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.
fdr was more of a fascist with socialist ideas. it is incredible that the public education system has virtually wiped out any dissenting views on fdr's legacy.
Fascists, like Nazis, were national socialists. They hated socialism. FDR's policies empowered workers, via unions, and created an economy destined to thrive in manufacturing. Fascism was appreciated by likes of Churchill, who were opposed unions and workers getting a say. And, FDR and Churchill were about as far apart as political (economic) policies can be. It is no coincidence that those who like Churchill, hate FDR.
Ok, so let's say the State of Texas decides that it has the right under the 10th Amendment to favor Christian viewpoints over the atheist viewpoint? Well, that violates the First Amendment and the 10th doesn't supersede the 1st.
Nobody is suggesting the we eliminate the First Amendment. Transferring power back to the states does not imply in any way that the Bill of Rights should be changed.
Quote:
The point that YOU are missing is that the States ALREADY have the right and power to govern themselves as they see fit -- as long as it remains within the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Thus, a State would not have the power to coin its own money, as an example but would have the right to provide its citizens an old age pension, should they want
The states really have very little power. Because the feds collect more taxes than needed, they then dole it out to the states. The feds are in total control of huge amounts of money spent by the states. That is power! Whoever controls the money has the power.
And many of the Federal rules imposed on the states are clearly a violation of the constitution. Examples include ObamaCare and Federal drug laws.
That always confusing me. If the Federal government shouldn't chose one's "life-style" choices then what right does any government have for making such choices? This is a nation, with a free flow of people, information and ideas which are not limited by state boundaries, if it is abhorrent for the federal government to legislate then why on earth is it appropriate for a state to. Your argument lacks any logical consistency.
i don't agree with universal healthcare. you probably do. i don't see why if my pick for president wins that you should be forced to live under my healthcare system and vice versa. if california wanted universal healthcare, i'd have no problem with it as long as they fund it entirely out of california taxes. i think that's fair.
Californians shouldn't be making decisions for North Carolinians and vice versa. It's not a radical idea. It's common sense.
Then start filing lawsuits. You can file a Writ of Mandamus and have the court order whatever government officials to perform their duties.
As a sovereign entity, and under the 10th Amendment, you have the right to bar campaign money originating from outside of your State. Corporations headquartered outside of your State, PACs based outside of your State, Special Interest Groups based outside of your State and wealthy people who do not reside in your State have no legal right to contribute money to election candidates or ballot issues (like casinos for example).
Cut off the flow of money. That is the first step in regaining control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Then how far do you want to go with local governance? City level? Why should a few in Austin dictate the whims of people in Houston or Amarillo or Howe?
Unlike the government-formerly-known-as-the-federal-government, a State government can actually have proportional representation.
In theory, States would push power down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
The General Welfare cause is a charge to the government to do what is in the given powers to it.
For those who can't read English, it's the "general Welfare" clause (no such thing as "General Welfare" in the US Constitution), and it does not give authority to violate the Constitution.
Public and private education existed at the time the Constitution was written, but it was not mentioned as a power of the federal government, because that power rests solely with the several States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammbriggs
the states are a good place to start. slowly cutting all the federal money and all the strings that come with it. some states might further devolve power to the counties and on to individuals
Yes, that concept is called "pushing power down." That would make sense for States with larger populations, but it would not necessarily be efficient for those States with smaller populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Sorry, but the founders were wary of state government abuses in the same capacity as federal. Why aren't you?
Probably because my State is not going to invade Libya and then set up drone bases in Northern Africa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
I just love it when you reactionaries call FDR, a member of one of the most aristocratic and wealthy families in the nation, a "communist." It just is an illustration of how bankrupt their ideology is.
Not all Capitalists believe in the [Free] Market Economic System. Had you bothered to read the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism by Daniel Bell (a neo-conservative and written in 1976 after the Social Democrats came out with a new name -- neo-cons) you would know that. Even if you hadn't, had you merely studied the history of economics in the US you would know that.
People like FDR are basically Feudal Capitalists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
His programs prevented an uprising from the masses.
Which drug do you have to take to have that hallucinogenic fantasy?
Then how far do you want to go with local governance? City level? Why should a few in Austin dictate the whims of people in Houston or Amarillo or Howe?
The same principle applies. The closer the people are to the powers that govern them and the decision making process, the better they are able to influence those powers and decisions.
The choices should always be bottom up. First ask if local government can handle a service well, if so, leave it there. If not, then ask if state government can handle that service well, if so leave it there. Any functions that are left over go to the federal level.
i don't agree with universal healthcare. you probably do. i don't see why if my pick for president wins that you should be forced to live under my healthcare system and vice versa. if california wanted universal healthcare, i'd have no problem with it as long as they fund it entirely out of california taxes. i think that's fair.
And under Health Care Reform, California is free to do that. In fact, there are at least five states that have decided to take that direction as we speak. THAT is how this nation was meant to be run. Federal government exists to supervise and establish baselines for the welfare of the nation. The states should take the responsibility to meet or exceed the baseline in best possible way each of them can come up with.
Contrast that with the idea that you probably support the idea of federal government forcing all states to implement Tort Reform?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
The same principle applies. The closer the people are to the powers that govern them and the decision making process, the better they are able to influence those powers and decisions.
And not too long ago we were discussing a state law (Ohio) that you started complaining about federal government.
"We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union"...........
This is the preamble......It is the whole reason for the rest of the document. let's look at the words.
"We the people of the United States" Uh, that would be all of us and the term "United" in refering to "States" means all the states together under one constitution.
"in order to form a more perfect union". This gives the intent of the Constitution right there in a nutshell. "Union" is the key here.
I don't understand how many seem to ignore the fact that the individual states were relinquishing their authority to a higher power for the common good of "We the People" and establishing the state's "Union" under the authority of the federal government as stated in the constitution.
How can many not grasp this very clear and direct concept as stated in the preamble?
That is an utter historical nonsense. If anything the opposite is true, the Madison Conspiracy meeting in secret under the guise of reforming the Articles of Confederation was actually a successful plan to establish a strong central government to promote to the common defense (see Shay's Rebellion) and to promote the general welfare (see inability to compel taxation)!
While the Constitution certainly places limits upon the power of the federal government it also grants significant powers (see the Supremacy Clause) If anything the ratification of the Constitution and the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation ended the primacy of the states in deference to the national government.
As is should be.
You must not be reading the same Constitution that I am. The tenth amendment makes it very clear that the Federal Governments power is limited. If a power was not specifically granted to the feds, they don't have it. They cannot get additional powers as time goes on. Unfortunately, the tenth amendment has not stopped the (illegal) growth of federal power.
"The 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."
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.
