[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen

Tucker Carlson LIVE: America After Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk allegedly recently refused $150 million from Israel to take more pro Israel stances

"NATO just declared War on Russia!"Co; Douglas Macgregor

If You're Trying To Lose Weight But Gaining Belly Fat, Watch Insulin

Arabica Coffee Prices Soar As Analyst Warns of "Weather Disasters" Risk Denting Global Production

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk)

Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances

STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones

This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat

Cinnamon reduces fat

How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3.

'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot

Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel

Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups

Keto, Ivermectin, & Fenbendazole: New Cancer Treatment Protocol Gains Momentum

Bill Ackman 'Hammered' Charlie Kirk in August 'Intervention' for Platforming Israel Critics

"I've Never Experienced Crime Of This Magnitude Before": 20-Year Veteran Austrian Police Spox


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: The Harsh Reality of Federal Supremacy
Source: Southern National Congress
URL Source: http://southernnationalcongress.org/truths/federal_supremacy.shtml
Published: Sep 27, 2010
Author: James Ronald Kennedy
Post Date: 2010-09-27 19:15:56 by Red Jones
Keywords: None
Views: 249
Comments: 24

The Harsh Reality of Federal Supremacy

James Ronald Kennedy

California, Arizona, & Louisiana

We the people of the once sovereign states live in the shadow of Federal tyranny. For example; when the people of California expressed their sovereign will in an open plebiscite a Federal judge nullified the will of the people; when the elected legislature of Arizona passed a law to defend the people of that once sovereign state against armed criminal invasion originating from a foreign country, the Federal President filed a suit in the Federal court to prevent Arizona from executing its inalienable right of self-defense; and when the elected governor of Louisiana attempted to protect his state from a man-made disaster in the Gulf of Mexico the Federal bureaucracy stepped in and halted his efforts—the central theme of all of these examples is the fact of the harsh, oppressive, and unconstitutional reality of America’s current system of Federal supremacy.

At the Federal level in contemporary America there is a great divide between the unrepresented taxpaying class and the Federally represented (and Federally protected) tax consuming class. Those tax consumers who support the political status quo in Washington, D. C. and their political hirelings find nothing unusual, and actually celebrate the outcomes of the three examples above. The perks, privileges, and powers that are derived from the status quo, or the close connections they enjoy with the status quo, benefits the tax consuming class and they therefore find great incentive to encourage the expansion of Federal supremacy. Politicians such as Peter Stark who recently declared that the Federal government could do anything it wanted; or Nancy Pelosi who declared that questions regarding constitutional authority for congressional actions were “not a serious question;” or President Obama’s declaration while running for office that the Federal government had a right to redistribute Joe the Plumber’s wealth demonstrate a thorough repudiation of the Constitution. Whereas our founding fathers created a limited Federal government, today’s “status quo” politicians see only unlimited power to promote their socialists agenda. In their very words and by their actions Stark, Pelosi, and Obama demonstrate the pervasive acceptance by America’s political status quo of the notion that the Constitution, as an instrument to limit Federal powers and protect individual rights reserved to we the people of once sovereign states, is no longer relevant in modern America.

The concept of Federal supremacy is not new; it did not originate with the Obama administration or with the Democratic Party, but is something that began early in America’s constitutional history. The adoption and enthusiastic acceptance of Federal supremacy by the political status quo reflects a strategic shift in the manner in which American liberty is defined. Prior to Appomattox, even in many Northern States, it was accepted as a tenant of American political faith that the States created the Federal government and that we the people of the sovereign states were the final judge as to the constitutionality of the actions of our agent—the Federal government. But as Governor Yates of Illinois noted in 1865 the War for Southern Independence had “tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian idea that the best government is that which governs least.”

