Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: examiner.com - Herman Cain on Gun Control

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    examiner.com - Herman Cain on Gun Control

    http://www.examiner.com/conservative...ut-herman-cain

    But perhaps the most troublesome statement of all was made by Cain during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. During that interview Cain stated that he supports gun control. As if that isn't bad enough, he went further to claim the issue of gun rights is a matter 'for the states to decide.'
    In order to be certain as to what the candidate was actually saying, Blitzer asked him to confirm no less than 3 times his view that he supports gun control and would leave the issue of Second Amendment rights to the states.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    We don't need to look at some interview on a frothing anti-2A "news" outlet with some washed-up talking head to know whether Cain is Pro-Constitution or not. All we need to do is look at his resume...

    He was Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.

    'Nuff sed...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Based upon this thread, I suddenly had some grave concerns about Cain's stance on guns. Then I watched the video. I wish he had stated his stance better, but I have no problem with it.

    Here is the exchange:

    BLITZER: How about gun control?

    CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

    B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

    C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

    B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

    C: Yes

    B: Yes?

    C: Yes.

    B: So the answer is yes?

    C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.
    Yes, whatever gun laws there are should be the purview of the States. However, the States' gun laws should conform to McDonald. As president, Cain would stay out of the fray, except to say that he supports the Right, and that the issue will play out in the States. The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous."

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    We don't need to look at some interview on a frothing anti-2A "news" outlet with some washed-up talking head to know whether Cain is Pro-Constitution or not. All we need to do is look at his resume...

    He was Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.

    'Nuff sed...
    Using your "logic", anyone who associates with people who have any measurable wealth at all makes them suspect. Your contempt of him is a resume enhancement for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Based upon this thread, I suddenly had some grave concerns about Cain's stance on guns. Then I watched the video. I wish he had stated his stance better, but I have no problem with it.

    Here is the exchange:

    BLITZER: How about gun control?
    CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
    B: So what’s the answer on gun control?
    C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
    B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
    C: Yes
    B: Yes?
    C: Yes.
    B: So the answer is yes?
    C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

    Yes, whatever gun laws there are should be the purview of the States. However, the States' gun laws should conform to McDonald. As president, Cain would stay out of the fray, except to say that he supports the Right, and that the issue will play out in the States. The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous."
    I agree with that. I think the OP is misleading. Since he was on a moonbat channel, merely having said "The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment." is far better than we could have ever expected a RINO to open up with. I would have liked if he promised to repeal all the federal laws period, but he wouldn't have that power anyway.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 06-12-2011 at 08:59 PM.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Using your "logic", anyone who associates with people who have any measurable wealth at all makes them suspect. Your contempt of him is a resume enhancement for me.
    I never mentioned his net worth. I just said he was an executive in the largest criminal organization in the US--an organization who's primary purpose is in direct violation of the US Constitution, and fundamentally contrary to one of the primary economic principals of the Founding Fathers...

    "The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. " --Thomas Jefferson
    It's only called "class warfare" when we fight back...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 06-12-2011 at 09:55 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I never mentioned his net worth. I just said he was an executive in the largest criminal organization in the US--an organization who's primary purpose is in direct violation of the US Constitution, and fundamentally contrary to one of the primary economic principals of the Founding Fathers...



    It's only called "class warfare" when we fight back...
    No, it's called a marxist revolution when you fight back. "Class warfare" is typified in knee jerk reactionary condemnation of the wealthy. It's no different than any other abhorrent form of bigotry or prejudice. It's the same tactics that empowered the likes of Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao etc. It's great that you can cloak yourself behind the bill of rights like all the other communist provacatuers can though, and pretend to promote constitutional values and free markets while assailing those people who've reaped the greatest benefits from it.

    It shows the founders believed the republic was strong enough to allow egomaniacal sociopaths and their minions to preach insane political philosophy and blatant lies, and that they assumed the majority of people would be smarter than to believe everything (or really anything) people like you have to say.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    No, it's called a marxist revolution when you fight back. "Class warfare" is typified in knee jerk reactionary condemnation of the wealthy. It's no different than any other abhorrent form of bigotry or prejudice. It's the same tactics that empowered the likes of Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Ho Chi Mihn, Mao etc. It's great that you can cloak yourself behind the bill of rights like all the other communist provacatuers can though, and pretend to promote constitutional values and free markets while assailing those people who've reaped the greatest benefits from it.

