Does that make you feel good or something?
Why can't you just argue the point and leave it at that?
Why the need to be vicious about it?
Afraid your points don't hit hard enough without the personal epithets do you?
You repeated the same definition. That doesn't prove the definition. It's just a website that someone put up about their opinion of what the phrase means.
And I admitted, yes, some people use this phrase in that fashion. They are wrong.
You've provided nothing about Dr. Paul, Judge Nap or Tom Woods in this regard. Though I have no doubt you will find them using the phrase.
Just because they use it doesn't mean they meant it literally like you did.
And if they did, yes, they are in error as well.
States do not and cannot have rights.
And I'd bet dimes to dollars that if we sat down with those three gentlemen and asked them about this, they'd all say the same thing I am - "yes, people use that phrase colloquially, but Sam is correct, States have delegated powers, they cannot have rights."
I doubt you would find either of those three gentlemen insisting that States were sovereign entities (with respect to People, not other governments) and they they possessed or could possess "rights" as opposed to delegated powers. Those guys are bright enough to know the difference.
Just get over yourself.
You used a phrase loosely, and I pointed that out.
And stick to the topic please instead of personal attacks.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the o