Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is why that it doesn't. You can drive as fast as you want on a privately financed or state financed road for that matter, you can eat, or drink whatever you like no one is stopping you. As for smoke... well you got me on that one.
There's much more than you think. The feds dictated speed limits and told the states they would withhold highway funds if they did not comply.
And they do tell us what we cannot drink. Here is just one example;
"Federal agencies moved aggressively Wednesday to eliminate from the market the potent alcoholic "energy" drinks spiked with caffeine that have become wildly popular on college campuses in recent years. "
A proposed federal ban on junk food in public schools is aimed at keeping kids from getting fat, but the idea could shrink the value of lucrative beverage contracts cash-strapped First Coast districts depend upon.
The ban would require schools to replace the soda in vending machines with juice, water and other healthy fare — and that has some school officials worried.
[LEFT]
Read more at Jacksonville.com: Federal ban on junk food, sodas in schools could impact First Coast deals | jacksonville.com
[/LEFT]
There are many many others.
So YES, the Feds do tell us how to live our lives.
"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/659-qa-republic-if-you-can-keep-itq - broken link)
Quote:
20th Century Changes These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos," he wrote. American poet James Russell Lowell warned that "democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor." Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that "democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors." Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. "I have long been convinced," he said, "that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both." Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: "The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
There's much more than you think. The feds dictated speed limits and told the states they would withhold highway funds if they did not comply.
I find it ironic that you would complain about that on a thread about the 10th Amendment. DON'T TAKE THE MONEY!
Quote:
"Federal agencies moved aggressively Wednesday to eliminate from the market the potent alcoholic "energy" drinks spiked with caffeine that have become wildly popular on college campuses in recent years. "
Big advocate of underaged drinking are we?
Quote:
A proposed federal ban on junk food in public schools is aimed at keeping kids from getting fat, but the idea could shrink the value of lucrative beverage contracts cash-strapped First Coast districts depend upon.
See "don't take the money".
Quote:
So YES, the Feds do tell us how to live our lives.
Just out of curiosity, are you opposed to federal funding for abortion?
this is spot on! there are so many roads today that simply would not exist if it wasn't for the federal govt and if our transport infrastructure were allowed to develop organically, there would be a lot of alternatives to cars. don't get me wrong, there would still be roads and interstates, perhaps not as many and i doubt there'd be as much urban sprawl.
Alaska has only 4,900 miles of paved road in 570,833 square miles (1,478,456 sq km) and none of them are federal. "Urban sprawl" is also not an issue in Alaska.
If we want to get someplace that does not have road access, we will fly, or take a boat, or an ATV, or snow machine, or dog sled, or even hike, to get there. The lack of roads in Alaska does not prevent us from enjoying this great state and going where ever we desire.
I find it ironic that you would complain about that on a thread about the 10th Amendment. DON'T TAKE THE MONEY!
That is precisely what happened in 1989, when the Bush (41) administration threatened to withhold federal funding if we did not create a mandatory helmet law in Alaska. From 1990 through 1992 Alaska did not receive any federal funding, and to this day Alaska does not have a mandatory helmet law.
Since Alaska does not have many paved roads, and none of them federal, it was not that big of a hardship, but we did go without a few extra State Troopers during that 3 year period.
That is precisely what happened in 1989, when the Bush (41) administration threatened to withhold federal funding if we did not create a mandatory helmet law in Alaska. From 1990 through 1992 Alaska did not receive any federal funding, and to this day Alaska does not have a mandatory helmet law.
Since Alaska does not have many paved roads, and none of them federal, it was not that big of a hardship, but we did go without a few extra State Troopers during that 3 year period.
There's much more than you think. The feds dictated speed limits and told the states they would withhold highway funds if they did not comply.
Yes, that was a Reagan initiative in the 1980s.
Scientific evidence suggested that teens drinking alcohol accounted for a vastly large number of accidents. Reagan proposed a law that would withhold highway funds to any State that did not raise the drinking age to 21. The result was that highway fatalities dropped dramatically.
Please note, the federal government was fully within its rights to do so as it can decide how federal money is spent.
It also shows that back in the 1980s, there wasn't this ideological divide -- a conservative Republican President could work together and use federalism to the end of reducing the number of American deaths on the roads. Today, conservatives would let teens die in the name of States rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
