Drudge: WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY

[DirtyBird]

On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed Resolution 632 (SR632) “Affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.” The vote was a resounding 43-1, with 12 not voting or excused.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/sr632.htm

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/votes/sv0340.htm

Read the full text of the legislation below:

WHEREAS, the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and the Tenth Amendment states “[t]he 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.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that this body reaffirms the principles of government expressed by Thomas Jefferson in a resolution written for the Kentucky legislature in 1798 stating that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “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;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress.

[Madison Redskin]

I keep hearing conservatives talk about how "Obama's programs" are unconstitutional. Rarely, if ever, however do they elaborate as to how such programs violate the Constitution. So, would one of our resident conservatives/constitutional scholars please elaborate?

[Popeman38]

I keep hearing conservatives talk about how "Obama's programs" are unconstitutional. Rarely, if ever, however do they elaborate as to how such programs violate the Constitution. So, would one of our resident conservatives/constitutional scholars please elaborate?

Step 1: Read The Constitution

Step 2: Identify all programs not enumerated in the Constitution

Step 3: Determine if said programs provide for the national defense or general welfare.

These steps will identify any "Unconstitutional" programs by definition. Getting the SC to rule to the same affect is a different story.

[Madison Redskin]

Destino, I'm about 99% sure that Armstrong isn't exactly a huge fan of the GOP. He was trying to point out how far we've strayed from the original design of the country, no matter who's been in charge.

I am not sure if it's accurate to say, "we've strayed from the original design of the country." That implies that there was one design for this country when, in fact, there is one written instrument which embodies the designs of dozens of groups and hundreds of people. That instrument (i.e., the Constitution) meant many different things to many different people when it was drafted, and it continues to mean many different things to many different people today.

[Madison Redskin]

Step 1: Read The Constitution

Step 2: Identify all programs not enumerated in the Constitution

Step 3: Determine if said programs provide for the national defense or general welfare.

These steps will identify any "Unconstitutional" programs by definition. Getting the SC to rule to the same affect is a different story.

I am not a Constitutional scholar, but at least I went to law school. Your understanding of the Constitution is almost child-like. But, I am glad that you feel that you are more competent than the United States Supreme Court when it comes to the history and true meaning of the Constitution.

[IHOPSkins]

......but the small town = real america is a staple of republican talking points. It was pointed out several times in the last election. I have a big problem with being defined as less moral and less american because I don't live in the middle of no where.

So Small town equals "Middle of no where"

Maybe thats why Republicans CAN use it as a talking point since Liberals like YOU say stupid **** like that

Flyover Country right? :doh:

[Larry]

This statement makes you sound very dismissive to the Consitution and the Bill of Rights.

Or maybe he's really dismissive of politicians who think the Constitution is a really nifty prop to use for their next partisan political stunt.

[PeterMP]

Step 1: Read The Constitution

Step 2: Identify all programs not enumerated in the Constitution

Step 3: Determine if said programs provide for the national defense or general welfare.

These steps will identify any "Unconstitutional" programs by definition. Getting the SC to rule to the same affect is a different story.

Uhhh you know the Constitution also says somethings about the Supreme Court. Like they have the power to decide what is Constitutional and what isn't not somebody named Popeman38.

Seriously, read the Constitution carefully and then please come back and explain how it is Constitutionally possible for the Supreme Court to improperly interpert the Constitution.

[Larry]

Step 1: Read The Constitution

Step 2: Identify all programs not enumerated in the Constitution

Step 3: Determine if said programs provide for the national defense or general welfare or interstate commerce.

These steps will identify any "Unconstitutional" programs by definition. Getting the SC to rule to the same affect is a different story.

You forgot one of the other excuses.

[Larry]

So Small town equals "Middle of no where"

"If you have ever carried a can of paint to the top of a water tower, to defend your sister's honor . . . "

[Predicto]

I am not a Constitutional scholar, but at least I went to law school. Your understanding of the Constitution is almost child-like. But, I am glad that you feel that you are more competent than the United States Supreme Court when it comes to the history and true meaning of the Constitution.

Well I AM a Constitutional scholar, and let me tell you, it carries no weight on this board. :laugh:

[Destino]

So Small town equals "Middle of no where"

Maybe thats why Republicans CAN use it as a talking point since Liberals like YOU say stupid **** like that

Flyover Country right? :doh:

You are the only person I've ever run into that was willing to pretend middle of nowhere is an insulting expression. The people I hear it from most often are those using it to describe their own towns. As in "I moved out to the middle of nowhere to raise my family far from all this crap." It's a area lacking population far from major landmarks or population centers. There is nothing wrong with those towns and there is nothing wrong with being from a major city.

The reason republicans can say it is because they can say whatever they want. The reason they do IMO is because they only see those that support them as real americans. They are "patriots" and everyone that disagrees is trying to destroy america and is a threat to it. They just don't have the balls to just come right out and say it directly.

