funds the feds were threatening to withhold, were actually collected at the state's pumps, sent to the feds, where they take a cut, then return a portion back to the state. The state said, basically said, "you keep your highway funds, we will stop collecting them for you, keep them in our state, use them as we see fit." The federal government, realizing they have no teeth in this matter, acquiesced. However, so as not to appear to have lost control, they passed a law in @1987, which "authorized" several states to conduct trials with higher than 55 mph laws......naming those very states which had passed such laws, when they realized they feds had no teeth. In @ 1994, the charade of federal control on this issue was mostly lifted when the feds passed a law moving this issue to the state level. So without violence, without death, the states returned control of this issue to the states, in complete opposition to the fed's desire to retain control. One interesting aspect of this issue, and it plays out in some others, is the money. The feds routinely use the threat of funding to keep states "in line". Here, the states realized that they control the funding, thus they really did have the upper hand. If they states were to cut off the federal highway funding, via their tax collection at the pumps, the feds would lose more than the states. Wiki is not my favorite source, but it gives some good background on this concern: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_LawThe People of the various states saw a problem, developed a resolution and enacted it, against the will of the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 13:57:33 GMT -5
busboy, The question that evolved toward this discussion was to point out, in history, where effective change came peacefully. History cannot be told while the war goes on. Likewise, the "history" that you are alluding to in this discussion is, well, the winner has yet to be determined. It is not, however, historical fact that supports your claims. It is only fact in that the laws have been passed. The war is not even close to over. With that in mind, I see no reason to sit here and continue a discussion, though implied to be my idea that I perceive as a waste of my time. You have really left the reservation here. You claim a "war", when in reality what we have is a struggle to preserve our Constitutional Republic, the Liberties and Freedoms which we enjoy via the sacrifices of our Founding Generation...and of course bestowed upon us by our Creator. Of course the struggle to preserve the country, the Constitutional Republic, safeguard our Liberties and Freedoms will never end. That is the nature of "human nature", that is precisely why the Founders instituted the system of self-government they did, under the various state Constitutions and the federal Constitution. Perhaps it is your desire for a "winner" which is so blinding you to the successes going on around you. Do you really believe that there is some single "thing" that can happen and forever preserve Liberty and Freedom? Do you really believe that the effort to erode Liberty will end, thus the effort to preserve it can end? This flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -" and "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." If there were just a single action which can forever preserve Freedom and Liberty, then there would be no need for government at all, to "secure these rights". Indeed, it may be a waste of your time (evidently it is in disagreement to your agenda) to view the positive and successful actions by the People of this country, in restoring/preserving their Freedoms and Liberties, via non-violent actions, but they are facts. The denial of them is to deny the reality that "the war" can be conducted in a non-violent manner. In fact, there is a far greater chance of success in a non-violent movement than one that relies on violence. It is vastly more difficult to convince someone to give up their family, their home, their jobs, their retirements, their very lives, for some "single thing" to preserve Liberty (especially when there is no evidence that there is any "single thing" that will forever preserve Liberty), than it is to get people to take up the mantle of citizen ownership, and employ proven effective non-violent actions. I still find it interesting that there are those in the Patriot community who claim to be willing to give up all of those things above, engaging in some future action, for which there is very little hope success, knowing that "forever success" is not a reality. Yet, they will refuse to engage in the actions and efforts which are going on today, proven successful, and allows them to keep their families, their jobs, their homes, their lives. Stepping over the relatively easy, and proven effective efforts, for drastically more difficult and non-proven means of preserving Liberty. I will continue to post the successes, you can start your separate thread on the many success stories of violence used to destroy, then rebuild. Folks can view for themselves if it a waste of their time to consider these points.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 14:59:21 GMT -5
No Child Left Behind This one is interesting, in that it incorporates some of the aspects of the others above, but it also shows just how quickly the states can turn things around. Last Summer, as schools were getting close to starting, around the country, this story hit the news. There were 5 states who were done trying to implement the federal mandate of "No Child Left Behind". They simply notified the Department of Education that they would no longer implement these mandated policies and procedures in their states. (don't recall all the states involved, it was 4 Western ones, one in the Northeast) The DoE, predictably threatened these states with withholding of their DoE funds, but the states simply stated that the amount of their funds from the feds were not worth the cost and hassle of implementing this law..... Further if the DoE was going to withhold all of the funds, then the states would review their entire education program, and will eliminate all of the other federally mandated education programs which the state felt were unnecessary. This was a new twist. The feds then revised their threat to withhold funds, and said they would only withhold a "pro-rated" amount of funding, which they felt was associated with NCLB. The states simply said that they would prefer to lose all the funds, and run their own programs. At this point, the federal government "granted" waivers to these states to run their own "NCLB" program, as they saw fit. This lead other states to want to get out from under the burdens of NCLB, and nearly instantly, the federal government said it would grant waivers to all of the 50 states on NCLB. This all happened in the course of a few months. (the initial fight, by the initial states, did start several years before last Summer, but the coordinated effort manifested last Summer) It was very quick, from the time that some of the states exposed the toothless threats of the federal government, until all the states could reap the benefits of their success. It is interesting to note the common tactic of the feds to "grant waiver" when they lose a fight. This is to give them political cover with the media, and allow them to make claims for power in the future, if political will of the People wains, in the future. However, with the growing number of "losses" the feds are realizing, this is a very good indication that the will of the People is such that permanent fixes to these related issues will be enacted once more overwhelming political support is available, across more states. Here are some informational and background links: www.eagleforum.org/educate/2011/july11/NCLB-law.htmlwww.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/jul/21/other-states-joining-idaho-defy-no-child-left-behind-requirements/ www.concordmonitor.com/article/269521/states-defy-no-child-left-behindwww.washingtonpost.com/national/5-more-states-granted-waivers-from-bush-era-no-child-left-behind-education-law/2012/06/29/gJQA0Bj2AW_story.html www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/no-child-left-behind-most_n_1009115.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 15:07:14 GMT -5
Light bulbs
This one is fun and quick.
The feds toss up a ban on incandescent light bulbs, Texas retorts with authorizing the manufacture and sale of such bulbs in their state.
This is a very simple case of state nullification.
It is interesting to note that the "ban" has been lifted by the feds, perhaps because they saw the writing on the wall. Texas would become a "bulb haven", just like the US has become Canada's healthcare haven. Other state's people would "smuggle" bulbs into their states, and the ban would be ineffective.
Eventually other states were sure to follow in Texas' example, and this in turn would further set the states for other such nullifications, perhaps on Obowma Care (subject of another post).
This was a direct assault, by Texas, on the federal governments claim that the "commerce clause" of the federal Constitution gives authorization to the federal representatives to legislate anything they wish. The feds would rather back down than wage this fight, now, over the issue of bulbs.
No violence, and incandescent bulbs still available.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 18:01:53 GMT -5
Conceal Carry Laws
I will assume that most here are pretty familiar with these laws, where they are "Shall Issue", or other wise. So I don't intend to discuss those details.
One aspect of non-violent, positive actions which is readily visible here is one of the contagious nature of Freedom and Liberty.
In the 1980s, some of the states started down the "Shall Issue" path, with the common refrain from the liberals, and those in government who wished to keep power from the "common man", all said the same things. OK corral, rage shootings, "Dirty Harry" wannbes, shootings and crimes will sky rocket, etc.
Of course, none of these dire predictions panned out, however, note that not all the states enacted a "Shall Issue" law at the same time, some waited and allowed other states to conduct the experiment, before deciding for themselves.
But as the benefits of conceal carry became obvious, the People of other states started demanding they get what others have in their states.
In fact, some of the same old tired arguments from the left were tried at the debates in some of the last states to get CCW laws, but based on the experiments of other states it was much easier for folks to make the case for CCW.
One of my favorite stories, I believe out of Missouri, during a debate in their legislature. One liberal came to the microphone and started with the same old lines about "OK corral, rage shootings, sky rocketing violence, etc". One of his fellow legislators simply pointed out this simple fact.
Several of the bordering states have Shall Issue carry laws, and have had for several years. They have not seen any of the dire predictions which this person had put forth. So this fella demanded to know what it was about the people of their state which will be unable to control themselves, while the people of the other states have proven capable? This obviously shut the first fella up quickly.
Another piece of info we can draw from these CCW laws, is that not all people, in all states, put these laws at the same level or priority. Why this is important, is imagine if the "fix" was tried to be enacted on the national/federal level? We would still not have a CCW law.
Those in some of the more liberal states would still be fighting the issue, like Minnesota, who just recently passed their CCW law. However, there is no way their federal level reps would ever support such a law.
Also illuminating, is the process of progressive improvement. Most of the CCW laws passed were flawed in some way. Ohio is a great example. Their initial law was so cumbersome, that it was very impractical to use, and almost impossible to not violate it. However, each session, they improved it. Same with Alaska and Arizona, both starting with "Shall Issue" laws, now both have "Constitutional Carry", with no permit needed.
If one were to "hold out" for the perfect law, only accepting one which provides "Constitutional Carry", this lead to no progress, so the "good" is the victim of the "perfect".
One thing that comes out of the various states passing their own laws, is that subsequent states can "cherry pick" from the whole, to fashion a law which suits them best. This process allows for very rapid progression, as several states may pass laws on a specific issue in a year, but each one can glean improvements from those before them, and in the course of year, many refinements and improvements can be made on that specific issue.
This process has been directly quoted from state level legislators, where they said, we will take the law passed in that state, improve it, make it stronger and pass it in our state, and we hope that the next state makes improvements and strengthens our law for themselves.
We know that all of this flies in the face of what the federal government wants, if for no other reason, just look at those locations where the federal government has operational control. We need to look no further than Washington D.C. to see what level of gun control the federal government would like implemented nation wide.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 10:50:23 GMT -5
The "government" in America is a reflection of the People. Do you honestly believe that statement? Wow. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”? Is this how your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers think?Perhaps you need to go back and read my original post since you feel the need to attempt to put words into my mouth. That's always the method of those with a weak argument. Who is the "government"? That is the question. For Mao, and most other dictatorial leaders, it is them. The government in most parts of the world is an entity for which the people of that country exist to serve. The people are subjects, not owners. In America, the People are the owners. So when someone rails about the "government", it is important to look at "who" the legitimate government is. It is your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. So that is why I ask, is that how they think? If so, then yep, we have a problem. If your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers want you forced to do something from the barrel of a gun, there really is little you can do to stop it. However, if they don't want that, then they have tremendous power available to them to keep it from happening. The representative government in D.C. has gotten away with usurping unauthorized powers for decades...but they did not gain these from the barrel of a gun. They gained these powers because of the ignorance, laziness and apathy of the American People. As the American People shrug off the shackles of ignorance, laziness and apathy, they will reclaim those usurped powers back. There are no doubt some in the government who feel they are the "owners" of this country, but without the consent of the people, they will be powerless to take ownership. Even in totalitarian countries, there has to be a level of consent by the people. Sure they are oppressed, but even if the oppressed are pushed too far, they revolt. We saw this in Soviet Russia, it is happening some in China, and it was part of what enabled the "Arab Spring" actions. Here in America, we are seeing the threshold of "consent" lowering, as the American People come to the realization they have been duped and that they need to take the keys to the country back. There is a whole thread worth of discussion as to why the federal government is not going to "declare war" against the American People. The short answer is, because the American People will not consent to such an action. Your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers will not consent to such actions.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 10:52:28 GMT -5
However remember! Non-violence when used when the opposition is aware you have the capability to choose another road is much more effective that Non-violence when you have no other choice or are seen by your opposition to be unwilling to use Violence if needed. No argument from me on this. I like my representatives a little nervous that they may be pushing things too far.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 5, 2012 12:14:49 GMT -5
Damn, we have light bulbs, again, and we have regained a partial right to keep and bear arms. At this rate, in a thousand years, we may have the same freedoms that the Founders had. Sorry, the "success" of what you suggest has proven its ineffectiveness -- except to distract from solving the problem, once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 17:57:52 GMT -5
Damn, we have light bulbs, again, and we have regained a partial right to keep and bear arms. At this rate, in a thousand years, we may have the same freedoms that the Founders had. Sorry, the "success" of what you suggest has proven its ineffectiveness -- except to distract from solving the problem, once and for all. Hmmm... You claim to have some prime examples of violence solving our problems once and for all, but have yet to start your own separate thread on all these historical examples which we can draw our own conclusions from. And again, you make the assumption of: A) We have a problem in this country (which I highly doubt any on this forum would disagree with) Then leap to: C) The only effective solution is violence. Meanwhile, you step over B) which is the People of this country are not subjects of the government, but rather owners, and have all the tools they need to fix "A". The examples I have provided here, and the ones I have yet posted, are examples of "B" working to resolve "A". You have yet to give any example of "C" working to resolve "A", but you are steadfast in insisting that the many examples of "B" working are ineffective, when in fact, the effectiveness speaks for itself. Simply because "B" does not automatically lead to "C", that make them ineffective? So the ONLY effective resolution you can possibly envision is "C", violence? Let me say, historically, people of a nation only resort to violence when there is absolutely no other alternative. The Founders did not resort to violence, it was thrust upon them....over and over. However, the Founder's history is full of actions which they took, in the area of "B", non-violent resolutions, which were very effective. In several of the examples I have given, we see the People of this country making very significant changes, in a very short period of time. This model is being applied over and over, and will net very good success in the course of a few election cycles. We have seen nearly whole sale replacement of some state governments, with representatives who are much more in line with the will of the People of their state. This is enabling the growing trend of State Nullification to really take hold, and this will be a rapid change in the way the federal government operates and what level of impact the federal government has on the lives of the People, as individuals. Even you acknowledge that "B" is having success, you are simply unwilling to let the People pace the success in a manner which they can implement. Your insistence to brush aside "B", in favor of "C", is to thwart the will of the majority of the People of this country, and frankly, has little hope of success. Historically, violence has been the tool used by those who wish to control and oppress individuals and population. Anyone who looks at the history of nations will find many examples of "instigators" agitating violence for the sole purpose as to destabilize a society and allow oppressive forces to dominate and control. Again, where are all your examples of violence being used to institute personal freedom and liberty? Can you give some examples of the American People using violence to reclaim or restore a Right lost?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 19:36:23 GMT -5
Castle Doctrine Here is a double edged "success". First, many could make the argument that it is patently unAmerican to have to consider passing such a law. ( Here is a link to a basic discussion of what this is, for those who may not be familiar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_DoctrineHowever, if one is to come at this from the perspective of "there is a problem", that being innocent people are being charged with crimes for solely protecting themselves and families, or are being forced to retreat and give advantage to their attackers before being able to exercise self-defense measures, then there is some real success here. Many states have enacted laws which specifically protect those who are forced into a position to defend themselves and family. What is interesting is that this really could not have been that big of a problem. I am not familiar with a multitude of cases, in a multitude of states, where this was an on going problem, but it was a problem to some. With the widespread passage of Conceal Carry Laws, if you couple this with the widespread and rapid expansion of the Castle Doctrine Laws, we can see a trend. The People of this country are ever increasingly seeing the responsibility of their personal safety (and that of their families) is upon their shoulders, not the government's. Add to this the tremendous increase in firearms sales, and you can connect the dots quite easily. What the Castle Doctrine laws, and the Conceal Carry Laws, do is they force a discussion within a society. This discussion is obviously about "Rights", "Responsibilities" and the role of government to people and people to government. One of the positives we can glean from the widespread and rapid adoption of Castle Doctrine laws, is a gage of the sentiment of the People. With a vast majority of the states enacting these sorts of legislation, this a sure sign that a majority of the People have an attitude of personal responsibility and the proper role of government, more in line with the Constitution than not. This is another indication of the People of the states seeking redress and solutions on the state level, where than can have a more influential impact. Further, it is better to look at the local and state levels for trends and improvements, because the People have much more influence over these levels of government. If you look only to the federal level for "improvements", they will be much more difficult to find, as those are some big wheels turning and lots of inertia that needs to be overcome. It is also another indication of the People being effective in leveraging the political tools available to them to enact positive results. Finally, it is yet another example of the contagiousness of Liberty. People of a few states identify a problem and erect a solution within their state. The People of other states see how they handled the problems they faced, so they simply adopt, and perhaps adapt, what others have been successful at. This is a play right out of the Founder's play book. They told us to let the states handle more of the issues we will face, as a People, and that way we can have 50 different experiments, co-running on the issue. Then, each state can look at the very many options and the People of each state can select the one which most fits their needs. Also, the states will need to consider the "competitive" impact of their decisions. So while one state may think that a 50% income tas is a good idea, their neighboring state will have a huge competitive advantage by not having such. This will allow the People to ultimately vote with their feet, as to what resolutions they prefer.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 6, 2012 11:17:12 GMT -5
