LA Times is wrong
Patriot
Last comment by Regional 3 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

Kansas over the top on gun rights protection.

The Los Angeles Times editorial, in Wednesday’s, July 16 newspaper, taking issue with the use of the 10th Amendment of our Constitution to protect 2nd Amendment gun rights, is a classic Leftist argument that is false.

The Los Angeles Times stated “The idea is that states have a right under the 10th Amendment to unilaterally reject federal laws on issues not expressly reserved for the federal government in the Constitution.” Yes the States can! The Los Angeles Times believes as does the political Left, in the Supremacy of the Federal Government over our States. This is a classic premise used by the Left to secure the supremacy of the Federal Government over our States. This premise is false and is dangerous to our form of government, which is a Republic. States do have a Constitutional right to unilaterally reject federal laws on issues not expressly reserved for the federal government. The federal government works on behalf of the fifty Independent States, not the other way around.

The history of the founding of our nation as a Republic repudiates this Leftist premise. Our nation was founded on the principles declared to the world in the Declaration of Independence. It is what our nation stands for, and what makes America unique and exceptional. Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:” We therefore, the Representative of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do in the Name, and Authority of the good People of these Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” We began as Free and Independent States and still are under our Constitution. The original thirteen Independent States united together under the Articles of Confederation as the United States of America.

The Articles of Confederation proved to be unmanageable, because our Independent State so feared a Central (Federal) Government that they gave very little power to the Federal Government. To remain united, our Independent States sent delegates to Philadelphia to work out a new form of government. It would be a Republic. Our Independent States listed in Article I section 8 of the Constitution what powers they would lend to the Federal Government to do on behalf of all the States. The States created the Federal Government and the States can change, modify, or abolish the Federal government by holding a Constitutional Convention. The Federal Government works for the States, not the other way around. This is why Kansas can unilaterally reject any law passed by Congress on gun control, because Congress has no legal way to pass any law on gun control. The Second Amendment states “…. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The States put the Bill of Rights into our Constitution to prohibit the Federal Government from abusing the God Given Rights of the People, one being self defense.

Here is the preamble to our Constitution: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This preamble states why our Constitution became the law of the nation. WE THE PEOPLE created our government. All power in our nation belongs to the People. The People lend their power to their elected officials. If the elected officials do not do what the People want done, the People can vote them out of office, thus changing the government. This applies to both the Federal State and Local elected officials.

The phrase “promote the general Welfare” refers to the General Welfare of the Independent States, not social welfare payments from the Federal government. Our Independent States did not list social welfare as a lent power in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. The Federal government works on behalf of, to promote the general welfare of, our Independent States. This is another false premise of Leftists. The reason the Federal Government works for the Independent States is clear. Let me explain it.

Our Founding Fathers put into the Constitution four checks on the Federal Government so that the Independent States could regain their lent power, from the Federal Government. These checks are:
1.The 10th Amendment which states “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 word “delegated” means to give power to a subordinate on behalf of a higher power. The Independent States delegated (lent) limited powers to their subordinate level of government, the Federal government. The Federal government works on behalf of the Independent States.

2. The Federal government can be changed at any time thru Constitutional Amendments. A two thirds major vote in the House and Senate, and three fourths of the State Legislatures voting in favor of an Amendment can change the Federal government.

3. Article 1 section 3 of the Constitution states how U.S.
Senators are elected. They were to be elected by the Legislature of the Independent States. They were to be the check and balance in the Federal Government. They were to protect States Rights under the 10th Amendment from Federal encroachment. If a President issued an executive order that violated the Constitution and 10th Amendment, the Senate would protect the 10th Amendment and convict the President of violating our Constitution. Therefore, any threat of Impeachment by the House would be enough to stop a President. This all changed in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment. Under the 17th Amendment, Senators are now elected by popular vote of the citizens of each State. This profoundly changed the focus of the Senate. No longer are Senators protecting their State from Federal Government abuse. Today, Senators are protecting the agenda of the political party they belong to. The 17th Amendment has destroyed a major portion of our checks and balances in our great Republic. The 17th Amendment must be repealed in favor of the original way our Founding Father set up the system under our Constitution.

