TexasCHLforum.com

gringo pistolero wrote:Can I order nine and have them delivered to SCOTUS?

Winchster wrote:However, I don't see a way back 60-70 years ago to a place where the fed wasn't this bloated, decidedly unconstitutional, monstrosity that it is today. I don't see how electing people into the current system, removes all the freebies that have been created. It's "too painful" and if it could be done in a single session, you can rest assured that the sheep would rally and throw them out of office on the next cycle and begin putting them all back in place. I don't see a way around it. People have become accustomed to a "nanny state" and by virtue of human nature, don't want to give anything up.

The Annoyed Man wrote:There is a lot we can do to reclaim this country without resorting to the ballot box.......just yet.

smoothoperator wrote:If it's a tax, doesn't that make obamacare unconstitutional because it originated in the senate?

Article 1, Section 7 wrote:All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

The Annoyed Man wrote:Unfortunately, I think one of the first things the federal government would do in an insurrection would be to shut down any websites which posted these videos ASAP, denying that propaganda avenue to the insurrectionists. So actually what would have to happen is very much like what has happened in other parts of the world in the Internet age, which is that the videos get smuggled out of the country and posted to foreign web servers. Then the fed has to do like China and regulate Americans' access to foreign content.........which would further provoke more and more people to join the insurrection.

Kythas wrote:I would guess it begins like it did in Syria and Libya. Some group would start organizing protests, probably via social media. These protest would become large and begin provoking authorities. Local authorities would begin to use some level of force to counter the protesters. Some of the protest organizers would take video of the authorities' actions and post them online, provoking other people to become angry and join in the protests. At some point, it would become too much for local officials to handle and the national government would step in. Organizers would then provoke the national government, most likely military at this point, who would again respond with force, which would get video taped and spread, causing other people to become angry, etc.

pops1982 wrote:

psijac wrote:I have never seen TAM so... Annoyed!

Thats because we are watching our personal liberties go right out the window due to an out of control, massive and ever growing over reaching government.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Dave2 wrote:So... I was watching Fox News today, and the democrats they had on were insisting that this really is a fine or penalty instead of a tax... Does that mean it's unconstitutional again?

No, it means that, as usual, they're lying again, just like they did when they were selling this pile of fish guts to us and saying then that it wasn't a tax. Democrats wouldn't know the truth if it bit 'em in the butt.

The Annoyed Man wrote:http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-modest-propos ... epage=true
A Modest Proposal
The chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who support limited government.
by RAND SIMBERG

Chief Justice Roberts, advertently or otherwise, has pointed out a flaw in the founding document, and we should use this opportunity, with the anger of the public, to patch it. I propose that we amend the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, and don’t even play one on the Internet, despite my disquisitions on space property rights, but here are my proposed Constitutional amendments. Together, if there is any justice, they will be known historically as the “ObamaCare amendments.”

First, to deal with the Ninth:

• Congress shall not levy any tax on the people whose purpose is other than to raise revenue for legitimate government purposes, and in particular it shall not levy a tax on the people for the purpose of coercing their personal behavior, including purchase of a product.

And here’s the one to handle the Tenth:

• Congress shall not withhold federal funding for a state under any federal program because it does not comply with Congressional dictates.

Can someone tell me why a) this wouldn’t make it clear that “We the Founders really meant it” when they wrote amendments nine and ten and b) it wouldn’t be a great Republican Party plank and campaign issue in the fall?

Obviously, it’s a monumental task to take back the country. Absent a Constitutional Convention, which requires two thirds of states to call it, it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (though the president has no role). It obviously won’t happen with the current Congress, or one that we can elect next year. But there are a lot of Democrats who are vulnerable in 2014, and the only way to make it happen is to make it a project of the people who want to restrict government. It won’t happen overnight, but the time to start to make it happen is now.

psijac wrote:I have never seen TAM so... Annoyed!