Comment: I'm for natural rights of people

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "Should I understand it that (see in situ)

I'm for natural rights of people

The rights of the States are all granted and limited because it is people who constitute them and surely there's no right of States to abridge right to free speech, especially not in Virginia - as I thoroughly demonstrated directly in the Constitution of Virginia.

Although you maybe will not like it I surely recognize the right of feds to intervene for the purpose of abolishing slavery and I don't recognize any right of States to keep it - there clearly was no such right and because southern States didn't comply with the rightful demand to abolish the slavery they were rightfully and successfully enforced to do so by force.

The right to keep the slaves the States ultimately waived at the latest already on December 15 1791 when ratifying the 4th (generally interdicting unreasonable seizures, especially of any person without probable cause) 5th (generaly interdicting deprivation of liberty of any person without due process of law) and 9th Amendment (generally interdicting construction of enumerated rights to deny and disparage peoples rights - both the natural and legal ones) and the 13 States waived it already on July 4 1776 when ratifying the cornerstone of the US Organic Law - the Declaration of Independence, because it clearly recognizes the unalienable right to liberty -which in purely legal sense means such a right is unabridgeable by a law in general (and the fact there are the derived statutes as the 1st Amendment is only an application of the general legal rule). And due to Art VI second clause of the US Constitution such a "law" is in any case superseded by the US Constitution and is therefore null both at the state and federal level and inaplicable in any court. This is in effect already since June 21 1788 and was ratified by all the States acceding USA thereafter.

Some of you in USA apparently have still a long way ahead to understand what your constitution in broadest sense of that word means and especially what it means in the legal sense. Generally one can say you have the tendency to not recognize valid laws even if they are the supreme law of the land, while at the same time you have the tendency to recognize the "laws" which aren't laws at all. This tendency to injustice - to recognize laws only when it is favourable to you and your attitudes clearly looks endemic in USA.