WW2 Victim/ Buy More Guns

[manooti]

Before I spread the wealth and let you guys see and hear this person speak on tyranny, I want to show you something that TN is trying to pass.

They want to stop voters on voting for a senate nominee.
Link- "Bill stripping primary voters’ ability to select U.S. Senate nominees advances in Tennessee state Senate"

Now, there is a WW2 victim that simply states what is going on from history repeating itself.

http://youtu.be/tH9g62rcj9M

All this with DHS buying more, LE Agencies being boycotted, Arms Trade Treaty (Did not fail, yet), world wide economy and many more what do you guys think the end result is?

Obama has been already trying to remove the Presidential term limits for quite some time also.

Link- "King Obama? Congressman Introduces Bill To End Presidential Term Limits"

Just thought I'd get some opinions on this. Interesting, no?

[bogey1]

As long as there's american idol and the view, and a ball game on, thats all that seems to matter. Bahaaaa

[lemko]

Obama better not wish to be king! Even kings get their comeuppance when they go too far! Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite! How ya fixed for blades?

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

As long as there's american idol and the view, and a ball game on, thats all that seems to matter. Bahaaaa

Thank you!


Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android

[mikelets456]

As long as there's american idol and the view, and a ball game on, thats all that seems to matter. Bahaaaa

Baseball doesn't start until Monday....at least that's what they said while I was watching American idol and the view.

[Jhaydeno]

Actually check the history books. Years ago no citizen in any state could vote for a senator, they were appointed by the state legislators. There was a reason for it too: The citizen's rights were fought for by the house, state's rights were fought for by the senate, and the federal rights by the president...
I think it was changed by the 13th amendment.
You can see the results today. State's rights have been consistently trampled by the federal government with no one to stand up for them, and the federal government continues to take more control from everything and every one.

[ROCK-IT3]

Actually check the history books. Years ago no citizen in any state could vote for a senator, they were appointed by the state legislators. There was a reason for it too: The citizen's rights were fought for by the house, state's rights were fought for by the senate, and the federal rights by the president...
I think it was changed by the 13th amendment.
You can see the results today. State's rights have been consistently trampled by the federal government with no one to stand up for them, and the federal government continues to take more control from everything and every one.

It was changed by the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913. I wish it had not been, and that we still had senators appointed by the State legislatures and/or Governors. As you mentioned, Jhaydeno, the original intent was for senators to represent the interests of the State as an entity in Congress, on an equal basis with all other states. This would make the senators responsible to the state legislature and the executive, instead of acting as a "super-representative" with a six year term. As most state governments are currently conservative, with senators answering to them, we would have much less worry about the Federal government enacting a progressive, liberal agenda in Congress. Senators such as Bob Casey would not be free to vote against the wishes of the people of a state as voiced through state legislatures. This would go a long way to protecting and preserving Liberty.

[manooti]

I hope you guys are right. And yes, they were not voted by the people but things changed too much too fast.

They give and they take. Now they are just taking without balancing out the giving.

Personally, I wouldn't want to have appointees. It's like the Supreme Court Justices that will be implemented to serve an agenda. We got lucky with the pro 2A justices, but from what I remember, Obama wants anti 2A in there.

If appointed they answer to no one. If elected by the people they are held accountable. Look at the sheriffs.

Just my 2c

[bodymangt]

[QUOTE=lemko;2349615]Obama better not wish to be king! Even kings get their comeuppance when they go too far! Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite! How ya fixed for blades?

[QUOTE]

I wonder what the law would say about open carrying a 3 foot longsword for protection ?

[ROCK-IT3]

I hope you guys are right. And yes, they were not voted by the people but things changed too much too fast.

They give and they take. Now they are just taking without balancing out the giving.

Personally, I wouldn't want to have appointees. It's like the Supreme Court Justices that will be implemented to serve an agenda. We got lucky with the pro 2A justices, but from what I remember, Obama wants anti 2A in there.

If appointed they answer to no one. If elected by the people they are held accountable. Look at the sheriffs.

Just my 2c

Senators would be responsible to serve the agenda of the State, and would be accountable through elections at the State level. If you were unhappy with a Senators actions and voting record, you would be able to replace him or her by electing State Representatives that would replace the Senator at the expiration of his term, or introduce a motion to recall or replace him or her immediately. Also, term limits could still apply. A six year term (or less, 4 would be better), with an option for a second term at the appointment of the legislature. If no term limits, they could be re-appointed indefinitely for 4 or 6 year terms, based on satisfactory representation, which would still put them under the control of the State.

As it is now, a Senator can be elected by a minority of people in a State (depending on voter turnout), and once they are in Congress, can become nothing more than a "YES" vote for the party agenda. This is why the Founding Fathers set up the Constitution as they did. Representatives at the Federal level represent the people, based on population, Senators represent the State based on equality. It is now out of balance, with the States subject to the Federal government, in direct conflict with the way the Framers desired.

From the Federalist Papers #45 (Madison):

The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.