Comments on: Tea Parties “Storm the Capitol” Over Health Care http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/ Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:13:31 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Tony Passaro http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31906 Tony Passaro Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:51:40 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31906 I would say the X Amendment is pretty succinct in dealing with State's Rights verses the hegemony of the Federal Government. To whit: "The powers not delegated to the United States (sic. the Federal Government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (sic. the Constitution) to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the PEOPLE....." This Amendment is beautiful in it's brevity and scope. Short, sweet and to the point. "Power resides with the American People". And if 70% of the American People say Obamacare sucks "IT SUCKS" despite what Obama, Pelosi and Reid or their minions and sycophants claim... On 1/13 I am marching on Annapolis with some dedicated Patriots to begin getting that distinguished group of gentlemen and ladies to enact legislation that declares "The Sovereign State of Maryland rejects in its entirety and in all its forms the travesty known as Obamacare, and categorically refuses to abide by its provisions and or mandates under the powers granted the State of Maryland by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, God and the power of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of these United States." Amen.... Tony Passaro Bel Air Md.... I would say the X Amendment is pretty succinct in dealing with State’s Rights verses the hegemony of the Federal Government. To whit:

“The powers not delegated to the United States (sic. the Federal Government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (sic. the Constitution) to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the PEOPLE…..”

This Amendment is beautiful in it’s brevity and scope. Short, sweet and to the point. “Power resides with the American People”. And if 70% of the American People say Obamacare sucks “IT SUCKS” despite what Obama, Pelosi and Reid or their minions and sycophants claim…

On 1/13 I am marching on Annapolis with some dedicated Patriots to begin getting that distinguished group of gentlemen and ladies to enact legislation that declares “The Sovereign State of Maryland rejects in its entirety and in all its forms the travesty known as Obamacare, and categorically refuses to abide by its provisions and or mandates under the powers granted the State of Maryland by the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, God and the power of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of these United States.”
Amen….

Tony Passaro
Bel Air Md….

]]> By: Dave Yensan http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31828 Dave Yensan Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:01:25 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31828 I do agree that Tony misstated the ratification portion. Like everything we need to consider intent. Unfortunately the nine old geezers wearing black bathrobes have failed to use that norm when ruling. The case you cite is a perfect example of the court becoming activist and creating law. Of course there are many other examples of the court overstepping its rightful bounds. The Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade are just a few. In the first two later courts turned the decision on its head. My personal political philosophy is that the Constitution does stand as the "law of the land" and we are supposed to be a country of laws. If some part of the Constitution is unpopular (2nd amendment perhaps) then amend the Constitution. The amendment process is arduous and takes a lot of time and effort and if yo are the omnipotent supreme ruler, elected to decide how the country ought to be, very inconvenient. This Congress and the last several s well have shredded the Constitution when some part was just too darned inconvenient. I hate that. I hate activist judges. With respect to elections; there is simply no way that any of us in this State can unelect a Senator or Representative. The three big jurisdictions have the power and are comprised of government sheep. I'm is 2nd district and the idea of tossing Dutch makes me salivate. dutch has told me to my face that all he cares about and thinks about is "end game," defined as getting reelected. Those of us who are politically conservative will never be represented in Maryland! I do agree that Tony misstated the ratification portion. Like everything we need to consider intent. Unfortunately the nine old geezers wearing black bathrobes have failed to use that norm when ruling. The case you cite is a perfect example of the court becoming activist and creating law. Of course there are many other examples of the court overstepping its rightful bounds. The Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade are just a few. In the first two later courts turned the decision on its head.
My personal political philosophy is that the Constitution does stand as the “law of the land” and we are supposed to be a country of laws. If some part of the Constitution is unpopular (2nd amendment perhaps) then amend the Constitution. The amendment process is arduous and takes a lot of time and effort and if yo are the omnipotent supreme ruler, elected to decide how the country ought to be, very inconvenient. This Congress and the last several s well have shredded the Constitution when some part was just too darned inconvenient. I hate that. I hate activist judges.
With respect to elections; there is simply no way that any of us in this State can unelect a Senator or Representative. The three big jurisdictions have the power and are comprised of government sheep. I’m is 2nd district and the idea of tossing Dutch makes me salivate. dutch has told me to my face that all he cares about and thinks about is “end game,” defined as getting reelected. Those of us who are politically conservative will never be represented in Maryland!

]]> By: Cdev http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31824 Cdev Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:21:25 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31824 Still beyond that Dave would you agree Tony is mistaken in point 1 when he said "the people ratified the Constitution" and that in fact it was the States that did? Bsed specifically on Article 7? You may not like your representation but you do have them and are free to vote them out or run against them but like it or not in 2004 the majority of voters voted for Mikulski, in 2006 the majority of voters elected Cardin (I didn't vote for him) and in 2008 the majority of voters in your Congressional District elected whomever (For me that is Kratovil) Still beyond that Dave would you agree Tony is mistaken in point 1 when he said “the people ratified the Constitution” and that in fact it was the States that did? Bsed specifically on Article 7?

