It looks like some states are getting tired of the federal government
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17states.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
This is great to see. I am a strong advocate of States Rights and restricting the Fed to the powers granted by the constitution.
Must be a racist^.
We all know that "states rights" is code for racism.... ;)
I don't have a secret decoder ring, so I don't know the code.
Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example â€" none of them known as conservative bastions â€" are considering bills that would authorize, or require, governors to recall or take control of National Guard troops, asserting that federal calls to active duty have exceeded federal authority.
How is the above racism
i get it, buckethead...i think...
Sarcasm, to be sure...
It is commonly agreed upon, however, in some circles.
^^ Here's an example of that:
http://dagblog.com/politics/brief-history-states-rights-3205 (http://dagblog.com/politics/brief-history-states-rights-3205)
These are not states rebelling but Republicans against Democrats.
My thoughts, for what little they are worth, is that the government closest to the people should be the most visible and have the most affect. Am I racist for thinking so? I don't think so. My family is made up of Europeans, Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese, and Filipinos. We are mutts, just like most Americans are.
Quote from: Bostech on March 17, 2010, 08:49:18 PM
These are not states rebelling but Republicans against Democrats.
Uhm, no:
QuoteOn Thursday, Wyoming’s governor, Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, signed a similar bill for that state.
It's the last best way for states to assert any sort of pseudo-self-soveriegnty or stand up to the centralized federal government to send a message.
I'm so glad our Legislature is wasting time on this issue
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_XGR_BALANCED_BUDGET_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME
Freudenthal is a WYOMING Democrat, which is to say, in any of about 45+ other states, he would be a Republican.
It is clear that Federal law trumps state law where a conflict exists, which is consist with the Constitution.
This is jsut Conservative grandstanding pure and simple. Whipping up the base.
So the constitution does not grant the federal government specific and limited authority to legislate while granting state the authority to legislate every other potential issue?
QuoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Maybe I'm not reading it right?
Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox was the beginning of the end for state sovereignty no matter what the founders may have intended. It will take a constitutional amendment to restore teeth to the tenth amendment. Most politicians are alternately for or against states rights depending on whether it promotes or impedes their goals.
The breaking of laws does not negate their validity and authority.
The problem lies with the writers of unconstitutional legislation, and the lack of public will to hold legislators accountable.
Quote from: buckethead on March 18, 2010, 05:34:41 PM
The breaking of laws does not negate their validity and authority.
The problem lies with the writers of unconstitutional legislation, and the lack of public will to hold legislators accountable.
Truer words have never been spoken.
One wonders where these people were during the attacks on the Constitution by former Vice President Dick Cheney and his gang.
I was not yet familiar with this site.
I opposed, and continue to oppose the Patriot Act, as well as the war against Iraq.
Ironically, I voted for Bush because he was what I percieved as the less awful candidate.
It is still unclear to me if a differnet choice would have turned out very differently.
I was referring to the people in the NY Times article.
Quote from: finehoe on March 19, 2010, 12:01:25 PM
One wonders where these people were during the attacks on the Constitution by former Vice President Dick Cheney and his gang.
Zombies never rebel against their master.
Quote from: Bostech on March 19, 2010, 01:53:50 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 19, 2010, 12:01:25 PM
One wonders where these people were during the attacks on the Constitution by former Vice President Dick Cheney and his gang.
Zombies never rebel against their master.
As a formost expert on Zombie matters, and anything pertaining to zombies.
They have no masters
They do what they want
Original zombies are revived from wizards.therefore they have master who controls them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie
Hollywood zombies are on their own,which is total BS.
Then again in Hollywood,Dracula doesnt like garlic and afraid of cross.
Quote from: Bostech on March 20, 2010, 01:15:54 AM
Original zombies are revived from wizards.therefore they have master who controls them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie
Hollywood zombies are on their own,which is total BS.
Then again in Hollywood,Dracula doesnt like garlic and afraid of cross.
I have seen a recent political documentary (
Zombieland) and can assure you; Zombies are autonomous.
ALWAYS remember: Double Tap!
I've always wondered if Dracula would recoil from a Star of David or a Mandala too?
Dracula (Real One TM) was devoted Christian (I doubt Jesus would approve his "Christianity") and was apparently killed by Muslim (his head got cut).
I am sure he as all Romanians loved garlic more then anything.
Now its possible you could stop him with holly water (or any water) considering they didn't bath and like cats avoided water at any cost.
Speaking of the brain dead and blood suckers, how do we rid oursleves of the Fed without major economic calamity?
Killing the Fed would be hard. They have too much power, and many are indebted to them from both parties.
Ron Paul is pushing it.
Even Dem's favorite new son Alan Grayson is behind auditing the Fed.
To be honest, not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I would not be surprised to see a vocal advocate of abolishing the Fed die a mysterious death. Too much money.
We should be on the gold reserve.
Quote from: jandar on March 22, 2010, 08:21:55 AM
Killing the Fed would be hard. They have too much power, and many are indebted to them from both parties.
Ron Paul is pushing it.
Even Dem's favorite new son Alan Grayson is behind auditing the Fed.
To be honest, not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I would not be surprised to see a vocal advocate of abolishing the Fed die a mysterious death. Too much money.
We should be on the gold reserve.
Yes IMHO we should be on a gold standard. The world was on a gold and silver as well as copper for 10,000 years and it worked. there are those that say we do not have enough gold and silver to cover the amount of money in circulation. The amount of gold is irrelevant. gold is currently at about $1100 an ounce. if you increase that to for example to $22,000 an ounce there would be enough gold to cover our money. and we might have enough gold at the corrected price to wipe out our national dept.
BTW $22,000 is just a number to illustrate that the amount of gold in irrelevant
Most "money" is just bookkeeping entries anyway. When you pay your credit card bill with a check, no bills or coins ever change hands anywhere. Gold is the chair you sit in when the music stops.
That is a great analogy DW. I've not heard it put in those terms before, but it is spot on.
Money = Musical Chairs.