# The 10th Amendment



## Listening (Dec 1, 2013)

This article sums it up pretty well.

10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

Prescription drugs

No Child Left Behind

TARP

A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.  

Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends.  They think of government as the federal government.

Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

But I digress....

If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 1, 2013)

Listening said:


> This article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
> 
> ...



The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and that applies to the 10th Amendment as well. 

Since the Foundation Era, therefore, the 10th Amendment has never meant what has been incorrectly perceived by the partisan right: 



> In_ McCulloch v. Maryland_,5 Marshall rejected the proffer of a Tenth Amendment objection and offered instead an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause6 to counter the argument. The counsel for the State of Maryland cited fears of opponents of ratification of the Constitution about the possible swallowing up of states rights and referred to the Tenth Amendment to allay these apprehensions, all in support of his claim that the power to create corporations was reserved by that Amendment to the States.7 Stressing the fact that the Amendment, unlike the cognate section of the Articles of Confederation, omitted the word expressly as a qualification of granted powers, Marshall declared that its effect was to leave the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.8
> 
> In 1941, the Court came full circle in its exposition of this Amendment. Having returned four years earlier to the position of John Marshall when it sustained the Social Security Act27 and National Labor Relations Act,28 it explicitly restated Marshalls thesis in upholding the Fair Labor Standards Act in _United States v. Darby_.29 Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Stone[p.1513]wrote: The power of Congress over interstate commerce is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. . . . That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non exercise of state power. . . . It is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate interstate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attended the exercise of the police power of the states. . . . Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which . . . states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.30
> 
> CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment





> From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
> 
> United States v. Darby



The GOP is at liberty to include whatever they wish in their talking points, provided they understand that rhetoric about the 10th Amendment existing as some sort of veto authority possessed by the states to nullify Federal statutes is completely devoid of merit, and has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution or its case law. 

What effect this may have in a political context is open to debate, republican candidates invoking the 10th Amendment would be lying, of course, and thats a gamble they may want to take if they believe lying about the Constitution will benefit them at the polls. 

But perhaps GOP candidates just might want to go with the truth and facts for a change and forego a 10th Amendment strategy.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 1, 2013)

This was basically settled before your court case, Mr. Jones.

By the Civil War.

No state authority does not exceed Federal authority.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This article sums it up pretty well.
> ...



In most of what I've read regarding the 10th amendment, I rarely see anyone try to utilize the 10th amendment as a basis for nullification.  I do know that such sentiments exist, but they seem to be in the minority and rare.

So, I'll just clarify by saying that is not what I meant in bringing this up.

Even if it were the majority of writings, nullification is an all or nothing strategy.  

A true 10th amendment strategy would be much more subtle.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2013)

Oh, and thanks for pointing out that case law is the primary basis for considerations.

Keeping in mind that nothing is ever totally settled.  Meaning, of course, that even if the framers has some idea that the 10th amendment wasn't to be as it reads....it could still be made to mean as much if the right people were in power.

Have a good day.


----------



## Listening (Dec 1, 2013)

Sallow said:


> This was basically settled before your court case, Mr. Jones.
> 
> By the Civil War.
> 
> No state authority does not exceed Federal authority.



That is not what the 10th amendment says.

It defines who has what scope in terms of government reach.  Where the feds have authority, they have full authority.

Where they have no authority....they have no authority.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 1, 2013)

Both parties have been abusing the constitution by constantly undermining the law until they can have free reign over government and the private sector. Which party supports the indefinite detention of Americans? Both. Which party supports warrant less wiretapping and collection of private data? Both. 

The Republicans and Democrats have been working along side each other to secure their power. Just look at how the Center for Presidential Debates was formed. Or look at how congressional districts are drawn. Or look at restrictions on how to be placed on the ballot.


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Both parties have been abusing the constitution by constantly undermining the law until they can have free reign over government and the private sector. Which party supports the indefinite detention of Americans? Both. Which party supports warrant less wiretapping and collection of private data? Both.
> 
> The Republicans and Democrats have been working along side each other to secure their power. Just look at how the Center for Presidential Debates was formed. Or look at how congressional districts are drawn. Or look at restrictions on how to be placed on the ballot.



Shawn,

I won't argue this point with you because I agree.

My point is that the 10th amendment does exist.  It has been called upon when convenient by both sides.  And just as readily ignored.

Historically, it has had sway.  It was the reason Roosevelt got so pissed he proposed his court packing scheme.

There are a number of people who feel they know how things were supposed to fit together (and how they did, albeit not perfectly).  

My question has to do with whether or not a subtle effort to start encouraging states to exercise their individual prerogatives in order to start moving back to a more federalist type of system (government within government).

Not as a means of defeating the other side, but as a means of keeping the issues more local.

When the 10th was written, there were 13 states and about 6 million people in the United States.  Now there are 310 million.  California and New York have cities that are larger than 6 million.


----------



## eflatminor (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> No state authority does not exceed Federal authority.



The 10th amendment says nothing of the sort.  Have you read it?  



> 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.



Clearly, the 10th is meant to reinforce the idea that the Federal government has a few, specifically enumerated powers in which it can involve itself.  Outside of those powers, it's up to the people.  Otherwise, the Constitution must be amended.

That both parties and their cronies on the bench have sought to sidestep this most basic concept is what has led to the central planning experiments that, particularly during the Progressive era, have done far more harm than good.  

The Civil War did not repeal the 10th amendment nor the basic principal of limited government.


----------



## eflatminor (Dec 2, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ... provided they understand that rhetoric about the 10th Amendment existing as some sort of veto authority possessed by the states to nullify Federal statutes...



No one thinks the 10th is about veto authority over the Feds.  It's about the Feds being restricted to the enumerated powers.  The 10th reinforces the idea of a limited federal government.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > No state authority does not exceed Federal authority.
> ...



To me the only limit on states when it comes to what they can legislate is based on the rights given in either thier consitution, or in the federal constituiton. So a state can say only people over 21 can drive, because there is no right to driving in any consitution, but it cannot ban the ownership of firearms by citizens, because that is protected by your rights as a US citizen.


----------



## eflatminor (Dec 2, 2013)

Listening said:


> My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.



Because they, just like their counterparts on the other side of the isle, are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else.  Those that would support limiting their own power are few and far between.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 2, 2013)

Listening said:


> This article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
> 
> ...



the say the state had died with the 17th amendment 

the next best course of action 

is at the local level


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.
> ...




Effy....

So how would you propose that those who truly do believe in a decentralized government proceed.

You have something like the Tea Party carry this forward.  They are already defined and anything they might do like this would get hooted down as crazy.  Besides, they do tend to Bull Rush things.

I am thinking about how we might take a more subtle approach.

Anything thoughts ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 2, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This article sums it up pretty well.
> ...



I will bring a thread forward on the 17th sometime.  And your statement is correct.  The 17th was a total brain-fart on the part of the states.


----------



## eflatminor (Dec 2, 2013)

Listening said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



History teaches us that all centrally planned societies eventually fail, typically following the devaluation of currency followed by war, civil or otherwise.  Sure I'd like to stop our progress towards that eventuality, but I'm not counting on it.  In the mean time, vote for Rand Paul I guess or one of the very few other leaders not seeking to impose their will on others.  However, should reasonable attempts to curtail our march towards tyranny fail, I believe Thomas Jefferson put it best:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."



> You have something like the Tea Party carry this forward. They are already defined and anything they might do like this would get hooted down as crazy. Besides, they do tend to Bull Rush things.



In my experience the TP is made up of half limited government libertarians and half big government conservatives (supporting Social Security for instance).  The TP isn't the answer any more than the Republicans are.  We have yet to see the right movement and won't I suspect until those sucking on the government tit, from entitlement individuals to crony corporations, are cut off due to economic realities.



> I am thinking about how we might take a more subtle approach.
> 
> Anything thoughts ?



Let's hope a subtle approach works.  I've seen zero evidence to suggest it will, but I remain hopeful.  If witnessing the crumbling of every major centrally planned society around the world, the economic woes of those countries that moved in that direction, and the relative prosperity of those that did not isn't enough to stop this entitlement freight train, I don't know what it.  Apparently, there's something within humans that wishes to impose their will on others and a corresponding urge among the masses to be told what to do.  Personally, I find it pathetic, but that doesn't change the way people vote.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 2, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > ... provided they understand that rhetoric about the 10th Amendment existing as some sort of veto authority possessed by the states to nullify Federal statutes...
> ...



Between the court rulings on the scope of Interstate Commerce (Wickard v. Filburn and Gonsalez v. Raich) to the court rulings on the Necessary and Spending Clauses to the nebulous idea of just what the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment means, the courts just rendered the 10th Amendment null and void. The truly sad thing is the states just rolled over and did nothing. No push back, no calls for a Constitutional Convention, they just went along with it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, centuries from now, when historians honestly look at what happened in the United States they will conclude that the biggest problem wasn't that the people elected idiots or the parties were in it for themselves or that government got in bed with big business but that the courts just renounced their responsibility to act as a check and balance to government powers. They let anything go.


----------



## Listening (Dec 4, 2013)

How many of you have been to a city council meeting in the last 5 years ?


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 5, 2013)

That's an interesting point. People bitch about politics, but they mostly mean what's happening in DC. There are any number of other political arenas close by. City council meetings, planning commission meetings, school board meetings, county commission meetings, utility commission meetings, state legislature events and so on and so forth. Why are we so apathetic about those political levels but so passionately divided about what goes on in DC?


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> That's an interesting point. People bitch about politics, but they mostly mean what's happening in DC. There are any number of other political arenas close by. City council meetings, planning commission meetings, school board meetings, county commission meetings, utility commission meetings, state legislature events and so on and so forth. Why are we so apathetic about those political levels but so passionately divided about what goes on in DC?



And that is the point.