[twa]

Honestly, here's what it sounds like:

"I'm really mad my party doesnt control the federal government anymore, so I'm gonna assert my state's 10th Amendment rights... whatever those are."

Even under W's terms Texas asserted it's rights and fought the Feds

The death penalty vs foreign treaties, immigration issues are just a couple examples.

[armstrong001]

Which programs are unconstitutional and how and why are they so?

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Everything not included in this list of powers.

[Larry]

Remembering an old Bloom County comic.

Opus has decided to become a farmer. Milo is telling him that, in order to become a farmer, he must be able to read the following two sentences, one after the other, without laughing:

"Get the government off our backs!"

"Where's my *&$^%# subsidy?"

(Opus couldn't do it with a straight face.)

[armstrong001]

The type of limited government the founding fathers supported doesn't look anything like the kind the GOP supports. You really think the kind of limited government the founders were worried about was education and social security? I haven't seen any evidence at all supporting that. I know limited corporate power was a big idea back then that was considered not needed in the consitution solely because the states already limited them with sunsets on their charters and no personhood. I know they wouldn't favor the drug war and the militarization of the police department. I know for damn sure they'd be spinning at the concept of less freedom for security. All things the GOP finds itself at odds with the founders on.

The type of limited government the founding fathers had in mind is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (see above). Like I said, Republicans are not even close to 100% reliable to push for limited government in all forms. But they have a better record than the Democrats, and that's my choice right now. I'd love for a third party to show up and be REALLY for limited government, but I've got to work with what I have.

Incidentally, they were worried about charities, such as social security:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

So yes they were for "limited government" but what they supported doesn't look anything like the kind of limited government the GOP pushes. Claiming they are the same thing because they both represent limits is nonsense.

I never said Republicans were lock-step with the founding fathers (If only it were true!). But I'll take some of the time over never any day.

So what? He's plainly defining "great american" with "right winger". And there is a big damn problem with talking about "liberty" when you are plainly attempting to redefine the term to mean "right winger" In both cases the words are being applied taking political leaning into consideration exclusively.

There is no difference between someone calling his show and telling him that he's a great American than when others call other shows and say what a great job the host is doing. He hasn't coopted the phrase. If you want it to apply to others, call up their show and pay them the compliment.

Levin and others aren't using the term "liberty" to apply only to "right wingers". If only "right wingers" want that liberty, then so be it.

I don't think I've heard it from a democrat. I'm sure there are examples but the small town = real america is a staple of republican talking points. It was pointed out several times in the last election. I have a big problem with being defined as less moral and less american because I don't live in the middle of no where.

How about all the drivel about "We need to focus on main street rather than wall street", clearly implying that Republicans are all fat cats on wall street, making huge profits while poor Democrats suffer. I don't know how many times I heard that Democrat "talking point". Especially when so much of New York is Democrat territory.

I have a big problem being defined as a rich **** who couldn't care less about the "poor people" in this country.

[armstrong001]

Remembering an old Bloom County comic.

Opus has decided to become a farmer. Milo is telling him that, in order to become a farmer, he must be able to read the following two sentences, one after the other, without laughing:

"Get the government off our backs!"

"Where's my *&$^%# subsidy?"

(Opus couldn't do it with a straight face.)

I didn't say it would be easy to get rid of the Federal Government's overstepping. It definitely takes some sacrifice of what has been accepted as our "due". Clearly there are many who would have trouble truely accepting all that comes with a drastic reduction in Federal power. But I for one would welcome the challenge. When I succeed, it will be because of my doing, not because the Federal government allowed it to happen.

[armstrong001]

Jesus, have you seen any of my political posts?

Yes, it was a compliment.

You never can tell for sure when reading text. Sarcasm doesn't translate well. Thank you for that. It is most appreciated.

[mhd24]

The type of limited government the founding fathers had in mind is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (see above). Like I said, Republicans are not even close to 100% reliable to push for limited government in all forms. But they have a better record than the Democrats, and that's my choice right now. I'd love for a third party to show up and be REALLY for limited government, but I've got to work with what I have.

Incidentally, they were worried about charities, such as social security:

I never said Republicans were lock-step with the founding fathers (If only it were true!). But I'll take some of the time over never any day.

There is no difference between someone calling his show and telling him that he's a great American than when others call other shows and say what a great job the host is doing. He hasn't coopted the phrase. If you want it to apply to others, call up their show and pay them the compliment.

Levin and others aren't using the term "liberty" to apply only to "right wingers". If only "right wingers" want that liberty, then so be it.

I don't think I've heard it from a democrat. I'm sure there are examples but the small town = real america is a staple of republican talking points. It was pointed out several times in the last election. I have a big problem with being defined as less moral and less american because I don't live in the middle of no where.

How about all the drivel about "We need to focus on main street rather than wall street", clearly implying that Republicans are all fat cats on wall street, making huge profits while poor Democrats suffer. I don't know how many times I heard that Democrat "talking point". Especially when so much of New York is Democrat territory.

