Dont Tread On Me! The Constitution and State Soverneignty

Most Recent in Border: Most Recent in Criminal Justice: Most Recent in Education: Is Your College Next? Most Recent in Health Care: Most Recent in The Interview: Veronica Escobar is Poised to Make History. Most Recent in Features: The Question of States' Rights: Instapoll Question To participate in the poll, go to this url: Introduction The question of how power should be divided between the federal government and the states is really what American politics has been all about for well over two centuries. It is a question debated by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in , debated by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification period, and debated between and within our political parties ever since.

Elections have been won and lost on this question, and a Civil War fought over it. The Constitutional Convention undoubtedly was called to broaden the powers of the federal government as they existed under hopelessly ineffective Articles of Confederation. Yet, there was considerable disagreement among the delegates as to how extensive the powers of the federal government should be. The document produced in Philadelphia in September of reflects numerous compromises on the question of the rights of states and the powers of the new federal government.

While the sovereignty of states was preserved in most respects, specific provisions were included limiting their powers States were deprived of the powers to, for example, "impair the obligations of contracts," enact ex post facto laws, or pass bills of attainder. Most significantly, however, the Constitution in Article VI "The Supremacy Clause" made any valid exercise of federal law and the Constitution enumerated a long list of federal powers, including the broad power to regulate commerce superior to any state law "to the contrary.

Their principal argument was that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and took away too many powers of the states. They complained about the Supremacy Clause, about the powers of the President, about the six-year terms of Senators, and about the many new powers granted to Congress.

The Federalists saw the states as impeding the development of commerce through imposition of state tariffs and other laws and threatening private property Rhode Island, for example, had enacted a law cancelling all debts.

Don’t Tell Gregg Abbott, But He Put Out a Report Laying Waste to ‘State Sovereignty’ Cause

The Federalists saw a stronger federal government as critical to the United States taking its place as a leader on the world's stage. As a compromise necessary to ensure ratification, Federalists agreed to propose a Bill of Rights that would specifically limit the powers of the new federal government and would, through the Tenth Amendment, recognize that "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.

The "free energy for all" is just icing. This board shall oversee any media outlets or news sources for accuracy stipulations and accurate reporting of the news elements and occurrences. Because this government won't lie at all, unlike all the other ones.

• Constitution of the New America!
• Don't Tread on Me!: The Constitution and State Sovereignty - Paul Curtman - Google Книги.
• {{content.sub_title}}.
• Performance-Based Management Systems: Effective Implementation and Maintenance (Public Administration and Public Policy).
• Animals and the Final Journey?
• .

The Chief Overseer can be removed for no cause upon a proposed vote of the whole of The Executive Body. This makes no sense, other than additional posts. But it's pretty incoherent. However, why is "true history" capitalized? Is this an Orwellian rewriting of history to conform to our vision of ourselves? The Executive Body shall always strive to preserve all relative aspects of these God-Given and Natural Rights for all generations. The very degeneration of these tools and pillars of Liberty is the cause we have sought out of our heritage even unto the necessities of secession, war, and the actual compiling of this historic document The Bill-of-Rights as gifts of God and Natural RIGHTS is the essence of the existence of New America.

Let us always remember the past, to always preserve Liberty into the future. OK, but for the sake of future historians, it might be good to spell out what those rights are. New America shall not recognize the devious conceptions of false governing bodies such as: ANY entanglement either through business or other that: So, no menace that threatens more than just America will ever be dealt with by a concerted effort. Nor, apparently, will there be any business across national borders. It is setting up an isolationist consitution that can't apparently be changed at all.

An executive board that's really a legislature, bound to be isolationist, with a really weird amount of power and influence to be given to the top military leadership. This is utter insanity. One, it's a type of micromanagement that should never go into a Constitution. You can't change this later if you need to. It's also overly simplified--only three levels of civil servants?

Will the budget for say, public education be only a sliver of what's allocated to roads, libraries, government buildings, parks, and other works?

Moreover, on taxes, it's exactly backwards. Also, you can keep your markets and such from over-heating by taxing them. Helps to even out the business cycle. Lastly, keeping tax revenue evenly divided between those three sectors is ridiculous. What if you are invaded?

You might have to divert extra resources to defense. Or if an earthquake strikes? You might need to divert some to the other two. You can't have these things set in stone! These requests for contributions would be for fully disclosed projects and all contributions would be completely voluntary. All elected Representatives shall be paid a mid-grade compensation. All elected Executive Body Members shall be paid at a top-grade compensation. NO member of government shall receive any wages, gifts, or properties of any sort related to their respected offices of public service.

Any suspected of taking undue compensations, bribes, or unlawful misappropriations of legal funds shall be in danger of the charge s of TREASON.

Unknown to many, the US once tried "voluntary taxation" under the Articles of Confederation. Guess how many people paid. The answer is - in round figures - none. No "voluntary" project will get done. Any appointments can be reviewed and revised or terminated by the Executive Body as a whole at anytime. The executive Body Members cannot be removed except by self-resignation, elections, or acts of TREASON unless the whole of the remaining Executive Body finds significant fault in a member's efforts, or lack of effort, to: In this event, the pre-named successor would then finish the elected Executive Body member's term.

So--the Executive Board can vote a member out? Or does it have to be unanimous among the other 11? It's good to have a mechanism for getting out corrupt members, but is it then smart to have the pre-named successor follow the person? They're likely to be in cahoots, after all. ONLY when said goods and services are offered as commerce to the public at large are they taxable.

No other taxes shall be imposed upon the peoples of New America except in the form of the Sales Tax as prescribed in this Constitution of New America herein. So, a national sales tax, and nothing else? Some economists would like that, but it really depresses economic activity and often has a very high dead weight cost which the income tax, arguably, doesn't.

Not only that, but it seems that all local and state governments are to be subsumed under the federal government, as they have no ability to collect revenues with which to do anything. Arguably, this "constitution" is one of the "subversive materials [ It is for this cause that the L. If Liberty always prevails in New America it will always remain so. Therefore because it is comprised of [sic] the citizenry it protects, and because The Spirit of New America is of such; it should be the open hearts of the people that would open their homes and habitations for those forces if the need existed.

Otherwise there is no just cause to quarter troops in or on an individual's property.

Not so bad - it's interesting that a draft is completely ruled out by constitutional decree. There are a few decent arguments in favor of a draft the most interesting being that it is necessary to maintain a bond between the citizens and the military. However, even if the nation will otherwise be completely overrun, there will be no conscription.

This strikes me as fundamentally unwise. The lack of quartering in homes makes sense, honestly, and is a directly from the US Bill of Rights. Not so good - reading this directly suggests that the police would have no authority to search someone or take evidence.

Navigation menu

Which would be great for those treasonous practitioners of other religions. Also, if it is a serious offense to file a false report, then I could be punished for reporting what I think is a domestic disturbance when it was actually someone's TV. This will make people unwilling to ever report anything.

Only temporary facilities such as jails will be permitted. These methods reduce "repeat offenders", "undue taxation", and create "true rehabilitation".

Don't Tread On Me: State Sovereignty

Torture shall NOT be permitted under any circumstances under penalty of law. Abolishing the prison system has some merit, as it is for the most part a gigantic waste of resources according to all good studies. The US focuses too much on putting people in prison, rather than coming up with ways to help and rehabilitate them. However, there must be SOME mechanism for removing dangerous people from society as a whole, and the methods mentioned here don't really measure up. The constitutional prohibition on torture is rather welcome, however.

Can range from wearing a sign stating an offense in a public place for a certain time frame, to being reduced to public service and forced to wear an OFFENDER jacket or jumpsuit stating the offense in simple format that the offender had been convicted of such as: You know, the US used to do this.

It's been found, however, that it doesn't really deter crimes, since most people don't really get into crime for its glamor. And those that do wouldn't likely be deterred by things like this. This is why the US abandoned it. Could be a forced compensation, or confiscated property of an offender and could be used in conjunction with a "Banishment" sentence. Compensation would be just the same as what we have now.

Which is a good thing in that it helps to undo the harms done by the crime. The offender shall be escorted to a location beyond our borders and released fully clothed only. The offender shall be given a writ containing a proper time to re-enter our borders which shall be presented at the time of re-entry for verification s. Once an offender has re-entered into New American society the offender shall be granted RIGHTS previously suspended during Banishment and completely restored to the citizenry.

This is because other people don't want your criminals either. Can you imagine the diplomatic fallout if one of our criminals ended up somewhere else and committed crimes? And if other countries did this, these individuals would be banished in turn by whichever state they went to, leading them to become homeless wanderers and likely marauders, bandits, or pirates.

Banishment relies on a sense of a "wild space" that, in most of the world, doesn't really exist any more. Except for certain parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, there are no more "tribal lands" that people can just escape to. Even Mexico has become a fully functioning state except perhaps in Oaxaca—and good luck trying to disappear to there! This is an archaic idea with no place in the modern world.

You could try to do it all Heinlein style and set aside a bit of land to banish people to. Such matters must be determined into law on a local level. Death Sentences shall also be determined in TYPE by a concensus of the victim's loved ones if available. These types shall consist of: NO other types or forms of execution are to be considered.

Many people find capital punishment to be fairly barbaric, but some of the means here prescribed are even more barbaric. In the 21st century? And to leave the means up to the family is to allow the family to engage in vengeance, which is a different sort of thing than justice. That should not be the point. Misdemeanors Shall be punished by; "Shame tactics", fines, public service, and retributions.

Mid-range crimes shall be punished with all misdemeanor punishments and or incremental banishments. High crimes SERIOUS shall be punished by long-term banishment, Lifetime banishment, AND the death penalty and any recommendations from the victims or their loved ones must be considered before sentencing. What is the point of completely re-doing the jury structure as we have known it, or why the differing numbers of jurors for differing levels of crimes?

No explanation is given. All judges must be elected but do not have to have any formal LAW education. All LAWS must be and have a simple face value with clear intentions presented in a simple format as much as possible; and subject to the scrutiny of the Just Laws Observance Board. Each community must have a local Office of Arbitration of which opposing parties in dispute can meet and discuss small matters to avoid a trial. No trial shall proceed any later than 6 weeks after the accused is jailed or the prisoner will be freed to await trial in public.

Constitution of the New America - RationalWiki

After a conviction, ALL appeals must be stated at the same hearing within 3 weeks after which if no new trial is ordered, sentence shall be carried out. Yeah, funny thing--when you mandate that laws be understandable to the common man, you end up with vague laws, or else draconian laws with absolutely no flexibility. You need the law to be able to adapt to circumstances without being completely arbitrary. This means you need a professional class to interpret them. For instance, see this whole damn constitution. The point of the local "offender" representatives is not at all unclear, unless it's to act as public defenders.

As for elected judges with no legal training, they actually have those in rural New York, and it's been an unmitigated disaster. If the local Office of Arbitration cannot resolve a matter; the Arbitration Board shall request a trial in a neighboring community from judges until a date can be set to hear the cause.

Account Options

NO contact of any kind shall be made to that court or its members by any party involved in the cause or peoples that would represent these same parties under penalty of law. The Civil Trial shall be a final disposition unless at some future date The Executive Body should decide upon legislature presented to them by the Representative Body of The Adjoining Representatives that would serve the public interests even further. More micromanaging, but nothing really outrageous, honestly. Why it needs to be in an adjoining town is unclear, unless they expect to keep their country to just small towns.

This single paragraph makes it seem as if civil legislation were some silly, petty, "The People's Court" law, and not the litigation of billion and even trillion dollar contracts that could turn on a single interpretation of contracts; taxpayers vs. And where did our juries go? American law is rightfully founded on the idea that no one man should be entrusted with the outcome of a trial, and it should never be a paid position where one side could wield more This is mostly good, but the text of the actual 13th amendment to the US constitution is better.

Also, it does allow for involuntary servitude as punishment for crimes such as "community service. NO restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, or recreational drugs shall apply as long as the aforementioned is not violated and is consumed in private save that of sales to the public which would be taxed and made to be of a safe and true commercial product s. The same would apply to pornography and places of ill repute. A "Family" shall be defined as a wedded Man and Woman and any subsequent offspring or adoptions of children. OK, right off, there are huge flaming contradictions.

Bad arguments, overall, but arguments could be made. However, if people have these privacy rights, then do they not also have the right to homosexual activity? Is that any more dangerous than unrestricted drug use? As for the family unit stuff, that's European-style "Christian Democracy". Rather out of vogue there now despite Merkel's election; even the Germans seem to have abandoned the strong version of that philosophy.