http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
The case above, as you might know.... was Dick "the Blooming Asshole" Blumenthal's baby.... he prosecuted it, as AG for the State of Connecticut.... see what I mean by "sovereign immunity" ?..... and it doesn't matter whether it is State Government or federal.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy Oh, and I was inattentive and misspelled Sycophant..... I was so focused on getting the Ph right, I wrote it twice.....I guess. On Oct 12, 3:33 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello MJ... > Are you female? if so, I particularly apologize for any offense you > might take at the "language" I use in my reply... it is not directed > at "women" in any way.... it just makes for a good "gag". > > I follow the Connecticut political scene fairly closely..... At the > offset, let me say that I am very happy that Lyin' Joe Lieberman, the > former State Attorney General, left and I am also very happy the the > current State Attorney General, Dick "the blooming asshole" Blumenthal > has now vacated that office,too... I am not at all happy that Lying > Joe went on to become a U.S, Senator for the State and I would > certainly not like it if "Dick the "Asshole" became the other U.S. > Senator. Not that I have any partiality for Republicans as > distinguished from Democrats... but I "knew" both of them in an > official capacity and consider them to be... as I said... a Liar and > an Asshole. > > You know that Connecticut calls itself "The Constitution State", > right? Well... my "gag" is... I call it "Cunt-etiquette" ... "The > Constipation State"... because nobody there gives a shit about the > Constitution.....(HAR). > > I can't rightly recommend a choice between Martha Dean and George > Jepsen....but, whichever of them does take it... I hope they "clean > house" and fire as many of their Assistand Attorney Generals as > possible......under Lieberman and Blumenthat, they've become a nest of > Phycophants and Toadies whose only concern is the furtherance of their > own and the "State Officials" interests in .... Sovereign Immunity.... > the Public Interest be damned.... > > As to the legal issue of "nullification" that your cited article > makes... that's a bit irrelevant for me, as any such general legal > philosophy issue is.... Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other... State > authority as opposed to federal authiority.... like I said above.... > sovereign immunity (of any sort) is my buggaboo.....I detest 'soverign > immunity".... I say that "sovereign immunity" should have died with > the French Revolution, with all those "noble aristocratic"heads > chopped off on the guillotine..... I think it would serve the U.S > Government very well if there was a "reprise of the > decapitation".....let''s chop off the heads of all the current crop of > ersatz "sovereigns" at all levels of Government, be it State or > federal... I say.....HAR.... > > nominal9 > > On Oct 12, 2:12 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "One benefit of being a commissar is that you need never debate truly > > important matters. These can simply be portrayed as “extreme,” “outdated,” > > and having “no place in our discussion.” That’s a lot easier than openly > > pleading ignorance."Connecticut AG Candidate: I Favor NullificationPosted > > by Tom Woods on October 12th, 2010 > > Martha Dean, the Republican nominee for attorney general in Connecticut, > > repeated her support for state nullification of unconstitutional federal > > laws in last night’s debate. She opened up my bookNullificationand quoted > > from Jonathan Trumbull, the nineteenth-century Connecticut governor who > > declared: “Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the > > prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State > > Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task it is their > > right it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between > > the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General > > Government.” > > I won’t leave you in suspense regarding the reaction of her opponent, > > George Jepsen. Nullification,he said, is an outdated concept that led to > > the Civil War and “has no place in our discussion today…. The U.S. Supreme > > Court is the final arbitrator with what is constitutional and not > > constitutional. It’s not for the states to decide.” > > One benefit of being a commissar is that you need never debate truly > > important matters. These can simply be portrayed as “extreme,” “outdated,” > > and having “no place in our discussion.” That’s a lot easier than openly > > pleading ignorance. > > Since I wrotea whole booklaying out the evidence against this conventional, > > unexamined claim, I won’t go into that here except to draw an analogy, > > courtesy of my friend Lou Fernandez. If you and I give a third person > > (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, > > and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we > > signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is > > it Person C himself? Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed > > the limited power of attorney in the first place? Likewise, the states, as > > the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical > > claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal > > government. > > As for nullification causing the Civil War, that’s pretty rich. What, pray > > tell, would the South have had to nullify under the unamended > > Constitution? Now I suppose there is one way in which nullification led to > > the southern secession (which is not the same thing as saying it led to the > > war), but it will surprise George Jepsen. South Carolina’s ordinance of > > nullification complains that theNorthis doing too much nullifying, and that > > the South is sick of it. In particular, the North was interfering with the > > enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The Wisconsin Supreme Court > > got so uppity that it stood up to George Jepsen’s heroes, the U.S. Supreme > > Court, and declared the Act unconstitutional (the Constitution’s > > fugitive-slave clause notwithstanding). So I suppose in that sense > > nullification may have helped provoke the southern secession, but I doubt > > that’s what Jepsen meant by his remark. > > Nullification was used throughout American history on behalf of free speech > > and free trade, and against unconstitutional searches and seizures, > > military conscription, and the fugitive slave acts. Jepsen doesn’t mention > > this. No one ever does. We must stick to the narrative: the states are > > stupid and backward, the federal government is a progressive force, and > > anyone skeptical of this version of events belongs on a watch list. > > Jepsen does mention the use of nullification rhetoric in Arkansas to block > > school desegregation, the implication being that Jeffersonian decentralism > > is forever discredited because states have behaved in ways most Americans > > find grotesque. Theyarestates, after all, so we should not be shocked when > > their behavior offends us. But this is apples and oranges. This outcome > > was possible only at a time when blacks had difficulty exercising voting > > rights, a situation that no longer obtains. Things have changed since > > Birmingham 1963 in other ways as well. The demographic trends of the past > > three decades make that clear enough, as blacks have moved in substantial > > numberstothe South, the only section of the country where a majority of > > blacks polled say they are treated fairly. It is an injustice to the > > people of the South, as well as an exercise in emotional hypochondria, to > > believe the states are on the verge of restoring segregation if only given > > the chance. I mean, really. > > By exactly the same reasoning, incidentally, any crime by any national > > government anywhere would immediately justify aworldgovernment. Anyone > > living under that world government who then favored decentralization would > > be solemnly lectured about all the awful things that had happened under > > such a system in the past. > > Moreover, the argument is not that the federal government is bad but the > > state governments are infallible. The state governments are rotten, too > > (which is why we may as well put them tosomegood use by employing them on > > behalf of resistance to the federal government). We are asking under what > > conditions liberty is more likely to flourish: with a multiplicity of > > competing jurisdictions, or one giant jurisdiction? There isa strong > > argument to be madethat it was precisely thedecentralizationof power in > > Europe that made possible the development of liberty there. > > This argument why, an institutional structure was once put to objectionable > > purposes, so it may never be appealed to again – is never used against the > > institution of the state itself, particularly the megastates of the > > nationalistic twentieth century. I rather doubt Jepsen would say, > > “Centralized governments gave us hundreds of millions of deaths, thanks to > > total war, genocide, and totalitarian revolutions. In the U.S. we can > > point to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and a > > horrendously murderous military-industrial-congressional complex, among > > other enormities. Our federal government is so remote from the people that > > it has managed to rack up debts (included unfunded liabilities) well in > > excess of $100 trillion. This is a joke. In light of this record, what > > intellectual and moral pygmy would urge nationalism, that outdated doctrine > > that led to World War II, as the solution to our problems?” > > The most humane system, thinks George Jepsen, is one in which 300 million > > people are ruled from one city, and in which that one city gets to decide > > for itself whether it’s staying limited to its original charter. This is > > the unexamined premise that informs our entire political spectrum. > > Good for Martha Dean. We need a lot more discussion of ideas that “have no > > place” in the regime’s world.2 Responses to “Connecticut AG Candidate: I > > Favor Nullification”AB Says:October 12th, 2010 at 12:01 pmDr. Woods,If the > > Constitution already restrains federal power and there isn’t any clause > > stating that states can nullify federal laws as you have admitted, aren’t > > you assuming that the states have a power that the Constitution doesn’t > > grant to them?Tom WoodsSays:October 12th, 2010 at 12:03 pmThe Constitution > > doesn’t grant power to the states. It’s the other way around. Also, I have > > written a book on this, so you can expect a lengthier explanation > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
