Pastorius of Infidel Bloggers Alliance and the Astute Bloggers (see blog roll) has asked some good questions about Robinson's essay on taking power away from the federal government. He writes:
Stog,
I'm not exactly an expert on the whole states rights argument. Why would this guy want to repeal the 17th amendment? That doesn't make sense to me. He seems to be calling for less democracy if Senators are not elected by popular vote.
And, how is the NSA going to protect ports, bridges, roadways, etc., if the Federal government is supposed to cede all it's property to the states?
Are the states going to take over the ownership of Federal buildings and lands, and then lease them to the Federal government? Is that the idea?
Another problem I have with the FR post is that it is vague in that it does not explain the specifics of how the Federal government has usurped or overextended it's powers.
This is a lot of hot air if no one is willing to be specific.
As you probably know, I believe Obama is governing in a way which is outside the American Tradition. However, I believe he has generally been smart about not comitting impeachable offenses. I do believe that his firing of Inspectors General are probably impeachable offenses. His handling of Chrysler and GM is outside the American Tradition, but unless it can be proven in a court of law that dealerships were shut down for political reasons, that is going to go nowhere.
I am merely saying we have to have specifics around which people will rally. Otherwise, this is just b.s.
Check out this post:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/07/first-in-relentless-series-of-national.html
Pas, originally U.S. Senators were selected by the legislatures of the individual states; they were appointed. Congressmen, however, were to be popularly elected. It was believed, with a great deal of common sense, that the Senate was to be a deliberative body unconcerned with political partisanship and petty politics. Since Senators were appointed, there was no need for this. Today we have really nasty politics, the politics of personal destruction and the stupid McCain-Feingold Act, which would be unnecessary if the 17th amendment were repealed. See arguments for repeal at this link: http://www.conservativefront.com/2009/05/13/rethinking-the-17th-amendment/
For your second question, ownership of land and property by the federal government now greatly exceeds its constitutional authority. Currently the federal government "owns" about one-third of all land in the United States; 98% of all land in Alaska, 86% of Nevada land and 65% of all Colorado land. How can the federal government "own" most of a state? That destroys the sovereignty of that state and trashes the "Equal Footing Doctrine" that the original founders wished to preserve, i.e. that all states in the Union are equal in sovereignty vis a vis the federal government.
Despite the intentions of the founders and the clear intent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, the states east of the 100th meridian are vastly "more equal" than the states to the west.
The Constitution is clear about what land the federal government is allowed to possess and the means for acquiring it: see Article 1, Section 8, which describes it thus:
"all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." That's all! The federal government has no legal right to own 98% of Alaska or any other state.
As far as the Dept of Homeland Security or the armed forces protecting the land of the United States, they are obligated to do so by the same Article I, Section 8, and there is no requirement or necessity for them to own the land that they defend; they are an arm of the states and carrying out duties specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, i.e. to raise armed forces for the common defense of the states.
So Jim Robinson is right about taking back the illegally seized lands from the feds and restoring the full sovereign rights of the states. The lands and natural resources of the individual states belong to the people of the states, not to the federal government. The federal government is currently greatly exceeding its Constitutional powers in this regard.
Also see this article:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43824
See Article I, Section 8 here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Showing posts with label Jim Robinson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Robinson. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Jim Robinson is Right
The Free Republic post that Rick Moran and Charles Johnson find so disagreeable is here.
Jim Robinson, the founder of FreeRebublic.com, is not a friend of mine. I have had my issues with him and have stated categorically that I consider the man an asshole. However, on the topic of his post I would have to say that he is right. Right in assuming that the radical left administration now in power is beyond the scope of normal politics and normal solutions through normal channels.
I too have called for steps by the individual states to resist the tyrannies now being foisted upon us in the name of socialism and environmental extremism. Robinson is merely posing some possible alternatives to just sitting still and accepting the extreme hardships that Obama has in store for us. It is a discussion worth having. Yes, we can wait four years until a new election, but much damage will have been done by then, to the Republic and to future generations who will have to pay for the fiscal catastrophe that this neo-Marxist is busily implementing.
If we do nothing, the economic destruction will be devastating, creating a new depression similar to the 1930's, with poverty and misery our lot for many years to come. We have to decide whether "politics as usual" is worth that price.
I don't necessarily believe that Robinson's solution is the correct one or the only one, but it is a starting point for a discussion worth having. My own solution would include a convention of all willing states to form a pact or block that would actively resist socialist tyranny by a flat refusal to go along. Representatives of these states should state that they will not implement or allow implementation within their borders of socialized medicine, cap and trade taxation or the reckless creation of debt that is unprecedented in our history. Further, they will not honor as binding law any unconstitutional decrees by a dogmatically leftist and activist Supreme Court (such as, for example, any decrees stating that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals, a position that Obama has long held).
How all of this could be accomplished is something that would have to be worked out by a conference of the willing states. Secession should not be ruled out as an option to be used only in an extreme situation. "Consent of the governed" is the foundation of our Republic and perhaps it is time to withdraw our consent. Such a movement would indeed create a lot of controversy but the implications of it might be enough to stop Obama's aggressive program. The Democratic Party might grow some gonads and join us in stopping him.
Yes, Obama won the election; however, the Constitution is supposed to create boundaries beyond which elected officials cannot go. Obama and his administration do not feel in any way obligated to respect those boundaries. Therefore, we are put into a position of accepting serfdom or finding new ways to peacefully resist.
Jim Robinson is right: we need a serious conversation about our alternatives.
Jim Robinson, the founder of FreeRebublic.com, is not a friend of mine. I have had my issues with him and have stated categorically that I consider the man an asshole. However, on the topic of his post I would have to say that he is right. Right in assuming that the radical left administration now in power is beyond the scope of normal politics and normal solutions through normal channels.
I too have called for steps by the individual states to resist the tyrannies now being foisted upon us in the name of socialism and environmental extremism. Robinson is merely posing some possible alternatives to just sitting still and accepting the extreme hardships that Obama has in store for us. It is a discussion worth having. Yes, we can wait four years until a new election, but much damage will have been done by then, to the Republic and to future generations who will have to pay for the fiscal catastrophe that this neo-Marxist is busily implementing.
If we do nothing, the economic destruction will be devastating, creating a new depression similar to the 1930's, with poverty and misery our lot for many years to come. We have to decide whether "politics as usual" is worth that price.
I don't necessarily believe that Robinson's solution is the correct one or the only one, but it is a starting point for a discussion worth having. My own solution would include a convention of all willing states to form a pact or block that would actively resist socialist tyranny by a flat refusal to go along. Representatives of these states should state that they will not implement or allow implementation within their borders of socialized medicine, cap and trade taxation or the reckless creation of debt that is unprecedented in our history. Further, they will not honor as binding law any unconstitutional decrees by a dogmatically leftist and activist Supreme Court (such as, for example, any decrees stating that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals, a position that Obama has long held).
How all of this could be accomplished is something that would have to be worked out by a conference of the willing states. Secession should not be ruled out as an option to be used only in an extreme situation. "Consent of the governed" is the foundation of our Republic and perhaps it is time to withdraw our consent. Such a movement would indeed create a lot of controversy but the implications of it might be enough to stop Obama's aggressive program. The Democratic Party might grow some gonads and join us in stopping him.
Yes, Obama won the election; however, the Constitution is supposed to create boundaries beyond which elected officials cannot go. Obama and his administration do not feel in any way obligated to respect those boundaries. Therefore, we are put into a position of accepting serfdom or finding new ways to peacefully resist.
Jim Robinson is right: we need a serious conversation about our alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
