1) The thing is: who are the real traitors, is it the taxpayers who fund the govt and who the govt (allegedly) serves, because they have taken issue with the govts policies? Or is it the govt which is doing things and proposing things it has no authority to?
We are entitled to know why the DHS needs that much ammo. And if we don't like that answer we need to have some recourse to stop it.
2) There is plenty of grey in the Constitution, but what is written is meant to be taken literally, according to the men who wrote and ratified it. This is NOT a matter of opinion but of fact.
"It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the "general welfare", it would be absurd, to say the least, to supersede a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumerations which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited as heretofore supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all."
"I, sir, have always conceived - I believe those who proposed the constitution conceived,and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers - but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms."
- James Madison "Father of the Constitution"
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please . . . . Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
- Thomas Jefferson. This quote ^ should really help you understand why Obamacare (and all the rest of the entitlements) should HAVE NEVER BEEN.
When there is no clear answer on an issue then the intention of these same men flat-out holds more weight than the interpretations of anyone else. And yes I'm only speaking of what can be proven in their own words. To say that you or I or obama can simply 'interpret' our own meaning out of the text itself (ignoring other obviously relevant sources) is false and the pinnacle of hubris. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point to the Constitution at all, whoever gets elected could simply twist words around to suit their desires.... oh wait... that ship has sailed.
3) You doubt banning something like religion or any of your 1st Amendment Rights could ever happen? Then you must have your head buried, because this talk of confiscation is an obvious attack on the 2nd Amendment, which I guarantee people living 100 years ago thought could never happen. Maybe next time an individuals mockery gets blamed for a terrorist attack, the majority will decide it's ok to outlaw and punish criticism of certain people or religions. And whether or not its upheld by the SC, it would be Unconstitutional. It may sound far fetched but after listening to fools like obama, coumo, reid, pelosi, the clintons, etc and their blind followers for years, it ISN'T.
oh and as far as Jefferson violating his own principles in the Louisiana Purchase, which imo, isn't in the strict interpretation of the Constitution. I can maintain trust in someone who takes exception to the rule(s) once, I CAN'T trust anyone who 'interprets' (exploits) that exception as the rule.
