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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into

RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data

I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!!

Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered

Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else

Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children

Is the Wailing Wall Actually a Roman Fort?

Israelis Persecute Americans

Israelis SHOCKED The World Hates Them

Ghost Dancers and Democracy: Tucker Carlson

Amalek (Enemies of Israel) 100,000 Views on Bitchute

ICE agents pull screaming illegal immigrant influencer from car after resisting arrest


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: Toothless Nullification
Source: email
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 12, 2011
Author: Van Irion
Post Date: 2011-09-12 11:37:41 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 167
Comments: 13

Fellow Constitutionalists,

Last Thursday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate. Actually, to be more accurate, the 4th Circuit ruled that it would not rule on the individual mandate. Instead it found legalistic rationalizations to avoid doing its duty. The 4th Circuit ruled that the State of Virginia doesn’t have standing to challenge the individual mandate. The 4th Circuit also ruled that Liberty University can’t challenge the individual mandate because the individual mandate is a tax, not a penalty.

Both of these rulings directly conflict with other Circuit Court rulings on exactly these issues. We now have disagreement between the 4th Circuit, 6th Circuit, and 11th Circuit regarding several issues. Again, this means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up these cases very soon.

While I disagree with the 4th Circuit’s ruling that the State of Virginia lacks standing to challenge the individual mandate, the ruling does highlight an important point: Virginia’s law nullifying the individual mandate is nothing more than political bluster from Virginia State politicians. Virginia’s nullification law has no effect in the real world because it has no means of enforcement.

Nullification is a Constitutional doctrine where a State or individual ignores a Federal law because the law is unconstitutional. Nullification is a valid and powerful Constitutional doctrine. Long ago the Supreme Court established that unconstitutional laws are void. A state nullification law is simply legislation passed by a state that expressly concludes that a specific Federal law is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, all current attempts by state legislatures to use this powerful doctrine have failed because they lack any kind of enforcement mechanism. They leave no consequence for the Federal government if it ignores the attempted nullification. In reality these so-called nullification laws aren’t laws at all, they’re simply unenforceable resolutions.

To be a real law, as opposed to a resolution, a legislative act must include a consequence for failure to follow the law. In other words, if you can ignore the so-called law and nothing happens to you, it isn’t really a law.

Virginia’s so-called law nullifying the individual mandate, is a perfect example. The law essentially said that no Virginia citizen can be required to purchase health insurance. However, it did nothing to protect Virginia citizens from the individual mandate because it created no consequence for the Federal government if the Fed gov ignored the Virginia law.

The 4th Circuit’s ruling recognized this failure of the Virginia law. Because Virginia had based its standing claim on its toothless attempt to nullify the individual mandate, the 4th Circuit concluded that the State didn’t have standing. According to the 4th Circuit, because the Virginia nullification law doesn’t require or allow the State to take any action upon violation of its law, the State STILL has no legal interest in whether or not the Federal government enforces the individual mandate against Virginia citizens.

Again, I disagree with the Court’s ruling for reasons I won’t get into here. But their ruling makes an important point: the Virginia legislature failed its citizens. It publicly said that the Federal government is violating its citizens rights, but isn’t willing to do anything about it. Virginia said, we’re going to highlight this violation by recognizing it and publicly condemning it, AND we’re going to sit here and do nothing while it happens.

I admit that I’m being a little harsh toward Virginia. It did, after all, sue to prove that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. This is more than many other states did. But its lawsuit has now been dismissed because it failed to pass a nullification law that had any teeth.

My home state of Tennessee is in even worse condition. Tennessee passed an Obamacare nullification law, AND the Attorney General of Tennessee refused to join any lawsuit challenging any aspect of Obamacare. So, Tennessee is currently in the position of publicly acknowledging that the Federal government is violating its citizens Constitutional rights, AND it is actively doing nothing to stop the violation. Worse, its State legislators are patting themselves on the back for passing a meaningless nullification resolution.

