Since you never bother to read what I have posted, repeatedly post some argument that has nothing to do with my post or the relevant topic, and since you make no rational argument supported by anything but your own supposition I will no longer waste time with your posts.

"The Articles of Confederation are just as valid now as any time in the past. ... They have never been repealed just usurped."

The Articles of Confederation were completely superceded following the ratification and adoption of the Constitution. One can not in good faith argue that the ratification of the Constitution was a usurpation of power either, since that ratification was by vote held in the separate States according to their several ratification procedures.

That being said, I absolutely agree that much of the State sovereignty which was intended by the Founders has been lost in the 200+ years since, but I attribute much of that to the Seventeenth Amendment and the gross misinterpretation by the Courts of the Commerce Clause.

The Articles of Confederation are just as valid now as any time in the past. It was and is a compact among 13 nations for their mutual benefit.

"To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia." (Emphasis mine) - Articles of Confederation. They have never been repealed just usurped.

You keep referring to 1860 and trying to instill some argument around Amendment 14, Section 1 where the states somehow lost something not really lost until Amendment 17 in 1913.

The only argument based on 1860 was the secession of the southern states which regained their suffrage in 1868 until the removal in 1913.

Why you are trying to imply is pure conjecture not fact. You confuse the mental illness of Lincoln compared to the mental illness of any other that has held that office before or since, In today's world the executive would have sicced the IRS on them, oh wait, Odumbo did that.

Yes stumbled. I have no problem admitting that I had many clues about the real cause but it wasn't until I was involved a common law lecture that the presenter made a statement he has actually seen and touched the actual document stating the cause. It was a part of a private collection probably never to be seen by the public ever again. I stumbled on the proof needed to now have fact rather than theory.

I have no doubt we have many things in common same as I have no doubt we will lock horns many times here.

"Eric" just has to be a typo with that looker, both the real life heroine and the actress who played her..
Erin Brocovich turned out to be a great movie.
Gave it all the max limit of five stars after I mailed it back to Netflix.

Subsidized by whom?

What part of a "book of lies" did you have a problem comprehending? Do you have issue with reading something and rectifying against another document?

The Magna Carta is seen by most as the foundation of freedom when in reality it is the foundation of slavery. Freedom would have been to lop the head off the king but then that would have exposed the barons as fakes and they would have lost their power.

It is not a matter of reading things but to read and incorporate by epistemology into rational thinking using cognitive abilities.

Amendment XII did not say that, it stated one would vote for a president and a vice president. That was the cause. The effect the acceptance by the unwashed masses of the political party system. By the words of the amendment there is no party system expressed.

I would suggest you spend time studying the history of Rome and Greece before you make statements you cannot justify. There is no going back, time moves on. What you get is what you have asked for.

This is especially true with government. What you get depends on the morality of the populace. A republic always has and always will have a lifespan of between 240 to 250 years. The end is always tragic and involves mass genocide which goes a long way in curing the problem. It then depends on the strength of the tyrant compared to the weakness of the masses as to how long their will be a move in the right direction.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." - Declaration of Independence

Jefferson has a point, men would rather suffer than initiate change. His big mistake was:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

He should have stopped at "abolish it" but then he knew what I know due to his ample knowledge of history. Freedom never lasts more than a couple of generations before the unwashed masses fall for the illusion of government protecting rights. Those mystical beings in black robes have offered many opinions in the past the government has no duty for protection.

I didn't ignore a fact about the Articles because they ceased to be relevant when the constitution was ratified by the states in 1788 and I am discussing the period long after that.

I am not making a 14th amendment argument. I am observing the results of the civil war. States Rights ceased to be a significant factor in restricting the federal government after the states were shown that military force would be used if they strayed from the path dictated by the feds. There is no evidence of any serious consideration of secession after 1860 by any state. That the southern states were denied the very limited rights remaining to other states after the end of the war is not relevant as none of the states retained the "states rights" that were observed before the war, and that again supports my point.
The federal government showed all the states in the war that might makes right, and then they wrote the history of the period to portray themselves as saints and the states who fought to preserve their states rights as evil beyond reason.

