PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues God Bless Texas???? Texas Gov. Back Resolution Affirming Sovereignty


Stinger
04-14-2009, 09:06 AM
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.

To view the full text of the resolution, please visit:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm.

Video of statements and link here
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/

BigRedChief
04-14-2009, 09:36 AM
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.

To view the full text of the resolution, please visit:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm.

Video of statements and link here
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/
Didn't we already have a civil war over states rights? Let me check the history channel and get back to you.

Amnorix
04-14-2009, 09:39 AM
Didn't we already have a civil war over states rights? Let me check the history channel and get back to you.

Texas lost that one too...

Garcia Bronco
04-14-2009, 10:50 AM
Didn't we already have a civil war over states rights? Let me check the history channel and get back to you.

The Civil War didn't repeal the 9th and 10th amendment. If not for the dictatorship of Lincoln and conscripting of Irish Immigrants amongst others, that shitbag Lincoln would have had a Southern boot shoved up clean up his ass.

Amnorix
04-14-2009, 01:07 PM
The Civil War didn't repeal the 9th and 10th amendment. If not for the dictatorship of Lincoln and conscripting of Irish Immigrants amongst others, that shitbag Lincoln would have had a Southern boot shoved up clean up his ass.

150 years and still bitter, eh?

Donger
04-14-2009, 01:08 PM
Yeah, like I needed another reason to hate Texas.

Dallas Chief
04-14-2009, 01:28 PM
Yeah, like I needed another reason to hate Texas.

Don't knock it until you've tried it Yankee! :D

BigRedChief
04-14-2009, 01:33 PM
The Civil War didn't repeal the 9th and 10th amendment. If not for the dictatorship of Lincoln and conscripting of Irish Immigrants amongst others, that shitbag Lincoln would have had a Southern boot shoved up clean up his ass.
Crap I forgot about your hard on for Lincoln.:LOL:

BucEyedPea
04-14-2009, 02:04 PM
The Civil War didn't repeal the 9th and 10th amendment. If not for the dictatorship of Lincoln and conscripting of Irish Immigrants amongst others, that shitbag Lincoln would have had a Southern boot shoved up clean up his ass.

I LOVE you! :thumb:

Adept Havelock
04-14-2009, 04:40 PM
The Civil War didn't repeal the 9th and 10th amendment. If not for the dictatorship of Lincoln and conscripting of Irish Immigrants amongst others, that shitbag Lincoln would have had a Southern boot shoved up clean up his ass.

Yeah, sure. A bunch of hayseed yokels without a single factory capable of producing artillery, and only one capable of producing rails or rolling stock, would have "shoved a boot clean up his ass". ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Dream on.

150 years and still bitter, eh?

At least they provide some good laughs for the rest of us. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
04-14-2009, 04:43 PM
At least they provide some good laughs for the rest of us. :thumb:

You don't support the Constitution.

30 states have issued similar resolutions now

Jenson71
04-14-2009, 04:47 PM
This essentially does nothing. It's as effective as Congress passing a resolution reaffirming that they are indeed, the Legislative branch of the United States of America.

Garcia Bronco
04-14-2009, 05:04 PM
Yeah, sure. A bunch of hayseed yokels without a single factory capable of producing artillery, and only one capable of producing rails or rolling stock, would have "shoved a boot clean up his ass". ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Dream on.



At least they provide some good laughs for the rest of us. :thumb:

Yet they did just that until Lincoln forced people into slavery to carry guns.

Garcia Bronco
04-14-2009, 05:05 PM
You don't support the Constitution.

30 states have issued similar resolutions now

Let's give him more rope to hang himself and the rest of these like minded "Americans" who clearly don't understand the Constitution.

Garcia Bronco
04-14-2009, 05:06 PM
This essentially does nothing. It's as effective as Congress passing a resolution reaffirming that they are indeed, the Legislative branch of the United States of America.

You'd be wrong about that.

Adept Havelock
04-14-2009, 05:09 PM
This essentially does nothing. It's as effective as Congress passing a resolution reaffirming that they are indeed, the Legislative branch of the United States of America.

Pretty much. It doesn't really matter how many states have had a few state congresscritters introduce similar resolutions.

Let me know when it has a chance of passing before the next millennium. Then I might be impressed. LMAO
Yet they did just that until Lincoln forced people into slavery to carry guns.

Yeah, the dumbasses who started a war without a single cannon factory in their country were kicking ass until 16 April 1862. That's why their ports had been blockaded for months before then. Interesting military approach..."kicking ass by allowing another power to cut off your sea lanes". Or maybe you were referring to Shiloh (ended in a Confederate withdrawl/retreat) or New Orleans. Then again, I suppose you could hang your hat on First Bull Run, but any student of the Civil War would have a richly-deserved laugh at that foolish notion. ROFL

Direckshun
04-14-2009, 05:14 PM
Far as I can see, it's just a resolution saying "we're a state!"

So... camera op so Perry can win reelection.

Jenson71
04-14-2009, 05:29 PM
You'd be wrong about that.

Oh rly? What is going to change now in Texas?

Hydrae
04-14-2009, 05:41 PM
Far as I can see, it's just a resolution saying "we're a state!"

So... camera op so Perry can win reelection.

And he is in for a tough election this time around. The issue will all be about the primary though, either Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchinson will represent the Republicans. Doesn't matter who the Dems put up down here, even Kinky Friedman! :)

banyon
04-14-2009, 05:46 PM
Let's give him more rope to hang himself and the rest of these like minded "Americans" who clearly don't understand the Constitution.

If it's a principle in the U.S. Constitution, why is it necessary or relevant to encapsulate that in some toothless State proclamation? Shouldn't TX just assert their Constitutional rights? Or is it as symbolic and futile as it appears?

Jenson71
04-14-2009, 05:48 PM
This is serious fucking business, banyon.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2009, 05:58 PM
If it's a principle in the U.S. Constitution, why is it necessary or relevant to encapsulate that in some toothless State proclamation? Shouldn't TX just assert their Constitutional rights? Or is it as symbolic and futile as it appears?

It's a principle alright....one that's been trampled and ignored and gutted, by both Republicans and Democrats alike---especially over the past 70-80 years. It's time it stopped, so the governor is right IMHO. Big government solutions to every conceivable problem they decide they want to stick their grubby paws into....all under the exploited loopholes created by a judicial activist interpretation of the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and "general welfare" provisions have rendered the 10th Amendment meaningless.

So much for our "Federal" system of government, eh? :shake:

It's time for that pendulum swings back the other way for a change....

Reaper16
04-14-2009, 06:09 PM
The Civil War didn't repeal the 9th and 10th amendment. If not for the dictatorship of Lincoln and conscripting of Irish Immigrants amongst others, that shitbag Lincoln would have had a Southern boot shoved up clean up his ass.
Rebel, rebel.

