Here is a Model for Resolutions of Nullification for State Legislatures:
I also posted the entire text in the Forums on TPN's main page.
Look: The sneering one who wrote that is not a lawyer and has no academic background in political philosophy or political science. That is obvious from the silly things he says. Ask him what qualifies him as an expert on this subject.
My qualifications are that I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy where I specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theory of knowledge). I started studying The Federalist Papers when I was an undergraduate. I have studied all aspects of Marxist theory. I have a law degree and practiced litigation (trial & appellate) for many years. I have been a lawyer for 40 years. I also spent some years in E. Europe and the former Soviet Union during the cold war and thus have first hand knowledge of totalitarianism in practice.
I can also tell a great deal about the sneering one from his pompous style of writing! Pomposity in writing is an indicator of an overweening sense of self-importance.
Much is written about the Constitution. Most of it is written by people who don't know what they are talking about. This fellow - the sneering one - doesn't know what he is talking about.
So! What are THE PEOPLE to do? How do they distinguish between the wheat and the chaff? How do they know when a writer on the Constitution knows the subject; or whether the writer is a resentful squint-eyed soul spewing forth venom & malice?
Proof & Evidence: Everything I write is supported by citations to The Federalist Papers, Webster's 1828 dictionary, Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention, The Declaration of Independence, other writings of our Framers, and ......... the laws of Logic. Thus, my readers are able to check out everything I write to see if I am telling the Truth.
With respect to my Model Nullification Resolutions - well, compare them to The Kentucky Resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson. There is not a single idea in there which is mine. I'm channeling Our Framers!
Some very evil people have infiltrated the TPs - they can be recognized by their constant nasty attacks upon Our Constitution, the Federalist Papers & Alexander Hamilton. These are ravening wolves. And then, of course, they have their dupes - people who look for excuses to hate what is good and great and beautiful.
It is not necessary that one have a law degree or a Ph. D. in political Science (Dr. Alan Keyes) to understand the Constitution. .Few lawyers understand it b/c of the indoctrination in law school which they willingly accepted. Some people w/o degrees are quite amazing in the depth of their understanding of the Constitution. What THEY have is a willingness to acknowledge that what they thought they knew, just ain't so; and a willingness to learn. What I provide is explanations supported by verifiable quotes from The Federalist Papers and other primary source documents.
Dear Publius, it was not my intent to offend you in any way when posting this for your consideration. And, I was less interested in his style/manner, than your comment on some of his positions. You may not have time, or inclination to address those, and that's o.k. I am learning much from the "steel on steel" process of disagreements addressed, and areas of agreement discovered. Every time I think I know something, I discover another little nuance which causes me to rethink...sometimes with little impact on my original opinion, sometimes with significant impact.
You didn't offend me, Phillip; and I am not the issue anyway. But the sneering one's comments were so profoundly ignorant that I saw no need to respond to his allegations.
My time is better spent (1) Telling People the Truth and supporting it with primary source citations and, in cases like this, (2) Trying to show People how to tell the difference between good & valuable writing and the spewings of the ignorant & resentful.
And do you see the pure logic in what Mark says?
Speaking of purity: Another way to tell the difference between valuable writing on Our Constitution and lies: Do you not see a certain degree of purity in the writings of some? And malice in the writings of others?
Just looking at this "analysis" by this individual from a logical viewpoint some interesting observations may be had.
How can one admit on the one hand that the States have a responsibility to protect the rights of their own citizens, then on the other hand contend that the States are powerless to stop federal encroachment which directly violates those rights? It is illogical and contradictory
Why does this individual contend on the one hand that the Federalist papers , written and PUBLISHED to the people at large to induce ratification, should be viewed as "commentary" rather than :authority" on the Constitution, then use a letter (unpublished and specifically between two individuals who may or may not have held differing views) as rebuttal ?
How does this individual imply intimate experience with early American jurisprudence, ignore the fact that early courts (e.g. the Marshall Court) regularly defer to the Federalists for interpretive guidance? This is disingenuous at the least.
One would have to read the COMPLETE documents that the author relies upon to see which ideas and concepts were omitted with the "......." in many of the excerpts.I suspect that one would find modifiers and conditional specifics that were omitted to mislead the reader.
Finally, how exactly does the militia defend against legislative usurpation? The whole notion is insane. How would that work exactly? Congress passes ObamaCare...State militia does what exactly? take Congress at gun point? Do the states issue Letters of Marque? This is a suggestive comment which can only be designed to discredit the movement at large. Either that or the individual is a blood thirsty tyrant that wishes to rule by military force.
PH is adamant that opinions are irrelevant and that SOURCE material be cited rather than secondary sources. She has nothing to gain financially from any of us learning, agreeing, disagreeing, etc. There is nothing to SLANT her writings other than the desire to see justice and the rule of law restored for ALL Americans.
Is a misconstruction any less deceptive if it employs eloquent verbiage?
Mark, you truly amaze me with your insight. You have the ability to look past all the garbage people write and get to the heart of the matter.
Mark is amazing.
So, if nullification is not allowed, at any level; and the States are powerless to deal with an out-of-control Federal Government because they, specifically the state legislatures, did not do the final voting for ratification; then that would leave the States without recourse when the 10th Amendment if violated. The States would be at the mercy of the people in each and every case. This presents two problems: are the people to pass another Amendment each time the States get trampled upon; and what are the States to do when they find, such as we now have, the people are too ignorant or to dependent to take up the issues themselves?
Under the above comments and with the present situation, there would be no solution to stop the Socialist slide and the rising of a dictatorship.
Well, we know them by their fruits, don't we? Backbiters & sneerers & trashers of our Founding Documents and Framers. Their hatred of all that is good and beautiful and great will not be sated until We are destroyed.
You cleaned his clock, Mike!
Mark and Mike, thank you for your comments and observations!!!!
It seems that Texas is working toward state nullification.
How many states are in now?