Unlike other state legislators, Tennessee legislators can’t plead ignorance about the toothlessness of their nullification act. Last Fall and Winter Liberty Legal Foundation actively lobbied the Tennessee legislature to pass several nullification bills that all had teeth. The bills we supported were different because they created criminal penalties for violation. Our bills would have made it a felony for any government agent, Federal or State, to attempt to enforce any Federal law that has been nullified by the State. After enactment, these bills would have required local law enforcement to arrest Federal agents if they violated the nullification law. Liberty Legal was successful in getting two bills introduced into both houses of the Tennessee legislature, and getting several legislators to support these bills. Unfortunately both bills were killed in committee. We will be lobbying harder during the next session.

Nullification laws with provisions for arresting Federal agents would obviously lead immediately to court challenges between the State and Federal government. But that’s the point. The 4th Circuit just refused to rule on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate by claiming that the State has no legal interest in the individual mandate. If any State had an IRS agent sitting in a jail cell, or even passed a law allowing them to jail an IRS agent, legal standing would not be a problem. In fact, Obama’s Department of Justice would likely file their own lawsuit against the State the day after such a bill was passed.

Passing a nullification bill with teeth would force the Federal government to bring the battle to us. Currently we have States like Virginia and Tennessee passing toothless nullification bills and the Federal government’s response is to ignore them.

We Constitutionalists need to start fighting smart. Force the enemy to come to us. We hold the high ground. Yet we continuously fight on their terms. This is why Liberty Legal Foundation refuses to challenge the individual mandate alone. We insist that ALL of Obamacare is outside of the Constitutional authority of Congress. By doing this we take the fight to where we want it to be. We lobby for nullification bills with teeth, so that the Federal government can’t simply ignore nullification. Liberty Legal’s methods will force the Federal government to come to us. It will force them to justify THEIR arguments, rather than the other way around.

We need your help to turn this fight around. Please contact your state legislatures and insist upon State nullification laws that would criminalize Federal enforcement of unconstitutional Federal laws. Please continue to spread the word about Liberty Legal Foundation. And please give what you can to support our efforts.

In Liberty,

Van Irion

Co-Founder, Lead Counsel

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)

Nullification is a valid and powerful Constitutional doctrine. Long ago the Supreme Court established that unconstitutional laws are void.

you mean this?

"1863 Murbury v Madison: all laws repugnant to the Constitution are NULL & VOID"

The Banksters overturned all Supreme Court judgments prior to 1938,-39 [not to mention the Constitution]...try to argue the Constitution and you are likely to be thrown out of court or found in contempt....one judge was so bold as to state his court takes his orders from England...courts today operate under Babylonian commercial, Admiralty [land-pirates that they are] Code, not law...they call it "public policy".

The UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman - Freedom School

".....As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge's office and he was just coming in through his back door. I said, "Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now how do you, a District Judge, have authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?" He says. "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don't care how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court."

PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY

He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decision you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938? He said that he had already told me too much - he wasn't going to tell me any more.

1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD

Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue.

This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred - in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity.

This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing. ....

...AMERICA IS BANKRUPT

Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than the Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told:

America is a bankrupt nation - it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.

Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction - call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.

ADMIRALTY COURTS

The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence.

No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.

So you say, just innocently like a lamb,

“Well, I didn't know that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then, pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the contract.”

What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.

NOT EXPEDIENT

But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. ...."

It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a commercial international jurisdiction. [see also ALL CRIME IS COMMERCIAL www.commercialredemption.com ] If we go into court and say, " I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court !" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Right?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME - I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged - not under some other jurisdiction....."

http://freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.html

If you read the whole thing, you will see there is a remedy....Unfortunately, you may fall into the ADL-designated "paper terrorist" category, and your name probably fed to Jewish Homeland Security.

More info here:

He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law ... Lawyer's Secret Oath - Freedom School http://freedom-school.com/aware/the-lawyers-secret-oath.pdf

Unlike other state legislators, Tennessee legislators can’t plead ignorance about the toothlessness of their nullification act. Last Fall and Winter Liberty Legal Foundation actively lobbied the Tennessee legislature to pass several nullification bills that all had teeth. The bills we supported were different because they created criminal penalties for violation. Our bills would have made it a felony for any government agent, Federal or State, to attempt to enforce any Federal law that has been nullified by the State. After enactment, these bills would have required local law enforcement to arrest Federal agents if they violated the nullification law. Liberty Legal was successful in getting two bills introduced into both houses of the Tennessee legislature, and getting several legislators to support these bills. Unfortunately both bills were killed in committee. We will be lobbying harder during the next session.