    I particularly like the way you culled out the Jefferson quote about the evils of central banking in your response. Historical revisionism is the last refuge of the political scoundrel...

    Along with Mussolini, Lenin, and Hitler, you need to lump in Jefferson, Jackson, Eisenhower, and several other Presidents if you disagree with my assertions and consider them radical and anti-American. Prominent Americans have been warning us against the undue influence of out-of-control big business and central banks since before this nation WAS a nation.

    Gotta love those "inconvenient truths"...

    "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
    "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
    "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." — James Madison
    "I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

    I have no hatred for people who have made their fortunes honestly.

    But I cannot abide oligarchs, plutocrats, and economic sociopaths...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 06-13-2011 at 09:34 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I am wondering if Cain is more pro-state or pro-Federal Government. It seems that he answered the question in a way that begged more questions.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I am wondering if Cain is more pro-state or pro-Federal Government. It seems that he answered the question in a way that begged more questions.
    Whether state or federal, he's more pro-government.

    That's all you need to know: he thinks government is the answer.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I particularly like the way you culled out the Jefferson quote about the evils of central banking in your response. Historical revisionism is the last refuge of the political scoundrel...

    Along with Mussolini, Lenin, and Hitler, you need to lump in Jefferson, Jackson, Eisenhower, and several other Presidents if you disagree with my assertions and consider them radical and anti-American. Prominent Americans have been warning us against the undue influence of out-of-control big business and central banks since before this nation WAS a nation.

    Gotta love those "inconvenient truths"...




    I have no hatred for people who have made their fortunes honestly.

    But I cannot abide oligarchs, plutocrats, and economic sociopaths...
    Nice try pinko. You know damm well the site automatically "culls" previous quotes in responses. I didn't leave it out, it had nothing to do with the context of my accusation that you're a leftist hatemonger. It's things like that which prove what sort of propagandist you are.

    Furthermore EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH has a "federal reserve" fractional banking system. Your tin foil hat messiah keeps talking about getting rid of it then going back to the gold standard, but he's also advocated selling off the gold reserves. So WTF? Sell off the gold, then what standard do we use? For all your bloviating about people not being "educated", you clearly seem to lack any measurable thinking skills at all.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  11. #11
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Nice try pinko ... my accusation that you're a leftist hatemonger. It's things like that which prove what sort of propagandist you are.
    When reasoned argument is lacking, the standard response is to revert to schoolyard tactics of name calling.
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Furthermore EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH has a "federal reserve" fractional banking system. Your tin foil hat messiah keeps talking about getting rid of it then going back to the gold standard, but he's also advocated selling off the gold reserves. So WTF? Sell off the gold, then what standard do we use? For all your bloviating about people not being "educated", you clearly seem to lack any measurable thinking skills at all.
    Ah, so we are supposed to follow what the rest of the world does ... like lemmings, right off the cliff. Are you sure you understand what fractional reserve banking is? Do you understand that all it does is make everyone a debtor? Please supply a source for your accusation that Ron Paul has advocated selling off all our gold (as if we have any). When you do so, please make sure that the article includes a direct quote from him.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    Why not end with the classic "neener neener neener"?
    Last edited by dmatting; 06-14-2011 at 08:36 AM.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Nice try pinko.

    By throwing in this one sentence you have shown the audience that you have lost the argument. If you had a valid argument you wouldn't need name calling... some may have been inclined to agree with you, but you just showed them that your argument is weak and you are incapable of defending it.

    Last edited by Schlitz; 06-14-2011 at 08:28 AM.

  13. #13
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Based upon this thread, I suddenly had some grave concerns about Cain's stance on guns. Then I watched the video. I wish he had stated his stance better, but I have no problem with it.

    Here is the exchange:



    Yes, whatever gun laws there are should be the purview of the States. However, the States' gun laws should conform to McDonald. As president, Cain would stay out of the fray, except to say that he supports the Right, and that the issue will play out in the States. The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous."
    So... are you saying that laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are acceptable, so long as they are not "onerous?" If so, whose definition of "onerous" shall we use? The Bradys, for whom no gun law is onerous? Or the Constitutional purists, who believe that any law that infringes on or restricts the RKBA is "onerous" and unConstitutional?

    I believe in state's rights so long as a state government does not abridge the rights guaranteed by the Constitution in the first ten Amendments. That would include disallowing a state government the ability to enact laws that would infringe on 2nd Amendment rights.

    And, lest you infer that I'm implying that NO law whatsoever that restricts RKBA is Constitutional, I would posit that gun laws apply only to law abiding citizens. Those among us who have proven themselves incapable of obeying the laws of the state or who have been adjudicated as not being of sound mind have forfeited many of their rights, including RKBA.

  14. #14
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Edited to delete duplicate post.
    Last edited by JamesCanby; 06-14-2011 at 08:17 AM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    So... are you saying that laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are acceptable, so long as they are not "onerous?"... [This is as far as I bothered to read.]
    No. I am not.

    Please do not try to restate what I say (not even in the guise of a question). You do it very poorly, but are quite good at dismantling what I did not say. If you are genuinely interested in a back-and-forth on this question, please ask respectfully what I mean, rather than grossly misstating my views cloaked as a question. I won't play that game.

    I will be happy to address your concern if you knock of the misrepresentations of what I say. Otherwise, I will move on.

  16. #16
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No. I am not.

    Please do not try to restate what I say (not even in the guise of a question). You do it very poorly, but are quite good at dismantling what I did not say. If you are genuinely interested in a back-and-forth on this question, please ask respectfully what I mean, rather than grossly misstating my views cloaked as a question. I won't play that game.

    I will be happy to address your concern if you knock of the misrepresentations of what I say. Otherwise, I will move on.
    You said, "The courts should then take the States to task if their gun laws become, in the words of Cain, "onerous." I was simply asking you to define, in your opinion, when a law becomes "onerous." Or, lacking a definition of your own, whose definition of "onerous" we should accept. And how about knocking off the personal attacks and condescending attitude?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Thank you.

    The law becomes "onerous" at the point where it impinges on the ability to carry arms (as intended by the Framers who authored the 2A) when and where one would without a permission slip.

    For example, in Alabama, the law generally does not place restrictions on my ability to carry with a few exceptions. I am not allowed to carry withing 1000 feet of a demonstration (with or without a license). I am not allowed to carry in my car without a license. I am not allowed to carry in a school without a permission slip. I am not allowed to carry in a courthouse (with or without a license). These restrictions are "onerous." There are also a few "onerous" restrictions that cities and counties illegally have implemented in violation of preemption.

    On the other hand, there are laws on the subject of guns that do not negatively impact my ability to carry, for example, the requirement for a license to conceal. While, as a matter of policy, I disagree with the requirement, I don't see it as an infringement and, therefore, not as "onerous." With the above fixes in the law, I will be able to carry where and when I will even with licensing of concealment in place. Concealment is not necessary to carry. It is merely an attendant behavior that has no enumerated protection.

    And, to me, that is where the line is: Can I carry when and where I will? Laws that would cause the answer to be no are infringements and are "onerous."

    Who makes the call as to what infringes and therefore is "onerous"? The courts.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    ...And how about knocking off the personal attacks and condescending attitude?
    I saved this for a separate post, deciding to answer the rational question you posted with a rational answer.

    The "attacks" were directed at your behavior in the quoted post, not at your person. When your actions are inappropriate, such as misrepresenting what I say and then dismantling the strawman that you build, I will criticize them.

    Yes, there was a condescending tone in my post--as there was in your post to which I replied, in addition to your disingenuousness.

    The beginning of your post was a perfect rational return to the topic. I hope you keep it that way, making unnecessary criticism of tactics.

  19. #19
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I saved this for a separate post, deciding to answer the rational question you posted with a rational answer.

    The "attacks" were directed at your behavior in the quoted post, not at your person. When your actions are inappropriate, such as misrepresenting what I say and then dismantling the strawman that you build, I will criticize them.

    Yes, there was a condescending tone in my post--as there was in your post to which I replied, in addition to your disingenuousness.