4. The Independent States retain the supreme power of government on behalf of the people because they can change, modify, or dissolve the Federal government at any time by three fourths of the State Legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention. They can create a new Federal government if they want.

The principle that our States are “Independent States” is the cornerstone of our Constitution and Republican form of government. It is emphatically stated in the Declaration of Independence. “ We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men our 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,- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Our Fifty States are Free an Independent, they lent some of their power to a Federal Government that they designed and created, retaining the power to alter or abolish it, if it ever became destructive of the Rights of the People.

Finally, our Union of Independent States agreed to abide by the provisions of our Constitution when they ratified it in 1789. Those powers lent to the Federal Government by our Independent States in Article 1 section 8 gives the Federal Government the power to execute law in these areas on behalf of all the States. These laws must be followed by the States. That is what the States agreed to do by ratifying the Constitution. However, any law that violates the 10th Amendment, a State does not have a legal obligation to follow. These laws violate the Constitution; they pertain to powers retained by the Independent States under the 10th Amendment.

The Los Angles Times is wrong, as all Leftists are wrong. The Federal government works on behalf of our Independent States and is subordinate to our States in all matters not covered in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution


Latest Activity: Jul 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by Ironside
Send Ironside a Message
Report Inappropriate Content


Blog has been viewed (597) times.

theflyonthewall commented on Sunday, Jul 20, 2014 at 20:55 PM

Most red states receive more from the feds than they pay. Would the application of states rights require those states to send more money to Washington ,or is the application of states rights just a facile way to garner votes from single issue voters?

Scindapsus commented on Sunday, Jul 20, 2014 at 22:42 PM

Hmm. I'd always assumed that the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to declare our independence from Mother England, not from each other. The fact that the phrase "Independent States" is used more times in this blog post than in the entire Constitution doesn't exactly instill confidence in this alternative explanation.

Incidentally, I've always been fascinated by the history of how the constitution came to be. "Far right conservatives" may worship it today, but they clearly would never have tolerated it at the time, as it was nothing if not a series of compromises among men with exceedingly different views, and the only compromise accepting to today's conservative is straight out of "Re: Your Brains" :

"All we want to do is eat your brains
We're at an impasse here, maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We'll all come inside and eat your brains"

Of course, thinking back to the sequestration (in Jon Stewart's words, "I wish I was there when Democrats said to Republicans, 'Look, if we can't come to a deal, there's going to be massive, across-the-board spending cuts.' I'm sure the Republicans were like, 'OK. If that's what you want.'"), I suspect that more than a few Democratic congressman and senators would open the door!

Regional commented on Monday, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:46 AM

As a historian I have read many of the journals and other writings of our nation's founding fathers. As such, I have gathered a pretty good idea of how they wanted our 'Federal' government to work.

This is my very much simplified take:

First and foremost, scindapsus, the founding fathers wanted to create a political umbrella under which these "United States" could operate in their dealing with foreign powers. They werent just concerned about Great Britain, they were equally concerned about the actions of France and Spain.

Also present were concerns about the actions in the former colony of smaller imperial powers, which today are not even thought of when discussing the American Revolution: Portugal, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and more.

Secondly, the founding fathers wanted ensure that there would be a way to coordinate the settlement of all the conflicting or confusing state laws when it came to deciding legal matters and whose rights were being protected or denied.

Furthermore, for those who treat the actions of the founding fathers with contempt, know this: many of the signers of the Declaration lost their lives, their property, and many of their families suffered equally horribly because of their bravery in constructing and then signing such a revolutionary document. Many died penniless and destitute because of them taking such a stand.

Before you criticize it, and therefore, those who wrote it, scindapsus, ask yourself, would i have had the guts to stand up and risk everything just to make such a point.

You cannot treat the creation of the Constitution as if it was another pointless and purposeless political statement made before a bunch of cameras in order to gain some political points in your upcoming campaign!

Scindapsus commented on Monday, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Regional,

Not sure what to make of your ability to infer the intentions of others based on their writings, as I criticized NEITHER the Founding Fathers NOR the document they produced; quite the opposite! I commended this group of men with very different viewpoints for being able to accommodate these differences through compromise, and noted the irony of how this very approach is viewed with contempt by today's supposedly Constitution-worshiping conservatives.