Nullification laws with provisions for arresting Federal agents would obviously lead immediately to court challenges between the State and Federal government. But that’s the point. The 4th Circuit just refused to rule on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate by claiming that the State has no legal interest in the individual mandate. If any State had an IRS agent sitting in a jail cell, or even passed a law allowing them to jail an IRS agent, legal standing would not be a problem. In fact, Obama’s Department of Justice would likely file their own lawsuit against the State the day after such a bill was passed.

Passing a nullification bill with teeth would force the Federal government to bring the battle to us. Currently we have States like Virginia and Tennessee passing toothless nullification bills and the Federal government’s response is to ignore them.

We Constitutionalists need to start fighting smart. Force the enemy to come to us. We hold the high ground. Yet we continuously fight on their terms. This is why Liberty Legal Foundation refuses to challenge the individual mandate alone. We insist that ALL of Obamacare is outside of the Constitutional authority of Congress. By doing this we take the fight to where we want it to be. We lobby for nullification bills with teeth, so that the Federal government can’t simply ignore nullification. Liberty Legal’s methods will force the Federal government to come to us. It will force them to justify THEIR arguments, rather than the other way around. ...

now that sounds like it might be a plan. make the federal gov show their cards...shed a little light in the darkness....'course they could just pull another false flag like they did when wethepeople demanded the govt answer their petition, and swept the whole thing under the rug.

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-09-12   13:37:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: James Deffenbach (#0) (Edited)

Nullification is a Constitutional doctrine where a State or individual ignores a Federal law because the law is unconstitutional. Nullification is a valid and powerful Constitutional doctrine. Long ago the Supreme Court established that unconstitutional laws are void. A state nullification law is simply legislation passed by a state that expressly concludes that a specific Federal law is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, all current attempts by state legislatures to use this powerful doctrine have failed because they lack any kind of enforcement mechanism. They leave no consequence for the Federal government if it ignores the attempted nullification.

The author may mean well but is overcomplicating the matter and so is the 4th Circus. Unconstitutional "laws" are void. At the State level, there is a non- enforcement mechanism as a consequence to the imposition of Unconstitutional "laws", which are void. That is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment phrase "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". See also the 9th and 10th Amendments here. Non-enforcement of illegal, and therefore void, Federal dictates is not toothless. States really aren't required to enact anything to further criminalize the over-reaching impositions and defections from the Constitution but what if a State does not do its duty to Nullify when it should? That does not mean that citizens must enact further legislation themselves to Nullify or wait around for their State govs to move in that direction. Ex: Citizens who refused to turn over escaped slaves regardless of their own State's rules of compliance were, after Secession, basically asserting that, technically, there was no longer a State in the South to return them to anyway in accordance with Union laws to do so. They didn't make a new law themselves before they moved to reject and void those "orders" as baseless. Same principle when D.C. and the States refuse to abide by the Constitution and do their duty to prevent the imposition of unlawful actions against us. {Edit to reword:] Then there is no longer any valid claim the rogues can make at the Federal or State level to govern Americans or to enforce their illegal whims on us.

Excerpt from: Supreme Court Gives Individuals Standing To Challenge Federal Government On 10th Amendment Issues

Rob Port • June 20, 2011

Via BeforeItsNews.com, the Supreme Court has issued something of a groundbreaking ruling relating to states rights.

The 10th amendment has been much in the news of late what with challenges filed by the states to Obamacare and the EPA, but what the Supreme Court was ruling on in this case was the much less talked about 9th amendment which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Essentially, what the SCOTUS held is that individuals and not just states have standing to challenge the federal government on the basis of the 10th amendment.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-09-12   14:40:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#1)

The Federal, State, and local arms of America are not authorized to act as enforcers of courts which are acting outside of the Constitution. If they do act so, they are no part of America's Republic as "officials", "authorities", and law enforcement. They are a mercenary invasion force plundering America's treasuries and its citizens for their own financial gain. They are owed nothing by us -- no paychecks, no fines and court costs, no compliance, nothing.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-09-12   15:09:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: James Deffenbach (#0)

It was not "a legalistic rationalization". The suits were over the tax that will be imposed on people who do not get insurance by 2014, but the Anti-Injunction Act, enacted well over a century ago, forbids courts from entertaining suits to prevent the collection of taxes which are not yet due. Since this particular tax won't come due for at least 3 more years, the Anti-Injunction Act clearly prevents the courts from considering lawsuits about it.