I have a big problem being defined as a rich **** who couldn't care less about the "poor people" in this country.

I take it you don't believe in incorporation then right? Incorporation basically says that all of the consitutional amendments are what states must adhere to as well.

Justice Thomas does not mean it incorporation. He wrote that states could decree offficial religions and the establishment clause would not bar it. Would it be acceptable for each and every state to have different official religions?

[armstrong001]

I am not sure if it's accurate to say, "we've strayed from the original design of the country." That implies that there was one design for this country when, in fact, there is one written instrument which embodies the designs of dozens of groups and hundreds of people. That instrument (i.e., the Constitution) meant many different things to many different people when it was drafted, and it continues to mean many different things to many different people today.

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but

an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

It is completely accurate to say that we've strayed from the original intent of the framers. The powers of the Federal Government was very strictly defined in the Constitution, and what was written down was the EXTREME amount of power that they wanted. The Federalist Papers were written to persuade people to allow a Federal Goverment with these limited powers, because many thought the Constitution went too far! To say that they would be ok with how things have turned out is to turn a blind eye to what they wrote to defend what limited goverment they were trying to install.

Just because it means many things to many people doesn't mean that they are right. Those who call the Constitution a "living document" in their aim to change it says through "interpretation" neglect the fact that there was a device included in the Constitution to legally do just that. It's called the Ammendment process. Changing what the Constitution "meant" was intentionally difficult, because if we could change it as easily as we pass laws, there would be no defining principals, standards, or rights. To claim liberal interpretations (meaning far reaching, not neccessarily of Liberal persuasion) of the Consitution is to go against everything that the framers wanted in a founding document.

[armstrong001]

Uhhh you know the Constitution also says somethings about the Supreme Court. Like they have the power to decide what is Constitutional and what isn't not somebody named Popeman38.

Seriously, read the Constitution carefully and then please come back and explain how it is Constitutionally possible for the Supreme Court to improperly interpert the Constitution.

Three words: "Separate but equal"...

[armstrong001]

I take it you don't believe in incorporation then right? Incorporation basically says that all of the consitutional amendments are what states must adhere to as well.

Justice Thomas does not mean it incorporation. He wrote that states could decree offficial religions and the establishment clause would not bar it. Would it be acceptable for each and every state to have different official religions?

I wouldn't mind it one bit. Because the States wouldn't try to establish official religions (well, maybe Utah). But if they did, and you didn't like it, you could just move to a different state. If you want to try some kind of example that might be more plausible, I'm willing to answer it as well.

[mhd24]

I wouldn't mind it one bit. Because the States wouldn't try to establish official religions (well, maybe Utah). But if they did, and you didn't like it, you could just move to a different state. If you want to try some kind of example that might be more plausible, I'm willing to answer it as well.

Then the Bills of rights is not applicable at all to states according to you? Who cares about state laws that say you can't send your kids to whatever school you want to? State laws that say you can't teach your kids foreign languages. State laws that ban contraception for the use between maried people. State laws that target a specific religion and forbid them from building a church. State laws that ban interracial marriage. State laws that say you are liable to be hung if you teach a class with white and black kids. We should let the states have these rights?

[DirtyBird]

Then the Bills of rights is not applicable at all to states according to you? Who cares about state laws that say you can't send your kids to whatever school you want to? State laws that say you can't teach your kids foreign languages. State laws that ban contraception for the use between maried people. State laws that target a specific religion and forbid them from building a church. State laws that ban interracial marriage. State laws that say you are liable to be hung if you teach a class with white and black kids. We should let the states have these rights?

The Bill of Rights is absolutely applicable to the States. However each state has the right to leave the union and govern itself outside of the US and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is my interpretation of the original intent.

[Madison Redskin]

It is completely accurate to say that we've strayed from the original intent of the framers.

The original intent? As in one single intent? Do you really mean to tell me the Founders ALL agreed as to the precise meaning and scope of the Constitution? And, you also mean to tell me that, over 200 years since they died, you can use your Jedi mind tricks to divine what they thought?

I think Constitutional scholars can uncover a general intent with respect to each provision of the Constitution. But that is an EXCEEDINGLY difficult process. Moreover, I do not think that a layperson should say, "I personally know that, if the Founders were born in 1960, and looked at our present form of government, that they would be shocked and appalled."

The powers of the Federal Government was very strictly defined in the Constitution, and what was written down was the EXTREME amount of power that they wanted.

The Constitution is NOT a laundry list. Nor are all of its provisions subject to one interpretation. To say otherwise is simply nonsense. For example, the Commerce Clause says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the US and foreign nations and between the states. What the hell does that mean? That could justify a million types of regulations in today's modern world.

Just because it means many things to many people doesn't mean that they are right. Those who call the Constitution a "living document" in their aim to change it says through "interpretation" neglect the fact that there was a device included in the Constitution to legally do just that.

Again, you dismiss the notion that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. That's simply wrong and just about every judge and lawyer would agree with me. I realize that probably doesn't carry much weight with you, but it should.