I didn't "stumble" on anything. I researched it as you probably have, too.

I suspect we agree on many issues including the traitor Lincoln.

I agree that he should eliminate the EPA, but this is to help in the meantime.

Actually, they do it via a variety of regulations. Eggs come to mind, as California passed a law saying that any eggs entering the state have to be from facilities that allocate x amount of so-called "free range" space per chicken - even though California imports most of their eggs from other States. This was another thing that went to court and bordered on a true Commerce Clause contention. Fruit is another one, where all "imports" are subject to laborious inspections. Firearms are also an issue, but firearms manufacturers don't try to cater to California - they just don't sell there. Automobiles are just one more in a long line.

California's not dictating anything to the rest of the nation.

The point I am making is your ignoring a fact material to your argument. States are countries that initially were bound by the Articles of Confederation. By your context you are trying to imply that the terms are separate which in itself defeats your whole argument.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make true what was not true before being repeated. You keep grouping the states together when in 1860 there was two different context of states. There was those with the constitution and those without the constitution. In 1868 you again had two different contexts of states, those with the constitution and those in defeat.

What you had in 1860 was the Repugnantcons of the North that are now the Dumbocraps and the Dumbocraps of the South that are the Repugnantcons. You are also remiss in dismissing another material fact that the states still had their suffrage in the Senate until Amendment XVII in 1913, more than five decades after your claim.

You are trying to make an Amendment XIV argument where Amendment XIV doesn't apply.

Now you have stumbled on the real reason for the controversy, taxation. The north with all the large cities had posed huge tariffs that destroyed the prosperity of the south and they refused to pay. Lincoln started the war over the taxes, not slavery which was done anyway.

Thomas DiLorenzo is one of my favorites and I catch his lectures at Mises Institute. As my research was well advanced by the time I found him, all I got from that endeavor was validation of my research. I have not read his book as it would add nothing to what I have already discovered and there is so much to read and so little time. Also, DiLorenzo is a statist therefore has a slant on his material that somewhat distracts from his fine work.

Final word on Lincoln, he was a tyrant with a penchant for cruelty. He also was extremely ignorant and but for a meeting in New York in 1856 were he surrendered his soul to the money crowd for support in getting elected. Otherwise Lincoln couldn't be elected as dogcatcher.

This is a great example of what happens when we have too many entities in charge, they conflict with one another.......In totalitarian states one just crushes the other....or the poor fool who points out the conflict gets crushed.

"Anyway...no matter how it goes it will upset somebody's apple cart of power."

Precisely.

I have read the entirety of the Federalist Papers - and the Anti-Federalist Papers to boot. Please cite your reference source for "The separation of powers is an illusion and was never really meant to be."

"that finished the destruction of the executive started in 1804 with Amendment XII which gave us the party system."

I completely agree with that analysis. The move mandating that both President and Vice President be of the same party severely undermined the threat of Impeachment and Conviction in my mind because it eliminates any real change of power. It also effectively limits third parties in Presidential races.

I also submit that the Seventeenth Amendment was the blow which completely undermined States rights by removing State Legislatures from the position of selecting Senators. Reversing both the Twelfth and Seventeenth Amendments in my mind would be a huge move in the right direction.

Exactly !! I think secession would be a good idea for any state that is upset with the feds.

I agree, down with the EPA. However, dumping of toxic wastes should be a crime against whoever the waste is dumped on, and prosecuted like in the movie Eric Brocovich.

If no one wanted to make cars to pass California standards, that would be fine with me. Someone will offer them cars, but they should be more expensive and thats ok with me too. Each state can do what it wants, and let the chips fall as they may. Competition between state governments is a GOOD thing.

The homogenicity of China served it ill in terms of encouraging technical progress; the disparate fractions of Europe gave innovators their choice of environments in which to produce their work. Europe won and the world now marches to the tune of Europe and its offspring colonies.

Like Blarman, I would like to see an increased disparity between the States of the US. I think that CA should be able to choose a totally bonkers leftest enviro-nazi social system if the people who live there want that society.

This has two downsides: (a) the car manufacturers either build to CA standards or have a 'CA packet' that is added to cars sold in that state, (b) I live in CA and may need to depart.

Jan

I dont support California in anything really. On the other hand, I think the whole idea of the federal goverment is anti-competitive and most of its laws and regulations should never even be there. Leave it up to the states to be as enlightened or stupid, governmentally speaking, as they want to be. Enjoy or suffer the consequences.

This is a States right issue. The federal government only allows California to do this because it suits their agenda. They should be stopped in their tracks with this 2-car stupid rule that the loonies in Sacramento are getting away with. As usual, the people are the ones paying the price for the satisfaction of a few.

I used my reply in the correct context, you have no clue as to my motorization but used some unknown criteria to pass an incorrect judgement. That said, apology accepted.

I didn't defend it, I stated a fact, please follow context. I find all this very amusing as the good little citizens scurry around like roaches when the lights come on trying to keep from facing harsh reality.

The separation of powers is an illusion and was never really meant to be. If you want to read a book of lies then I highly suggest "The Federalist Papers".

The real story as we know it today is they are all one and the same. The real separation of powers was based on the state as well as the people. The states was to be represented by the Senators where all had equal standing with 2 each. But that was inconvenient for the bankers. One needs to question matters when the states ratified that.

Another usurpation was during the period of abject socialism with the ratification of Amendment XX in 1933 that finished the destruction of the executive started in 1804 with Amendment XII which gave us the party system.

The final blow came when the people where eliminated and the executive and judicial claimed ownership of the process of a grand jury which for clarification I would suggest article 66 of the Magna Carta.

California has been doing this for decades, unfortunately. Obama followed their lead because - along with the shutdown of the coal electricity plants he advocated - it would have severely limited the transportation options of millions of Americans. Mobility of a workforce is a major component of a capitalistic economy (see Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) so if you can degrade or destroy it, you can enslave the population.

So the automobile industry doesn't want to create a line of cars just for California and another one for the rest of us because of the expense. So most just make cars that adhere to California's ridiculous standards - which forces the rest of us to have fewer, more expensive choices in automobiles. Trump is trying to use the Federal Supremacy Clause to declare California's stricter standards void, thus allowing car manufacturers to build more and less expensive automobiles.

My contention is that both are in the wrong: California for dictating terms to the rest of the nation and Trump for this overreach. But if the court system declares it an overreach, they also severely undermine the use of the Commerce Clause Federal bureaucracies derive much of their power from.

"Gotcha" was a statement that I understood what your motivation was. It was not meant to infer that I was trying to catch you in a contradiction. My apologies - as the word certainly can be used in the manner you intimated.

I was trying to understand your rationale for defending the use of the Commerce Clause to create Federal Bureaucracies with broad rule-making power and authority. Yes, those black-robed, mystical beings issued an opinion that since has been treated as law because those in power like power, but that reasoning is not supported by statements issued by the Founders - who wrote the clauses in question.

"Them and the district courts now have the power to control the president. "

The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government are co-equal with checks and balances on each other. The way the district courts have been used in the past couple of years to block executive actions taken by President Trump has been politically - not morally - motivated. That would include not only the erroneously-named "Muslim Ban" but also the decision to end DACA (which was never authorized by Congress in the first place and so was illegal from the get-go).

CA already has different rules for the dual sport motorcycles I like. Yamaha TW 200s come in 2 models, The ones for CA have different carbs and an emission canister mounted so the MC can pass the air quality tests. Most owners hook the canister up and detune their bikes for the test and then defeat it all after the test.