You've torn your dress.

alanm
04-14-2009, 06:16 PM
It's a principle alright....one that's been trampled and ignored and gutted, by both Republicans and Democrats alike---especially over the past 70-80 years. It's time it stopped, so the governor is right IMHO. Big government solutions to every conceivable problem they decide they want to stick their grubby paws into....all under the exploited loopholes created by a judicial activist interpretation of the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and "general welfare" provisions have rendered the 10th Amendment meaningless.

So much for our "Federal" system of government, eh? :shake:

It's time for that pendulum swings back the other way for a change....
Way to go TEXAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rockon::rockon::rockon:

Adept Havelock
04-14-2009, 06:40 PM
Rebel, rebel.

You've torn your dress.

LMAO

banyon
04-14-2009, 06:49 PM
It's a principle alright....one that's been trampled and ignored and gutted, by both Republicans and Democrats alike---especially over the past 70-80 years. It's time it stopped, so the governor is right IMHO. Big government solutions to every conceivable problem they decide they want to stick their grubby paws into....all under the exploited loopholes created by a judicial activist interpretation of the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and "general welfare" provisions have rendered the 10th Amendment meaningless.

So much for our "Federal" system of government, eh? :shake:

It's time for that pendulum swings back the other way for a change....

we still give more power to states than most other countries in the world. Most other countries don't really understand why we are so deferential to our provincial entities. In any event, I probably don't want to roll this back as far as you are saying. Any topic in particular that you think would be handled better by the states?

HonestChieffan
04-14-2009, 06:54 PM
Is this similar to Kansas declaring the right to keep and bear arms for all Kansans in case Obama tries to move on the second ammendment?

sportsman1
04-14-2009, 06:56 PM
I'm not always proud to be a Texan, but for the most part I'm true red Texan. Perry has been a douche, and I plan on voting against him in the primary but its a good step to take.

banyon
04-14-2009, 07:00 PM
Is this similar to Kansas declaring the right to keep and bear arms for all Kansans in case Obama tries to move on the second ammendment?

No, because Kansas is free to declare more freedom or rights for its citizens than the minimal federal constitutional floor limit without having any bearing on its relationship to the federal government whatsoever. In fact, Kansas has many different firearm regulations on the books that have nothing to do with their federal counterparts.

The 10th Amendment issue, however, necessarily directly addresses the relationship between the state and the federal government.

HonestChieffan
04-14-2009, 07:03 PM
So in your opinion, a state has no rights not granted to them by the federal government?

banyon
04-14-2009, 07:05 PM
So in your opinion, a state has no rights not granted to them by the federal government?

No, that is not my opinion.

Reaper16
04-14-2009, 07:11 PM
LMAO
Thanks. Its not often that I'm flat-out proud of a post.

jjjayb
04-14-2009, 07:56 PM
we still give more power to states than most other countries in the world. Most other countries don't really understand why we are so deferential to our provincial entities.

Last I checked we were still called the "United States of America". We're supposed to change that because other countries don't understand it? It's amazing the amount of brainwashing they are doing in schools these days..

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2009, 07:56 PM
...we still give more power to states than most other countries in the world. Most other countries don't really understand why we are so deferential to our provincial entities. In any event, I probably don't want to roll this back as far as you are saying. Any topic in particular that you think would be handled better by the states?

Why? WHY? Are you serious??? How about there would be NO UNITED STATES without a Constitution that was suppose to, expressly, protect the rights and prerogatives of the states???

Aside from federalism provisions, and explicitly the 10th amendment itself....in the actual Constitution itself, I'm not sure what you want. The usurping of state powers by the feds began innocently, and importantly enough with the tariff issue and then the Civil War....but it has snow-balled out-of-control. Congress decides they want "strings attached" or to make it a "federal issue"....they find an excuse.

banyon
04-14-2009, 08:03 PM
Last I checked we were still called the "United States of America". We're supposed to change that because other countries don't understand it? It's amazing the amount of brainwashing they are doing in schools these days..

It's amazing when people read posts with preconceptions how they are able to fill in so many things that weren't even said.

banyon
04-14-2009, 08:06 PM
Why? WHY? Are you serious??? How about there would be NO UNITED STATES without a Constitution that was suppose to, expressly, protect the rights and prerogatives of the states???

Aside from federalism provisions, and explicitly the 10th amendment itself....in the actual Constitution itself, I'm not sure what you want. The usurping of state powers by the feds began innocently, and importantly enough with the tariff issue and then the Civil War....but it has snow-balled out-of-control. Congress decides they want "strings attached" or to make it a "federal issue"....they find an excuse.

Let me try this again:

1. I didn't say that I didn't understand our history of federalism, just that others were puzzled by it (I am not asking you why).


2. I don't want to roll this back as far as you do (i.e., there probably is some room to roll some things back, but I think there's less room than you do, and NOT "I am vehemently opposed to any reduction in federal government power of any kind").
I'm looking for specific policy areas that you feel the states would handle better than the feds (Health care, military, education, drug policy, abortions, whatever).

BucEyedPea
04-14-2009, 08:14 PM
Let's give him more rope to hang himself and the rest of these like minded "Americans" who clearly don't understand the Constitution.

Yeah, especially the ones that only make pot shots at others instead of contributing.:)

BucEyedPea
04-14-2009, 08:16 PM
This essentially does nothing. It's as effective as Congress passing a resolution reaffirming that they are indeed, the Legislative branch of the United States of America.

Until they refuse to implement some of those unfunded mandates or not cooperate. Then will see what happens. It's terrific to see the spirit of independence and freedom rearing it's beautiful head again.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2009, 08:19 PM
Last I checked we were still called the "United States of America". We're supposed to change that because other countries don't understand it? It's amazing the amount of brainwashing they are doing in schools these days..

And if it weren't for the state legislatures back in the day allowing for the ratification there'd be no United States of America either. They existed before the feds and ceded ONLY some of their authority to the feds to form the nation—not the other way around. It's a myth that a plebiscite rose up and formed the national govt in unison.

HonestChieffan
04-14-2009, 08:21 PM
I see it more clearly. Banyon thinks its a state or a federal responsibility to provide health care and abortions.And of course the all important whatever.

That pretty well sums that up.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2009, 08:23 PM
Let me try this again:

1. I didn't say that I didn't understand our history of federalism, just that others were puzzled by it (I am not asking you why).


2. I don't want to roll this back as far as you do (i.e., there probably is some room to roll some things back, but I think there's less room than you do, and NOT "I am vehemently opposed to any reduction in federal government power of any kind").
I'm looking for specific policy areas that you feel the states would handle better than the feds (Health care, military, education, drug policy, abortions, whatever).

Fair enough. It's just a real sore point for me....Washington DC telling the states how the hell to do every-friggin'-thing anymore. Everything.

Education would be a good start. Drinking age, marriage laws, abortions probably all ought to belong/stay with the states too IMHO. Some other areas too, probably. OTOH, you are right....it would be tough to roll-back, what should NEVER have been national government jurisdiction in the first place.

The point is, it's gone too far....and needs to be stopped at the very least; and if possible reversed. Now. Before we can't.