Shoonra  posted on  2011-09-12   17:43:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: James Deffenbach (#0)

We now have disagreement between the 4th Circuit, 6th Circuit, and 11th Circuit regarding several issues. Again, this means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up these cases very soon.

Let's hope that they can rule on it quickly. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2011-09-12   17:58:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#1)

They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.

Truth, plain and simple. I will soon get my UCC filing done so I can discharge all those bogus claims by gooberment.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2011-09-12   18:00:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#1)

now that sounds like it might be a plan. make the federal gov show their cards...shed a little light in the darkness....'course they could just pull another false flag like they did when wethepeople demanded the govt answer their petition, and swept the whole thing under the rug.

The sheriffs of every county, being the highest elected official in the county, should arrest any and all federal agents found to be in violation of people's rights just as they would you or me.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.    Lord Acton

The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi

The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein

"...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..."  Lawrence M. Vance

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-12   18:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Shoonra (#4)

It was not "a legalistic rationalization". The suits were over the tax that will be imposed on people who do not get insurance by 2014, but the Anti-Injunction Act, enacted well over a century ago, forbids courts from entertaining suits to prevent the collection of taxes which are not yet due. Since this particular tax won't come due for at least 3 more years, the Anti-Injunction Act clearly prevents the courts from considering lawsuits about it.

It doesn't EVER "come due" if it is unconstitutional. I believe that is one of the reasons Van Irion brought the suit--the whole damned thing is unconstitutional.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.    Lord Acton

The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi

The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein

"...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..."  Lawrence M. Vance

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-12   18:26:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: BTP Holdings (#5)

Let's hope that they can rule on it quickly. ;)

Seems to me that the best thing when the "judges" have disagreements like this is for them to go outside and fight a duel with swords or pistols. And if the wrong one won then maybe there could be a provision for some "gladiator of the people" to challenge him (or her).

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.    Lord Acton

The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi

The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein

"...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..."  Lawrence M. Vance

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-12   18:31:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: GreyLmist (#3)

The Federal, State, and local arms of America are not authorized to act as enforcers of courts which are acting outside of the Constitution. If they do act so, they are no part of America's Republic as "officials", "authorities", and law enforcement. They are a mercenary invasion force plundering America's treasuries and its citizens for their own financial gain. They are owed nothing by us -- no paychecks, no fines and court costs, no compliance, nothing.

Exactly. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no one is bound to enforce one. And despite what the lawyers, especially the ones in the Cult of the Black Robe, would have you think, the Constitution is really not that complicated. This bs about forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional on its face-- if the Congress has that power it also has the power to compel them to buy automobiles, plane tickets, etc. It's absurd. But then what could you expect from some Kenyan who really knows nothing about the Constitution and the aholes in the government who refuse to call him out?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.    Lord Acton

The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi

The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein

"...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..."  Lawrence M. Vance

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-12   18:37:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: James Deffenbach (#9)

Seems to me that the best thing when the "judges" have disagreements like this is for them to go outside and fight a duel with swords or pistols. And if the wrong one won then maybe there could be a provision for some "gladiator of the people" to challenge him (or her).

The only problem with that is duelling has been outlawed. But, maybe we can flip a coin to see who gets the nod. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2011-09-14   16:37:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: James Deffenbach (#10)

This bs about forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional on its face

Got that right! ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2011-09-14   16:38:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: BTP Holdings (#11)

The only problem with that is duelling has been outlawed. But, maybe we can flip a coin to see who gets the nod. ;)

I think we should bring it back.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.    Lord Acton

The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi

The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein

"...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..."  Lawrence M. Vance

Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)

James Deffenbach  posted on  2011-09-14   19:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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