This was exactly the argument I was trying to make. Thank you!

Instead of letting the market decide, just think of the de facto tariffs we add onto the cost of goods and services nationwide because one large State can force the Seller to change their product to meet whatever whim that strikes their fancy. If you have a US business plan and a large State makes a rule, your plan may not work without complying to it. This means every person in the United States must gravitate to the lowest common denominator - in this case the highest cost - because just a few people can force their will on the whole country. Do whatever in order to offer broader freedom of choice.

If the auto industry had any "you know what's" they would build only cars for the rest of the nation and california could "walk" for all I care...

California is being run by a deranged governor whose dictates did more harm to the State than good.

He thinks that challenging the country's laws by setting the extremes for California makes him a tough boy. All it makes him is a flake who with a little luck will disappear from the scene soon.

Absolutely true but that still does not address the issue. Does history not address the whole phenomena?

Throughout history things have always ended the same way. The Romans, the Greeks and all those other republics have had the same result.

Those traitors that performed a coup knew this very well, in fact so well they wrote it into the preamble of the constitution. "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

They knew their prosperity was assured (in more ways than one) and the future could look after itself. As Thomas Jefferson so elegantly stated, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Guess the time has arisen and it will be our blood. The price is estimated in the 100's of millions,

It has been tried but the federal government got bigger and bigger and made its laws mandatory for all the states. Now the feds control pretty much everything- medical care, transportation, internet, and food production , with the states having only aminor role. Backwards from the way it was supposed to be in our constitution

Strange argument so let me see if I understand this. Are you saying that if there was no federal government, then we would have the states competing for citizens?

Would there be something like the Articles of Confederation that would insure mutual protection from outside forces?

I would say that has been tried and here we are.

I would suggest that It is less likely that 50 separate government bodies would all have the same level of restrictions on individual freedoms as one supreme federal government that the 50 states had to obey- especially when the states have to compete with each other for citizenss

Competition is the mother of invention and is the only real friend of the consumer in areas of the economy. Why would not competition work the same wonders in government?

But as history has so well demonstrated, that is something that has never been or ever will be.

Here is an older copy of a senate document dealing with rights that is given to new senators. There is a newer version available with a little search effort in the government site.

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc...

Yes, but I would hope some governments would feel pressure to treat its citizens better than in europe

The rest of the nation is free to trade with California or not. No "dictating" is involved.

Are you referring to being like Europe before the EU?

The state is never the answer but the problem. Only living beings are involved in fair trade. Government by its very nature is violence. For government to give to one, they must first take from another.

Regulations and laws do not stop a crime from being committed. Happens every day.
Courts fixing bad things that happen happens every day too.
.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

If this is not what you are referring to then please let me know. Otherwise I will pay closer attention in the wording I use to challenge an argument.

What I mean is that if each state were like a separate country with borders and different governments, they would be competing with each other to attract residents. What we have now is the federal government in the USA mandating that all states must obey what IT says, eliminating any competitive advantage one state might have over another in, for example, taxes or lack of them.

So theft in your determination is ok so long as the one doing the stealing can be defined?

Why are states different from the Federal government?

Most important, states are all fictions so how can they compete?

So I take you answer is you do have problems rectifying documents one against another.

As I do not know you I only have your words to go by as to your integrity. You say you have read something and as I can not disprove then I must accept you for your word. However, my what you post it is easy to determine your comprehension skills are based on what you want to be true.

I asked if you had ever rectified what was implied by Hamilton, Madison and Jay against reality but you reply back with some emotional triad about my reality.

During the first term, Hamilton convinced that idiot Washington that he could charter a central bank. Rectify that with the Federalist papers and the constitution.

As to the judiciary, let's start with Hamilton again in Federalist 78:

"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

And then comes Marshall that usurps the constitution and declares the court the arbitrator of all things constitutional.

And your implication that the crooks that devised the constitution are the founders is plainly absurd, The founders are those that signed the Declaration of Independence freeing this land from the tyranny of a king, not those that stole the country with an action they were not appointed to do.

As to the constitution, the only state that put that jewel to a vote of the people was Rhode Island and it failed miserably. It was only a state convention appointed by government that overrode the population and did it anyway.

The elitist gathered in Philadelphia was after but one thing, power. For the most part they were all well educated and well read and knew exactly what they were doing. Of the delegates, more than half were lawyers so explain why the document reads as it does.

From what I have seen thus far, if the majority here as history scholars, then history does not fare too well.

What does friends or enemies have to do with anything? This is a forum, a venue for debate where facts rule and rhetoric and innuendo are exposed.

As in the infamous words of John Galt, I live my life for no man nor ask any other to live his life for me. I am not looking for solutions, I have resolved what I need.

Respectful, define what you mean by respectful as your use does not comply with it's root meaning, respicere.

Yeah... we're going to need you to check the ad hominem at the door there Alfred.

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...

Yeah, it was Erin. sorry. It was a great movie and it shows how pollution is fixable by courts, not EPA regulations.

not subsidized by the other states, like it is now. Let each state float alone really as a separate entity, with only mutual trade agreements of sorts to make trade possible. No universal laws from a federal government. Competition among states.

Yes, and other trade impediments - just like California's rules could certainly be interpreted to be subject to Federal adjudication as per the Commerce Clause.

"(The language of that clause is hideously vague and has been used to destroy liberty and free trade for 150 years.)"

It wasn't so originally, but just like many other Amendments (like the Fourteenth) it has been construed by those with an agenda to undermine and reverse original intent.

The EPA and Dept. of Education should both have been gone years ago. The EPA is used to control people, when the DC swamp wants it to. Look at the ridiculous limits it has placed on farmers, even residential land owners.And for what - faux global warming data based on bought standards. Then there is the dept. of Ed, which the CFR told Reagan he could not dismantle, as the one world crowd needed it. For indoctrination of course. Let Calfi. do what they want, and drive only electric cars, which they will soon see will take down the power grid, which could not support them, as they are importing electric from neighboring states now! Calif. really deserves to be a dysfunctional nation of its own, and support it.

But I do read your circular arguments, again and again and again.

Your whole argument is based on what you want to be true not reality.

I take you are a grown individual so who am I to tell you to do or not do something.

What you do not know of law would fill a universe.

Please show me where the Articles of Confederation have been repealed. I suppose by your supposition that the Northwest Ordinance which was part of the Articles of Confederation is not valid either.

What you agree with does not seem to carry much weight as you have shown a propensity to ignore facts casting a cloud on judgement.

Being you do not "believe" in the Articles of Confederation, then let's move on to the Constitution. I take that you have perused it, but have you read it? I mean really read it?

"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?"

Stop for a minute. Put away your emotional angst and return to rationality. -1

It might really help if you separate in your communications what parts you want others to read as sarcastic, because after re-reading several of your posts, if you were stating things sarcastically, it would change much of the tenor and argument you make. I would also caution against treating people on this forum like those in a common internet chat site: for the most part those here are well-read and well-studied and we value honest debate. But we draw the line at personal attacks and belittlement.

I have read each and every of the documents you have cited thus far. I have studied ancient civilizations and government as well as modern ones and I thought it was well-outlined in the notes on the Constitutional Convention that the Founders had similarly studied and debated the virtues of many civilizations including but not limited to Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Carthage, Great Britain, and even Switzerland. I have read and taught the Declaration of Independence and Constitution - as well as its amendments, so while I value others insights into them, I am no stranger to them or their history. The majority of those on this forum are similarly scholars of history.

We're not enemies. We're both looking for solutions. But we can certainly do so in a respectful manner.