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.
If the Federal Government followed the Constitution, then the Federal Government would only be dealing with issues of foreign policy, diplomacy, defense, coining money and international commerce.
Let's compare San Fransisco with Cincinnati.
Two people, each receiving $1,100/month in Social Security Disability or Retirement....
equals $2092.95 per month in Cincinnati
equals $761.07. per month in San Fransisco
Suppose those two people were not on Social Security...suppose they earned the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour....then their gross monthly income would average $1256.67 per month.....and so....
Federal Minimum Wage in Cincinnati = $2,389.77 per month
Federal Minimum Wage in San Fransisco = $660.12 per month
The "federal" Food Stamp program......$400 each to two families of four ends up like this...
$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati. $210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco
That is why government is failing......government is failing the very people it is suppose to serve....
......$400 each to two families of four ends up like this...
$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati. $210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco
...how is that a win for America?
How is the federal minimum wage....Federal Minimum Wage in Cincinnati = $2,389.77 per month
Federal Minimum Wage in San Fransisco = $660.12 per month
...a win for America?
Restore the Constitution....Liberals lose.....but America wins.
That Liberals are willing to sacrifice Americans, stomp Americans to the curb, and throw Americans under the bus in the name of their ideas is unconscionable.
The fact that Liberals are willing to do that while simultaneously screaming the "Constitution is defective" is Stalinesque, if not Göbbelesque.
The Statute of Limitations for Frauds begins upon discovery of the fraud.
You have a good fraud claim against your high school government teacher -- who fraudulently masqueraded as, and impersonated a teacher, and the school administration and school district who misled your parent/guardian by passing themselves off as "competent." Look into it.
Neither amused or impressed....
Mircea
Hasn't that poor, dead horse been flogged enough already?
As I've pointed out in another thread, this kind of reasoning is way off-base. I'd hate to think what this country would be like if we had 50 little bitty fiefdoms all running their own programs. I dunno about the rest of you on this forum, but I think this would lead to the biggest clusterflip of all time, what with people moving around to different states all the time, and attempting to synch up each state's programs to mesh with the others.
To me, the idea of a Unitary State is the best idea to come along in many a century. I like the idea of being able to drive a 1000 miles and still be in my own country, with the Stars and Stripes flying proudly. I just love those seamless Interstates that carry me effortlessly from State to State, and no matter where I end up, I can still use my trusty USD and my very own language and good, old-fashioned American culture. And if I come to a place where it's just a bit too different for my tastes, I feel totally free to b*tch about how "this is the United States, we don't do things this way", and feel justified in doing so. Screw Hawaii, it's not American enough for me...lol.
As a life-long "liberal", I'm endlessly thankful for the great strides our Federal government has made in making this a great place to live, regardless of whatever state I might reside in (well, except for silly Hawaii...lol).
I could ramble on all day and wax poetic about how great our system is, but I'll keep it short and point out a couple flaws in your "cost of living" example. You say that the cost of living in San Francisco is sky-high, so any sort of fixed federal retirement won't go nearly as far as it would in Cinci, OH. So each state should have their own retirement system to match the cost of living in each state, then, right? Um, one slight problem with that. If you compare the cost of living of San Francisco and Bakersfield, both of which are in the same state, it's about as great as it is between SF and Cinci - so how to resolve that problem of "valuating" a person's retirement benefit? You don't change a thing, in the end, so why go to all this trouble and hassle to change something that's been in place for generations?
People are free to move wherever they like, so if it's too costly to live in SF, then they can just move to somewhere cheaper, viola, problem solved!
One other thing - calling people "stupid" all the time isn't going to endear you to the readers of this forum - we're supposed to critique the idea, not the person. It's totally acceptable to insist that democracy is a bad idea, but I don't appreciate calling people that support it "stupid" - it's not kind, it's not smart, and it certainly isn't conducive to propagating your cherished ideals of how things should be.
The US Senate, controlled by Democrat Harry Reid has not passed a budget in 4 years. Sequestration was the idea of the White House. The Democrats do not seem to want negotiations, they are bent on finishing off the Republican Party whatever it takes. It is about power first, not nation. Fundamentally, I think we are doomed.
The US Senate, controlled by Democrat Harry Reid has not passed a budget in 4 years. Sequestration was the idea of the White House. The Democrats do not seem to want negotiations, they are bent on finishing off the Republican Party whatever it takes. It is about power first, not nation. Fundamentally, I think we are doomed.
Yo uwill note, despite all the previous talk about "massive, terrible, devastating" consequences if the sequester was allowed to happen, once it did nobody really seems to care. Heck, the stock market was up yesterday.
You can only cry wolf so many times before people start turning you off.