Too many modern day “conservatives” take great hope in the upcoming November elections—seeing the possibility of Republicans reclaiming control of Congress as a solution to the harsh reality of Federal supremacy. Unfortunately this is a false hope! As in a military campaign mere tactical victories may be impressive but they do not procure final victory. The heroic victory of Manassas (that’s Bull Run for those schooled in mere Yankee history) did not stave off the final sad reality of Appomattox—tactical victories regardless of how exciting are no substitute for a strategic victory. Yet one more false promise of a Republican “Contract for America” will produce nothing more than possibly one more exciting “conservative” tactical victory—at the end of the day, however, the political status quo in Washington, D.C. and Federal supremacy will remain intact and ready to be harshly applied when next called upon. We the people of the sovereign states do not need tactical victories we need a strategic victory—a victory that permanently deprives the power elite of the unconstitutional perks, privileges, and powers inherent in their system of Federal supremacy!

The only way to gain a strategic victory over the current system of Federal supremacy is to pass a constitutional amendment acknowledging the inalienable right of we the people within our sovereign state to nullify acts of our agent, the Federal government which we judge to be beyond its constitutional authority. How many more times will the we the people of once sovereign states allow our agent, i.e., the Federal government, to act as our master rather than our servant? How much more liberty will we allow the agents of the status quo to trample upon before we demand a REAL change in how we are governed? Going to Washington, D.C., hat in hand, every four years and imploring our masters to “play nice according to the rules of the game” will never defend, let alone reclaim, our liberty. Real state’s rights including the right of nullification and/or secession are the only remedies an otherwise unresponsive Federal government will respond too. For a full explanation of how this can be done, see Nullification: Why and How. A free copy of this book can be downloaded at www.kennedytwins.com

James Ronald (Ron) and Walter Donald (Donnie) Kennedy were born and reared in Mississippi. Each received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Louisiana, Monroe, Louisiana. Ron holds a Master's degree in Health Administration from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. Donnie is a graduate of Charlotte Memorial Medical Center School of Anesthesia, Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Kennedy Twins are best known for their bestselling book The South Was Right! which has sold over 120,000 copies as of 2009. Following the success of The South Was Right!, the Kennedy Twins have written six other books and edited, annotated, and republished an 1825 textbook on the United States Constitution by William Rawle. The other books by the Kennedy Twins are as follows: Why Not Freedom! America's Revolt Against Big Government, Was Jefferson Davis Right?, Reclaiming Liberty (Ron), Myths of American Slavery (Donnie), Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxist (Donnie and Al Benson), A View of the Constitution (William Rawle, 1825), and Nullifying Tyranny (to be released Spring 2010).

Many in the media have noted the Kennedy Twins advocacy of limited government, that is, real State's Rights, which has led to several interviews and TV appearances. The Kennedy Twins have been interviewed by numerous talk radio shows including Col. Oliver North's radio show, Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect, BBC, and French National TV.

Both have served as Commander of the Louisiana Division Sons of Confederate Veterans. They have received special recognition awards from the National Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, state and local United Daughters of the Confederacy chapters and many other Southern Heritage organizations.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

#1. To: Red Jones (#0)

When they keep adding tender to the coals burning, eventually the Flashpoint will be reached.

ndcorup  posted on  2010-09-27   20:15:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: ndcorup (#1)

today's federal government seems to be strong evidence that the US Constitution of 1789 should not have been ratified.

Red Jones  posted on  2010-09-27   20:21:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Red Jones (#2)

today's federal government seems to be strong evidence that the US Constitution of 1789 should not have been ratified.

Why? Because it's not frightfully tryrannical enough to operate without any infiltrating interferences from defectors and hostiles? Defectors and hostiles in office who've violated their oaths are in breach of contract. They should be removed from office for that. We don't have to impeach them out of office or elect them out of office. They should be criminally charged at the very least with fraud and arrested.

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-09-28   15:59:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: GreyLmist (#5)

They should be criminally charged at the very least with fraud and arrested.

I appreciate and share in your sentiment. however, you can also dream on. because we both know it ain't happening.

human history has shown that we the human beings cannot set up a government and rule over ourselves. Inevitably, the governments become evil tyrants. This is why from an intellectual point of view I now believe that the anti-federalists of 1787-1789 were right in their argument against the federalists who won in 1789 with the US constitution being ratified. At the same time our government's propensity to be a tyrant did grow in time. The civil war was obviously a big thing in history to advance the federal government.

One of the big things of the Articles of Confederation was that it purposely kept the washington government weak. People ridiculed that government over this. but I suggest that our country was much better ruled from 1781 to 1789 than it has been since, especially compared to recent years at least.

I think the civil war was wrong. Abraham Lincoln should not have sent troops into Virginia. The northerners who could not tolerate the southerners created that war with flagrant rhetoric and accusations. Slavery was a bad thing, but it should've been tolerated rather than fight a war that killed 650,000. We were much better off with a weak federal government as well.

Red Jones  posted on  2010-09-28   16:19:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Red Jones (#6) (Edited)

You and the world at large can complain all you want about the rogue- mismanagement of our government but it means nothing much besides noisy whining by enablers unless you'd all like to agree that Ron Paul is the only person currently there with any legitimacy as a representative of our Constitutional system.

Lincoln shouldn't have sent troops and arms to South Carolina's property, Fort Sumter. He didn't make slavery emancipation an issue until long after the war started and then only so he could increase the numbers of his troops.

As for the Articles of Confederation, show me where you think the Washington government was weaker then. My guess is that you haven't read it or just don't understand it. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a deliberate con-artist trying to deceptively misdirect the fact that only the Federal government and the States had any recognized rights under that system. Citizens merely had "privileges" and the poor didn't even have those. Do you understand that now or not?

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-09-28   18:13:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: GreyLmist (#7)

Citizens merely had "privileges" and the poor didn't even have those. Do you understand that now or not?

I don't know these details of the articles of confederation. However, I've always read that it kept the washington government weak and that the president job changed to a new person every few weeks. that was a document that went out of its way to try to keep the national or federal government weak. Back then it was expected that the state was more important, so I would imagine they expected that the states would provide a good legal structure to respect citizens.

Regarding Ron Paul, I think he's a great guy. I'd like to see him get elected. But short of him actually winning the presidential election he is not legitimate as president. and I doubt if that is going to happen.

in taking the long view I am comfortable with the conclusion that we as a people have failed to rule over ourselves. According to one of the federalist papers the purpose of the US Constitution (ratified in 1789) was to facilitate that 'we the people' be sovereign here. We've failed or the constitution ratified in 1789 has failed. Our government does not facilitate this. it is a tyrant instead.

So I think the Articles of Confederation were superior to the US Constitution.

Red Jones  posted on  2010-09-28   18:28:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Red Jones (#8) (Edited)

You've been misled about the Articles of Confederation by disinformation agents and/or the confused. There was no Presidency under that arrangement. That doesn't mean that the Federal government was weaker, just not as many branches. Congress even acted as the Supreme Court, so more power was concentrated aristocratically in that body.

Our government is the Constitution. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, it does facilitate We the People being sovereign here. We would not ask China or any other Communist country to validate our Constitutional form of government for us, nor do we need to submit it or any American governmental issue for the approval of Commies, Globalists, and others opposed here if they outnumber us. They simply don't legitimately count as shareholders in our system. If they want to vote on something, they can vote on which other countries are more suitable to their way of their way of thinking where they can relocate before they are sued for all of their damages to our nation and charged with Treason.

GreyLmist  posted on  2010-09-28   18:52:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 9.

#10. To: GreyLmist (#9)

Unlike the Articles of Confederation, it does facilitate We the People being sovereign here.

I respect you for your opinion. but I don't share that view. I feel that the US Constitution does not facilitate that 'we the people' are sovereign here. In the federalist papers it was specifically argued that the US Constitution would cause the people of our country to be sovereign like a king would be. and I feel that on this standard the US Constitution has been a failure.

I also feel that faith in this democracy ideology or the idea that 'we the people' rule is a handicap that we have. It causes some people to be unable to see how incredibly anti-American our government really is. Some people presume that our government somehow represents us and therefore they cannot see the evil in it.

Many people in China will openly say that in their country even though they do not have a 'democracy' they have a government that serves their nation whereas we do not. and that is a reasonable point that they can make with us.

Red Jones  posted on  2010-09-28 19:23:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]