Re: Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in 7 states

[Dionysus]

"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
news:LuadnSz4KJl_NafW...@giganews.com...
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>> the framers intended for federal law to trump state law, period,
>
> No, not period. The Constitution was contrived as a framework that
> recognizes the expansive nature of human rights and circumscribes
> government powers such that they become vanishingly small. In *that*
> clear and very specific context and to that purpose does the Constitution
> reign supreme. This is the point that most people miss, including an
> awful large number of judges.
>
> When applied in that sense, federal law properly trumps state law *only*
> when the latter seeks to restrict rights or otherwise expand state powers
> unconstitutionally. Similarly, state law properly trumps federal law when
> the case is reversed. Government was intended to be tightly circumscribed
> and potent only within its narrowly specified sphere. Beyond that sphere
> it was not intended to expand because there is no possible legitimacy
> there, all circumstances notwithstanding.
>
> The basic rule should be this: expansion of the recognition of human
> rights and further restriction of government is OK, but the converse is
> not.
>
> Human rights reign supreme, not government prerogative.
***********
Ayn Rand said it in a pithy fashion: "The [U.S.] Constitution is a
limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not
prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the
government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of
the citizen's protection against the government."

Too bad too few lib loons here understand that.

Happy New Year.

No Surrender!

Dionysus s