Expand your view to read how much land the Federal Government is holding in violation of the Constitution. The Federal Government has no authority to control land or morals.
Here is the defining in the Constitution to the extent the Federal Government Constitutionally is limited to:
US Constitution, Article I, section eight " ...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ..."
*
The brainwashed mediabots we are today, People have been fed the information needed to think Doctor Paul is a fringe character. Anyone who has been paying attention to how the two parties have been dancing us down this road of Nationalism would understand that there is a Shadow power, the establishment. Look at what GOP were going to give out to the Dems for the first bailout, 20 billion to ACORN!
Join the Awakening,,, get out of the box.
http://
...This page comments on the constitutional arguments of the revolutionists.
It is not known generally today by academic historians that in 1770, the English "Constitution" did not mean what it does today. Today the English Constitution is known as whatever Parliament says it is. Not so in 1750, according to many lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic. Valid legal arguments were made that the English Constitution was a unwritten system of customary restraints on what the King and the governing body could do.
Consider Lord Camden. In 1766, he was Chief Justice of one of the central common law courts and about to become Lord Chancellor.. At that time he warned Parliament that there were steps, including taxing the American Colonies, that it could not take legally. Camden agreed with the theory of the Massachusetts lawyers: that the English Constitution was a system of customary restraints on what the King and the governing body could do. And that customary restraint made it legally improper to tax without the consent of the representatives of the English persons to be taxed. Lord Camden, "House of Lords Debate of 10 Feb 1766," in Parliamentary History (1766), 168....
http://www.bucklinsociety.net/
The brainwashed mediabots we are today, People have been fed the information needed to think Doctor Paul is a fringe character. Anyone who has been paying attention to how the two parties have been dancing us down this road of Nationalism would understand that there is a Shadow power, the establishment. Look at what GOP were going to give out to the Dems for the first bailout, 20 billion to ACORN!
Join the Awakening,,, get out of the box.
http://
*
There is a lot of anti-Shariah law out there. In the old days we went by that law, until we found Jesus new way. Ours is founded in common law lost to the Courts. Maybe if we had back our common law, we would not have government telling us how to live.
...This page comments on the constitutional arguments of the revolutionists.
It is not known generally today by academic historians that in 1770, the English "Constitution" did not mean what it does today. Today the English Constitution is known as whatever Parliament says it is. Not so in 1750, according to many lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic. Valid legal arguments were made that the English Constitution was a unwritten system of customary restraints on what the King and the governing body could do.
Consider Lord Camden. In 1766, he was Chief Justice of one of the central common law courts and about to become Lord Chancellor.. At that time he warned Parliament that there were steps, including taxing the American Colonies, that it could not take legally. Camden agreed with the theory of the Massachusetts lawyers: that the English Constitution was a system of customary restraints on what the King and the governing body could do. And that customary restraint made it legally improper to tax without the consent of the representatives of the English persons to be taxed. Lord Camden, "House of Lords Debate of 10 Feb 1766," in Parliamentary History (1766), 168....
http://www.bucklinsociety.net/
Posts