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 08:30 PM
we still give more power to states than most other countries in the world. Most other countries don't really understand why we are so deferential to our provincial entities. In any event, I probably don't want to roll this back as far as you are saying. Any topic in particular that you think would be handled better by the states?

Most countries aren't as physically large as the US or have as diverse a population.

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 08:33 PM
I'm looking for specific policy areas that you feel the states would handle better than the feds (Health care, military, education, drug policy, abortions, whatever).

All of those except the military. Oh, and everything else except the military.

banyon
04-14-2009, 08:35 PM
I see it more clearly. Banyon thinks its a state or a federal responsibility to provide health care and abortions.And of course the all important whatever.

That pretty well sums that up.

Well, since you're just making up stuff to suit yourself, I guess it does.

Garcia Bronco
04-14-2009, 08:43 PM
It funny that you guys take that as a "The south will rise again" mantra, but it's not. It's about respecting the contract.

banyon
04-14-2009, 08:44 PM
Fair enough. It's just a real sore point for me....Washington DC telling the states how the hell to do every-friggin'-thing anymore. Everything.

Education would be a good start. Drinking age, marriage laws, abortions probably all ought to belong/stay with the states too IMHO. Some other areas too, probably. OTOH, you are right....it would be tough to roll-back, what should NEVER have been national government jurisdiction in the first place.

The point is, it's gone too far....and needs to be stopped at the very least; and if possible reversed. Now. Before we can't.

Well, as you note all of those areas are under the control of the states, with the exception of education. But even education is almost entirely controlled on a state/local level, except for the student loan industry in postsecondary education. For all the attention NCLB gets (and it is a bad bill), it merely witholds extra federal money from jusridictions who don't comply. No one has to follow it.

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 08:44 PM
It funny that you guys take that as a "The south will rise again" mantra, but it's not. It's about respecting the contract.

The contract if more of a guideline, or a suggestion. Normally they'd follow it, but this is REALLY important...

banyon
04-14-2009, 08:46 PM
All of those except the military. Oh, and everything else except the military.

Can you think of any historical or recent historical instances where that approach has worked for a country better than national attention on the topic?

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 08:46 PM
Well, as you note all of those areas are under the control of the states, with the exception of education. But even education is almost entirely controlled on a state/local level, except for the student loan industry in postsecondary education. For all the attention NCLB gets (and it is a bad bill), it merely witholds extra federal money from jusridictions who don't comply. No one has to follow it.

"Hey, we're going to steal the lion's share of the tax dollars from the citizens of your state, and if they don't pay up we'll jail their asses. Then, if you do what we say, you'll get some of that back to help pay for stuff. If not, then screw you."

Yeah, it's totally voluntary. Every bit as voluntary as federal taxes, just ask Harry Reid.

banyon
04-14-2009, 08:55 PM
"Hey, we're going to steal the lion's share of the tax dollars from the citizens of your state, and if they don't pay up we'll jail their asses. Then, if you do what we say, you'll get some of that back to help pay for stuff. If not, then screw you."

Yeah, it's totally voluntary. Every bit as voluntary as federal taxes, just ask Harry Reid.

The amounts involved in funding NCLB are pretty minimal really. The entire Dept. of Education budget is about $60 billion (about what we've given to AIG).

And no, I don't think it's Lord of the Flies if a state refuses funding. If the states are truly better at managing their education resources, then they may stand to be more efficient and save the tax differential you are referring to by turning down the funds, right?

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 08:58 PM
Can you think of any historical or recent historical instances where that approach has worked for a country better than national attention on the topic?

Yeah, because the federalized educational system is doing a bang-up job. I can't think of a single federal program (other than the military) that actually meets the needs of all 300M of its constituents. That's because it can't. The US is entirely too large and diverse for a one-size-fits-all solution.

banyon
04-14-2009, 09:00 PM
Yeah, because the federalized educational system is doing a bang-up job. I can't think of a single federal program (other than the military) that actually meets the needs of all 300M of its constituents. That's because it can't. The US is entirely too large and diverse for a one-size-fits-all solution.

I guess what I meant was do the other countries who are beating the pants off us in education have an aggressive national approach, or just a piecemeal-do what you want localities-let's do whatever as long as taxes are as low as possible- approach?

Amnorix
04-14-2009, 09:03 PM
And if it weren't for the state legislatures back in the day allowing for the ratification there'd be no United States of America either. They existed before the feds and ceded ONLY some of their authority to the feds to form the nation—not the other way around. It's a myth that a plebiscite rose up and formed the national govt in unison.

The PEOPLE, not the states, ratified the Constitution. I've had to correct your misstatements on this before.

Remember the first three words of the damn thing...

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 09:04 PM
The amounts involved in funding NCLB are pretty minimal really. The entire Dept. of Education budget is about $60 billion (about what we've given to AIG).

And no, I don't think it's Lord of the Flies if a state refuses funding. If the states are truly better at managing their education resources, then they may stand to be more efficient and save the tax differential you are referring to by turning down the funds, right?

I'm sure every budget item is different. You have to admit that everything the feds touch we get half the result at twice the price.

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 09:07 PM
I guess what I meant was do the other countries who are beating the pants off us in education have an aggressive national approach, or just a piecemeal-do what you want localities-let's do whatever as long as taxes are as low as possible- approach?

I would guess most of them have a national approach. For a nation smaller than California and with fewer people.

banyon
04-14-2009, 09:09 PM
I would guess most of them have a national approach. For a nation smaller than California and with fewer people.

How many people do you think live in California?

Also, what does that have to do with anything? ARe there some other larger countries or examples that had this piecemeal approach where it is working? You really think our size is the reason our schools are sh***y?

Simplex3
04-14-2009, 09:18 PM
How many people do you think live in California?

Also, what does that have to do with anything? ARe there some other larger countries or examples that had this piecemeal approach where it is working? You really think our size is the reason our schools are sh***y?

I don't think you can make a national plan that meets the needs of students in Georgia and Minnesota and New York and Florida and Colorado. People in the US today want desperately for a one-size fits all solution to everything. The problem is that everyone is an individual. The same solution probably isn't even good enough for county in a given state, every city in a given county, but most importantly, for every student in a given city. The only solution that is fair to everyone is to let the individual decide for themselves what type of education they need and where to get it.

banyon
04-14-2009, 09:23 PM
I don't think you can make a national plan that meets the needs of students in Georgia and Minnesota and New York and Florida and Colorado. People in the US today want desperately for a one-size fits all solution to everything. The problem is that everyone is an individual. The same solution probably isn't even good enough for county in a given state, every city in a given county, but most importantly, for every student in a given city.

I have sentiments for this position, but in a global economy where we are just shipping people's jobs away left and right, I don't think a small jusridiction can address that challenge.

The only solution that is fair to everyone is to let the individual decide for themselves what type of education they need and where to get it.

You mean that the uneducated person is in the best position to decide how to educate themselves? I'm sorry, I can't get behind you on that one at all.

wild1
04-14-2009, 09:57 PM
what if Texas were its own country, allowed to govern itself without interference from washington?

i think i would seek asylum there

banyon
04-14-2009, 10:08 PM
what if Texas were its own country, allowed to govern itself without interference from washington?

i think i would seek asylum there

The border neighborhoods in El Paso are nice this time of year I hear.