    The beginning of your post was a perfect rational return to the topic. I hope you keep it that way, making unnecessary criticism of tactics.
    Ah. I see. Thank you for educating me. Given this and your previous explanations of your condescending attitude, I now understand and sympathize with your problem, like that of Congressman Weiner, with impulse control. That is, if you disagree with a poster's comments you cannot resist the impulse to be condescending. Such an unfortunate affliction. Perhaps there are meds or therapy that could help you with that affliction.

    "Moving on."

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Ah. I see. Thank you for educating me. Given this and your previous explanations of your condescending attitude, I now understand and sympathize with your problem, like that of Congressman Weiner, with impulse control. That is, if you disagree with a poster's comments you cannot resist the impulse to be condescending. Such an unfortunate affliction. Perhaps there are meds or therapy that could help you with that affliction.

    "Moving on."
    See, now, if you want to understand the difference between a personal attack, and taking someone to task for a very specific behavior, you have provided the perfect example of the former. Thank you for that.

    As I said, I responded to condescension with condescension. May I take it my rational response satisfied your curiosity about my position since you had no further question on topic?

    I, too, shall move on from this side distraction, but will respond to any further rational posts on the topic of what does and does not constitute "onerous" gun law.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    And I would argue that requiring a permit is onerous because it restricts how I may carry. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and yet they are infringing on how I carry by saying I need a permission slip should I want to put on a coat.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I understand your position. I just disagree.

    Since allowing open carry, but restricting the independent act of concealing, would not stop the individual from exercising the right to carry, IMO, laws that would restrict or license concealment would fall under the umbrella of legitimate legislative policy, and not the protection granted by the enumeration of the right.

    I would find onerous laws that make it harder or impossible to carry when and where one will. Laws regarding concealment would not meet this standard.

    States should be able to make laws that are not onerous. The courts should decide whether or not laws are onerous. The feds ought to stay out of it. That sounds like Herman Cain's position (although his opinion of onerous and mine would likely differ, as do yours and mine).

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    When reasoned argument is lacking, the standard response is to revert to schoolyard tactics of name calling.

    Ah, so we are supposed to follow what the rest of the world does ... like lemmings, right off the cliff. Are you sure you understand what fractional reserve banking is? Do you understand that all it does is make everyone a debtor? Please supply a source for your accusation that Ron Paul has advocated selling off all our gold (as if we have any). When you do so, please make sure that the article includes a direct quote from him.


    Why not end with the classic "neener neener neener"?
    How's this?

    http://www.nysun.com/national/sellin...ext-big/87350/

    Of course no matter what is presented to some people, they will refuse to accept it. I really don't care. It's funny that you immediately knew I was reffering to RP as "The Tin Foil Hat Messiah". The reason RP is a complete joke and has ZERO chance of getting a nomination isn't really his policies, it's his zealots. No one wants to be associated with foaming at the mouth tin foil hat wearing fruitbats pointing at contrails in the sky.

    Of course, I'm not here defending FR Banking either. I'd just like to hear some legitimate reasons why EVERY COUNTRY USES IT. Not nonsensical rants about greedy billionaires, I can get that from the daily kos.

    So merely having been a chairman at a federal reserve bank should disqualify Herman Cain? Advocating States rights doesn't scare me either. If the people who live in California want insipid gun laws within the parameters set by SCOTUS rulings, what does that have to do with the cost of ammo in Texas?
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    By throwing in this one sentence you have shown the audience that you have lost the argument. If you had a valid argument you wouldn't need name calling... some may have been inclined to agree with you, but you just showed them that your argument is weak and you are incapable of defending it.
    I'm sorry, are you under the impression I give a damm what you think?

    That's your mistake, not mine.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I am wondering if Cain is more pro-state or pro-Federal Government. It seems that he answered the question in a way that begged more questions.
    I was wondering the same thing. He sounds like a Federalist, which isn't in and of itself a bad thing. Dual Federalism is the current flavor with the pie cut more generously on the State level. He seems to be saying this, even if he is not aware of it. A Federalist who starts by affirming the BoR as absolute, unalterable law of the land is my taste. But then, I'm a Constitutionalist first and foremost. The first 9 Amendments take preeminence over the 10th. The 10th makes it clear the Feds have only enumerated powers. The rest of them after the 10th are eyewash--with the exception of the 14th.. He could have handled it much better, although I think his intentions are ok.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •