[CTartist]

Here is another post I saw on Facebook. If this attitude doesn't scare you about all these education bills nothing will. Here is Democrat Representative Johnson telling a speaker that the state "allows towns to exist" and it seems can change them.......anyway they want maybe?

https://www.facebook.com/CTHRCC/vide...type=2&theater

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here is another post I saw on Facebook. If this attitude doesn't scare you about all these education bills nothing will. Here is Democrat Representative Johnson telling a speaker that the state "allows towns to exist" and it seems can change them.......anyway they want maybe?

https://www.facebook.com/CTHRCC/vide...type=2&theater

That's like the attitude from some progressives that the federal government allows states to exist (rather than the other way around). I believe in governing from the lowest level first, closest to the people. These people are a really scary bunch. I don't like them at all, on any level.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here is another post I saw on Facebook. If this attitude doesn't scare you about all these education bills nothing will. Here is Democrat Representative Johnson telling a speaker that the state "allows towns to exist" and it seems can change them.......anyway they want maybe?

https://www.facebook.com/CTHRCC/vide...type=2&theater

Actually, the Representative is absolutely correct. The State of Connecticut is Sovereign and through that allows Towns the necessary means to exist and tools to do the work. It's called being a Creature of the State. The State, via Public Act (not constitutional amendment), abolished a whole form of chartered municipality in 1959 being the Counties. Article X of the CT Constitution is clear on this power, and I believe every state has a similar method of creating and maintaining municipalities.

As well several CT Supreme Court decisions put a hefty burden on the State, but not individual towns. The Representative was trying to make that point but it kind of blew over.

She said it completely in the wrong way and fairly condescendingly, but the speaker was completely inaccurate on the Law.

Originally Posted by dazzleman

That's like the attitude from some progressives that the federal government allows states to exist (rather than the other way around). I believe in governing from the lowest level first, closest to the people. These people are a really scary bunch. I don't like them at all, on any level.

Well, initially the Federal Government chooses which entities it wishes to be co-sovereign with, after that the ratified states have jurisdiction as they see fit under the duties, powers, and obligations under the Constitution and US Statutes. It's neither the states allowing the Federal Government to exist, nor the Federal Government allowing states to exist once the union is made. We kind of had a war about this, made a couple of history books I imagine.

[CTartist]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

She said it completely in the wrong way and fairly condescendingly, but the speaker was completely inaccurate on the Law.

I think you meant to say she was ACCURATE on the law.

I know she is technically correct but it was the way she said it and that is the point. Listen to the other things she says and how she says it.

After seeing her ATTITUDE I will not vote for another Democratic State Representative or Democratic State Senator ever again. In fact I will actively help any Republican that runs for State Representative or State Senator in my district.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by CTartist

I think you meant to say she was ACCURATE on the law.

I know she is technically correct but it was the way she said it and that is the point. Listen to the other things she says and how she says it.

After seeing her ATTITUDE I will not vote for another Democratic State Representative or Democratic State Senator ever again. In fact I will actively help any Republican that runs for State Representative or State Senator in my district.

Sorry yeah I meant the woman speaking to the Rep made a wildly inaccurate reading of the law, which the Rep snapped back at pointlessly out of clear frustration but the establishment of facts is key to a fraught subject like this. From the chairman's reaction though it looks like they had a parade of constituents that were making bizzarre statements not apropos to the law, we doubt know because of the shortened nature of the clip.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by CTartist

Here is another post I saw on Facebook. If this attitude doesn't scare you about all these education bills nothing will. Here is Democrat Representative Johnson telling a speaker that the state "allows towns to exist" and it seems can change them.......anyway they want maybe?

https://www.facebook.com/CTHRCC/vide...type=2&theater

I believe what Beeker said is correct. Every state is considered sovereign in its own boundaries and is free to make, expand or abolish all types of local governments (including cities) and counties. The only thing to my knowledge that states cannot change by itself are Indian reservations if the tribe is recognized by the Federal government.

In practice, here in the Northeast where almost all the land is already incorporated into cities and towns, states are reluctant to change boundaries over the heads of local citizens. Its why cities have been unable to expand (IMO that's a good thing) and annex neighboring communities here in the Northeast. In contrast in the South and West some cities are still expanding into unincorporated areas.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by LINative

I believe what Beeker said is correct. Every state is considered sovereign in its own boundaries and is free to make, expand or abolish all types of local governments (including cities) and counties. The only thing to my knowledge that states cannot change by itself are Indian reservations if the tribe is recognized by the Federal government.

In practice, here in the Northeast where almost all the land is already incorporated into cities and towns, states are reluctant to change boundaries over the heads of local citizens. Its why cities have been unable to expand (IMO that's a good thing) and annex neighboring communities here in the Northeast. In contrast in the South and West some cities are still expanding into unincorporated areas.

^^^Yes it is almost taboo to try to reorganize cities and towns in the highly developed Bos-Wash corridor but I think the CT Democrats are close to trying something that will break down that social standard.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Well, initially the Federal Government chooses which entities it wishes to be co-sovereign with, after that the ratified states have jurisdiction as they see fit under the duties, powers, and obligations under the Constitution and US Statutes. It's neither the states allowing the Federal Government to exist, nor the Federal Government allowing states to exist once the union is made. We kind of had a war about this, made a couple of history books I imagine.

Sorry, but we cannot manage coexistence (cities vs towns) by guiding from a communal perspective where the rights of these individual communities should give way to the wants of the region.

We can’t ignore history in support of the progressive agenda but allow it to surface when it’s convenient to our opinion. Those books are “history” for a reason. My guess is someone with the quoted opinion would also be for tearing down those historical statues.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Sorry, but we cannot manage coexistence (cities vs towns) by guiding from a communal perspective where the rights of these individual communities should give way to the wants of the region.

We can’t ignore history in support of the progressive agenda but allow it to surface when it’s convenient to our opinion. Those books are “history” for a reason. My guess is someone with the quoted opinion would also be for tearing down those historical statues.

Hey when it concerns the relationship between the states I'm just quoting Fmr. Justice Scalia.



But the progressive agenda? You're in CT, or system and history is built for it. Again.... I think the particular bills are fatally flawed but I seriously can't help but notice that the biggest complainers about propriety tax in CT are the same complaining about the bills. The approach of do nothing but kvetch about everything is coming to a sharp end. For the state to thrive and survive we'll need big ideas and honest talk about how we do it.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Hey when it concerns the relationship between the states I'm just quoting Fmr. Justice Scalia.

But the progressive agenda? You're in CT, or system and history is built for it. Again.... I think the particular bills are fatally flawed but I seriously can't help but notice that the biggest complainers about propriety tax in CT are the same complaining about the bills. The approach of do nothing but kvetch about everything is coming to a sharp end. For the state to thrive and survive we'll need big ideas and honest talk about how we do it.

As has been previously stated, the concern is the ulterior motive of the mentioned progressive agenda that would be far more economically damaging in years ahead than remaining status quo.

Dig a little deeper.