Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Just ignore the laws you don't like. It's patriotic.

Recs

22

February 02, 2010 – Comments (16)

The internet is the greatest creation of all time for people who don't understand how much they don't understand (including false choice logic lapses.)

Exhibit A this morning, the brain trust here, which thinks that states can just decide to opt out of laws that the patriots (by which we now mean, those who complain that their minority views can't be foisted onto everyone) deem "unconstitutional":

------------------------------------------

"Our final goal is a Virginia that nullifies federal laws and regulations that are not authorized to the federal government in the constitution. "

TenthAmendmentCenter.com
 The Governed Have Withdrawn Their Consent

[Bentnote: If by "governed" you mean "a tiny fraction of ticked-off voters who are so out of touch they don't know what "tea bagging" a congressman means" and by "Withdrawn Their Consent" you mean "been crying about government illegitamacy since their favorite candidates lost their respective elections" then, I think we agree.]

February 2010

Are you frightened, confused, or just plain outraged by the sheer size, cost, and arrogance of the federal government?

Have you ever asked: Where is that power delegated in the Constitution?

Do you think you and your neighbors can run your own lives better than some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.?

Congratulations, you might be a Tenther. Maybe it's time to stop looking at D.C. for the solution to our problems, and realize that D.C. actually is the problem.

This is your one-time invitation to join the brand new Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.

...
Today, everyone from constitutional scholars like Randy Barnett to media personalities like Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano are calling for a return to the principles of the Tenth Amendment. 

And the citizens of the states have to be prepared to exercise their constitutional rights with or without the approval of our out-of-control federal government, even if that means refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws.

[Bentnote: that's right folks. YOU get to decide which laws are unconstitutional! Nevermind that you haven't read the constitution, and neither has Glenn Beck! Just go with your gut! Stop paying your taxes! Refuse to register your car! Shoot that road sweeper who came onto your driveway apron without permission! Unfloridate your water!]

...
The fight for our liberty is on, are you with us?
-------------------------------------

Here's an article that summarizes just how ill informed these movements are.

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 02, 2010 at 8:39 AM, catoismymotor (33.45) wrote:

Good post. This should start several heated conversations.

 

Report this comment
#2) On February 02, 2010 at 10:38 AM, lemoneater (82.80) wrote:

Well, I consider myself conservative and I find such ignorance apalling and embarrassing. (I am taking the article with a grain of salt since the Onion is much better with seasoning.) The Constitution is NOT synonymous with the Old Testament code of law, but to deny that Judeo-Christian values contributed to its genesis is just as inaccurate as claiming that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian since Christians believe in the Resurrection of Christ and he didn't.

However for the record, some conservatives can read. I admit to being more familiar with the Bill of Rights (the important addendum to the Constitution) than the Constitution itself, but please see http://www.constantconservative.com/. I can vouch that the author of the website is a voracious reader who endeavors to base his opinions about the Constitution on the original source. He passed out copies of the Constitution at a tea party in the hopes that the attendees would read it.

I think that too few people have any idea of what the Constitution actually says much less how it is to be properly applied. One of my brothers is a Constitutional lawyer and I admire his diligence and tenacity. He would have less work to do if the public were better informed!

I would like for every politician to be required to take an exam on history, economics, and ethics. It is only proper that they prove their qualifications for the job just like doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals must.

 

 

  

Report this comment
#3) On February 02, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Turfscape (42.96) wrote:

lemoneater wrote:
"I can vouch that the author of the website is a voracious reader who endeavors to base his opinions about the Constitution on the original source. He passed out copies of the Constitution at a tea party in the hopes that the attendees would read it."

Reading does not equal understanding. Lots-o-people read the bible. I've met exactly one who understands it.

lemoneater wrote:
"I would like for every politician to be required to take an exam on history, economics, and ethics. It is only proper that they prove their qualifications for the job just like doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals must."

You already have the power to require this...don't vote for a candidate who does not meet your qualifications.

Report this comment
#4) On February 02, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Turfscape (42.96) wrote:

By the way, Seth, excellent post. +1 rec.

Report this comment
#5) On February 02, 2010 at 11:15 AM, FreeMortal (29.30) wrote:

Just because a candidate understands the constitution doesn't mean that he/she will not demagogue to those who do not.

Report this comment
#6) On February 02, 2010 at 12:56 PM, lemoneater (82.80) wrote:

Turfscape, I was responding to the Onion's observation that the individual mentioned hadn't even read the Constitution but claimed the Constitution said a lot of things it didn't. Ignorance wrecks credibility every time no matter what the political persuasion. Reading doesn't guarantee understanding, but not reading at all is even less of a guarantee. Reading is one way to acquire knowledge. To use your example, I read the Bible regularly, I do not fully understand every part, but I certainly am more familiar with it than someone who has never taken the opportunity to read it. As a result, I'm less likely to be fooled if somebody says something untrue about what it says.

You are right, FreeMortal. However, if more people read, then we would have less scope for demagogues. A literate citizenry is a tyrant's nightmare. I'd rather read a distopia than have one.

