Friday, January 16, 2015

Spotlight Friday: Amendment10

Amendment10

A single-issue zealot like Cringing Negativism Network, only with an even more robotic style.

As one might tell from the name, this Freeper's cause is to return to the Articles of Confederation. He's read just enough law to cherry pick language from a pre-Civil War Commerce Clause case, and argues that Congress cannot appropriate funds for anything, really.

He tends towards longish, formulaic and repetitive posts, so I've excerpted most of the stuff linked here. He's also a great fan of the phrases "Low-Information" and "With all due respect to mom & pop."

The laser-like focus, repetitive formatting and lack of sentence variety....It's a bit Freeperish to diagnose people you don't know over the Internet, but his posts scream autism IMO.


An exemplary post, unexcerpted
Thank you for referencing that article BBell. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Please keep the following in mind when reading this post. Low-information state lawmakers long ago unsurprisingly overlooked the federal government’s constitutionally limited power to tax and spend as evidenced not only by the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A), but also by the following excerpt from a Supreme Court case opinion.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.


In other words, the feds are prohibited from laying taxes for spending that cannot be justified under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

So a bunch of taxpayer dollars which corrupt Congress has never had the constitutional authority to appropriate in the first place are being thrown at the states, the main purpose of such funding likely to win votes for corrupt, Constitution-ignoring federal lawmakers.

Note that Founding States had originally given state lawmakers unique control of the federal Senate. This is because one purpose of the Senate was undoubtedly to kill House appropriations bills which not only stole 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also arguably robbed state revenues associated with those powers as evidenced by the clarification above of Congress's limited power to lay taxes.

Again, 17A is glaring evidence that voters and state lawmakers had long ago forgotten about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, especially Congress’s limited power to lay taxes.
The thing is, if you're going to rely on Supreme Court precedent, you kinda have to address the cases that came after. Also the Amendments too. I hear the 14th was a big one.

On Gay marriage:
Pro-gay activist justices, judges and state officials are wrongly taking advantage of low-information voters, voters who have probably never been taught about 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected gay “rights” like gay marriage. They are doing so by wrongly reading the so-called right to gay marriage into the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC). But by doing so they are wrongly ignoring that Constitution-respecting justices had historically clarified that 14A added no new constitutional protections. It only strengthens rights that have been expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.
Secton 8 Housing:
The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to appropriate revenue for vote-winning intrastate housing purposes. Neither have the states amended the Constitution to make housing a constitutionally protected right.
Obamacare:
Regardless what misguided activist justices want everbody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.

So if low-information Seattle Seahawks mega-stars want everybody to sign up for Obamacare then they need to do the following. They need to work with state and federal lawmakers to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states. And if the states choose to ratify their amendment then the feds will have the constitutional authority that they need to establish Obamacare and the Seattle Seahawks mega-stars will be heroes.
Paid Leave:
Regarding a federal law that gives employees paid leave, please consider the following.

Regardless what FDR’s activist justices had wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3) powers when it wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor in 1942 imo, FDR’s justices ignored the following. They ignored that the Supreme Court had historically clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce.
The Pledge of Allegiance.
Thank you for referencing that article Olog-hai. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

As a side note to this thread, patriots may want to consider the following which I regard as a problem with the Pledge. More specifically, not only was the Pledge written by a socialist, but using terms like "one Nation" and "indivisible," the Pledge is arugably pro-big federal government propaganda.
With all due respect to mom & pop...
With all due respect to mom & pop, somewhere along the line parents stopped making sure that their children were taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those power to be understood.
Reagan and Bush's mom & pop:
With all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of the parents of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush not making sure that their children were taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, these presidents probably didn’t even consider the possibility that they were wrongly usurping 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate intrastate immigration by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants imo.
Environmental regulations's mom & pop:
With all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of the parents of the owners of the land use companies in Colorado and Utah not making sure that their children where taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited pawers, the owners of the companies are evidently not able to argue the following simple points to stop the federal government’s constitutionally indefensible mischief.

More specifically, and as mentioned in related threads...
Climate Change's mom & pop:
With all due respect to mom & pop, the consequence of Dr. Hughes' parents not making sure that their son was taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers is the following. Dr. Hughes is probably not able to argue that even if PC climate change global warming can be proven by the consistent results of scientific method-based experiments, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly grant Congress the specific power address the issue.
Someone's daughter is going to law school:
I hope that your daughter is studying Supreme Court case opinions written before FDR’s puppet justices nuked the Constitution, sweeping the 10th Amendment under the carpet in order to give corrupt Congress the green light to greatly overstep its constitutionally limited powers.
Even his birtherism sounds like his 10th Amendment windmill-tilting.
Thank you for referencing that article i88schwartz. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

On election night in 2012, I remember that Obama guard dog OReilly not only ignored possible voting irregularities, but Hanity was a little bit too eager to argue, imo, that Obama’s birth certificate issue was irrelevant.
The 14th Amendment? Doesn't do anything about State's Rights.
The 14th Amendment did not take away any state powers, in this case the power to reasonably regulate religious expression noted by Jefferson. This is evidenced by the fact that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified, as evidenced by the congressional record, that 14A took away no state’s rights.
Hey, can we get the Congressional Budget Office to be as crazy as I am?
Regarding abolishing the IRS, I’d also like for Congress to require the Congressional Budgeting Office (CBO) to announce when an appropriations bill authorizes spending for things that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Why won't the Tea Party join him in crazyville?
Tea Party patriots really need to go beyond “flag, motherhood and apple pie” and get themselves up to speed with the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers in particular.
At least he doesn't want to shoot the everyone who disagrees with him:
The remedy to this mess is the following. Patriots must exercise their voting muscle to peacefully force the corrupt feds to surrender 10th Amendment-protected state powers, powers which the corrupt feds have wrongly stolen from the states, back to the states. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of time before someone even more lawless than Obama starts exercising constitutionally nonexistant powers from the Oval Office.

9 comments:

  1. These constitutional geniuses have such a boner for the 10th amendment, they always seem to forget about the 9th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I smell a frustrated constitutional lawyer who washed out after his first semester.

      Delete
  2. I swear this has to be a bot. His posts look like they're copy-pasted into a script.

    Please bear the following in mind: What the fuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even bots are programmed to not spit out 200 word run on sentences.

      Before Amendment10 wastes his time on any more constitutional theory, he should spend a few days studying "Elements of Style".

      Delete
    2. Especially "Omit needless words."

      Then again, most lawmakers would benefit from that.

      Delete
    3. "Omit needless words" -- that would eliminate most comments on FR. Aren't 90% of the comments predictable repeats, anyway?

      Delete
    4. It would. 99% if you include Elsie and Colifornians cut and paste screeds if anyone mentions Mormons.

      Though to be fair to Ammendment10 - (s)he does look like (s)he actually attempts to keep on topic rather than blathering everywhere.

      Delete
  3. On the subject of armchair constitutional experts ...
    SCOTUS announced today they will take gay marriage arguments in April, freepers weigh in.

    Of course, gay marriage is just a side issue ... lots of general homo hatred to be found there too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I hear now whenever I check out free republic is "change bad" in a Frankenstein esk voice

      Delete