I once did an experiment where I went to ten City Council meetings in a row.  In two of them, there was no one else (but me).  In five of them, there were developers.  In three cases there were complaints (rezoning to allow a dance school into an industrial area....houses that were flooding.....and I can't remember the third.

In one meeting, one of the Councilmen griped that there were no citizens there and they needed to do more to get some "fresh ideas" coming to them...they didn't want to dreams stuff up themselves.  

This city is probably more moderate than anything.  But there are a fair number of conservatives around.  Where are they.  Our sales tax is one of the highest in the county.
Why ?  Doesn't anyone care ?

I've been to open forums with my state legislators.  I know them by name and they know me...I've worked for them.  They might represent 30,000 people.....and five show up.  And there are some pretty good discussions.  FIVE freaking constituents !!!!

Where are the conservatives ?  They are to busy bitching about abortion and they forget everything else.

I was at a meeting where the House Speaker got up and said, that if "conservatives were not going to run for school board....don't come to the capital and expect us to fix the education mess".  Where conservatives have run for the board, they've won (but they get pretty bloody doing it....the NEA does not mind hitting below the belt....often)....and yet we still can't get people to run in other districts.  

If the conservatives of this world are about local government...why are they not running or helping more ?

That is the idea behind a 10th amendment strategy.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.

My personal observation is, what could be better than where we are? What specific improvement in our position, would a different outcome of the issue of Federalism, have led to? Keep in mind that all organizations have ebbs and flows in their fortunes, so such a comprehensive consideration should consider the long term. The climate, if you will, vs the weather.

I personally see little room for improvement.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.
> 
> My personal observation is, what could be better than where we are? What specific improvement in our position, would a different outcome of the issue of Federalism, have led to? Keep in mind that all organizations have ebbs and flows in their fortunes, so such a comprehensive consideration should consider the long term. The climate, if you will, vs the weather.
> 
> I personally see little room for improvement.




We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.
> ...



That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.  

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We have government at all of the levels that you mention to make local decisions.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional. 

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Define unconstitutional.....

I don't understand your second question.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The criteria for UnConstitutional have been  well established for almost 250 years. Why would anyone presume to redefine them?

My post offered considerations that I believe as useful a perspective as Constitutional. So I disagreed with the statement that "That is about constitutionality."


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nobody is asking you redefine them.  I am asking in what context you utilize the word.

Some people say Obamacare is unconstitutional...when, by definition (John Robert's brain fart), it is constitutional.  They don't care, they still "see it" as going against the constitution.

If you index anything the SCOTUS has ruled on is constitutional....then your position would be that unless someone is going in direct contradiction the SCOTUS....they are only enforcing constitutional laws.

And that would mean that your second question is a contradiction.  A personal opinion on what is constitutional would not only not be the only consideration....it would not be A consideration at all.


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



It seems the intent was that only local government would make local decisions.  Government at a higher level would not intrude.

Even then, you have the old vietnamese saying that "The (enforacability of) Emporer's writ stops at the entrance to the village".


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Do you want each level of local government to make national decisions?

Sounds like local government anarchy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



This makes no sense.

Let me try again.

I don't want the federal government making any legislation my state can make.

I only want them making legislation as it affects a few things (and health care is not one of them).

I want local government (i.e. the city council) making the laws for my city (that are not necessary to bend and twist to a bunch of federal legislation....or regulation.

Does that help ?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I want the Federal government to make all decisions on nationwide scope problems because each state deciding on their own solution is wasteful. The states are much more alike than different. 

The world sees us as the United States. That perception is critical to our position in the world. A bunch of disorganized little fiefdoms would render us third world very quickly.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...




Yeah PMZ cause Jim Crow laws followed the constitution. Along with segregation of schools. As long as government made the decision there's never a reason to question anything it does according to you.


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So, why do we allow people to live in houses and make decisions.  Why does not the federal government just put us all in apartments and tell us what to eat.

Each family making decisions is wasteful.  Or am I missing something ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Chris,

I think the point I am trying to make is that we need to be clearer on the scope of each government's responsibility.

The smaller something is, the more flexible it is (and the easier it is to hihack....I realize that).  But when you say "As long as government..." I have to ask what government.

Federal ?
State ?
County? 
Municipal ?
Subdivision ?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



If it wasn't for the Union there would still be slavery here.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 5, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




I'm listening, Listening. PMZ is the one claiming the government has no flaws and rules benevolently with a caressing guiding hand.

Local decisions should be local and the Fed should be worried about foreign affairs and border protection. NAFTA and other such trade agreements must be done away with.


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



On this we agree.

Now, the question is how to we get the GOP to start subtley putting this into play ?

We need to move in this direction.  But a grandios red-meat strewn approach does not work.  We need to quietly keep grabbing local governments and learning how to ignore the feds.  And when we can get the GOP in at the federal level, they need to start repealing laws (or get their balls cut off).

How do we start this ?  Should we ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That is first off-topic....second not true.  There is no telling what would have happened to slavery had the civil war not been fought.  Technology pretty much got rid of the need for huge amounts of ag labor.....

But, the point of this thread is to discuss the idea of pulling local decisons to local levels.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The household is the most local organizational entity.  They make all of the decisions that affect only their family. Which is the vast majority of decisions that affect them. 

And so on up.  Every level decides what affects only them. When a decision needs to be made that affects more than one else locale it must be made at a level "over" all affected locale. 

To get back to my original post,  what we have evolved to works.  We don't need to fix what's not broken.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




PMZ we have insane amounts of debt. Peoples rights are being taken away. Our healthcare reform is giving out free health care to the poor, yet our veterans wait years for treatment. Yeah. Systems great.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Ask what caused the debt.  We have more rights and privileges than any humans who have ever walked the earth. Veterans have TriCare and the VA.  Certainly much better health care than the poor here have ever had.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Poor people have been receiving Medicaid and getting doctors visits.

Veterans wait three years on back log to try and get treatment for PTSD and continuing care for lost limbs. Our rights are constantly eroded and the politicians receive bloated salaries and authorize themselves per diem and other allowances that further capitulate their greed. The system is broken.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Sorry I called you a Republican.  My bad. 

I will have to admit that I don't have first hand middle east military experience.  I'm too old.  However from the news, I see military casualties treated infinitely better than from any previous war.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Vietnam Vets are still in line to get benefits. The beginning process of handling major wounds is taken care of while they're on active duty. Then they get the bucket and wait in line. The system is broken.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



I know many old veterans who take real advantage of the VA.  Maybe that's the problem.


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Shawn,

Is this saying we don't have a good system or is it arguing for a different system.

The one place the federal government should be working is the army and wounded vets.  That is their job and part of their responsibility.  If they are not doing that job, I'd certainly like to know more about it so I can complain to my elected officials.

Link please.

While I agree with you that our rights are being eroded, what is worse is that our method of checks and balances has been corrupted.

Ted Kennedy (who I am so glad is dead) was a true bastard.  He defaced and character assasinated Robert Bork as did our current sitting asshole Vice President.  Then he turns around lectures John Roberts on the need to "preserve the gains of the past".  A total populist with no respect for the law.

That is what happens when power concentrates in D.C.

That is why I am saying that people need to get back to turning their backs on Washington and insisting that their state legislatures take care of business....where they live not on the east coast where lobbyists can screw up laws to meet their own greedy ends.

What rights do you feel are being taken away if I might ask.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




You have a lot of jackasses that take a hearing test and claim disability. There are plenty of mooches that leave the military, too. 

If you can get 1% disability, when you buy a house closing costs are waived. This is one of many reasons assholes take up VA resources to get little perks. It's disgusting.


----------



## Listening (Dec 5, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It most certainly does not work by my standards.  Please review Federalist 45 and understand that it was intended that states do the job.

Every level does not decide what effects them.  The Constitution was written to specifically limit the federal government in what it could do.  Traitors like FDR corrupted the system and men like Earl Warren made a shambles of our system because he wanted to do things that were "right" not constitutional.  "Right" is subjective and WTF does he think he is ?  Constitutional is readily discerned and he shamed the robe he wore.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 6, 2013)

I was gonna come in and yell at you guys, but you've actually done a good job getting the conversation back on track yourselves.

*Remember, this is the Clean Debate Zone. Let's talk about the topic, not the poster.

I've deleted a few posts, and edited a few.*


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Funny.  Europe is jealous of our position and is trying to emulate our union, and people like are trying to destroy the union and become like Europe.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



You can try to sell your self serving,  let's honor what the founders couldn't agree on over what they did. 

You are representing a fringe group that always loses but never dies,  States righters. 

You don't have to look at many contemporary state governments to see what a bad idea giving them more responsibility is.  

What you are really selling is super gerrymandering.  Let each party take their States so that negotiating and statemenship aren't needed.  

The recreation of the Civil War.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130315/BENEFITS04/303150016/

That will give you an idea of VA issues. 

The tenth amendment gives states rights, just as Texas pays for all college of veterans. More states should be seeking to grant programs like this, not just for vets but more young people.

The fourth, fifth, and first amendments are being restricted duur to the NDAA and Parriot Act.


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Please provide examples.

This is a an accusation that you won't support in three sentences.  Make it good.


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You mean like the SCOTUS that kept defeating FDR.  The same SCOTUS he tried to pack because they were in his way and the same SCOTUS he essentially blackmailed into doing things his way ?  Were they a fringe ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> What you are really selling is super gerrymandering.  Let each party take their States so that negotiating and statemenship aren't needed.
> 
> The recreation of the Civil War.



Please explain to me what you mean.

I find these kind of "hints" to be difficult to decipher.  The lack of examples or supporting documentation makes it tough to know just what you mean.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Your reference indicates that the problem of the growing veterans population and it's impact on health care services is being addressed. Hopefully we'll keep from shutting the government down long enough for progress to be made. 