Smoke and mirrors . Both parties want the sequester and this is just a taste of the looming massive spending cuts( and new taxes aimed at the middle class). Now do you see why they were so paranoid of US citizens owning guns?
Try to vote them out but they'll pad the polls with illegals and change the election outcomes again anyway. And keep arguing amongst yourselves ove rpiddling non sensical issues, thats what they want. How elese could these thieves and imbeciles of both parties stay in power and run the country?
Of course your argument assumes that state legislature are more functional and bi-partison than the national government, which they are not. One of the impetuses for passing the 17th Amendment was a recognition of what I have just stated. Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections for senate were deadlocked in 20 states. Now some may argue that this was a minor problem (how this was such a minor that 2/3rd of the state legislatures voted to change the formulation is beyond me) but in this hyper partisan era, I would prefer not to experience parts of state legislatures evacuating the state or conducting month long filibusters and other obstructionist tactics to avoid selecting the state's Senator.\
So the solution was to strip the power of the states? Seems like a solution of throwing out the baby with the bath water. If avoiding deadlocks was the goal, the solution would be tuning the legislature process, not ripping their power from them. Also, I am not evaluating this based on the assumption you infer. My point is that before the 17th, the states had more power over the system and the people have much more power over their state legislatures than they do the senators today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Another issue, that I just don't have to research tonight is whether or not the states had the power to recall Senators as if they it was some sort of ambassadorial appointment. In my search tonight I can find a single reference to that power existing prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
I am assuming that you meant "can't find a single..." rather than "can". Read the 10th, note what it states. Is that specific act listed as a power of the federal government? Is there a restriction to the states concerning such? No? Then...
"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. "
I keep reading statements and I keep hoping someone will point out this ere when this wasn't the case. Perhaps you can successfully point to this era in American history.
...selects the subscribe function.
ie. The states had more power than the federal government. The federal government was not supposed to be a strong centralized power. Is that what you are contesting?
What we need is for each state to pass a law like South Dakota, which sets term limits for it's federal representatives and senators, AND we need every state to pass a law that automatically recalls any representative or senator who violates the constitution.
We have not had a federal budget passed in over 4 years now. Every Senator should be recalled and replaced. REPUG and DUMBO, as will and INDIE alike.
This is the fault of the PEOPLE as well as CONGRESS and the PRESIDENCY! WE elected them, Congress has done nothing, and the President should step up and say, "NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS TILL THE SENATE PASSES A BUDGET, AND THAT BUDGET MUST BE A BALANCED BUDGET"
So the solution was to strip the power of the states?
Who stripped this power, the federal government or the people AND the legislatures of the various states? The answer of course is the latter. By 1910 31 state legislatures called for ceding their power to select senators to the people! When the amendment came before the states themselves, 39 (the necessary 2/3rds) voted in favor of ratification. And pleases in advance, spare me the britheresque arguments that the amendment was never actually ratified.
Quote:
My point is that before the 17th, the states had more power over the system and the people have much more power over their state legislatures than they do the senators today.
Oh for god's sake, that was reason #2 for the reform movement that ended the state party bosses' power to select Senators, the people felt absolutely powerless when it came to influencing who the state legislature selected for the Senate. Again, the movement to enact the 17th Amendment came from the people of the various states not some phantom federal force.
"I am assuming that you meant "can't find a single..." rather than "can". Read the 10th, note what it states. Is that specific act listed as a power of the federal government? Is there a restriction to the states concerning such? No? Then..."
Excuse the typo, you are correct, it should have read "can't."
Along with typing later in the evening that I should have I neglected to raise this point.
Prior to the passage enactment of the 17th Amendment Article I, § 3, part 2 read as follows:
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.4
Section 5, provides the Senate the power to expel any Senator that it deems "to have violated the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its members for "disorderly Behavior, and with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." regardless of what the state legislature thinks of such behavior.
Section 6, part 2, goes so far as to restrict the arrest and detainment powers of the states by:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.6 They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Even without mentioning the Supremacy Clause, it is a specious argument at best that the States are in anyway superior to the National Government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
ie. The states had more power than the federal government. The federal government was not supposed to be a strong centralized power. Is that what you are contesting?
Contesting? Without doubt.
While I know that this is the favorite argument of constitutional revisionist, nothing could be further from the truth. The sole purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to establish a superior national government. James Madison the patron saint of small government went so far as to propose in his initial plan that the National legislature would have absolute veto power over any law passed by a state government. 1. page 269 There can be no serious argument that the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to establish superior national government:
Madison writing in Federalist 44 - The Supremacy Clause
The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor.
In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.
In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.
In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others.
In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.
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.