Report this comment
#7) On February 02, 2010 at 2:18 PM, AmericanArrogant (30.37) wrote:

"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."

It's definitely a good idea to read it every so often.

Clearly anyone reading the text of the Tenth Amendment can see that the framers intended for the states to have no part in limiting attempted power grabs by the federal government.

Luckily, the framers explicitly stated that the Supreme Court would be the only one with the power to decide what was and was not constitutional.  They completely trusted the federal government not to overstep its bounds.  I was going to cite the clause, but I'll have to go back and read it again.  I'm sure it's in there somewhere...

 

Report this comment
#8) On February 02, 2010 at 5:14 PM, RonChapmanJr (78.98) wrote:

+1 for the Tenth Amendment Center

Report this comment
#9) On February 02, 2010 at 7:59 PM, rd80 (98.33) wrote:

"Our final goal is a Virginia that nullifies federal laws and regulations that are not authorized to the federal government in the constitution. "

Why would nullifying illegal federal laws and regulations be a bad thing?  As I'm sure you know, Virginia is one of many states with proposed legislation challenging the Federal Government's authority in a number of areas based on the limitations placed on the Fed by the 10th Amendment.  

a tiny fraction of ticked-off voters

I challenge your notion of a 'tiny fraction'.  Virginia's new Attorney General wasn't shy about stating he would protect Virginia's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment if elected.  Mr. Cuccinelli won by over 15%.  It would be small-f foolish to assume everyone that voted for him shares that opinion.  It would be equally foolish to assume he could have won by that margin if only a 'tiny fraction of ticked-off voters' agreed with one of his positions.

And the citizens of the states have to be prepared to exercise their constitutional rights with or without the approval of our out-of-control federal government, even if that means refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the 10th Amendment Center links from your blog entry indicating the organization supports refusing to obey the law.  Even if they do, civil disobedience to illegal or unjust laws is common in our history and frequently provides the cases that make it to the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

Finally, The Onion as a source?!?!?  Even if the article is true and correct, there's nothing in it indicating the guy speaks for the 10th Amendment Center or is even associated with the organization.

 

 

Report this comment
#10) On February 03, 2010 at 8:32 AM, ralphmachio (25.10) wrote:

Yeah, I hate all those people who stand up for their rights. They really get in the way of corporate efficiency. Maybe we should just round em all up and send them to some concentration camp where their paranoid minds can be re-educated to better serve us corporate barons. Oh, that's right, I forgot, I'm not a corporate baron, just one of their cheerleaders. 

Never mind that. Just do what you're told cause we don't question the government, neither should you, nor should you question any dogmatic faiths, or ye shall surely burn in HELL ...... Forever and eeeeeeeverrrrrrr (spoken as though at mass)

you guys are cute, sorta like sheep with a masturbatory agenda. 

Report this comment
#11) On February 03, 2010 at 10:14 AM, catoismymotor (33.45) wrote:

Laws are unjust if they do anything other than expand freedoms. There are those of us that move to change or eliminate some laws. And there are others that wish to exploit the law to their benefit, our detriment.

Those that fought for change have my respect:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mohandas Gandhi

Medger Evers

Susan B. Anthony

Henry David Thoreau

Nelson Mandela

Mohammed Ali

Benjamin Franklin

Those that wish to exploit the law get no admiration from me:

IRS Agents

Alfonse “Al” Capone

Pablo Escobar

Sam Giancana

Joseph Kennedy

Saddam Hussein

Manuel Noriega

Edward Teach

Pol Pot

Adolf Hitler

Report this comment
#12) On February 03, 2010 at 1:33 PM, FleaBagger (29.04) wrote:

Seth, do you have any specific arguments or points to make about libertarian thought, or do you just want to insult and smear?

Report this comment
#13) On February 03, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Imperial1964 (97.81) wrote:

Rec.
Oh, wait.  You're being sarcastic.  Nevermind.

+1 Rec Ralphmachio

And Catoismymotor, +1 Rec for the people on your respect list.

 

Report this comment
#14) On February 25, 2010 at 10:10 AM, TMFBent (99.81) wrote:

Libertarian thought is, in the hands of most who claim to be its practitioners today, an oxymoron. It's rarely more than self-centered crying about not being able foist reactionary, minority viewpoints onto the majority.

Sj

Report this comment
#15) On February 25, 2010 at 10:40 AM, XMFPhila100 (92.11) wrote:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Maybe they were only making their peace with God when they wrote the document that made them traitors...dead men, if caught...or maybe they just needed a little boost of legitimacy...but the Declaration does have mentions of at least faith in a higher being.

Specifically:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (not government) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

Report this comment
#16) On March 11, 2010 at 12:34 PM, abeno (< 20) wrote:

[Bentnote: that's right folks. YOU get to decide which laws are unconstitutional! Nevermind that you haven't read the constitution, and neither has Glenn Beck! Just go with your gut! Stop paying your taxes! Refuse to register your car! Shoot that road sweeper who came onto your driveway apron without permission! Unfloridate your water!]

 

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that since I live in Pennsylvania, there is no Florida in my water.   :-)

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement