The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

mack59 · July 2, 2010, 09:54 AM

Many states have had a henious history of abridging the basic civil and human rights of their citizens -slavery, jim crow, the civil rights movement. States are no more moral or sacred or sacrosant or infallible than any other form of government.

It was suggested that Illinois voters should vote out the politicians - pretty hard to do when the dead vote, when illegals vote, when precints in Chicago report more than 100 percent voter turn out, when ballot boxes disappear or are mysteriously found. But then they should just move - abandon family land and family, surrender their state, culture, and communties to corrupt politicians - runaway with their tails between their legs. Some choose to fight - some fought by going to the courts and asking that a basic and fundamental individual right be enforced by the federal government as it has enforced other such basic rights contained in the bill of rights.

But then again the people who are against this are also against any federal enforcement of freedom of speech, or the freedom to worship, etc...

The civil war resulted in the 14th amendment - and that amendment has since been held to allow the federal government to apply the larger portion of the protections of individuals fundamental liberties contained in the Bill of Rights to the States.

As government power grabs go - I am much more concerned about the misuse of the commerce clause than the possible misuse by the federal government of the freedom of speech, or of worship, or the RKBA.

This whole debate reminds me of a conversation I had with an Illinios state senator about 15 or 17 years ago over state wide legislation for a shall issue concealed carry bill. The senator, a republican, said that he couldn't support the bill because it violated the rights of local cities (called home rule in Illinois - which is why for a statewide ccw bill to pass it must have a supermajority). I was stunned at his reasoning that somehow cities have rights and that those rights are more important than the fundamental liberties of individuals. If one were to whole heartedly subscribe to this line of thinking then I guess in order to exercise a fundamental liberty like the freedom of speech - one should with proper deference first get permission from the federal government, then get permission from one's state govt., then get permission from one's county govt., and then get permission from one's town or city govt.

Editted to add: Hugh I would certainly pay to see you debate Justice Thomas.

July 2, 2010, 09:54 AM	#119
mack59 Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2004 Posts: 447	Many states have had a henious history of abridging the basic civil and human rights of their citizens -slavery, jim crow, the civil rights movement. States are no more moral or sacred or sacrosant or infallible than any other form of government. It was suggested that Illinois voters should vote out the politicians - pretty hard to do when the dead vote, when illegals vote, when precints in Chicago report more than 100 percent voter turn out, when ballot boxes disappear or are mysteriously found. But then they should just move - abandon family land and family, surrender their state, culture, and communties to corrupt politicians - runaway with their tails between their legs. Some choose to fight - some fought by going to the courts and asking that a basic and fundamental individual right be enforced by the federal government as it has enforced other such basic rights contained in the bill of rights. But then again the people who are against this are also against any federal enforcement of freedom of speech, or the freedom to worship, etc... The civil war resulted in the 14th amendment - and that amendment has since been held to allow the federal government to apply the larger portion of the protections of individuals fundamental liberties contained in the Bill of Rights to the States. As government power grabs go - I am much more concerned about the misuse of the commerce clause than the possible misuse by the federal government of the freedom of speech, or of worship, or the RKBA. This whole debate reminds me of a conversation I had with an Illinios state senator about 15 or 17 years ago over state wide legislation for a shall issue concealed carry bill. The senator, a republican, said that he couldn't support the bill because it violated the rights of local cities (called home rule in Illinois - which is why for a statewide ccw bill to pass it must have a supermajority). I was stunned at his reasoning that somehow cities have rights and that those rights are more important than the fundamental liberties of individuals. If one were to whole heartedly subscribe to this line of thinking then I guess in order to exercise a fundamental liberty like the freedom of speech - one should with proper deference first get permission from the federal government, then get permission from one's state govt., then get permission from one's county govt., and then get permission from one's town or city govt. Editted to add: Hugh I would certainly pay to see you debate Justice Thomas. Last edited by mack59; July 2, 2010 at 09:59 AM.