Re: saving the world from a cancerous monopoly (fwd)

[Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>]

Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> 
mjg says:
> 
> > Yes, I've thought of that too. That is the place to start, but I think
> > the federal government is too strong -- eventually the states will hit a
> > stand-off and the succession issue arises again. Feds won't go down
> > without a fight.
> 
> That's actualy an easy one. All it would take is a govenor to declare that
> citizens of his state are not going to submit to annual taxation. I
> guarantee that things will move quickly. Since the National Guard requires
> the ok of the govenor for the feds to invoke that is pretty much a moot
> point. It's clearly unconstitutional to involve the Army, especialy if it is
> made clear the National Guard will be there at the border to stop them. As
> to the FBI and such, have the Sherrif in each county and he state police
> proceed to arrest any such persons who attempt to invoke their federal
> authority.
> 

Since the National Guard is an extension of the Army and was created
through the federal authority of raising armies it is not 
necessary for the Governor of any state to be consulted before it
is given its orders.  So says the Supreme Court several years ago.

The all happened when Dukakis challenged George Bush's power to
mobilize his National Guard during the Persian Gulf war.
(operation Just 'Cuz).  Dukakis was pissed (thinking he lived
in the old US) and challenged the whole thing.  He lost.
He mistook the state militia for the National Guard.

As far as the unconstitutionality of the Army doing anything,
thats history -- all they have to do is invoke the Drug laws
and the constitution is null and void.  In any case, the National
Guard is the Army (for all practical purposes).

As far as arresting federal authorities goes, there aren't
enough sherrifs lying around to stop even FBI agents, much less
the National Guard. (state police included)

Where were the sheriffs when the BATF broke assuaulted
the Branch Davidian church?  The answer is: helping them...



> 
> Speaking of brain-washed....
> 
> They didn't fear democracy, they feared an authoritarian central government
> without the states exercising their authority to stop it via the 10th. They
> felt that democracy was the only way to deal with this sort of excess.
> 
>In short, they celebrated democracy.

Actually they feared an excess of both.  Tryanny of the king and
tyranny of the masses -- mobocracy.  That is why the Senators
were appointed by the states and not elected by the people.  It
was an effort to allow states to control their interests instead
of everthing being determined by congress.  This is known as
a balance of power.

jim