William H. RehnquistWilliam H. Rehnquist, (1924-2005) Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court

William H. Rehnquist Quote

“We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.”

William H. RehnquistWilliam H. Rehnquist
~ William H. Rehnquist

United States v. Lopez

Ratings and Comments

Mike, Norwalk

YEP, no stare decisis on that one. The statist theocracy that now infests this land sets forth its cannons to enforce slavery of its children, patrons, and all others that may journey under its de facto umbrella.

jim k, austin

Tell that to the phony altruists in the U.S.Congress, who steal the producers money and give it to the non producers.

cal, lewisville, tx

For so many years Rehnquist stood alone for "limited" power on the supreme court.

Waffler, Smith

..and of Amendments, he so conspicuosly failed to add.

J Carlton, Calgary

He knew the truth.

E Archer, NYC

Waffler, name one amendment that granted the government more powers than it already had. As far as I can tell, the People have never given the federal government more power. What the hell are you talking about?

Waffler, Smith

I am no authority (as I am sure you Archer well know) but I understand that an Amendment was passed that allowed the Feds to levy an Income Tax on individuals without apportionment among the states. I am sure that you claim such Amendment to be unconstitutional but that was certainly a increase in Powers. Further I am surprised that you don't consider the entire Constitution to be unconstitutional. Again thank God Jefferson does not have to weep over you guys sorry logic anymore.

Mike, Norwalk

Waffler; "the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); while the 16th Amendment was more about overturning the Pollock case. Along time ago, I was involved with several others that had gathered sufficient evidence to show the 16th Amendment had never legally been ratified. No one involved was able to get the case filled in any court (a couple of the principles were threatened). The omnipotent statist theocracy would not allow its larceny to be challenged.

Mike, Norwalk

Income, as defined and acted upon, was a corporate excise, thus not referencing a capitation or other direct tax. The excise referenced, might be understood by way of example: If an individual chops a cord of wood and sells it - that would be under property rights and otherwise an equal exchange of individual labor (using a medium for measurement, not an excise, profit or income). If that same individual sold the wood of another, along with his own that may constitute and excise. The 16th Amendment then focused on, instead of having the State collect excises as are in proportion to the Census or Enumeration therein, the federal government would go directly to the source. Income's new definition (not addressed by the Amendment) became an all inclusive excuse for legalized plunder. The most fundamental and foundational jurisprudence of the US, that which differentiated it from all other people on earth and history was each and every, any and all individuals were sovereign, government being nothing more or less than a mere representation to the individual sovereign (individually AND in concert) The proper function of government was limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual had the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government became primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It could / can not claim the authority or power to plunder or otherwise commit larceny with impunity, re-distribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts against their will (such would violate the only guarantee given in the Constitution @ Article I Section IV). Thus, the created / creature can not become greater than its creator and the representative can perform no acts that itis sovereign could not personally perform. I can not lawfully steal the fruits of your labor, neither can my representative. Prior to the war between the States, the Constitution limited the powers of the representative. After the war between the States, NO representative republic existed - there was a return in form of the despots thrown out in 1776. In 1913, a trifecta of tyranny, despotism, and slavery were unconstitutionally implemented so as to make the once free people unrecognizable. Waffler, your collectivist rhetoric, anti-liberty magniloquence, and support for all that which is unlawful, is part of the disease that has extinguished freedom's last great one lone expositor.

E Archer, NYC
  • Reply
E Archer, NYC Mike, Norwalk 9/15/20

Will there ever be a President that understands this who will act?  Granted no one can get elected on that platform, it'll have to be a secret until then.  Repeal 16th amendment, cancel Federal Reserve Act, and return to gold standard.  ;-)  It will be war, no doubt, with the MSM leading the charge for totalitarianism of the State.

E Archer, NYC

Waffler, the Constitution and its Amendments do not grant power -- the People grant power to the government through the mutual agreement known as the US Consitution. The Constitution cannot grant rights -- it in fact specifically enumerates what the administrators of government may and many NOT do. Read it -- it doesn't tell the people what to do at all. The fact that government does not follow the rule book, doesn't make it just or right. And that is what many of us are addressing -- the fact that government has now assumed power over us, power that was not given and can't be taken. The 'law' has become a weapon against the people for the purposes of stealing quite frankly, everything -- they lay claim to it all just like the kings of old. We are taught that this is normal, but history is written by the victors. Waffler, I do not see how you could possibly imagine that Jefferson would agree with you -- does not your own repeated thumbs down of his quotes give you a hint that you two are at completely different ends of the spectrum? I don't even think Jefferson could talk sense into you -- such blind arrogance is so difficult to break through.

  • 1
  • Reply
Anon    3/22/10

Too bad that oathtakers don't take their oaths seriously snymore.


Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.