My only insight is from the perspective of older veterans using it for their normal health care.  Many save money that way over using Medicare. 

Perhaps the use of VA facilities ought to be focused more on recent war injured and less on elderly veteran health care for which there are civilian alternatives.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The ones that I know first hand are New York and Florida. 

New York has an effective Governor but a legislature as ineffective as Congress has been rendered. While Cuomo has made some progress,  it's a long,  long way from a done deal. 

Florida has an inept Governor and a nondescript legislature.  Gov Scott, of Medicare fraud fame,  ran when there was a large Tea Party infestation in Florida's electorate.  He got elected for his recitation of two sentences.  Jobs for everyone,  and the dismantling of government.  

He knew that,  but never credited Obama for,  the National recovery from the Great Recession,  which brought jobs back to Florida.  

He started to dismantle government but now that he's up for re-election has decided to undo much of what he did.  Enormously wasteful. 

I don't have other first hand experience but Texas and Wisconsin and Michigan strike me as other good candidates.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > What you are really selling is super gerrymandering.  Let each party take their States so that negotiating and statemenship aren't needed.
> ...



Gerrymandering is redistricting to lock in partisan support demographics. 

States rights is the same idea.  To not dilute areas strong in one party or the other,  in order to reduce the influence of the other party,  at least in that area. 

The classic example is the Confederacy,  designed to eliminate Republican influence.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Any of the current districts will prove only that both parties are attempting to gerrymander their constituents in order to secure votes. Corrupt all of them.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



"Corrupt all of them."

Who's "them"? 

All people? All government? All businesses? All Democrats?  All Republicans? All liberals? All conservatives?


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So you really have nothing.

What you described is no worse than our federal government.

Where I live, things are quite functional.

What makes you think a federal legislature can be any better than a state legislature.

People used to whine about corruption.  And we don't think our current congress is corrupt and stupid ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How is states rights the same things as gerrymandering ?  YOur statement about dilution does not provide any clarrity to me.

The confederacy was the equivalent of the 13 original colonies in terms of size.  It was not designed to do anything.  It was established as a reaction to something that was already going on.  It simply chose to preserve what it felt it needed to preserve.  We have the same faldera today in areas of the country.  Big union states.

I am afraid there is nothing here that argues against following the 10th amendment.

When the country was formed, there 13 states and 6 million people.  We now have states that are almost 10 times as large (in terms of population).  We have not expanded the number of representatives.  One rep now has a constituency of about 600,000 people.  My house rep has a constituency of a maybe 25,000 peopole.  That makes my local vote 24 times more powerful.  

But that is a bad thing.


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



We've weakened the senate through the 17th amendment.

I've heard the argument time and time again that local politics is corrupt.  

When I get an invite to go see my federal legislator (usually at some million dollar home), I can get in for 250.  I can get a picture for 500.  Now whose gonna spend that kind of money....not most normal people (they don't have it).  So who is this person beholden too ?  

My local state rep gets a small salary.  But it's nothing like the shaker and mover platform of the fed.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I think that all organizations have some stupid and some corrupt people. 

I doubt if the proportions are any different between the average federal and average state governments and average corporations. And the population in general. 

At least with government we can replace them.  Not so in business. 

I will say though that it is my experience that as you get closer to local government the inexperienced based stupidity increases.


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So there is a reason to keep it local.  

As to your last sentence, I don't see that.  There are morons at the federal level, plenty of them.  It's just that they play with bigger bankrolls and those who are seeking to influence them are willing to roll out big bucks to get their way.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The Confederacy was designed to be a country separate from the United States of America. A country  absent of the Republican Party of the time. A country of only the Democrats of the time.

It was the ultimate manifestation of states rights. Withdraw from the Federal Government.

The 10th amendment was and is part of our Constitution and has always been followed according to our process for determining such things.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I see how bad local government is every day. In both locales that I frequent. Most local politicians are in way over their head. The saving grace is that try can only screw up local things.


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You don't think our federal morons are not in over their heads ?

Truly ?

And I agree, it is better that we only have locals screwing up local things.  You can more readily fix that....don't like it ?  Run for office.  Might cost you 5 K (from donors).  

You want to run for the legislature, you're talking a million to start.  Big money donors time !

And please address my point about how many people each one represents.  I'd like to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Absolutely false.  

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.  

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense.  The were not one state.  They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



We have a census every ten years to provide the data for determining House representation. I don't think that the number of people represented is very important. What's more important is that the demographics be representative of the state population. Of course that's contrary to partisan politics. So it's a continual battle. All in all we have much more important things to worry about.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



"FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution."

What you mean to say is that you disagreed with his politics.

This is a democracy. Nobody gets everything that they want.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 6, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



How is that different than any issue? The issue was their right to tell the Union how to run Federal business. It was settled. States don't.


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You are aware of his infamous proposed court packing scheme ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 6, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The constitution clearly states what is federal business and what is not.

That was the intent of the document.

Just because the federal government wants to make it their business, does not make it their business.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I'm aware that he took the number of justices from five to the current nine.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The intent of the document was to set in place the bylaws for our government. Many things were debated. The only thing that counts are the specific words chosen and ratified in the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



From Wikipedia.

"The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months."

"During Roosevelt's first term,[4] the Supreme Court had struck down several New Deal measures intended to bolster economic recovery during the Great Depression, leading to charges from New Deal supporters that a narrow majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.[3] Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, leading them to call it the "court-packing plan".[2]
The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937 and was the subject, on March 9, 1937, of one of Roosevelt's Fireside chats.[5][6] Shortly after the radio address, on March 29, the Supreme Court published its opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish[7] by a 54 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts had joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his perceived about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His move came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine." However, since Roberts's decision and vote in the Parrish case predated the introduction of the 1937 bill,[8] this interpretation has been called into question.[9]"

"Roosevelt's initiative ultimately failed due to adverse public opinion, the retirement of one Supreme Court Justice, and the unexpected and sudden death of the legislation's U.S. Senate champion: Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. It exposed the limits of Roosevelt's abilities to push forward legislation through direct public appeal and, in contrast to the tenor of his public presentations of his first-term, was seen as political maneuvering.[10][11] Although circumstances ultimately allowed Roosevelt to prevail in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal agenda, some scholars have concluded that the President's victory was a pyrrhic one."


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



It was nine at this time, and I believe it was always nine.

He wanted to put more robes on the bench (1 for every justice over some age).

It failed. 

Everyone saw it for what it was....a blatent attempt to overpower our checks and balances.

Ultimately he wound up putting a bunch of libs on the bench that served his purposes.


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Then why do you even consider that the constitution allows the federal government to enact health care legislation.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



So he did what the Bushes and Reagan did following him.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Because it does.


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Please explain to me how that works.

When the 10th amendment specifically restricts the federal government to the powers enumerated in the constitution......


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Because those powers are very broadly defined.  Thats the mechanism through which the Federalists and states righters negotiated something that both could live with. 

And that compromise has worked and created the country that we benefit from living in today.


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How are they broadly defined in a document that specifically set's forth a very limited scope of activity by the federal government.

i.e.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And yet the congress (and more importantly, the SCOTUS) has chosen to inject itself into the religious doings of communities.

Jefferson's infamous "wall" has no application beyond federal politics.

States supported state religions into the 1830's with no pushback from the federal government.  The states chose to stop doing it...but the point was they did it and they could still be doing it.  But if they tried today, the SCOTUS would overreach it's scope and get involved.

So, no they are not broadly defined.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The Constitution is the bylaw for Federal government.  The rules for government,  so to speak.  It specifies the role and responsibilities and limitations that Federal government must live within. 

It specifies that the Federal government acts "over"  states,  but is not the bylaws for state governments.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 7, 2013)

Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.



Simply not true if we follow the Constitution.  As our understanding of it has evolved and as it has been amended. 

You personally can choose to interpret it's words as ever you will,  but that's not connected to the process that it's words imply.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Good Wikipedia article about the 10th Ammendment. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.
> ...




Your argument is that we must follow what the constitution says because of what a bunch of other people say it says. Interpretation is another way of saying redefining. If you think we are following the constitution then you support people being arrested for life without trial.


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How does it speciifiy that it acts over states.

If you are referring the Supremacy Clause.....

It is only valid where the Federal Government has authority.

From Wiki:...and I think it says it quite well....

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
*The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers.* Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance ofthat is, consistent withthe Constitution

So, please tell me again how the federal government has a prayer of thinking it can institute health care.  Where is that authority granted it ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We were talking Court Packing....FDR's unholy legacy.

If you want to debate what Bush and Reagan did, please feel free to start a thread.  If you want to debate that the SCOTUS is now politicized....go ahead.  Won't be much of a debate as I think most everyone accepts that now and it's a d**n shame.

The original line of reasoning was:

When FDR was trying his New Deal legislation it kept getting shot down.

Why ?  The SCOTUS said it was not constitutional...not within the scope of the fed.  In other words....the constitution does not give the fed cart blanche when it comes to many things...in fact if gives them cart nothing.

You said that was fringe thinking.  It isn't...I was pointing it out.  

And I showed you where FDR was so pissed at the checks on him that he tried to destroy that checks in a way that pissed off even his biggest supporters.

That's the line.

So the idea it is fringe does not hold water.


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Where ?

Tell me specifically where it does this.

I can say that the 10th amendement specifically forbids the federal government from entering into our health care.  It's clearly in the wording.

To deny that is to deny the 10th amendment.


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > Yet the Federal government over steps it's bounds. If they truly followed the constitution there would be no executive orders. Presidents have been doing everything they can to bypass congress ever since Lincoln.
> ...



What part of this is not true ?

Please provide specifics.  These fishing trips are getting boring.

Your arguments are not at all clear.


----------



## Listening (Dec 7, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



I would say that, unfortunately, that is somewhat the case.  However, what it says in 1850 may not be what it says in 1950.  And that is the sad thing about appointing politically bend justices to the bench.  Obama's justices no more adhere to the constitution than Stalin did.  The rule, as did the famous traitor Earl Warren, on the basis of "right" and "wrong".  Their versions of whatever that is.....and they fail to see the confusion it creates.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Interpretation is exactly the opposite of redefining. 

The only way that the Constitution has any authority at all is to have authorities only interpret it.  If anyone can claim with authority that their interpretation is the only real one it would be absolutely meaningless.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Were you against Medicare and TriCare and the VA and military medical care also? 

You asked than answered your question. 

" Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance ofthat is, consistent withthe Constitution" 

Which they are unless the Federal Courts say that they're not.

ACA is health insurance regulation. And a market exchange very similar to Medicare. com.  And subsidies. 

Nothing new.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 7, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



That your opinion on Constitutional interpretation has any relevance.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Interpretation should be the opposite of redefining. Yet our laws keep changing because of interpretations. Because those interpretations redefine those laws.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Laws come first.  Those that are effectively challenged get reviewed by Federal Courts.  They rule on the challenges and declare the contested point in the existing law Constitutional or not.  If not,  it can't be enforced by the courts. 

If laws keep changing because of interpretations,  it's because they're being guided towards the Constitution,  not away from it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That is not what this discussion is about.

Defaulting to "the course say it is that way....so it is constitutional" is not of value here.

To be sure, that is the way it works....as it would be foolish to not follow the rulings of the courts.

That, by no means, is a statement that we have to agree with the ruling of the courts and there is always a chance those rulings could change (they have .....and if you don't think that is possible, then why do the pro/anti abortion people march on the SCOTUS every year on the anniversary of Roe ?....or why does Ted Kennedy lecture potential justices on keeping the so-called "gains" of the past....they know how this works).

That was the original question asked in the OP.

So, again, to default to the courts is not an argument, the courts deliver the consequences.  That they can be changed is what is more important.

That such rulings should have never come down is also a matter of discussion (very passionate ones....again...Roe....and BTW, there are many scholars who will tell you that Roe is no longer really valid...here is an article from Slate (hardly TownHall))

Roe v. Wade: Is it still the law of the land?

Which only shows that while Roe has not been overturned, it has essentiall been fenced in and states continue to shrink the perimeter.  

The left won't challenge this because they know that to do so is to put Roe on the blocks....and they know they could lose what they still have.....it's all about positioning.

Hence, this is the thesis of my OP.  Why are the states not more actively engaged in this.

And I suspect they will be when it comes to Obamacare.  The law won't survive another round in the SCOTUS and the left knows it.  Already states are taking action to hem it in.

That is the beauty of a decentralized government and the folly of the idea of things like Obamacare.

You asked the question....

Medicare: Had I been around when it was formed, I would have fought it tooth and nail.  Does that mean I don't think there is a need for some kind of medical help for seniors ?  I most certainly do just as much as I've said for 20 years that we do have a health insurance delivery issue that needs to be addressed by getting rid of the government involvement (and then seeing if things don't improve...letting each state do something).  I feel Meciare could be coupled with social security in ways I've proposed before......having to do with defined contributions and an overlying safetynet that would not make it as easy to defraud the system...I would also hang doctors who screw the system as well as imprison or fine those who defraud it...and that does mean the elderly who wantonly violate the spirit of the contract.

Tricare: No opinion.

The VA is a different story.  The military is the responsibility of the U.S. Government and they have all the authority to care for our veterans and offer them benefits like this.

The one that I might start a CDZ thread on is Social Security.  I hate the current system, but have to admit that I can see value in a nationalized system that would look significantly different than the disaster we have today.  However, I would pass a constitututional amendment giving this authority to the fed (and it would be very narrowly focussed).

The spirit of the 10th needs to be revitalized in more areas.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Laws move in both directions.  Not just one.  Nothing is ever settled.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



And that will always be the case.

The issue here is.....should that be the function of the SCOTUS or state SC's.  

We all agree things change....not always to our liking.  I think we'd like more consistency....but again....things change.

What the framers envisioned was the states running more of their own affairs.  

I am quite certain they'd vomit all over something like Obamadon'tcare.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



We can't govern by spirit.  Law is about words.  Specific,  precise,  well considered words. 

You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law,  including the Constitution,  as you want to.  As little kids say all of the time,  it's a free country. 

I think that real evidence, though, demonstrates the success,  not perfection,  of America and her laws. 

So let your mind and agenda wander where ever they might.  New ideas are good especially if they are focused on real,  current problems.  
I choose to defend America.  Not blindly, but after careful consideration of other real countries and alternatives,  not some mythical Nirvana. 

And a loyalty to pragmatism.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> We can't govern by spirit.  Law is about words.  Specific,  precise,  well considered words.
> 
> You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law,  including the Constitution,  as you want to.  As little kids say all of the time,  it's a free country.
> 
> ...



The concept of an America, as you call it, is a mythical Nirvana.  It would seem a dose of your own advice is in order.

I spelled out how people are addressing specifics and the process they are utilizing.

You respond with essentially nothing.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We can't govern by spirit.  Law is about words.  Specific,  precise,  well considered words.
> ...



Do you consider this post something?  As an example.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > We can't govern by spirit.  Law is about words.  Specific,  precise,  well considered words.
> ...



"The concept of an America, as you call it, is a mythical Nirvana."

I'm pretty sure that my concept of America is based on many decades of experience here.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders.  They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.

Internally we are from Alabama, Colorado, and Arizona.  Externally, we are from the U.S.A.

We build a government to preserve and protect that union.

Not to homogonize the 50 states.

Trite platitudes are of no value when discussing the specifics of how this sytems is supposed to function.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I'm quite sure that you are not in a position to speak for the founders.  What we know that they believed in and could agree on is the Constitution,  nothing more.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders.  They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.
> 
> Internally we are from Alabama, Colorado, and Arizona.  Externally, we are from the U.S.A.
> 
> ...



You cannot take us back to antebellum days.  States rights was settled by the Civil War.  If you don't like that outcome,  start another one.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

From Federalist 45:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

****************************

This against the backdrop of the Articles of Confederation are a good indication of where the Founders were.

The election of 1800 pretty much sealed it.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders.  They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.
> ...



More talking points.

Already showed where states are hemming in Roe.  

Now what can't I do ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > America is a collection of 50 states that function indpedentaly up until there is an issues outside of their collective borders.  They have bound together to make use of their collective might to stave off anyone who might think they can pick off a weak member.
> ...



If you were actually addressing the OP, you'd know that is just what is being discussed.  Instead you seem to insist on littering threads with meaningless non-contributions.

When you have some kind of supportable argument, I'll be waiting (or another "Fox News" deflection").


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> From Federalist 45:
> 
> The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.
> 
> ...



But they couldn't agree on that.  Thats why it is not in the Constitution.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > From Federalist 45:
> ...



Sure.

The 10th amendment isn't a part of the constitution.

This is what was used to sell it to New York.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> This article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
> 
> ...



I want to publicly thank you for inviting me to this thread. I will read every posting of input first before commenting, and then will probably multi-quote a lot of people and respond in one fell-swoop.

My purpose for being here is to learn more background behind the 10th amendment and to also find as much historical precedent as to how it has (or has not been applied).  I personally do not see this as a Right-Left issue. I see it more as a purely legal issue.

So, bear with me for a while while I research, and to use your name for a second, to listen.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Federalist 45 is not the Constitution. It is advertising for one side of one issue.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This article sums it up pretty well.
> ...



Welcome !

In some ways, it is a right/left thing in that the right (or those who call themselves conservatives) are in favor of a more decentralized government except in those specific areas where the Constitution calls for the federal government to take the lead.

In this regard, those of us on the right would say that (that strictly from a process standpoint) there is no room for something like Obamacare coming from the federal government.  By that same token, Social Security would not exist either.

If you look at my opening post, you'll see that I suggest that the right take a subtle approach to gradually working to dismantle some of the overblown federal machinery and allow each state to determine what it wants to do.

I am sure we won't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but it is always good conversation.

Thanks for joining in.


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



http://educationtofreedom.weebly.com/uploads/4/6/8/3/4683979/federalistpapersbook.pdf

Thomas Jefferson famously referred to The Federalist as &#8220;the
best commentary on the principles of government, which ever
was written.&#8221;

 Clinton Rossiter has claimed that The Federalist
stands in third place among the greatest writings in American
history, behind only the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution.

 We might agree with this assessment, but we
might also add an important qualification: Of these three
documents in the pantheon of American political writings, The
Federalist is least studied and least understood.

*****************

Too much.


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> You cannot take us back to antebellum days.  States rights was settled by the Civil War.  If you don't like that outcome,  start another one.



I don't believe that is true.  The 10th Amendment wasn't nullified by the Civil War.  Only the idea that the States could divide themselves from the nation and establish their own nation.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

The weakening, and possible eventual destruction of the Union, and replacing it with 50 disjointed autonomous regions, is to end the greatest successful experiment in democracy ever, with no conceivable benefit to anyone except state politicians freed of oversight. 

50 separate militaries, 50 separate borders, 50 separate air traffic control systems, intra state commerce and transportation and energy replacing interstate, 50 separate CDCs, 50 separate education standards, just as a few examples, is chaos.

Take any particular topic related to government that is presently federal responsibility, and imagine dismantling it and then rebuilding it 50 times, gives a hint of the shear lunacy of the implementation.

Lastly, the US Constitution would have to be discarded and re-written in the terms that conservatives wish today it had been written in.

The net result? 50 indefensible weakly connected fiefdoms, each with government spanning the responsibilities of today's Federal Government, squabbling like children over every issue.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 8, 2013)

Listening said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Here is a good essay explaining why the ACA doesnt violate the 10th Amendment: 



> But there is another argument, similarly novel and ahistorical, that has gone relatively unnoticed " that the ACA violates the Tenth Amendment and related federalism principles.  The argument is that the Tenth Amendment is a bulwark against federal overreaching in the ACA: the Tenth Amendment cabins federal power, protects state citizens, and protects states' rights.  This Tenth Amendment argument, like its Commerce Clause companion, lacks support in the text, history, and Supreme Court jurisprudence of the Constitution.  Like so much of what we hear in constitutional debates today, it is an insidious attempt to shift the frames of constitutional debate and, at the end of the day, reshape the very contours of the Constitution.
> 
> The ACA and the Tenth Amendment : SCOTUSblog


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Lacks support in text & history.  Now, that is funny.

Lacks in jurisprudence is certainly true in many ways.  Which is just another way of saying  we've had a lot of really crappy politicised members of SCOTUS.

Fail.

I noticed the article reaches out to the worn out old "expressley" argument.  Flushed away.

But this was just an example.

The 10th amendment and the ACA are not the point of the OP in a restrictive way.

My discussion of Roe is more to the point.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 8, 2013)

From Mr Jones' reference above:

The Tenth Amendment arguments against the ACA

Against the Tenth Amendment's text, history, and jurisprudence, Tenth Amendment (and related federalism) claims against the ACA, both in the litigation and in the public debates, are simply breathtaking.  In short, they are bald-faced attempts to rewrite the Tenth Amendment and give birth to an entirely new kind of federalism, one that has no support in the text, history, or practice of the Tenth Amendment.

Opponents of the ACA have propounded three principal arguments.

First, they have argued that the Tenth Amendment (and related federalism principles) cabin congressional authority and keep it appropriately bound.  The argument assumes that because federal authority is limited and defined, something in the Constitution must limit and define it.  For opponents, the Tenth Amendment is one limit.

But this argument confuses the concept of limited government (as in defined or enumerated government) with a concept of limited government (as in small government).  The Constitution creates a government of defined and enumerated powers; but nothing in the document says that those defined and enumerated powers must be small.  In fact, as we have seen, they might be quite large.  The Tenth Amendment says nothing about this.  Moreover, this argument merely harkens back to the Court's categorical approach to the Tenth Amendment in the early nineteenth century " an approach soundly rejected in 1941, and rejected again just last year in Comstock.  This argument is nothing more than an effort to rewrite the Tenth Amendment in a libertarian image " an image that has no support in the text, history, or jurisprudence of the Amendment.

Next, opponents have argued that the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from commandeering states and their citizens.  The argument draws on the anti-commandeering principle in the Court's current Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.

But this argument misses the mark.  Nothing in the ACA commandeers state governments or their employees; at most, the Act creates incentives to encourage states to take certain actions.  Moreover, nothing in the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from "commandeering" citizens.  It does it all the time, perhaps most clearly in the requirement for selective service registration.  The government may rely on a different authority (a non-Commerce Clause authority) for selective service registration, but that does not matter.  If the Tenth Amendment prohibits commandeering citizens, it would prohibit commandeering under any authority.  This argument, too, is nothing more than a bold attempt to rewrite the Tenth Amendment.

Finally, opponents have argued that the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with states' rights to protect their own citizens from the individual mandate.  This argument arises out of those state laws enacted in the wake of the ACA that prohibit any requirement that state citizens purchase health insurance.  These state laws are nothing more than transparent attempts to manufacture state standing to challenge the ACA and to make political statements against the individual mandate.

But the arguments are wrong.  As we have seen, the Tenth Amendment does not protect states' rights.  Opponents' arguments to the contrary merely take us back to National League of Cities and even earlier " to the Articles of Confederation, when "states' rights" meant something. They are, again, a bald-faced attempt to reshape the very meaning of the Tenth Amendment.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

Just got notified of yet another 10th amendment group that is coalescing Tea Party and other activists to push for state soveriegnty in the areas it was intended states be left alone.

Nothing is ever settled.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> Just got notified of yet another 10th amendment group that is coalescing Tea Party and other activists to push for state soveriegnty in the areas it was intended states be left alone.
> 
> Nothing is ever settled.



The 10th is quite settled and has been from the founders agreement to the words through history until today.  

You just have accepted the propaganda that a different interpretation would be self serving to the leaders that have recruited you. 

The Constitution doesn't care about your apocalyptic movement.  It is what it is and says what it says. That will only change at the pleasure of a super majority of we,  the people. And that's not going to happen.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Just got notified of yet another 10th amendment group that is coalescing Tea Party and other activists to push for state soveriegnty in the areas it was intended states be left alone.
> ...



No argument here to consider.  Just more preaching.

As explained, the 10th is clearly still in play and is being pushed all the time.  Issues like Roe and Obamacare will always be redefined as states work their magic.

Apocalytpic movement.   

I expect there were such statements made when they went to rewrite the Articles of Confederation....and came up with our wonderful Constitution.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



There have always been fringe political movements.  They come,  they have their 15 minutes of fame,  then most people figure out that they are not what they claim,  and they fade away.  Even Communism went through that cycle here. 

Conservatism and it's extreme,  the tea party,  are in the decline and you are merely one of the slower ones in accepting both sides of the conservative coin,  and it's role as a temporary aberration in American politics.  

You may be stuck where you are for the rest of your life.  We aren't.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I know you meant to include links to support your claims.  Somehow they didn't make it.

Link: Conservatism is on the decline

Link: Conservatism temporary aberration to American politics.

Please try again.

A debate isn't a debate without an argument, you know.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You know nothing about how the country was designed except for media propaganda. 

You are a sucker,  and that's a minority condition.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I think that those statements are self evident to those whose input is news rather than opinion.  

So,  I'm fine considering the my opinion which puts them equal to your posts.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 9, 2013)

If you think the GOP "has power at the federal level" with a hostile president, hostile majority in the senate and a crooked Attorney General you have been reading too many Huffington blogs.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

How do you run against a woman candidate?

It's a question I've been asked since 1984, when I worked for Geraldine Ferraro.

In those days, it wasn't uncommon to see men who were running against women making subtle (and not so subtle) appeals to toughness, using national security and crime issues as a way to raise questions about whether their female opponents had what it takes.

Maybe that's why my favorite ad from 2008 was Hillary Clinton's red phone ad. Twenty years ago, that was precisely the kind of ad you'd run against a woman. In the 21st century, it was a very strong and tough woman who ran the ad. Times have changed  at least on the Democratic side.

Not so, it appears, for Republicans, who are getting special "training" so as to be "sensitive" when running against women or seeking their votes.

House Speaker John Boehner, responding to reports that the Republican Party is now giving "sensitivity training" to male candidates, explained this week that Republican men in Congress "aren't as sensitive as they ought to be" when running against women.

"We're trying to get them to be a little more sensitive," Boehner told reporters. "You look around the Congress, there are a lot more females in the Democratic caucus than there are in the Republican caucus. And some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be."

This is how not to run against women, and how not to win the votes of women. Do what Boehner is doing. Insult them by suggesting that it isn't policy that matters, but sensitivity.

This is why the Republican Party runs the risk of becoming a party of angry white males at a time when there aren't enough angry white males to win a majority.

The way to run against women is the same way that you run against men: by focusing on qualifications, experience and policy.


What got Republicans into trouble in the 2012 elections was not insensitivity, but stupidity. The two most notorious examples were Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, done in by comments about "legitimate rape," and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who said that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen." Akin lost to a woman; Mourdock, to a man. In both cases, their problems went far beyond sensitivity.

The same is true in addressing women voters. The fact that women are somewhat more likely to support Democrats than Republicans has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with policy. The gender gap is grounded in issues: the economy (where women tend to earn less), education (where women tend to care more and are more likely to be the primary or sole parent) and health care (ditto). Sure, there are many women who are pro-gun and anti-choice, but there are even more who support reasonable restrictions on gun sales and who believe that they  not the government  should decide whether and when to have children.

"A little bit more sensitive"? Americans, men and women, are disgusted with Boehner's Congress for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with his failure, and that of his members, to act like grownups, to put people's needs ahead of partisan gamesmanship, to address problems rather than just rant and rave. Shutting down the government in protest over Obamacare  after we had an election in which Obamacare was front and center and the Republicans lost  isn't an issue for sensitivity training. You don't win votes by patronizing voters, and you don't run against women candidates by focusing on their gender rather than their positions.

How dumb does Boehner think women are?

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
Susan Estrich


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



My mistake.

That fact that the Federalists papers were penned, in part, by James Madison (including 45 which was part of 44, 45, and 46...all of which support my contention) has no bearing on anything (for you...if you want to think of them as propaganda....I guess you'll just have to be at odds with Thomas Jefferson who I quoted earlier on the subject).

Or was Federalist 45 written by Fox News ?  

That the 10th amendment says clearly what it means and because (in spite of the blathering of Jone's article which is bullshyt) there is plenty of historical evidence to support my claims (including FDR's court packing scheme)...and because you've provided nothing contrary except your own opinions....

I am afraid I'll just have to trust to my own judgement as to who knows more about how the country was designed.

When you want to debate, let me know.


----------



## Intense (Dec 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> How do you run against a woman candidate?
> 
> It's a question I've been asked since 1984, when I worked for Geraldine Ferraro.
> 
> ...





> How do you run against a woman candidate?


Got to give credit to Hillary... That Late Nite Phone Call to the White House Add was great. The way she handled Lazio in the Fatal Debate changed the tide, it raised the Ocean Levels.  If she only had Ethics.... 



> How do you run against a woman candidate?


Wevy carefully.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



You're welcome to your opinion,  though it is irrelevant to the rest of us. America has a process to interpret the Constitution,  and your name is no where to be found in it.