Have you ever looked carefully into the lawfulness of Concealed carry and Castle Doctrine statutes? If I have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms then by placing that arm into my pocket I am lawful. By the maxims of law which are recognized by nations world wide there is no crime for performing a lawful act. The same Maxims say that you can not license an unlawful act. Like wise you can not prohibit a lawful act. Under the common law I have the right to protect myself, my family, and others on my property. How then can a Government prohibit with statutes of order my exercise of rights. When you and I go down and ask for Governmental permission to perform a lawful act are we not giving up that same right by our signature?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 7, 2012 3:57:37 GMT -5
Have you ever looked carefully into the lawfulness of Concealed carry and Castle Doctrine statutes? If I have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms then by placing that arm into my pocket I am lawful. By the maxims of law which are recognized by nations world wide there is no crime for performing a lawful act. The same Maxims say that you can not license an unlawful act. Like wise you can not prohibit a lawful act. Under the common law I have the right to protect myself, my family, and others on my property. How then can a Government prohibit with statutes of order my exercise of rights. When you and I go down and ask for Governmental permission to perform a lawful act are we not giving up that same right by our signature? This is all good and well, and you won't get any argument from me on any of this. However, you are very likely to get an argument from many of your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers about it. In fact, enough of them that they are willing to infringe upon your rights, as you stated above. This is the crux of the issue we face, the ignorance of the American People, and the apathy and laziness which keeps them from becoming "unignorant", and Constitutionally engaged. Now keeping with the Conceal Carry laws. We have 3 states which I am aware of, who have the recognition of the Right to carry a firearm, concealed. Vermont, Arizona and Alaska, perhaps there are more. I do know that Arizona and Alaska did not start that way. So according to some, the way to approach the fact that AZ did not have a "Constitutional Carry", was to demand it first, up front and accept nothing less. This sounds good, and really makes a person feel superior if they demand such an unwavering "principled" position, but the result is NOT the immediate institution of "Constitutional Carry". The fact of the situation is that in AZ, they had previously allowed restrictions on conceal carry. (I have no idea when, or why, but it was there.) To change that, it requires a change in the "hearts and minds" of the People of AZ, to make this issue important enough for their representatives to deal with. So at some point in the recent past, there is enough interest in a conceal carry law. There is no doubt in my mind that in the discussion, there was mention of Vermont's law (there always is in these discussions). For whatever reason, the People's representatives felt that such a law would be inappropriate for AZ. Be it lack of support of the people, the legislature, the governor, who knows, but obviously there was not the support for a "Constitutional Carry" law. What to do next? Can the whole idea until there is enough political support, which would come from education efforts of the People, to get their "hearts and minds" in line with the Constitution AND motivate them enough to convey this to their representatives? Or, take what improvement is possible, both improving the actual conditions on the street AND giving an additional tool in the effort to win the "hearts and minds" of the People (thus their representatives) in the state? I will say this. I know of no state which went from zero to Constitutional Carry. (could not find information on when VT's statues were passed). But, we can point to at least two states which have progressed from zero to that point, with a few pauses along the way. And this model of operation has been taken up by many other states, who likewise are working toward a similar position as Vermont, Arizona and Alaska. The key to ALL of this is the hearts and minds of the People. We can all rail all day about Constitution this, and Constitution that, but the reality of the situation is we live in a society which lacks the understanding of the Constitution, of Rights (and where they come from), and the proper role of government in a free society. Making uncompromising demands is fine, but gets nothing done. What happens is there is little to no improvement in the ignorance level of the People, there is little to no improvement in the priorities of the representatives, and there is little to no improvement of the conditions on the street. However, by working to progressively reclaim the rightful and Constitutional positions, we can realize immediate improvement of conditions on the street. This leads to exposure of more freedom by the People at large, they learn more about Liberty with first hand experience and exposure, and there is a natural desire to increase the level of Freedom and Liberty. This makes the next step easier, from a political stand point. This is where we are today in this country. The People are gaining more and more knowledge and experience in "Constitutional Freedoms", and they are liking it. This is why we are seeing the pace of positive actions increasing and spreading to more states. Are we where we want to be, or should be? Absolutely not, but the trends are in our favor. Again, if we were where we should be, this forum would not exist. One of my purposes for this thread is to point out the positives and the improvement in the trend. This is really a tangible way to gage the "hearts and minds" of our fellow countrymen. It is also an attempt to illustrate that improvements can be made, and are being made, without resorting to violence or "revolution". Since the root cause of our problems is the ignorance, laziness and apathy of our fellow countrymen, we need to fix that problem. No one goes from clueless to clued in, over night, instantly. Most take time. During the time it takes to get most folks back on board with a Constitutional America, we can help the cause by taking the successes where we can get them.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 7, 2012 14:40:56 GMT -5
State NullificationThis is really one of the best Constitutional tools available to "We the People", in controlling an out of control federal government. In fact, it is very common when reading comments and arguments from the Founders, that when they speak of 'checks and balance', they are often referring to the check on federal power that the states have, and the balance of power between the state and federal governments. The Founders understood that government, "like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master", so they built in tools for We the People to leverage one government against the other, state against federal. The cornerstone of State Nullification is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."The topic of State Nullification is very interesting, but can get rather lengthy. My intention is to not dissect the concept and detail it out here. Might I suggest some informational resources which you can look at, if you are interested: Tenth Amendment Center: tenthamendmentcenter.com/ Not only do they have some good educational information, they also are working to track and foster the application of the Tenth Amendment among the states. In their "Legislative Tracking" section tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/ you can see several issues which the follow, which states have introduced such legislation and where those efforts stand. Something to keep in mind, as you look this over. The power and motivation of the "states" to introduce and follow up on this sort of legislation resides in the People of their state. This is not simply a power play between state and federal government officials. Each of these efforts are being sought by the People, through their state reps. And there is been a tremendous increase in this trend over the last 3-4 years. Thomas Woods Jr. This fella does a very good job of explaining and defending the concept of "State Nullification". (Disclaimer: I am not an affiliate, member, paid promoter, or associated with Mr. Woods or any of his organizations. I receive nothing for these promotions of his material, I simply feel he does the best job of explaining this material.) Here is a link to his book, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century" www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490?ie=UTF8&tag=parrishmiller-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1596981490On this subject, I can not recommend this book enough. It is a very good history lesson and applications manual, in a great format. Also, you can spend some time on Tom's YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/user/TomWoodsTV you can find many good presentations on this subject, and others, and Mr. Woods has a very good communication style, which makes learning easy. Many of the previous positive examples from previous posts use this position of leverage which the People have, in using the state governments against the federal. So interesting aspects of State Nullification: -46 states have introduced "Tenth Amendment Resolutions" tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/10th-amendment-resolutions/ . While not law, they are a good indication of the 'hearts and minds' of the People of those states. Again, these state representatives have little go gain by embarking on this on their own. If they do not have the support of the "People back home", they will lose political support and their jobs as legislators. Also, any who have desire for elected office beyond the state level, are not endearing themselves to their federal level associates by such measures. - 43 states have introduced, and several passed into law, "Health Care Freedom Acts" tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/ And "Federal Health Care Nullification Acts" tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care-nullification-act/ Some of these have been in the form of state Constitutional amendments, some as laws. Some of these even carry a penalty of jail time and heavy fines for anyone trying to implement Obama Care in their state. These are just two examples of many which are active and gaining support among the People of the various states. When we consider the concept of federal tyranny, we have to eventually come to the moment of "enforcement". The federal government can pass any law it wants. It can pass a law that all people with blue eyes will be executed on sight....but can they enforce it? (obvious an absurd example, but to illustrate the