Bryant commented on Monday, Jul 21, 2014 at 13:29 PM

Scindapsus, (gotta find a way to abbreviate that - can't decide on sin or pus. Neither complimentary.) I read your initial post as you have described it. However, you're labeling of Regional as a "... supposedly Constitution-worshiping conservative..." makes you guilty of the same offense you charge him with.

But, Regional, his points stand. It was politics and compromise all the way. But, it was done in the interest of our growing nation - not avoided or reluctantly agreed upon because of the next election cycle.

Scindapsus commented on Monday, Jul 21, 2014 at 14:12 PM

But I didn't label Regional anything (other than incorrect in his/her reading of my post). If he/she 1) self-identifies as a conservative, and 2) views compromise with contempt, then the label would apply (given his/her opinion of the Constitution). But Regional wasn't belittling compromise here, and so that particular turn of phrase wasn't aimed at him/her at all.

Regional commented on Monday, Jul 21, 2014 at 17:31 PM

here's my point...you stated "they clearly would not have tolerated it at that time"...that is patently false...

if you read the writings of the men who drafted and then signed the Constitution then you would know that they came from what at then would have passed for every political spectrum..

sometimes they disagreed with each other so violently on matters as to come to blows....

but when it came to crafting our nations Declaration they set aside everything and worked...

maybe for the first and only time in their lives...for truly what was the common good.!

the only people I know today who feel contempt for the Constitution are those who've never bothered to read it.....

maybe what offends me the most is your oft stated disdain for anyone "conservative".....

if someone being conservative, IE: someone who accepts traditional values and mores, if that bothers you......

then I as a Christian Conservative think you have a problem my friend...

Scindapsus commented on Monday, Jul 21, 2014 at 23:36 PM

Um, what's patently false is your version of my writing. I'm sorry, but it seems extremely obvious that ...

"'Far right conservatives' may worship it today, but they clearly would never have tolerated it at the time"

... refers to today's "Far right conservatives," not the men who drafted the Constitution! You seem to have locked into a faulty narrative (i.e., that I'm criticizing the Constitution and the men responsible for it), and are unfortunately misreading everything so it fits that narrative.

And I'm sorry that you're offended at my disdain for conservatives. To be fair, though, the only time I express this seeming disdain is in direct response to clumsy conservative attacks on anything or anyone deemed insufficiently conservative. If I'm not mistaken, that means you're offended that I dare be offended, sort of like Holly Fisher's getting upset when her mocking of liberals was itself mocked. Ah well.

Regional commented on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 at 13:19 PM

apology accepted...and im impressed with your knowledge of these arguments


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Ironside
 
GSU's Uniform Change
October 21, 2014
I went to the Idaho and saw the change to GSU's uniforms. The Iconic look of GSU's uniforms is something that should not fall victim to the "Who can come up with the flashiest uniform craze" that many teams are now going to. These teams have lost their identity. GSU's ...
Read More »
 
Why is the Islamic World on Fire.
September 24, 2014
Why is the Islamic World on Fire? I served in the Egyptian Sinai Desert in 1983-1984 and the Gulf War in 1990-91. What I experienced was a part of the world forgotten for hundreds of years by the West suddenly rediscovered by the West because of the need for oil. ...
Read More »
 
Nunn vs. Perdue
August 25, 2014
David Perdue vs. Michelle Nunn Debate The candidates held their first debate laying out their positions for this November’s election. Michelle Nunn portrayed David Purdue as obstructionist who would continue gridlock in Washington. David Perdue stated “If you like what’s going on in Washington, than vote for my opponent. She ...
Read More »
 
GSU vs. Georgia Tech football game
August 15, 2014
Paul Johnson talked about his team and what they would be doing this year in today's paper. Under the title of Five things to watch for when the Yellow Jackets open their season was this: Johnson experimented with the shotgun, including a diamond formation, with his quarterback last season. Johnson ...
Read More »
 
ISIS on the march is history repeating itself,
August 13, 2014
ISIS on the march, is history repeating itself. The history of Islam is what we are witnessing ISIS doing in Iraq. From it’s beginning, Islam has been a very violent religion. Muhammad leads his followers on raids of caravans traveling in the desert beginning in the year 622. He gains ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology