Tennessee sues to stop settlement based on Tenth Amendment

Posted by $ blarman 7 years ago to News
5 comments | Share | Flag

If this wins in Court, it opens the floodgates for the States to assert their non-compliance with many of Obama's heavy-handed mandates. I am tentatively hopeful that this may begin a wave of States' rights to take back our government.
SOURCE URL: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/15/tennessee-files-unique-suit-to-stop-the-federal-government-from-sending-refugees-to-the-state/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ewv 7 years ago
    There are no "states' rights". Only individuals have rights. The 10th amendment is about powers reserved for states when not granted to the Federal government in the Constitution.

    No government has a right -- and neither the Federal nor the state governments have either the authorized power or moral justification -- to impose refugee welfare settlements anywhere.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years ago
    The Bill of Rights (and in particular the 9th and 10th amendments) supercedes, clarifies, and to any rational, thinking being eliminates any expansion of the powers of federal government beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution with only one exception: the process of additional amendment to the constitution.
    The "supreme" court in the 20th century ignored the constitutional limits repeatedly and dictated changes to the constitution without the consent of the people.

    Every ruling of the supreme court since 1900 that resulted in expansion of federal government power should be reviewed by informed local elected representatives of the people and reversed on a local level when found to exceed the enumerated powers of the constitution. The supreme court authority to expand federal government power is unconstitutional.

    The 9th and 10th amendments take precedence and are superior to the phrasing of the original constitution. Under the authority of those 2 amendments the states and the people can legally eliminate 50 to 90% of the power and expense of the federal government and restore individual liberty and free markets. Only unconstitutional federal powers, federal force of arms, and irrational, unthinking, brainwashed fools stand in the way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years ago
      In my opinion, much of this started with the Seventeenth Amendment when States cut themselves out of the Senate. You look back and that was a watershed moment, because only a few short years later came Woodrow Wilson. Many talk about an Article V convention, but one of the Amendments I would propose (in addition to a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits) would be a strict repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. The States need to be able to check the Federal Government and for 100 years they have seen themselves dramatically sidelined as a result of their own knee-jerk reaction.

      Another one I think needs to be tweaked is the Twelfth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 7 years ago
        And the 16th repealed - the supreme court should have declared it unconstitutional before it was sent to the states for ratification, but that was not part of the banksters plan to securing the debt they planned to saddle the taxpayers with..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years ago
    It isn't just Obama's mandates, blarman. It includes every federal expansion of power in the past 200+ years with the exception of those in amendments to the constitution.
    However, from Chief Justice Marshall onward the so-called supreme court has unconstitutionally expanded their own powers that once resided with the people, and they will never obey the obvious limits created by the people in the 9th and 10th amendments.
    The constitution does not stipulate that supreme court justices have a life term. That is a choice made by Justice Marshall and continued with consent of the con-gress. In order to restore the republic, life appointments for supreme court justices must end. It takes power from the people and gives unelected, politically appointed, biased people monarchical powers unintended by the framers of the constitution. Although it should have been clear in the 9th and 10th amendments, another amendment is needed to specifically stipulate that the supreme court cannot expand the power of federal government beyond the constitutionally enumerated powers and that only the people can do so through the constitutional amendment process.

    With the current concentration of power at the federal level, I do not see any hope of a peaceful restoration of individual liberty as clearly stipulated by the constitution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo