Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2009, 08:49 AM
 
216 posts, read 343,353 times
Reputation: 118

Advertisements

Yes under the 10 amendment the states have the right to exclude any Fed HC . No where does the Constitution give the DC crowd any rights to give away tax payer money for any program of any kind .

Many don't even know the first three words of the Constitution and the elected bunch sure need to be reminded what they are .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2009, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,687,243 times
Reputation: 9980
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[14]

Texas V White 1869

The Union is INDISSOLUBLE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 09:23 AM
 
5,252 posts, read 4,672,422 times
Reputation: 17362
Well, for starters, let's take a look at the real motovation for any legislation in the early days of the republic. The elite class of "planters" set up a government designed to protect their wealth, they had seen the power of the Crown to tax the new class of merchants beyond a sustainable level and they didn't want that power duplicated in the colony system.

All the high minded talk of the "freedoms" that the framers of the constitution guarenteed were only referencing the already accumulated wealth of this elite class of folk's, Women, Men without property, Indian's, and Black's, were systematically deprived of such freedoms. You could not vote unless you belonged to this group, you could not get credit, nor could you expect much in the way of protection.

To carry on today about the origins of our lopsided democracy in hopes that something will change is to demonstrate the futility in making any attempt to correct the evils of a system that has the backing of those least served by it. Our federal government is and always was a construct built to serve the wealthy and exclude the poor and powerless.

The rights of the states was really a reference to the founders intent to create a system wherein the power was distributed in such a way that all monetary benefit would never be subject to the distribution that a truly fair system might require.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 09:37 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,032,019 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawmill Jim View Post
Yes under the 10 amendment the states have the right to exclude any Fed HC .
I must have missed that part of the Constitution where states have the power to exclude any Federal law or regulation. Of course I remember in the 50's and 60's when some states thought they had that power and found themselves at the business end of a rifle.


Quote:
No where does the Constitution give the DC crowd any rights to give away tax payer money for any program of any kind.
See Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Quote:
Many don't even know the first three words of the Constitution and the elected bunch sure need to be reminded what they are .
I know Boehner proved that;

Boehner mixes up Constitution and Declaration - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

By the way, since you know the first three words, how about the rest, you know that part that states: establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,756,720 times
Reputation: 24863
OP - You make a lot of sense, States power to regulate has been reduced at the behest of the major industries and nation wide and international financiers that do not want the hassle of dealing with 50 different codes that might interfere with their never ending quest for monopoly.

Additionally the replacement of the local militias with a Federal national guard has allowed the central governments international empire to have an almost endless supply of cannon fodder to protect the investors’ colonial aspirations. They trade our blood for their money. It would be impossible to raise a standing Army large enough to police the world (at least the Islamic oil bearing world) without the National Guard. IMHO each state should have the basic right to keep control of the Guard as it once controlled the Militia.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 09:47 AM
 
6,022 posts, read 7,826,282 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
The founding fathers never explicitly stated that white males would be the only individuals having a say. .

they didnt have to say anything, people back then had no clue or idea what the country would look like today
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,687,243 times
Reputation: 9980
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I am looking at what we have now, we is why I have absolutely no desire in making the situation even worse.
The Senate was supposed to be the forum where the State Governments had their say. Thus, Senate approval meant that the majority od the States had approved the measure. The same with confirmation of Presidential appointees. What we have now is a bunch of lobbyists
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 10:09 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,032,019 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
The Senate was supposed to be the forum where the State Governments had their say. Thus, Senate approval meant that the majority od the States had approved the measure. The same with confirmation of Presidential appointees. What we have now is a bunch of lobbyists
Soory, Boompa, but that is an erroneous read of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention.

I've got to go to a meeting, so I will enlarge on my comment later, but suffice it to say for now that the establishment of a bi-cameral legislature had far more to do with checking the democratic impulses of the lower body, see the House of Lords, than to serve as the "state's" representatives in the legislature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,687,243 times
Reputation: 9980
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Soory, Boompa, but that is an erroneous read of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention.

I've got to go to a meeting, so I will enlarge on my comment later, but suffice it to say for now that the establishment of a bi-cameral legislature had far more to do with checking the democratic impulses of the lower body, see the House of Lords, than to serve as the "state's" representatives in the legislature.
It's getting pretty far off subject now
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2009, 06:20 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,032,019 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
It's getting pretty far off subject now
That's one out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top