Originally Posted by Vic Tory
2A: http://thefederalistparty.org/2017/1...s-work-it-out/
What? The only process of exercise which should be enforced is a process by which one who has provided the conditionals for removal and shows that they have negated those rights by a crime. Any other method of enforcement for exercise is ipso facto an infringement on said rights. This is as utterly retarded as saying all persons have a right to life from conception to natural death, but states have the ability to make abortion laws -- NO. THEY. DON'T. For such laws are unjust and thus no law at all. So while they may attempt it, and even enforce it, it's not an ontological law (that is to say, it's a phantasm, and doesn't exist despite claims to do so) because it's outside the purview of the one attempting to make and enforce said law.“We don’t need DC to tell us it’s okay to conceal carry our firearms,” said Federalist Party co-founder JD Rucker. “They told us it was okay with the 2nd Amendment. How states enforce their laws concerning guns is up to the states as long as they don’t infringe on the 2nd Amendment itself. DC should be protecting our rights, not telling us the process by which we can exercise them.
...
But I would rather be barred from carrying in 18 liberal states, and work at the state level to get that changed, than put the power in the hands of the federal government to implement other nationally mandated requirements around a federally controlled National Reciprocity bill.
”
The states may go unceremoniously self-copulate on the issue of 2A. The Federal government has a right and duty to force this reality on the states because it's something constitutionally defined at the Federal level. States have many abilities to work within their sphere of authority, but if we are going to play D&D: Constitution, then the 2A is NOT one of them except to reiterate that they have no power to asphyxiate it. That the Federal .gov itself, via bench level legislation and congressional actions which are also contra the plain meaning of the Founders, often violated this very principle, is further proof that the American experiment is in fact a sham. It is framed well, but it's been dead for a while.
Protection of Life:
http://thefederalistparty.org/2017/0...-and-abortion/"While it’s understandable that people in the 60’s and 70’s may cling to Roe‘s argument for “choice”, the ground is clearly shrinking beneath the feet of abortion advocates. In politics, in culture, and in business, the trend of the future is clearly toward acknowledging the value and rights of the unborn.
And that’s a trend the Federalist Party can embrace by showing leadership in the fight to protect life.
A Federalist approach to defending life
The reality of American politics is that most folks will stop reading after my last sentence – whether approvingly or disapprovingly. But if our stance on life sets us apart from the Democratic platform, it is our strategic approach that can distinguish us from a Republican Party that pays lip-service to abortion abolition, but has proven ineffective at advancing the pro-life cause.
We agree that personhood must be defined at the national level, extending the protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments to preborn persons. Failing to address this nationally would create a situation where state lines bestow and negate individual rights, and that’s both immoral and unworkable.
At the same time, states and communities play an important – and often overlooked – role in protecting life.
Pro-life advocates often find themselves assailed by anecdotes and individual case hypotheticals when discussing federal abortion law, and are sometimes forced into retreat by a lack of specific answers for these cases.
Federalists recognize that criminal law has historically been within the jurisdiction of state governments, and that these difficult cases are better handled by state and local authorities who are able to address the facts surrounding individual cases.
There’s no need to iron out every detail of every exception at the federal level, and it’s presumptuous to try. If the principle of personhood is established at the national level, application can be left to the states, where we already handle all other issues of justice and conflicting rights.
But beyond the legal principle, there’s so much more for states and communities to do. While the federal government is not constitutionally empowered to involve itself in health care, no such restriction exists on states or cities. States can establish funding for non-abortive health care clinics. Communities can provide help for women in crisis. There are endless solutions at the local level that would never work as a one-size-fits-all federal policy, and the more the federal government backs away from the abortion industry, the more room those solutions have to work."
So let me get this straight... (and at least they are internally consistent on the major points, I'll give them that):
The Federal .gov should define a right to life and then sit back and let states violate that with exception clauses with the force of law that the Federal government cannot then put the kibosh on? What?
There is no exception which is acceptable, ever. None.
So the Federalist position, it would seem, is to do the exact same thing at a Federal level they accuse (rightly) GOP and other politicians of doing: giving lip service but not actually doing anything. The only difference is it will be with a different icing on the shit cake.
Well knock me over with a feather. Where do I sign up?
Again, any state that attempts to violate the right to life of one who has committed no crime which as an act of the individual's will resulted in the giving up of said right (read: cannot be for the "crime" of merely existing, or being inconvenient, or any other cause not related to a definable criminal act), just as they might attempt to violate the 2nd amendment, should be faced with the following: immediate Federal interdict. Federal troops on the ground in said state. The public execution of every state level official and even private citizens who had a hand in that criminal act as passing into a fake law or otherwise attempted to adhere to it. And really, if we were truly a moral and religious people as the Founders intended our Constitution to serve and work for, all the Feds would need to do is come in and document the cleanup. Why? Because men of good will would take care of the problem quickly and en masse.
----
As far as I can tell, this group is using the term Federalism in the French, post-Revolutionary sense (and in some sense, the manner in which Jefferson opposed the Federalists is their actual platform; so are they Hamiltonian in their outlook or Jeffersonian? One of those things is NOT Federalist) and not in the sense that Hamilton, et al. used it. Further, they keep missing the point that it is entirely necessary that the spheres of power in a model of subsidiarity have a strict obligation not to encroach on the other spheres except in times of violation. Yet, that doesn't mean that when a lower sphere is in violation, the higher sphere cannot come in and kick ass. It also doesn't mean that the lower spheres cannot oppose and even dispose of elements in the higher spheres when the higher spheres violate lower sphere space or even their own duties.
They keep punting Federal issues to the States in the articles I've read so far. They keep talking about lower levels, but those lower levels have no ability to enforce certain things which they cast as American except under the authority of the higher level which does. Ultimately, any "right" of the American people should be defended at all levels, and when a lower level seeks to violate said right, the higher level has an obligation to stop it. With raw violence if necessary.
Where is their actual platform? Do they even have one? "The Constitution" is rather nebulous in my opinion. I want to see a defined list. That they claim it will evolve, well... *what* will evolve. They haven't even defined the foundation!
And, are they intending to just throw out case law and precedent? If so, good. If not, how do they plan to counteract those rank violations of true justice and true law?
Some of their stuff is great. Some of their stuff is horrific in its punting to the States when it's an issue which should not be punted. They have no defined platform, and that which they say is their platform is then itself violated by their policy and opinion papers. I can't put my finger on them and know, at a basic level, what they actually stand for.
They restructured within a year and a half of their formation:
https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2017...restructuring/
But wait, they didnt!:
https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2017...eover-exposed/
So we are supposed to believe a man who cowered and acquiesced over unprovably threats (or are they provable?) can tell any of us about anything?
Please.
Let's face facts: no new political party will change anything. All of the talent and hardwork necessary to do so can easily be applied to the GOP to work within the reality of the human terrain. I think that's actually necessary since the current two political parties are entrenched in the American lexicon. Tactical awareness should dictate that it's best to work within current structures as much as possible. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Rather, just put air in the flat tire. Demand accountability.
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Reply With Quote
