Patrick Henry and I whole-heartedly agree!


Its funny, I grew up spending summers in New Hampshire from the time I wsa born.

It's amasing how clear the difference in freedom, and liberty was, even when I was 5 years old.

In Boston theres a government office of some kind every 5 feet, and signs restricting things everywhere. THe newspapers are full of what the government is doing. Really the government is every present. Eny direction you turn, you see the government.

In new hampshire, this couldnt be further form the truth. The most visible sign of government is the large state owned liquor stores, and the toll plaza for the roads. While I object in principle to government run monopolies, the liquor stores and tolls allow the state to be run without sales or income taxes.

Live free or die indeed.


"The most visible sign of government is the large state owned liquor stores, and the toll plaza for the roads."

Those are good taxes...why? It's your choice to pay them. Trade your money for time on the toll road or your time for money on the back roads (I'm not sure weather or no you can get everywhere in NH on the back roads, but I'll assume it anyway) And you can choose not to buy liquor. Taxes truly become voluntary...that's my kind of tax.

I'm not a fan of government owned enterprise either, but that sounds (to me) like a not too unreasonable tradeoff.


Socialized liquer is the only social program Ive ever had the liberty to enjoy. Go figure.


Dale lives in Dublin. I wonder if he'd be so defiant if he lived in Boston.


I would find the irony of this somewhat amusing if it wasn't so damned close to becoming a powder keg which could when tied into current SCOTUS rulings (international law/feelings taking precedence over our own humble but loveable constitution). The legislative brance does not have the stones to call the court back into line. The executive branch hasn't the authority under the constitution (as far as I know) ot affect a change. So, that leaves "We the people" who at some point are going to have to exicute our first, second, and who knows what other amendment responsibilities. To return things back to the rule of law. Or am I way outta line?


Here's where things get more than a bit thorny.

We as citizens have no legal obligation to obey laws, or regulations, that are unconstitutional.

In fact, it can be construed, that we have an obligation to resist them.

However this can only work, if the populace in the entire, or at least a very significant minority of the populace refuse to obey or actively resist these laws. Otherwise, we will be ovrwhelmed by the force of the state one by one.


you are correct sir


"In fact, it can be construed, that we have an obligation to resist them."

I took the constitution that we are obligated to disobey unconstitutional law. But it could be construed the other way.


Greetings,
If hoisting the black flag is the only way to exercise the first ammendment, then so be it. The Bill of Rights was given to us by God and can only be revoked by him. So far I have not heard he wants to limit the first ammendment. Also, the preamble to the Bill of rights clearly states that the bil of rights is to limit the role of the federal government.
Thanks for bothering to read my ranting, truthful though it may be.
Richard


I know this is from way back. If you see my comment, cool. If anyone else does, coolER. Fuck that RINO right completely to death. I feel a tirade coming on. I do not wish to waste my time. If you read this and reopen it, I'll tirade on the new one.


Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:  ?

Commenting by HaloScan.com