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 9, 2013)

Neither is the Supreme Court's if you want to get down to it. It wasn't until Marbury v. Madison came along that the Supreme Court decided it alone had the authority to determine what is and isn't constitutional.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Neither is the Supreme Court's if you want to get down to it. It wasn't until Marbury v. Madison came along that the Supreme Court decided it alone had the authority to determine what is and isn't constitutional.



That sounds extremely relevant to me compared to every nutballs wish for what it says.


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you want to debate, let me know.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Pick a topic.  

Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you want to debate, let me know.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Do you want to debate the process in America for interpreting the Constitution in reference to challenged legislation?


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you want to debate, let me know.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



It appears that you want to debate, just not any particular topic. I'm not sure how to have a non topical  debate. The only debates that I've ever had were about something specific. You'll have to teach me abstract debate. Debate in general without a specific question.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 11, 2013)

Listening said:


> This article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
> 
> ...



 [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] -

Ok, I read through most all of the thread. I think that a lot of you guys brought some very interesting ideas to the table and I want to compliment you as a group for it. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone quoted the 10th verbatim, so just to be sure, I am going to:



> 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.



_Notice please the use of the word "or" between "respectively" and "to the people". This is a word that the so-called "sovereign citizens" had definitely noticed._


Notice that the 10th amendment was the caboose to the Bill of Rights. That is in no way meant as an insult.  It's pretty common to put very important things either at the beginning or the end of a list, and that may be the case with this amendment. Tacking this issue to the very end of the Bill of Rights makes it the very last thing that people read within the Constitution until the 11th amendment came along. (I wonder how many of us can recite all 27 amendments by heart?)

So, a lot of arguments have been made about US-Government encroachment in areas where citizens think that the states and the states alone should have the say and the sway. Probably in a number of areas, you will not get a disagreement from me about that.

But - and here is begins - let's remember a lot of the things that motivated even writing the 10th amendment:

-slavery, already a hot issue at the writing of the US Constitution.
-backlash against the commerce clause.
-a need to tidy up loose ends.

I think that on the whole, the 10th amendment is more wise than it is unwise.

But let's take an example and see who is really a constitutional purist out there, or not:

2nd amendment: 



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




Let's assume for a moment that that amendment also at least refers to having a military in the first place.

Now, let's see exactly what is written in the US Constitution about the military:

The President's responsibility vis-a-vis the US military:

Article II, section ii:



> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the *Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States*, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.



The Congress' responsibility vis-a-vis the US military:

Article I, section viii:



> 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;
> 
> To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> ...




So, what is missing in this?

The answer should be obvious:

The Air Force.

Why?

Because at the time of the writing of the Constitution, manned-flight did not even exist.

No amendment has ever been added to the US constitution about this. Therefore, for strict constitutional purists, the USAF must be technically unconstitutional, or at best, should be therefore resolved by the 10th amendment and administered by each of the 50 states as each sees fit, right?

But that would be terrible for our military, now wouldn't it? How in the hell can you have a smoothly functioning Air Force with 50 different beaurocracies all sticking their fingers in the pie?


Now, this article makes a pretty salient argument for an air force as being constitutional, and I would tend to agree with it:

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

However that does not remove the fact that the Air Force is not mentioned in the US Constitution and NO amendment was ever brought forth make this constitutional. And the very reasoning used in that article can also be used to justify other things that 10thers might not find so savory.


So, the next question is: are people only cherry picking what they don't like to invoke the 10th amendment, or are they willing to be strict constructionalists about it?

Now, I am not trying to stoke a hornets' nest with this posting. I am attempting to reinvigorate some honest conversation about this aspect of the 10th amendment.

Listening made one point I don't necessarily agree with. He indicated that it was his feelling that very few (I assume, on the Right) are using the 10th to support nullification, but all I have seen in the last 5 years coming from the Right are more than just hints at nullification when it comes to people talking about the 10th amendment.

Look at the last two presidential elections where a third party won electoral votes:

1948 - Strom Thurmond - STATES RIGHTS PARTY 
1968 - George Wallace - AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY

Both invoked the 10th amendment. Both were strongly opposed to equal rights for black citizens. And it cannot be denied that both of those candidates came from the South.

Another part of this argument should be the ongoing strite between the 10thers and those who constantly invoke the Commerce Clause. You know, this kind of brinksmanship has been going on for a long time. It is time to stop it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last point I want to throw in is that I am GLAD that you all are discussing the 10th, because the heated passions around it are just another sign to me that is it time for a constitutional convention. It is time to re-write and update our most significant document. No document is perfect. Alone, the need to insert a bill of rights with the document we now recognize are our Constitution proves inexorably that even the founding fathers knew that the Constitution was imperfect and that it was a compromise.


Ok, those were my first two cents.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Statistikhengst,

You know your short name would be Statist .

I'll address your point about the Air Force in the context of your statement about the brinksmanship between those who are really somewhat extreme in their approach.

And thank you for your thoughtful considerations.

I would not have thought the idea of the Air Force would be much of an issue.  If you are a literalist, you know that this was the kind of thing the General Welfare Clause was intended to cover.  It allows the Federal Government to do what it needs to do to achieve the limited scope of functions it was created for.  Clearly the constitution was written to allow the Federal Government to do what it needs to do protect our borders.  There is nothing in there about nuclear might either.  I seriously doubt any of the framer (after getting over the initial shock) would say anything about this.

Connecting those dots is pretty easy for me.

It is not so easy with other things.

Your article mentions Jefferson's "Wall".  Did you know that post the formation of the U.S. the states had state supported religions.  

History News Network | The Separation of Church and State Is Rooted in American Christianity (this article has a list of when states stopped doing this about 2/3 way down).

The point being they were never challenged and it was only when the states figured out the issues they caused that they were done away with.  Clarence Thomas has even argued that they could still constitutionally exist today.

*********************

Got off track again.

Madison argued against a Bill of Rights saying if you enumerate one you open the door to the states to do just what you say some do....if it isn't explicit, it ain't.  Those who do this (and the nullification effort is part of this IMO) are on the extreme.  But Madison was wrong in thinking we did not need it.  He said it was implicit.  Look at the arguments that come out today.

I can justify the Air Force (via the General Welfare clause as I've described it).

I can't justify Obamacare.  

I would gladly welcome a state conversation on the topic.  My state is relatively small and yet we are the same size as Finland.  Finland has their own system (which we hear works fine....), why can't we ?

As to your final comment, I am not in agreement with rewriting it.  I would much rather start with what we have and tune it up.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Statistikhengst,

I also saw you article had Judicial Review in it.  We should save that for a different thread in this forum.  That should get some attention (and some people banned) .

L


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 11, 2013)

In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat".  As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.

But. . .kudos to him for a great post.  

And in rebuttal that the Air Force is not technically Constitutional, I believe a very strong case could be made that it is even for a Constitutional originalist as myself.

The Founders certainly had no intent to disallow new technologies or better ways of doing things.  Their sole focus was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and saw that as the government's role.  And they sought to limit the federal government's role beyond what was necessary to protect those rights, provide the common defense, and provide sufficient regulation and services to allow the several states to function as one strong nation.

Not only is the Air Force not mentioned specifically in the Constitution but neither are the Marines or Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers.  But the Constitution does mention naval services and both the Marines and Coast Guard originated with and evolved from the Navy and naval tradition.  The Corps of Engineers originated in the Army of none other than General George Washington so its roots are squarely in the Army tradition.

And the first airplanes and pilots utilized by the U.S. military were all Army who eventually designated this new growing capability as The Army Air Force until FDR, by executive order in 1942, dubbed it the U.S. Air Force.  But its roots are entirely constitutional.

It is far easier to make an argument for why these military installations are constitutional than it is to justify education, welfare, healthcare, etc. as constitutionally authorized federal programs.  In my opinion the Founders would have then and now declared the military operations to be constitutionally federal and all the rest should be consigned to the states via the 10th Amendment.
 [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION]:  I do not believe the Air Force can be justifed under the General Welfare clause however.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening made one point I don't necessarily agree with. He indicated that it was his feelling that very few (I assume, on the Right) are using the 10th to support nullification, but all I have seen in the last 5 years coming from the Right are more than just hints at nullification when it comes to people talking about the 10th amendment.
> 
> Look at the last two presidential elections where a third party won electoral votes:
> 
> ...



It is unfortunate that people utilized a great concept to further evil ends. 

Even today, the GOP will hide behind the 10th when it suites their purposes (mainstream GOP), when it seem they just want power.

But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The purpose behind all of this is to keep things as local as possible with the assumption that geography, ethnics, weather, economies and whole lot more are not uniform throughout this country and that tailoring laws to each state (and counties and municipalities) is the best way for people to get the most of what they want (whether it be liberty from government or the so called cradle to grave state assistance).

And you'll really never stop it.

I cited Roe v. Wade.  Abortion is still restricted and some states are moving incrementally to tighten regulations as best they can to restrict abortion (not my favorite topic BTW).

Roe v. Wade: Is it still the law of the land?

Increasingly, however, there is a fundamental assumption both sides seem to share, even if they don't say so, and it may well shape the future of abortion rights in America: Opponents and supporters of abortion appear to have taken the position that Roe v. Wade is no longer the law of the land.

After citing a list of new restrictions...the article continues...

It hardly bears observing here that most of these measures are against the law. That law is Roe v. Wade. Making abortion illegal after 18 or 20 weeks doesn't meet the viability test that was laid out in Roe, and 72-hour waiting periods and doing away with health exceptions for the mother would also violate both Roe and its progeny.

***********************

These won't get challenged because the pro-abortion crowd knows Roe could get reversed and that would really screw them.

My point being that this is going to happen anyway.

**************************

And so I go back to the premise of my OP.

Let's (as the GOP) look at some low hanging fruit and get that going.  Stuff that is unemotional.  Stuff that the states should be taking on anyway and get some momentum.  With that, things like Health Care are more easily challenged at the federal level (and if all states addressed the issue in one way or another, we might not have the problems we have in delivering insurance).

But to do so is to acknowledge that the federal government isn't the only one that exists.  And it is also to acknowledge that people have to take a more active interest in local situations.  In this regard our mobile society has not helped us much.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat".  As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.
> 
> But. . .kudos to him for a great post.
> 
> ...



Thank you for posting.  We'll ignore you-know-who if he shows his face.

You've mentioned several places where the fed is involved (education) where I think we see little value for what we pay for.

I can recall in the 70's being in grade school and the teacher even then telling us that the Scottsdale, AZ school district was forced to use text books it's parents did not want because if they didn't....they would lose significant funding.

Are there areas that you see as being a stretch (not mentioned in the constitution) where we might want federal involvement.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 11, 2013)

I am too tired right now from a really brutal work week, but I will get back on these and other points tomorrow.

I brought up the AF to play Devil's Advocate: I too think that actually, the AF is quite constitutional. Still, no matter how you look at it, the AF is not mentioned in the Constitution and there has been ample time for an amendment to include it.

And the AF is decidedly NOT an outgrowth of the Navy. The first flights were land flights and the first air battles were waged from land stations. Aircraft carriers came later.

My point was, and I am sure you both go it - that the reasoning used to allow the AF as being constitutional is the same reasoning that the Right does NOT like to hear when other issues are being debated as constitutional or not, and then the 10th amendment plug gets pulled in the bathtub... and....

More tomorrow. Sleep well!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 11, 2013)

Listening said:


> Statistikhengst,
> 
> You know your short name would be Statist .




Only the funny part about that is that I am definitely not one


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 11, 2013)

Listening said:


> Statistikhengst,
> 
> I also saw you article had Judicial Review in it.  We should save that for a different thread in this forum.  That should get some attention (and some people banned) .
> 
> L




Got it. Understood. will do.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 11, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat".  As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.
> ...



I would have to give that some thought.  If there are such areas, they are very few and far between.  Providing the common defense can include such a broad definition and I don't see it as necessarily defending us against an invading army but also against terrorist attacks or biological or other hazards that we have no reasonable way to recognize and defend ourselves.  Does illegal immigration fall into that category?  Possibly.  I haven't thought that through all the way either.  Even NASA can be justified as critical to the national defense even as it benefits us in many other ways.

But something that is not included in and was never intended to be a federal function by the Founders?  Those are not negotiable with me.  I don't want the federal government involved in charity of any kind to anybody unless it is to distribute what the states and individual people voluntarily contribute.  I don't want the federal government involved in education in any capacity other than as a central information gathering and dispensing agency in the interest of promoting the general welfare.  I don't want the federal government involved in healthcare other than enforcing RICO and antitrust laws that would keep unscrupulous entities from harmful business practices that impact society as a whole.

The scope of what the federal government should be allowed to do should be specific and very narrow.  The scope of the 10th Amendment should be very very broad and all encompassing.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> I am too tired right now from a really brutal work week, but I will get back on these and other points tomorrow.
> 
> I brought up the AF to play Devil's Advocate: I too think that actually, the AF is quite constitutional. Still, no matter how you look at it, the AF is not mentioned in the Constitution and there has been ample time for an amendment to include it.
> 
> ...



I don't agree with this entirely....

I'll give you one example I've (admittedly) not studied very well.  So I'll let you tell me if I am off base.

The FDR bastard (how's that for poisoning the well ?) SCOTUS somehow managed to come up with the idea of incorporation of the bill of rights.  This is a heinous doctrine in my estimation.

However, it serves the purposes of one group that hides under it's skirt and has for a long time.

I am talking the 2nd amendment.  You can't be for states soveriegnty, claim that the constitution only limits the federal government and then ask the fed to do your bidding when it comes to gun laws.  

It is total hypocricy from my POV.  Am I wrong ?


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Here is one to chew on...it is just a concept.

I would like to legitimize Social Security in a different form.  I would not want to privatize it, but I would want it watched over by a non-government entity and I would want the trust fund subjected to banking laws.  I would also limit what the federal government could borrow based on their balance sheet.

It would be a defined contribution, not a defined benefit.  If you run out, you go on welfare (and your family can help with that bill).

That way you have an account.  You know how much you put in and how much you've taken out.  You could meet a minimum or keep going (and open up to different investment options).  But you will have a minimum.

We'd get rid of unemployment insurance and that money would go into your trust fund account.

Lose your job....S.S will pay you benefits.

You are 80 years old and have stage 4 lung cancer.  You want Medicare to pay 300,000 to treat you.  No way....got 300,000 in your account...think about it.

If you die, you bequeath that money to heirs into their accounts which shores them up.

When you hit a minimum amount you can quit.

Deadbeat dad...don't want to pay child support...that's O.K. we know where to get the funds (and don't look to much for retirement...we'll put you on welfare and you'll be safe, warm and fed in a ward with 20 others like you).

*********************

This might need a different thread.

I'd like to see this codified (portable pensions) via the amendment process.

Right now, it is an mess.  It has been a political football that is out of control and has no champion who will make the tough choices.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 11, 2013)

Why not cut out the middleman and just allow people to deposit X dollars tax free into a  permanent savings account of their choice and impose a large tax penalty if the person withdraws the money prior to a specified date?  Much as current IRAs and 401-Ks are structured?  And the states could also tailor a S.S. program that best suits their particular citizens within that state if the people were open to that concept?  There is no need to empower the federal government more than it already is or any need to create an enormous and expensive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that will gobble up a substantial percentage of what it collects.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Why not cut out the middleman and just allow people to deposit X dollars tax free into a  permanent savings account of their choice and impose a large tax penalty if the person withdraws the money prior to a specified date?  Much as current IRAs and 401-Ks are structured?  And the states could also tailor a S.S. program that best suits their particular citizens within that state if the people were open to that concept?  There is no need to empower the federal government more than it already is or any need to create an enormous and expensive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that will gobble up a substantial percentage of what it collects.



Point by point:

To really discuss this, I should start a new thread.

I think S.S. is really unconstitutional.  There is no place for the federal government in this program.  The program was supposed to be an insurance program...it has turned into a retirment program and many are scamming it.

I have lost faith in the willingness of people to save.  I believe it has to be mandated.

The details of where and how...need to be worked out.

But, I believe we need something and I only believe it should be via the amendment process.

If I adhere to the 10th (like I claim to), this is not a legal program (on paper...I realize we've been doing it for almost a century now).


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 11, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Why not cut out the middleman and just allow people to deposit X dollars tax free into a  permanent savings account of their choice and impose a large tax penalty if the person withdraws the money prior to a specified date?  Much as current IRAs and 401-Ks are structured?  And the states could also tailor a S.S. program that best suits their particular citizens within that state if the people were open to that concept?  There is no need to empower the federal government more than it already is or any need to create an enormous and expensive, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that will gobble up a substantial percentage of what it collects.
> ...



I am opposed to mandates that violate our freedom to do with our resources whatever we wish to do with them short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights.  We cannot be a free people without freedom to make bad decisions as well as good ones.  We cannot be a free people unless we are allowed the consequences of bad choices we make.

Had the federal government stayed out of it, people would not depend on social security to support them in their old age but would prepare for that as most responsible people once did.  We generally make better choices when there is nobody to bail us out if we we make bad ones.  A government that rewards failure and punishes success encourages failure.

Social security was not intended as an insurance program.  It was intended to supplement the pensions of the aged who might otherwise be impoverished.  Evenso, it violated every concept the Founders wrote into the Constitution.  At the state level, such a concept is permissable.  Not at the federal level.  And that is what makes it a 10th Amendment issue.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 11, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




Placing SS  under banking laws would be terrible! Ever since the repeal of Steagall Glass banks have been throwing money around like sugar in coffee. They would only have to hold ten percent on hand and then invest the rest and lose the losses on the open market. Never give bankers that free money!


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Shawn,

I've derailed my own thread...so I'll respond and let's get back to the 10th.

I would never give the 1st tier to the banks (which would almost all of it).  I said it should follow banking laws which means there has to be some idea of how anyone seeking to borrow it is going to pay it back.  Also, you can't take it all.  There has to be some reserve.

The idea was to make government more responsible with it.

Now, back to the 10th.


----------



## Listening (Dec 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > That's an interesting point. People bitch about politics, but they mostly mean what's happening in DC. There are any number of other political arenas close by. City council meetings, planning commission meetings, school board meetings, county commission meetings, utility commission meetings, state legislature events and so on and so forth. Why are we so apathetic about those political levels but so passionately divided about what goes on in DC?
> ...


And herein lies the true problem.  An apathetic voting populous.  There is the real resistance to returning the tenth amendment to actually meaning something.  The average person is more than willing to listen to the corrupt parties that they have created to feed them their information and those parties are not interested in diluting the power they have pooled.  As you pointed out, no one really studies the founding documents to the point that most people have not even bothered to read the constitution.  How can those voters possibly use their vote to uphold the constitution when they dont understand anything it states?


Listening said:


> Now, the question is how to we get the GOP to start subtley putting this into play ?
> 
> We need to move in this direction.  But a grandios red-meat strewn approach does not work.  We need to quietly keep grabbing local governments and learning how to ignore the feds.  And when we can get the GOP in at the federal level, they need to start repealing laws (or get their balls cut off).
> 
> How do we start this ?  Should we ?


