States have the power to ignore federal law (borders, governor, money)

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Judging the intent of the law is indeed the job of judges..

Taking intent in account is one criteria but, I repeat, such a criteria is neither a rule or a law. It is a practice. And, as I pointed out, original intent is tenuous, not only are there disagreements amongst the Framers as to the intent, there are issues which could not have been foreseen by men of the 18th century for which the Constitution is silent so channelling "intent" is quite impossible.

Many of the items you listed involve crossing state lines..

Do you or do you not read that which you post?

2. Resolved that, the Constitution of the US. having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfieting the securities & current coin of the US. piracies & felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, & no other crimes whatsoever,[/quote]

Ibid.,

There is no mention of the use of the Commerce Clause to justify enacting laws against; "kidnapping, plane highjacking, wire fraud, drug trafficing, conspiracy to engage in racketeering and criminal organizations, trafficing in child pornography, or terrorism.

In point of fact, the Kentucky Resolution points out specifically that:

June 1798. intituled ‘an Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the US.’ [and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution][3] are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, & punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appurtains solely and exclusively to the respective states, each within it’s own territory.[4

Ibid.,

So once again, ad nauseum, if you are a proponent of the Kentucky Resolution you logically must be a proponent for holding all federal criminal statutes other than those specifically imposed to punish treason, counterfieting the securities & current coin of the US. piracies & felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations null and void under the Constitution? Yes or no?

If no, then please feel free to comment upon how such a disagreement can be reconciled within the original intent as expressed by Jefferson and Madison as expressed in your cited document. Unless of course, your argument is based upon picking those portions of the Kentucky Resolution which fits your particular point of view while rejecting those portions that don't, which is quite acceptable, but should have been noted in your original post. Of course that would open up the discussion about how we pick and choose from the Founders (Jefferson wasn't a Framer) and the Framers what we like about original intent and what we feel should be rejected.

[Off Topic]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

And, as I pointed out, original intent is tenuous, not only are there disagreements amongst the Framers as to the intent, there are issues which could not have been foreseen by men of the 18th century for which the Constitution is silent so channelling "intent" is quite impossible.

Exactly. Depending on how you define the original framers, there are dozens and dozens of different intents, and hundreds if we expand that to the founding fathers. Hamilton was certainly a framer of the constitution, but his intent was very different from Jefferson. (Or, as you suggest, do we even exclude Jefferson since he was not at the actual convention? And John Adams? I think not, since their protégées were there and their writings were influential. But if you want a narrow interpretation of intent, then it seems like you need a narrow interpretation of the framers, so Jefferson would be out. Otherwise, you have to take the ludicrous position of saying there should be a narrow interpretation of the Constitution but a liberal interpretation of who is a framer of the Constitution.)

If anything, the Federalist Papers is the clearest showing of intent, and they were mainly written by Hamilton, a proponent of a strong central government. But to claim that the founding fathers, who included numerous men of science and students of history, intended that no new innovation or societal development was to ever be covered by the Constitution, short of an amendment, seems like a very narrow interpretation. To say the least.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Off Topic

Exactly.

And an exactly back at you. You also make several good points.

Now where is PG with my answers?

[summers73]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

So you're saying it wasn't a different time. Hmmm.......

LOL

What exactly is your definition of BS? Saying the sky is green when it's obviously blue? Saying that in the past 250 years the country hasn't changed? BS?

Yawn...

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Just Jeffersons opinion on the Constitution, a document he signed which forms the foundation of our country

Jefferson did not sign the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country during it's framing.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Jefferson did not sign the Constitution. He wasn't even in the country during it's framing.

The ignorance is shockingly embarrassing.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by summers73

Yawn...

Speaking of yawnng, how long will it before you answer my question?

[Off Topic]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

And an exactly back at you. You also make several good points.

Now where is PG with my answers?

I think he's trying to interpret your intent before he answers.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Off Topic

I think he's trying to interpret your intent before he answers.

Oh, he knows fully my intent.

[summers73]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Speaking of yawnng, how long will it before you answer my question?

States do not have to obey laws requiring their citizens to buy a private product.

Next.