point) We would obviously see outrage on the part of the People, they would leverage their states against the federal government, and pass laws nullifying the application of these laws in their states, and the People and enforcement branches of the states would bar the implementation of this law within their border. Given the fact that the federal government is reliant upon the income and support of the People of the states, they would quickly lose their ability to tax the People and control them. Further, the federal government would have a very difficult time getting federal agents to enforce this law, some due to philosophical reasons (there are still lots of good people in the military and federal law enforcement) and some based solely on self-preservation desires (even the goose stepping members of the military/federal LEO will not want to go head to head in an armed conflict with the masses of People). On top of all of this. Given the overwhelming support against such a law, by the People, those who were responsible for such law, would pay a heavy toll, politically, and soon be swept out of office. (those elected, self-serving rats don't want to lose their prime parking spaces and government paid hookers, so "self-preservation" will kick in as well.) This is just a crude example of the process, but again, there are many real and current day examples happening, and this process is bearing out to be very effective. So other aspects of this process, which are not as far along as we would like them, but are gaining some momentum, are the measures which not only work to stave off federal abuses, but to roll them back. Two which are very interesting are below: - "State Sovereignty Act and Federal Tax Funds Act" tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/federal-tax-funds-act/ Essentially, this effort entails the defunding of the unConstitutional programs and efforts by the federal government. The state treasuries will collect all the tax receipts from the People of their state. Then the state representatives will determine what portion of the federal budget is for Constitutionally mandated purposes, and send that percentage of the receipts to the federal government. The rest of the funds will remain in the state, for state purposes and/or return to the People. Obviously there have been few states to move this effort forward, but as the federal government and federal reserve work to devalue our currency, and fraudulently increase our federal debt, more states will come on board. In fact, with the Supreme Court's upholding of Obama Care, some states have already said they will not take on the added costs of this law in their state. This will eventually lead to more states engaging in tax revenue withholding from the federal government. The other interesting measure is the "Constitutional Tender Legislation" tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/constitutional-tender/ This is really an effort to establish a competing economy and monetary system, to the federal government and federal reserve. The states have the Constitutional ability to do such, and some are starting to exercise this ability. The result will be that the People of their states will have an avenue to reduce their exposure to the mismanagement of the economy (and intrusion into the private economy) by the federal government. The more states which are able to disconnect from the federal economy, the less power and money the federal government will have. These are just two examples of moving from a defensive, to a proactive effort to fix the unConstitutional actions by the federal government. Again, the purpose of this thread is not to suggest that "all is well", and there is no need for concern or prepping. The purpose was to show that the People of this country are waking up, that the People have a tremendous amount of power and control over the course of future events, and to give just some examples where the People are having success. None of these issues, by themselves, are that overwhelming in effect, but as a whole, they give a very clear measure of the will of the People to reduce and restrict the efforts of the federal government to usurp power and oppress the People. Any one of these issues might be "nit-picked" as inadequate, but the trend is unmistakenly toward a return to a Constitutional Republic. A final, but IMPORTANT note on the "hearts and minds" of the People of this country. During the debates over the Constitution construction and ratification, there were many disagreements about how best to preserve Freedom and Liberty for the generations to come. In the end, the answer is always the same. If the People want Freedom and Liberty, there is nothing which the Founders could include or leave out of the Constitution which would prevent them from having it. However, if the People lost the desire for Freedom and Liberty, there was nothing the Founders could put on the parchment to preserve it for them. It is upon the shoulders of each and every generation to preserve and pass on a Free country, to the generations after them. America is, and always has been, just one failed generation from being destroyed. The assault upon Freedom and Liberty will be perpetual, so vigilance needs to be perpetual. The battle ground for this conflict is not a location, but rather in the "hearts and minds" of the People of this country. Whatever means which are effective in reaching these hearts and minds, are the tools which we need to use. One can be "right" in their statements, but ineffective in reaching the hearts and minds of their friends, family, neighbors and co-workers, so they are "wrong" in their application. Whatever fate is before us, whether we see some large scale calamity which devastates our economy, our infrastructure, we can still retain our Freedom and Liberty, and our country, as these reside in the Hearts and Minds of the People.
|
|