Cannibal
04-14-2009, 10:10 PM
what if Texas were its own country, allowed to govern itself without interference from washington?

i think i would seek asylum there

I would like that. Please take the vast majority of the southeast portion of the country with you.

Jenson71
04-14-2009, 10:15 PM
what if Texas were its own country, allowed to govern itself without interference from washington?

i think i would seek asylum there

Aren't many asking for troops to help secure the borders right about now?

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2009, 10:24 PM
Well, as you note all of those areas are under the control of the states, with the exception of education. But even education is almost entirely controlled on a state/local level, except for the student loan industry in postsecondary education. For all the attention NCLB gets (and it is a bad bill), it merely witholds extra federal money from jusridictions who don't comply. No one has to follow it.

Abortion under state control. That's a very generous reading of Roe. :rolleyes:

"Had to?" Of course not. Federal revenues, with "strings attached?" Please. It's legalized blackmail--extortion. Let's at least call it what it is.

Mr. Kotter
04-14-2009, 10:28 PM
Aren't many asking for troops to help secure the borders right about now?


Unencumbered by the feds, I'd be willing to bet Texans would take care of their "illegal" problems.

:hmmm:

Taco John
04-14-2009, 10:39 PM
This is the true definition of Republicanism... Sovereign states and a federal government that is a servant to the states, not the other way around.

sportsman1
04-14-2009, 10:45 PM
This is the true definition of Republicanism... Sovereign states and a federal government that is a servant to the states, not the other way around.

See and there lies the problem. People's ideas of what is is have strayed so much, and minds have been warped that they don't understand this.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 08:04 AM
This is the true definition of Republicanism... Sovereign states and a federal government that is a servant to the states, not the other way around.

You're a bit confused. That's the definition of a Confederation. That's the type of system that we had before the Founders rejected it and replaced it with the current Constitution. So let's be clear -- the Founders that you worship as Gods rejected the very form of government that you now advocate.

A Republic is where the power of governnace rests in the hands of citizens (not a monarch) appointed to the task.


<DT class=hwrd>Main Entry: <DD class=hwrd>re·pub·lic http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?republ01.wav=republic') </DD><DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\ri-ˈpə-blik\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>noun </DD><DT class=ety>Etymology: <DD class=ety>French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real), public (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public) </DD><DT class=date>Date: <DD class=date>1604 </DD>1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republican) government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 08:07 AM
See and there lies the problem. People's ideas of what is is have strayed so much, and minds have been warped that they don't understand this.


Oh the irony.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 08:14 AM
Amnorix didn't you say you preferred a parliamentary system over what we have?

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 08:16 AM
The Feds are supposed to be subservient to the states except in certain areas.
Moving away from the Articles of Confederation was to give the Feds some additional powers but just some—not what it has become today.
The Constitution was a compromise and the Federalists won but it was not all that they wanted. They have it now though.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 08:18 AM
Amnorix didn't you say you preferred a parliamentary system over what we have?

Not really. Both are workable democratic systems if conducted well, and each has their respective strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure what that issue has to do with the price of tea in China, but there you go.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 08:22 AM
Not really. Both are workable democratic systems if conducted well, and each has their respective strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure what that issue has to do with the price of tea in China, but there you go.

I remember that post of yours here. It was when I was first here.

What does it have to do with the subject: everything. You like strong central govt a la Hamilton who favored the British parliamentary system. You would have been a one of the avid Federalists back then. IIRC you even said the 10th Amendment was dead.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 08:29 AM
The Feds are supposed to be subservient to the states except in certain areas.

Absolutely, categorically incorrect.

The Constitution was essentially a power sharing arrangement between the states and the federal government. The Feds got supremacy in some areas, and were supposed to just have zero authority in other areas. But in no area were they to be subservient to the states.

If you want to amend "subservient" to "had no authority at all", then that's fine.

I would agree with you that there has been a steady increase in teh power of the federal government vis-a-vis the state governments, and that some Founders (though not all) would be truly horrified to see how much more powerful the federal government is when compared to the states, whether individually or collectively.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 08:34 AM
I remember that post of yours here. It was when I was first here.

I have little doubt that at some point I may have stated that a parliamentary system would be better at handling some particular matter. Or perhaps out of frustration with Bush I may have even wished for a parliamentary system because there's no way someone could be so unpopular and so insulated and ignorant of the opinion of the populace as to continue maintaining so many unpopular causes.

If you find the quote, then I'll be glad to either explain what said, or tell you my current thinking on the matter.

What does it have to do with the subject: everything. You like strong central govt a la Hamilton who favored the British parliamentary system. You would have been a one of the avid Federalists back then. IIRC you even said the 10th Amendment was dead.

The Supreme Court said the 10th Amendment was but a truism. I have never disagreed.

You seem to misunderstand the parliamentary system concept -- we could just as easily have a federal government operating on the parliamentary system while retaining the states and the respective roles of the federal/state governments. Even if we adopted a parliamentary system at the federal level, that wouldn't HAVE to diminish the states one bit.

And obviously I approve of a strong central government. I think the kind of weak, decentralized governmental system you prefer would not be able to handle the issues we deal with in the modern world. What might have been fine in the late 1700s isn't necessarily fine in the 21st millenium. But yes, it's fair to say that I would have been in the camp of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

I would imagine taht you would have joined Patrick Henry in fighting the adoption of the Constitution with every fiber of your being, preferring instead to remain under the old and useless Articles of Confederation.

banyon
04-15-2009, 09:51 AM
The Feds are supposed to be subservient to the states except in certain areas.
Moving away from the Articles of Confederation was to give the Feds some additional powers but just some—not what it has become today.
The Constitution was a compromise and the Federalists won but it was not all that they wanted. They have it now though.

This couldn't be more incorrect.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 09:52 AM
The PEOPLE, not the states, ratified the Constitution. I've had to correct your misstatements on this before.

Remember the first three words of the damn thing...

No. The States ratified the Constitution which is a collection of said people.

HonestChieffan
04-15-2009, 09:54 AM
The left always interprets the constitution in the view that the Federal is the only granter of rights to the state and that centralization is the only way to salvation.

Bureaucrats always support more buracracy.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 09:56 AM
No. The States ratified the Constitution which is a collection of said people.

You are wrong, both as a matter of law and as a matter of history.

The Constitution was ratified by the PEOPLE, DIRECTLY, which is why it starts with the phrase "WE THE PEOPLE" and not "WE THE STATES".

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 09:56 AM
The left always interprets the constitution in the view that the Federal is the only granter of rights to the state and that centralization is the only way to salvation.

Bureaucrats always support more buracracy.

Wrong on all counts. The Federal government doesn't grant rights to the states. And I'm not a bureaucrat.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 09:59 AM
The states allowed the people of each state to debate the Constitution. They didn't even have to take the issue up or allow that. Then it was ratified state by state not person by person in a national popular vote. The States preceded the federal govt. It's a vicious lie that it was a vote of national unity by the people. In fact it had a tough time passing in some states and two states didn't ratify.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 09:59 AM
You are wrong, both as a matter of law and as a matter of history.

The Constitution was ratified by the PEOPLE, DIRECTLY, which is why it starts with the phrase "WE THE PEOPLE" and not "WE THE STATES".

You are wrong. Just about every state had a delegation that ratified the Constitution. I grew up where the man who wrote it lived. Don't try to tell me fool.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 10:00 AM
Wrong on all counts. The Federal government doesn't grant rights to the states. And I'm not a bureaucrat.


The Constitution does grant rights to the people either. It restrains the Federal Government and to some degree the state governments.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 10:19 AM
The idea that the states were never sovereign comes from Marshall who put into play the Hamiltonian BIG LIE that the state's were never sovereign and that somehow the Constitution was a result of a national plebiscite.

All one has to do to disprove this is read Article VII of the Constitution:

“ The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

It was ratified by state political conventions (not state legislatures ) composed of reps from the various communities within the states. There was no national vote.

HonestChieffan
04-15-2009, 10:25 AM
Wrong on all counts. The Federal government doesn't grant rights to the states. And I'm not a bureaucrat.

I did not say you were.

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 10:44 AM
Amnorix....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are playing semantic games here. While the language of what you say is, technically, correct....you eviscerate the intent of the founders and the Constitution.

Clearly, in a republic the people speak through their elected representatives--at the state level, as well as in Congress. Clearly, the Constitution established a federal system of government in which the federal government and state governments each have different, if sometimes over-lapping, powers and areas of responsibility. Clearly, when the federal government ventures into an area that has been historically, legally, and constitutionally the province of states…..they usurp state powers and weaken the tenth amendment. It’s been going on since the late 1800s—with alarming regularity.

While the supremacy clause also has bearing on many of these discussions, the complete disregard for the tenth amendment would have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves (except perhaps Hamilton.) And I suspect you know that.

FishingRod
04-15-2009, 10:48 AM
I'm often not a big fan of Wiki but I think this pretty well sums up the two view points on the 10th amendment.

"Interpretations of the amendment can be divided into two camps. The first interpretation, as held by the Tenth Amendment Center, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, and a few Republicans including Ron Paul and Jeff Flake, is that the Constitution does not grant the United States any power that it does not expressly mention. This has been used as the basis for such court cases as Gonzales v. Raich, and for arguments in favor of repealing a large number of Federal laws, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and drastically slashing the Federal budget by 50% or more. It is also why amendments were necessary for the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of alcohol - without said amendments, Congress did not have the authority to do those things.

The contrary opinion is that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to do more or less anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the first eight amendments."

I really do not like the Contrary opinion though in reality it is what the Feds do.

banyon
04-15-2009, 10:57 AM
Abortion under state control. That's a very generous reading of Roe. :rolleyes:

"Had to?" Of course not. Federal revenues, with "strings attached?" Please. It's legalized blackmail--extortion. Let's at least call it what it is.

It's pretty simple really. Don't want to follow the federal rule, don't take the money. Take the money, don't b*tch about taking the money.

Basically, by implying that states are incapable of managing their own affairs without this federal funding, aren't you supporting the strong federal side of the argument?

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 11:06 AM
It's pretty simple really. Don't want to follow the federal rule, don't take the money. Take the money, don't b*tch about taking the money.

Basically, by implying that states are incapable of managing their own affairs without this federal funding, aren't you supporting the strong federal side of the argument?

I agree. That should happen. Too bad more states haven't had the balls, up to this point, to do just that. If more did, maybe Congress and the feds would begin to back off and take the issue of federalism more seriously.

Unfortunately, I also suspect the feds would get activist judges to support their position on matters of importance--through the "loopholes" (the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, general welfare, equal protection....bullshit charades for the federal power grab going on.) The supremacy clause is about the only real Constitutional counter-balance to the tenth amendment that isn't as easily abused as the lamer arguments based on the "loopholes."

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 11:09 AM
Once they find out that the Longhorns can't compete for National Championships and the NFL decides it doesn't want its team on foreign soil, they'll retract.

Go ahead, Texas, leave.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 11:33 AM
Yeah, because the federalized educational system is doing a bang-up job. I can't think of a single federal program (other than the military) that actually meets the needs of all 300M of its constituents. That's because it can't. The US is entirely too large and diverse for a one-size-fits-all solution.

I like to think we do a pretty good job of running the safest and most efficient air traffic system in the world.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 11:34 AM
Unencumbered by the feds, I'd be willing to bet Texans would take care of their "illegal" problems.

:hmmm:

Texas would go bankrupt in trying to do so.

-HH

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 12:12 PM
Texas would go bankrupt in trying to do so.

-HH

Landmines, well-positioned snipers, starving wolves, and fresh water sharks, and a radioactive belt about one-mile wide along the border....wouldn't be that expensive.

;)

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 12:23 PM
The states allowed the people of each state to debate the Constitution. They didn't even have to take the issue up or allow that. Then it was ratified state by state not person by person in a national popular vote. The States preceded the federal govt. It's a vicious lie that it was a vote of national unity by the people. In fact it had a tough time passing in some states and two states didn't ratify.

Did the state legislatures debate adopting the Constitution? No.

Was the Constitution drafted by the states at a convention of the states? No.

The ratification conventions were organized BY STATE, but not BY THE STATES.

Does the Constitution start with the phrase "We the States"? Nope. It's "We the People."

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 12:24 PM
You are wrong. Just about every state had a delegation that ratified the Constitution. I grew up where the man who wrote it lived. Don't try to tell me fool.


I'm from Boston. I don't know where you grew up, but unless you're in Philly it'd be pretty hard for you to argue for more revolutionary history clout than what I got.

And in neither case does it make a damn bit of difference. I could give a rat's ass where anybody grew up -- unless you want to tell me where the good pizza joints are in your town or whatever.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 12:26 PM
The idea that the states were never sovereign comes from Marshall who put into play the Hamiltonian BIG LIE that the state's were never sovereign and that somehow the Constitution was a result of a national plebiscite.

All one has to do to disprove this is read Article VII of the Constitution:



It was ratified by state political conventions (not state legislatures ) composed of reps from the various communities within the states. There was no national vote.

So do the states also elect the President of the United States? By your logic, it's the states, which is certainly news to me.

Just like the Presidential election system, the organization is done BY STATE, but not by THE states. Tehre's a difference.

And Marshall WAS a Constitutional Convention delegate for him home state -- that worthless backwater known as Virginia!!

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 12:28 PM
Amnorix....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are playing semantic games here. While the language of what you say is, technically, correct....you eviscerate the intent of the founders and the Constitution.

Clearly, in a republic the people speak through their elected representatives--at the state level, as well as in Congress. Clearly, the Constitution established a federal system of government in which the federal government and state governments each have different, if sometimes over-lapping, powers and areas of responsibility. Clearly, when the federal government ventures into an area that has been historically, legally, and constitutionally the province of states…..they usurp state powers and weaken the tenth amendment. It’s been going on since the late 1800s—with alarming regularity.

While the supremacy clause also has bearing on many of these discussions, the complete disregard for the tenth amendment would have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves (except perhaps Hamilton.) And I suspect you know that.

I quote the Supreme Court. Not much more.

And I'm not sure what you think I'm playing semantics about as you didn't quote which of my posts you're referring to.

Fair to say taht in my book the Constitution delegated certain powers, and in the Bill of Rights placed certain limitation, on the federal government. It in no way made it SUBSERVIENT to the states, nor did the States (capital S, including the states acting in their sovereign capacities) adopt the Constitution.

Bowser
04-15-2009, 12:32 PM
Sweet. They can become their own country, and we can invade them for their oil!



What, too soon?

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 12:40 PM
You know, if this was in any manner of sense, serious, and I was in charge of the Federal Government, you know what I would say?

Sure, you can leave. Couple of conditions. One, you let any American citizens that don't want to be a part of your pipe dream leave, and any revenue that comes from the purchase or assumption of their property goes to them and two, you give us enough time to get all our stuff out. You know, military installations, federal apparatuses (you can keep the actual structures), federal airway navigation equipment, etc, etc. Oh, and by the way, if you want to continue to use our satellite based systems, we're gonna have to charge you for that. Oh yeah, and we assume you'll be taking over any further funds promised in Federal Disaster Relief Programs.

And, in the off chance you decide this whole secession thing isn't what it was cracked up to be (because when Texas speaks in the world forum, nobody cares) and you want to join us again, you have to foot the bill for both the cost it took for us to get our stuff out and put it back in, OK pumpkin?

Other than that, I only have one other thing to say:

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee168/omeganole/612capture_tombstone03.jpg

-HH

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 12:41 PM
I quote the Supreme Court. Not much more.

And I'm not sure what you think I'm playing semantics about as you didn't quote which of my posts you're referring to.

Fair to say taht in my book the Constitution delegated certain powers, and in the Bill of Rights placed certain limitation, on the federal government. It in no way made it SUBSERVIENT to the states, nor did the States (capital S, including the states acting in their sovereign capacities) adopt the Constitution.

Yes, the Constitution delegated certain powers and placed certain limitations, on the federal government. Constitutional scholars refer to those as "delegated powers." Delegated powers are those powers, specifically, granted to the national government. Other powers are left to the states; Constitutional scholars refer to those as "reserved powers." The Constitution, as written, grants delegated powers to the federal government; it leaves reserved powers to the states.

The sticky wicket is "concurrent powers." Some powers are exercised by both the federal and state governments. Historically, until the late 1800s concurrent powers were few and far between--most of them explicitly identified by the Constitution itself. In the late 1800s, the federal government began looking for excuses to assert more and more powers--powers that had traditionally belonged to the states. Too often, an activist judiciary has facilitated this process by expanding the "loopholes" I mentioned previously.

Apparently, you are completely fine....with that usurping of state power; many of us, though, are not. It's a trend that has gone too far, for too long.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 12:52 PM
I'm from Boston. I don't know where you grew up, but unless you're in Philly it'd be pretty hard for you to argue for more revolutionary history clout than what I got.

And in neither case does it make a damn bit of difference. I could give a rat's ass where anybody grew up -- unless you want to tell me where the good pizza joints are in your town or whatever.

I grew up in Virginia which trumps Boston in that argument everytime. Washington, Madison(Wrote the Constitution), Jefferson(Wrote the DoI), Monroe are all Virginians.

I see the distinction you are making now, and you point is null. It's still the state the ratified the Constitution, and I don't care what some professor told you.

Simplex3
04-15-2009, 12:53 PM
It's pretty simple really. Don't want to follow the federal rule, don't take the money. Take the money, don't b*tch about taking the money.

Basically, by implying that states are incapable of managing their own affairs without this federal funding, aren't you supporting the strong federal side of the argument?

The only thing that makes the states incapable is the confiscatory federal taxes. By the time the feds bleed the people of a state dry there's nothing left for the states to take and they have to get some back from the feds.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 12:54 PM
You know, if this was in any manner of sense, serious, and I was in charge of the Federal Government, you know what I would say?

Sure, you can leave. Couple of conditions. One, you let any American citizens that don't want to be a part of your pipe dream leave, and any revenue that comes from the purchase or assumption of their property goes to them and two, you give us enough time to get all our stuff out. You know, military installations, federal apparatuses (you can keep the actual structures), federal airway navigation equipment, etc, etc. Oh, and by the way, if you want to continue to use our satellite based systems, we're gonna have to charge you for that. Oh yeah, and we assume you'll be taking over any further funds promised in Federal Disaster Relief Programs.

And, in the off chance you decide this whole secession thing isn't what it was cracked up to be (because when Texas speaks in the world forum, nobody cares) and you want to join us again, you have to foot the bill for both the cost it took for us to get our stuff out and put it back in, OK pumpkin?

Other than that, I only have one other thing to say:

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee168/omeganole/612capture_tombstone03.jpg

-HH

That woud fine, but you'd still owe the state money for said equipment and buildings and anything as a state they were vested by the state. The Feds would be bankrupt. Least we forget the Feds are basically like organized crime skimming off the top. The feds owe, not the states. The Feds need the states, not the other way around.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 12:56 PM
The only thing that makes the states incapable is the confiscatory federal taxes. By the time the feds bleed the people of a state dry there's nothing left for the states to take and they have to get some back from the feds.

If these states:

Georgia 0.99
Indiana 0.99
Texas 0.98
Oregon 0.97
Washington 0.91
Michigan 0.88
Wisconsin 0.85
Colorado 0.84
New York 0.84
California 0.83
Delaware 0.83
Massachusetts 0.82
Nevada 0.78
Illinois 0.77
Connecticut 0.73
Minnesota 0.73
New Hampshire 0.73
New Jersey 0.63


left the Union then the rest would go as well as Feds wouldn't have the income to operate. These states pay for the other states to operate from a tax perspective.

Simplex3
04-15-2009, 12:58 PM
You know, if this was in any manner of sense, serious, and I was in charge of the Federal Government, you know what I would say?

Sure, you can leave. Couple of conditions. One, you let any American citizens that don't want to be a part of your pipe dream leave, and any revenue that comes from the purchase or assumption of their property goes to them and two, you give us enough time to get all our stuff out. You know, military installations, federal apparatuses (you can keep the actual structures), federal airway navigation equipment, etc, etc.
-HH

As to question 1, Texas would wind up far more free than the rest of the US. I'm quite sure they would let anyone out who wanted to leave.

Question 2, you can kiss "our" ass. "We" paid federal taxes, money that was used purchase those things.

Simplex3
04-15-2009, 01:00 PM
If these states:

Georgia 0.99
Indiana 0.99
Texas 0.98
Oregon 0.97
Washington 0.91
Michigan 0.88
Wisconsin 0.85
Colorado 0.84
New York 0.84
California 0.83
Delaware 0.83
Massachusetts 0.82
Nevada 0.78
Illinois 0.77
Connecticut 0.73
Minnesota 0.73
New Hampshire 0.73
New Jersey 0.63


left the Union then the rest would go as well as Feds wouldn't have the income to operate. These states pay for the other states to operate from a tax perspective.

Notice Texas on that list? It would pay for them to leave.

It might just be that the feds would have to do things *smarter* instead of just throwing more money at everything.

Bowser
04-15-2009, 01:02 PM
Seriously, what's the bitch here? As far as I can tell, this thread is just further proof that you can't make everybody happy all the time. Or is this just more right wing moaning about big government?

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 01:08 PM
Texas benefit from combined federal taxes, not just from Texans. Texas is the one that wants to leave, we're not asking them to. Don't see where we would owe them anything.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 01:11 PM
The feds owe, not the states. The Feds need the states, not the other way around.

That assumes other states want to leave. Texas does not break this nation. Investment bankers do that.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 01:15 PM
As to question 1, Texas would wind up far more free than the rest of the US. I'm quite sure they would let anyone out who wanted to leave.

More free? This coming from the state who gave us a President who felt the Constitution was a suggestion list. You know what I notice, the same people who think Texas independence is a good thing now are the same people who thought California should go form its own country when they were in power. How come its this same group that thinks all questions of rights and freedoms comes from dividing the nation up?

Question 2, you can kiss "our" ass. "We" paid federal taxes, money that was used purchase those things.

Yeah, but we're not asking you to leave, you're the ones saying thanks but no thanks.

-HH

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 01:16 PM
That assumes other states want to leave. Texas does not break this nation. Investment bankers do that.

-HH

I'd bet if shit keeps going the way it's going, it won't be long before 10 or more other states begin talkin' too....

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 01:22 PM
I'd bet if shit keeps going the way it's going, it won't be long before 10 or more other states begin talkin' too....

It would depend upon which ten states. Most states can't support themselves economically in today's forum, they would become third world nations within a generation. Most sensible people realize this.

-HH

banyon
04-15-2009, 01:49 PM
The only thing that makes the states incapable is the confiscatory federal taxes. By the time the feds bleed the people of a state dry there's nothing left for the states to take and they have to get some back from the feds.

"Bleed them dry"? With the lowest rates since the 20's? Really?

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 01:51 PM
It would depend upon which ten states. Most states can't support themselves economically in today's forum, they would become third world nations within a generation. Most sensible people realize this.

-HH

You have way too much faith in Washington DC and the federal government, and not nearly enough faith in the resourcefulness and ingenuity of average Americans--especially ones who are fed up with government solutions to every friggin' "problem."

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 01:53 PM
"Bleed them dry"? With the lowest rates since the 20's? Really?

Compare TOTAL tax burden....too bad most Americans forget about the federal taxes that aren't called "federal income tax"....

banyon
04-15-2009, 01:58 PM
Compare TOTAL tax burden....too bad most Americans forget about the federal taxes that aren't called "federal income tax"....

You are right, corporate taxes and capital gains are historically low as well. I should have included them.

HolyHandgernade
04-15-2009, 02:07 PM
You have way too much faith in Washington DC and the federal government, and not nearly enough faith in the resourcefulness and ingenuity of average Americans--especially ones who are fed up with government solutions to every friggin' "problem."

Actually, it has nothing to do with that. Its simple sociological models, they always build towards larger and more encompassing structures, not the other way. When you deconstruct you have a greater chance of instability and freefall devolution. You're confusing current social unrest with a total wholesale of standard of living, most American (Texans or any other) don't want that. Solving problems in America, ever since the Civl War has been aimed a greater prosperity, inclusion, and power. Now, you're trying to convince me these "average Americans" are willing to give up that status from some glorified ideal the current nation doesn't already embody? You'll have to do better than fanciful populism to convince me of that.

-HH

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 02:26 PM
I grew up in Virginia which trumps Boston in that argument everytime. Washington, Madison(Wrote the Constitution), Jefferson(Wrote the DoI), Monroe are all Virginians.

I see the distinction you are making now, and you point is null. It's still the state the ratified the Constitution, and I don't care what some professor told you.

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone defend a legal/historical argument by referring to what state they were raised in.

'I don't care what a person who studied the issue said, I came from Virginia.'

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 02:34 PM
You are right, corporate taxes and capital gains are historically low as well. I should have included them.

But you sure are playing dumb about a whole lot of other taxes (some direct, some hidden)....aren't you? :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 02:36 PM
Actually, it has nothing to do with that. Its simple sociological models, they always build towards larger and more encompassing structures, not the other way. When you deconstruct you have a greater chance of instability and freefall devolution. You're confusing current social unrest with a total wholesale of standard of living, most American (Texans or any other) don't want that. Solving problems in America, ever since the Civl War has been aimed a greater prosperity, inclusion, and power. Now, you're trying to convince me these "average Americans" are willing to give up that status from some glorified ideal the current nation doesn't already embody? You'll have to do better than fanciful populism to convince me of that.

-HH

You are apparently confusing Texans and other red-blooded Americans with....Norwegans, or the French. That could get you shot in some parts of the country. :hmmm:



;)

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 02:42 PM
I grew up in Virginia which trumps Boston in that argument everytime. Washington, Madison(Wrote the Constitution), Jefferson(Wrote the DoI), Monroe are all Virginians.

According to you, every Virginian knows more about the Constitution than anyone born anywhere else. Great argument.

Just for clarity, does that include current West Virginians, since that state was part of Virginia until the Civil War, or not? Inquiring minds want to know. This is important stuff. Seriously.

I see the distinction you are making now, and you point is null. It's still the state the ratified the Constitution, and I don't care what some professor told you.[/quote]

I never studied the matter in any school. I just happened to read extensively regarding the Revolutionary period. I also know what

"We the PEOPLE"

means. It doesn't get any more clear than that, but you, apparently, still read it to say "We the States".

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 02:44 PM
According to you, every Virginian knows more about the Constitution than anyone born anywhere else. Great argument.

...

I never studied the matter in any school. I just happened to read extensively regarding the Revolutionary period. I also know what

"We the PEOPLE"

means. It doesn't get any more clear than that, but you, apparently, still read it to say "We the States".

You know, in all my years of reading you....this is the first time I've seen you reduced to defending your argument based on a distinction without a real difference.

I don't know quite what to make of it, either. :hmmm:

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 02:45 PM
My eyesight isn't all that. I'm having a little trouble making it out. What are those first three words on this page? The ones that are just a weee bit bigger than the others...?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/01/Constitution_page_1.jpg/495px-Constitution_page_1.jpg

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 02:47 PM
My eyesight isn't all that. I'm having a little trouble making it out. What are those first three words on this page? The ones that are just a weee bit bigger than the others...?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/01/Constitution_page_1.jpg/495px-Constitution_page_1.jpg

Relative to the discussion at hand, it's a distinction without a significant difference.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 03:11 PM
Relative to the discussion at hand, it's a distinction without a significant difference.

So you're saying that the words of the document itself shouldn't be used to interpret what it means?

Let's be clear on this so I can be sure to reject any strict constructionist argument you ever make.

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 03:17 PM
So you're saying that the words of the document itself shouldn't be used to interpret what it means?

Let's be clear on this so I can be sure to reject any strict constructionist argument you ever make.

Not much to "interpret" considering states are made-up of PEOPLE. :shrug:

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 03:21 PM
Not much to "interpret" considering states are made-up of PEOPLE. :shrug:

That distinction was a centerpiece in Constitutional arguments as early as McCulloch, as significant a case as any in U.S. history, where John Marshall argued almost the exact as Amnorix is now (Marshall went a bit further, saying states were merely organizational tools for the people). It's hard to not see the significance of that interpretation through case law.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 03:22 PM
Not much to "interpret" considering states are made-up of PEOPLE. :shrug:

And yet it's not a compact of the states, is it?


Thsi whole argument is pretty much beside the point anyway. Regardless of what state supremacy advocates would like to say, it's pretty clear from the Constitution itself that the states don't reign supreme, nor do they have any right (even accepting your argument) to "take back" what they (per your argument) gave.

Amnorix
04-15-2009, 03:24 PM
That distinction was a centerpiece in Constitutional arguments as early as McCulloch, as significant a case as any in U.S. history, where John Marshall argued almost the exact as Amnorix is now. It's hard to not see the significance of that interpretation through case law.

Don't quote Marshall. Even though he was at the Virginia constitutional convention and was a leading legal mind and Founding Father, and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for like 40 years, that jackass don't know nothin'. [/BEP, TJ]

What they said. And I'm from Virginia, and just because Marshall was too, you should, uhhh, listen to me instead of him. errrr...even though I don't live in Virginia anymore... [/Garcia]


:p :p :p

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 03:27 PM
That distinction was a centerpiece in Constitutional arguments as early as McCulloch, as significant a case as any in U.S. history. It's hard to not see the significance of that interpretation through case law.

Sure, national supremacy....regarding the DELEGATED powers of the federal government. Of course, that was the first use of the necessary and proper "loophole".....in usurping state power, and expanding the reach of federal power....beyond that which was intended, or anticipated by those who wrote the document.

The whole argument, of course, is: when, and how far, do we allow that expansion of federal power to go?

:hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
04-15-2009, 03:30 PM
And yet it's not a compact of the states, is it?


Thsi whole argument is pretty much beside the point anyway. Regardless of what state supremacy advocates would like to say, it's pretty clear from the Constitution itself that the states don't reign supreme, nor do they have any right (even accepting your argument) to "take back" what they (per your argument) gave.

I know, I know....I'm beginning to think we ought to simply disband the state legislatures and local governments entirely. If we are gonna hand over the whole ball of wax to Washington D.C., guess we might as well just get it over with.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 05:39 PM
I grew up in Virginia which trumps Boston in that argument everytime. Washington, Madison(Wrote the Constitution), Jefferson(Wrote the DoI), Monroe are all Virginians.

I see the distinction you are making now, and you point is null. It's still the state the ratified the Constitution, and I don't care what some professor told you.

I'd have to agree. The Federalists/Whigs were mostly in the nawthun states and Adams was a Federalist. In fact, Mass loved having their war debts picked up by the states under Hamilton because they were less responsible whereas Virginia had most of its war debt paid up. Mass is the same today and socialist as hell. I love Virginia. Almost moved there instead of here.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 05:44 PM
Sorry Amnorix but the notes that were taken during the Constitutional Convention clearly show that the union was voluntary. They had a provision to use force should a state want to leave and they decide against it. Sorry but it's there in writing. You might want to go to the Yale site and look up the Avalon Project it has a lot of those documents. There's also another historian, don't recall the name off-hand that has compiled those notes from the Convention.

Also in the earlier days of the Republic states did nullify fed laws that were intrusive.
Jefferson supported state nullification of federal laws too.

Secession was just another check and balance on the federal govt until Lincoln destroyed that idea.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 06:13 PM
Sweet. They can become their own country, and we can invade them for their oil!



What, too soon?

Well, they were at one time anyway.
Hey! If the Soviet Union can break apart and everyone cheers what's wrong with this in America. I'd hope the Feds would cool their jets to keep the states in the union. The pressure shouldn't all on the states. That's the way it's supposed to work.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2009, 09:24 AM
Amnorix how can you think that the original 13 states would empower a new agency to make war on them if they decided to not remain in this new system?
It's inconceivable to me.

Amnorix
04-16-2009, 03:52 PM
Amnorix how can you think that the original 13 states would empower a new agency to make war on them if they decided to not remain in this new system?
It's inconceivable to me.

Fundamentally, it's a contract. If you don't put in a termination clause, then that's your own damn fault.

SBK
04-16-2009, 03:59 PM
This is the Gov. of Texas telling the Federal Government to back off. AND it's a brilliant posturing for a run for President.

Amnorix
04-16-2009, 04:08 PM
Sorry Amnorix but the notes that were taken during the Constitutional Convention clearly show that the union was voluntary. They had a provision to use force should a state want to leave and they decide against it. Sorry but it's there in writing. You might want to go to the Yale site and look up the Avalon Project it has a lot of those documents. There's also another historian, don't recall the name off-hand that has compiled those notes from the Convention.

I quickly checked the Avalon website and found no drafts of the Constitution. I've never heard that there was a provision regarding use of force regarding a state leaving. If you can post support, I'd love to see it.

Also in the earlier days of the Republic states did nullify fed laws that were intrusive.

Please specify. I've never heard that any attempt to do so was successful under the Constitution. Maybe under the Articles of Confederation.

Jefferson supported state nullification of federal laws too.

Jefferson's opinions are of no more significant weight than any of dozens of his contemporaries. As far as I know, he wasn't even a drafter of the Constitution.

More weighty would be that Madison supported nullification, which he did in the Virginia Resolutions. And though some respect must be given, as the author of contracts myself I can tell you that what I say about the contract doesn't make it so.

Secession was just another check and balance on the federal govt until Lincoln destroyed that idea.

In theory. In reality, every President dealign with the issue had categorically rejected the idea, including most famously Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat and generally an ardent supporter of a weaker federal government.

You are also conflating secession with nullification, which are two separate topics. Madison himself spoke out against secession.

James Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison), often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, spoke out against secession as a constitutional right.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-10>[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-10)</SUP> In a March 15, 1833 letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”:
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-11>[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-11)</SUP>



Madison was quite clear -- secession isn't permitted absent "intolerable oppression" which would simply lead to a full blown revolution. There is absolutely no point in drafting a Constitution to include a clause saying "revolution is ok". If it happens, it happens, and then the government will be revamped in accordance with the wishes of the revolutionaries, if they succeed.

And as Ben Franklin cleverly noted, revolutionaries who don't succeed are known by another name:










traitors.

Amnorix
04-16-2009, 09:23 PM
My, listen to all those crickets.