You may not like your representation but you do have them and are free to vote them out or run against them but like it or not in 2004 the majority of voters voted for Mikulski, in 2006 the majority of voters elected Cardin (I didn’t vote for him) and in 2008 the majority of voters in your Congressional District elected whomever (For me that is Kratovil)

]]> By: Cdev http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31823 Cdev Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:17:18 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31823 Dave, You quote it all very well. NOW...I tried to post this earlier but somehow this site is going through a loop and eating posts (as ones I know you and I wrote in this civil discourse are not here). As we all know from Civics 101 the Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution and what it says. Furthermore according to Marbury v Madison we all know they esstablished Judicial Review. In a 1983 SCOTUS ruling between PGE and the state of California (I posted earlier) SCOTUS ruled the Atomic Energy Act, which dictated that Nuclear Power Plants are in fact legal, did allow PGE to build a nuclear power plant that the state of California did not want built. It did not say CA had to help pay for it but they could not block it. In this cse and ruling they ruled specificlly about the Supremcy Clause and how Article 6 was applicable. They also ruled that the 10th ammendment which did not delgate energy distribution or atomic energy to federal govt., does not atomatically mean that congress can not pass laws regulating it as was the case. Essentially what they said is that your very strict view of the 10th ammendment does not do what you are trying to say. Essentially the Federal Govt. is free to pass laws regulating insurance and other items. Admitedly I have not read the whole senate bill so maybe they are leveraging funding to force compliance, like NCLB did or The Federal Highway Act did and we could go on and on. If tht is the case like UTAH did with NCLB states can opt not to participate and suffer what ever the funding loss is. In the Utah case they get no FARMS money for lunches and have funded that themselves much cheaper then the money spent on testing etc. Dave, You quote it all very well. NOW…I tried to post this earlier but somehow this site is going through a loop and eating posts (as ones I know you and I wrote in this civil discourse are not here).

As we all know from Civics 101 the Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution and what it says. Furthermore according to Marbury v Madison we all know they esstablished Judicial Review. In a 1983 SCOTUS ruling between PGE and the state of California (I posted earlier) SCOTUS ruled the Atomic Energy Act, which dictated that Nuclear Power Plants are in fact legal, did allow PGE to build a nuclear power plant that the state of California did not want built. It did not say CA had to help pay for it but they could not block it. In this cse and ruling they ruled specificlly about the Supremcy Clause and how Article 6 was applicable. They also ruled that the 10th ammendment which did not delgate energy distribution or atomic energy to federal govt., does not atomatically mean that congress can not pass laws regulating it as was the case.

Essentially what they said is that your very strict view of the 10th ammendment does not do what you are trying to say. Essentially the Federal Govt. is free to pass laws regulating insurance and other items.

Admitedly I have not read the whole senate bill so maybe they are leveraging funding to force compliance, like NCLB did or The Federal Highway Act did and we could go on and on. If tht is the case like UTAH did with NCLB states can opt not to participate and suffer what ever the funding loss is. In the Utah case they get no FARMS money for lunches and have funded that themselves much cheaper then the money spent on testing etc.

]]> By: Dave Yensan http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31819 Dave Yensan Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:31:30 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31819 I have no representation in DC! Contacting the three who are supposed to at least act as though they care is a drill in mental masturbation. They now consider themselves omnipotent. Back to article 6 of the Constitution. For the benefit of the other folks who may be trying to follow this, I'll excerpt the last two paragraphs The first paragraph of article 6 only bound the new government to honor all old debts. The other 2 paragraphs are as follows: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made, in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Let's not stop there but take a look at the 10th amendment as well: "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." Now all of that is relatively easy to read. Where does the Congress find the right to tell us what to buy? Where does the Constitution give the Federal Government any right to meddle in our health care? The Congress only has those "rights" because too many of our citizens have been taught by a system that doesn't understand the basic principles upon which this Nation was created. The public school system has done a fine job of teaching our children what to think, but not how to think. Comments like yours, "I would also add Anarchy is anti-constitutional and the Federalist Papers are not the law of the land!" are a great example of this last thought. According to the Tenth Amendment I have a responsibility to tell the emperor when he has no clothes. Our current emperor is buck naked and so are his court jesters, the Congress. I have no representation in DC! Contacting the three who are supposed to at least act as though they care is a drill in mental masturbation. They now consider themselves omnipotent.
Back to article 6 of the Constitution. For the benefit of the other folks who may be trying to follow this, I’ll excerpt the last two paragraphs The first paragraph of article 6 only bound the new government to honor all old debts. The other 2 paragraphs are as follows:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made, in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Let’s not stop there but take a look at the 10th amendment as well: “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.”
Now all of that is relatively easy to read. Where does the Congress find the right to tell us what to buy? Where does the Constitution give the Federal Government any right to meddle in our health care? The Congress only has those “rights” because too many of our citizens have been taught by a system that doesn’t understand the basic principles upon which this Nation was created. The public school system has done a fine job of teaching our children what to think, but not how to think. Comments like yours, “I would also add Anarchy is anti-constitutional and the Federalist Papers are not the law of the land!” are a great example of this last thought.
According to the Tenth Amendment I have a responsibility to tell the emperor when he has no clothes. Our current emperor is buck naked and so are his court jesters, the Congress.

]]> By: Cdev http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31811 Cdev Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:20:26 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31811 Dave you also do have representation. You may not like whom has been elected to represent you since your opinion is clearly the minority of your congressional district and the state; but you have representation unlike the District of Columbia who truly gets NO vote on the issue but gets impacted all the same! I would also add Anarchy is anti-constitutional and the Federalist Papers are not the law of the land! Dave you also do have representation. You may not like whom has been elected to represent you since your opinion is clearly the minority of your congressional district and the state; but you have representation unlike the District of Columbia who truly gets NO vote on the issue but gets impacted all the same! I would also add Anarchy is anti-constitutional and the Federalist Papers are not the law of the land!

]]> By: RichieC http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31810 RichieC Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:09:53 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31810 Mabye the lesson ...who the elite is...of course self proclaimed elite I referr to. GD! Mabye the lesson …who the elite is…of course self proclaimed elite I referr to.

GD!

]]> By: Dave Yensan http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31805 Dave Yensan Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:32:36 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31805 I still miss your point Cdev. Ratification of the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the separate states defining a law of Congress to be unlawful or unconstitutional. Article 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the points raised above. In your last sentence you used the word "succession", did you mean secession as in leaving the federation? Actually what Mr. Passaro suggests is very "American" and in now way conflicts with the Constitution. It is unusual in that we now think that since some mortal puts something into law it is "good and right." That has never been true. Ostensibly, the separation of powers would keep that from happening but as our system has evolved in the last fifty years of so the separation is no longer there. The only recourse left is for the people to demand good government. Failing that anarchy is our last recourse. We in Maryland who disagree with the actions of congress, particularly with respect to this health care debacle, are caught in a situation of taxation without representation. Neither of the 2 senators and the majority of the representatives have a political philosophy with which I and a huge number of my friends and associates disagree. Be glad at this point that the TEA movement has evolved. It could just as easily been a group of hotheads who began the movement and they would have gone directly to the anarchy approach. I suggest that you take a hard look at your constitution and stick to reading the words that are in it. If you want to interpret the words start quoting the Federalist Papers. I still miss your point Cdev. Ratification of the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the separate states defining a law of Congress to be unlawful or unconstitutional. Article 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the points raised above. In your last sentence you used the word “succession”, did you mean secession as in leaving the federation?
Actually what Mr. Passaro suggests is very “American” and in now way conflicts with the Constitution. It is unusual in that we now think that since some mortal puts something into law it is “good and right.” That has never been true. Ostensibly, the separation of powers would keep that from happening but as our system has evolved in the last fifty years of so the separation is no longer there. The only recourse left is for the people to demand good government. Failing that anarchy is our last recourse.
We in Maryland who disagree with the actions of congress, particularly with respect to this health care debacle, are caught in a situation of taxation without representation. Neither of the 2 senators and the majority of the representatives have a political philosophy with which I and a huge number of my friends and associates disagree. Be glad at this point that the TEA movement has evolved. It could just as easily been a group of hotheads who began the movement and they would have gone directly to the anarchy approach.
I suggest that you take a hard look at your constitution and stick to reading the words that are in it. If you want to interpret the words start quoting the Federalist Papers.

]]> By: Cdev http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31800 Cdev Fri, 01 Jan 2010 04:18:19 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31800 Furthermore his call to "Nullify Obamacare" is actually Unconstitutional under Article 6 if passed in the manner described in the US Constitution! He professes to honor the Constitution but seems to find it convienent to ignore Article 6 for his own agenda and is unaware of Article 7. I guess he will be calling for succession next! Furthermore his call to “Nullify Obamacare” is actually Unconstitutional under Article 6 if passed in the manner described in the US Constitution!

He professes to honor the Constitution but seems to find it convienent to ignore Article 6 for his own agenda and is unaware of Article 7. I guess he will be calling for succession next!

]]> By: Cdev http://www.daggerpress.com/2009/11/05/tea-parties-storm-the-capitol-over-health-care/#comment-31799 Cdev Fri, 01 Jan 2010 04:08:53 +0000 http://www.daggerpress.com/?p=7900#comment-31799 It means his facts are in error. The people did not ratify the Constitution. The states each ratified the Constitution. Infact Article 7 of the Constitution required 9 STATES to ratify it. I was in error it was not Maryland it was New Hampshire who was the 9th state. It means his facts are in error. The people did not ratify the Constitution. The states each ratified the Constitution. Infact Article 7 of the Constitution required 9 STATES to ratify it. I was in error it was not Maryland it was New Hampshire who was the 9th state.

]]>