5 ms·
I would argue that the 10 amendment in the Bill of Rights is all that a person would need to nullify gross overreaches of power by the federal government.
by dgzl 8y ago
I would argue that the 10 amendment in the Bill of Rights is all that a person would need to nullify gross overreaches of power by the federal government.
- anoncoward111 8y agoIn practice your assets will be civily forfeited, you'll be held in pre-trial detention (prison) for months, and then every lawyer will laugh you out of the room when you tell him you want to do a constitutional defense. "Just take the plea, I can get them down to 2 years. Otherwise youre facing 9 to 20 years."
- dgzl 8y agoWhat even are rights anymore.
- anoncoward111 8y agoWe have them on paper. But, de facto, we do not have many at all. It is worse than anarchy. It is arbitrary democracy.
- dgzl 8y agoNot to point fingers, but I feel like some generations were sleeping hard on the government. The Constitution is almost entirely built to give citizens the power, and to limit the role of government as much as possible. And now society has fallen into a trap of misinformation and distraction. Can future generations push out the corrupt leaders after they pass away? #termlimitsoncongress
- anoncoward111 8y agoOh, we're screwed. I mean, thats my opinion at least. They'll continue dividing us one by one and limiting our rights and livelihoods. Take a look around-- how many of your friends have jumped multiple social classes in the past decade?
- peterwwillis 8y agoWho is this "they" you speak of? The citizens elected to govern? Or a shadowy cabal of unknown entities working in secret toward some ominous cause that ends in you being forced to do everything you don't want to do? Honestly, follow any "we're all screwed our government sucks" logic train to its conclusion and you hit one of two conclusions: A) oh shit, it's actually my fault along with everyone else's that we're in this mess, B) conspiracy theory. We do actually live in a representative democracy with checks and balances, and we do actually have the power to fix it if we choose to. We have a much better chance of changing things without resorting to violence than a pretty sizeable part of the planet.
- anoncoward111 8y ago"They" refers to anyone who is quite rich and or powerful, and actively uses those resources against others. So when you start to wonder, "hmm, I wonder why housing is so expensive relative to my income", or, "hmm, I wonder why that policeman gave me a $400 ticket for 'speeding'", or, "hmm, I wonder why those federal agents are killing children in Waco", or, "hmm, I wonder why no bankers went to jail for fraudulent mortgage practices in 2008"... ... I mean, if you ask yourself these questions, and you tell me that these things are happening because we elected people to do these things, then I don't precisely know where you got that notion.
- peterwwillis 8y agoUh, no, I'm not suggesting we elect people to make bad things happen. I'm saying we elect people to make bad things illegal.
- xkcd-sucks 8y agoThe funny thing is that plenty of rights were won by legal system procedural shenanigans too...
- rtkwe 8y agoGood luck convincing the Supreme Court to upend the basis of a huge portion of federal law and decades of judicial precedence in favor of very broad readings of the enumerated powers.
- Alex3917 8y agoThe supreme court has never ruled against the use of drugs for religious purposes in a broad sense, so there's that at least.
- dgzl 8y agoThis is why salvia is legal to buy.
- agnonnnomen 8y agoYou'd think that would go without saying as any theologists ought to be able to derive drug (read: drug-abuse) prohibition from first principles.
- rtkwe 8y agoThis case seems to poke a hole in the religious exercise loophole right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith#Facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith#F...
- dgzl 8y agoThanks, we'll need it.
- jeffdavis 8y agoHow is that a broad reading? Under what reasonable interpretation of the Constitution does the federal government have the power to tell you not to grow plants on your own property for your own consumption?
- refurb 8y agoThe same law that’s been used to prosecute other crimes, the federal govt jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That decision goes back to federal govt controls over wheat prices. Some guy said “i’ll grow what I want, I don’t care about the price controls” and the courts agreed with the twisted logic that it impact interstate commerce, thus they have the power to control it.