And here we have another problem (a symptom actually of apathetic voters).  The GOP is not interested in returning power to state governments.  Sure, they do a good talk and some even try when they are in STATE positions but to be quite frank, the GOP is just as supportive for centralized and all powerful government as the Dems are.  If you truly want to make a difference then that is the first step that we all need to take  kick the GOP to the curb.  They may change (and then we can go back) or someone else may take their place (not for the first time) but something needs to drastically change and that ONLY comes with a grate loss of power.  Then those that want that power take a hard look at what they need to do in order to get it back.  Unfortunately, I dont think the voting populous is willing to invest the time and effort and they wont until things get bad.  And I mean really bad.  When people actually start to starve then we will see change but at that point we will be too far gone for simple votes and an overthrow might be the only answer.  That is a LONG way off btw.  I dont see such occurring in my lifetime tbh.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...


That is what you get when you interpret the words of the constitution to mean anything that you want them to mean.  The things that the general welfare clause has been used to justify give the government such broad powers that there really is no reason whatsoever for the constitution outside of the 10 amendments (and those are hanging on by a string).  Arguments based entirely on ambiguity cannot be clear and they never will.



PMZ said:


> We can't govern by spirit. * Law is about words.  Specific,  precise,  well considered words. *
> 
> You can choose as much or as little respect for the words of American law,  including the Constitution,  as you want to.  As little kids say all of the time,  it's a free country.
> 
> ...


I find the bold statement laughable considering that almost all your arguments are based on the EXACT opposite.  The words in the tenth are very precise and have simple meaning yet the amendment is entirely ignored.  General welfare is given such a broad definition that it can mean virtually anything.  Interstate commerce is construed to mean that the government can control the amount of wheat that you grow on your property.


NONE of that is precise or well considered.  It is the exact opposite.  Extremely vague and used to fit whatever particular meaning that the government wants it to mean at the moment.  The left purposefully avoids using precise meanings to anything and constantly accuses the right of being to precise with the constitution.  It even goes so far as to call the constitution a living document with the express intent of changing the way that you use those words.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> More talking points.
> 
> Already showed where states are hemming in Roe.
> 
> Now what can't I do ?



No you really havent, at least in context with the tenth amendment.  The states are pushing the boundaries and finding their limits BUT the ultimate authority STILL lies with the federal government and they are not changing that reality.  It is the opposite.  They are trying to find the current boundary set by the authority that they have ceded to.

Realize as well that Roe is NOT a federal government authority issue as it is not a federal law.  That is a court power issue and that is crystal clear  the courts have the authority to determine what is and is not constitutional.  I dont see a way around that nor do I think that there should be one.  IF you think that the 10th also applies to the SCOTUS (in that the states have the power to determine a SCOTUS ruling does not apply) then there might be something there but you have not made that contention as far as I know.  I also dont think such a concept is workable because there would be no authority whatsoever in the constitution and the idea of a federal government would be moot then.  Personally, I dont think this helps the states in relation to the tenth amendment at all and is rather a piss poor area to challenge it on anyway.  If there ever was a way to ensure that the tenth amendment stays extinct it would be to start its revival surrounding abortion.  You might as well try reviving it with slavery. (not too equate those issues  just a statement as to how fool heartedly I think the idea is)



As a side note on the AF portion of the discussion.  I think that you have it all wrong.  The constitution does specify an army and if you look at AF history it was originally part of the army.  It started as the army air core.  Just because the federal government has decided that it needs a separate chain does not mean that it is unconstitutional because we dont call it army.  The entirety of the armed forces fall under the DoD and what they are called is irrelevant.  We could call them ALL Army or Navy if we so choose but that would be rather silly.  The AF is still funded with the army as the constitution calls for and treated essentially as if it were.  I dont think there really is any argument whatsoever that it is unconstitutional because that is nothing more than parsing words without meaning.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> I don't agree with this entirely....
> 
> I'll give you one example I've (admittedly) not studied very well.  So I'll let you tell me if I am off base.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think that you are wrong.  Perhaps this should have been accomplished by an amendment declaring that all rights are protected from the state as well as the federal government but to be honest, I think that viewing this any other way smacks the very concept that this nation was founded upon: freedom and natural rights.  You cannot claim in one breath that rights are bestowed upon man by God, creator or nature as the founders did and then in the very same breath decide that those same rights are somehow no longer intrinsic to our being because the government that is taking them is smaller.  It is not just gun rights that this matters.  Your right to religion should not be determined by the state that you live in.  Your right to free speech.  Personal property rights.  Youre right to redress government or have a trial.  The press.  ALL rights that are inherent and require protection from an overbearing federal government require the EXACT same protection from an overbearing state government.  This is painfully obvious to me.  I believe in freedom first and foremost and freedom is utterly meaningless if the state can arbitrarily decide at any moment to take those freedoms away.  Why bother with rights at all then if the state has carte blanche authority to violate them. 

This in one of the MAJOR areas where the founders royally fucked up  they did not apply the protections in the BoR to the states.  Sure, we seen an almost immediate movement away from those violations like state religions after the ratification but there never should have been any question: natural rights protected from the state should be protected from ALL levels of the state  not just the central federal one and it DID take the court opinion a hundred years later to squash the lot of em.  Hell, they still are not totally squashed as the second really has not been incorporated.  The very concept is completely hypocritical if that is not true.  I abhor tyranny of my locality just as much as tyranny of the federal government.  What the hell is the difference?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment.  Block granting.  The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then gift it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal charity.  Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it.  The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they dont get the goods.
> 
> Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.



I am going to address two you posts in a short time just to keep the conversation going.  I am somewhat pressed.  And pardon the ADD nature of the writing.

To the point of block grants.  Agreed.  It sucks.  I've somewhat convinced myself that it needs to happen at a very small level, but I don't think you can get it there.  The fed uses that money to push the states around....see my example from the 70's where the fed was using money to push books parents didn't want into the school district where I lived.

Second.  Voter apathy.  Yes.  But this is the issue with the way things are conducted now.  Everything is with eyes on the federal government.  I am associated with about six different "republican" groups here in town.  Most of them are red-meat eaters.  But they still only focus on the federal stuff.  I was a at a meeting when the leader of the house (for our state) stood up and said (as best I can) "If you won't run for school boards...don't come to us to solve your problems."

In an earlier post, I asked if anyone had been to a city council meeting in the last five years.  I'll repeat that question.  I'll find the post and bring it forward.  To me this is where the true republicans should start.

When bring this up in meetings, people look at me blankly.  They've completely forgotten about that fact that we have very local governments.  What's worse is that as we've lost our hometown newspapers, these governments now operated with little or now watching.  Why does not the GOP set up to do this ?  This is what we say we are.

Finally, I am going to eventually start another thread on Social Security.  For now, I think we all agree it is not a good program and that it violates the spirit of the Constitution (and the left will say...Oh yeah, well if the SCOTUS says so......to which I say...if the SCOTUS says so one day does not mean they will say so years later....nothing is settled).

Thanks for the great posts.  I enjoy these kinds of discussions.

L


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > I don't agree with this entirely....
> ...



O.K.  But this is not an argument against anything that already exists.  It is an assertion that things should have been different.  

While I agree with your final statement, there is a point where the tyranny of the minority can come into play.  

If the majority of people in a state (supermajority) want to stupidly give up gun rights...that is their choice.  I am willing to allow that.

But, again this isn't an argument....just my opinion and what I would chose if it were up to me.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

out of time - will respond in a bit


----------



## PMZ (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



What problem would any of this solve?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment.  Block granting.  The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then gift it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal charity.  Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it.  The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they dont get the goods.
> ...


I would ask why you think that it needs to happen at any level?  The individual state can tax and provide for the needs of its people.  I cant think of a single reason whatsoever to block grant anything at any time.  The very idea is completely grounded in the concept of controlling the states.  Unnecessary and very destructive.  What the federal government takes for its duties should be ran by the federal government.  If they are not running it then they should not be financing it.  


Listening said:


> Second.  Voter apathy.  Yes.  But this is the issue with the way things are conducted now.  Everything is with eyes on the federal government.  I am associated with about six different "republican" groups here in town.  Most of them are red-meat eaters.  But they still only focus on the federal stuff.  I was a at a meeting when the leader of the house (for our state) stood up and said (as best I can) "If you won't run for school boards...don't come to us to solve your problems."
> 
> In an earlier post, I asked if anyone had been to a city council meeting in the last five years.  I'll repeat that question.  I'll find the post and bring it forward.  To me this is where the true republicans should start.


I agree that starting at the local level is a good place to begin but that is rather irrelevant to the point I was making.  I was not talking about where we would need to start in order to regain states rights but rather that the real block is in the complete and utter disregard for government in voters.  That apathy gets WORSE as you get closer to home (as you have pointed out) because there is little visibility (as you have also pointed out) and until that changes then starting is not the problem.  There really is nowhere to start if there isnt anyone paying attention.

The representative you pointed out is a smart man  if we are not taking over the local positions then it is awfully hard to blame the ones at the top but all of that comes right back to the failed responsibilities of the American voters.  How we move forward I simply do not know.  Like I stated, I think it is going to take real calamity  something that the American people do not understand at all.  


Listening said:


> When bring this up in meetings, people look at me blankly.  They've completely forgotten about that fact that we have very local governments.  What's worse is that as we've lost our hometown newspapers, these governments now operated with little or now watching.  *Why does not the GOP set up to do this ?  This is what we say we are.*


I already stated why  it is NOT what they are.  I dont care what they state  the actual actions of the GOP as a party reveal that the above sentiment is counter to what they stand for.  Read that again:

STATES RIGHTS ARE COUNTER TO WHAT THE GOP STANDS FOR!

This is a tough position to deal with because it reveals the scary truth: there actually is no one that represents what we are talking about.  That leaves 2 solutions  tear down the GOP and repair it at its core or replace it.  I see neither being actively pursued at this moment.  What really scares me is the idea that the social conservatives actually have more power than the fiscal ones.  If that is the case (and it is a real possibility) then we simply are not going to see change until the nation burns down around us.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2013)

Sorry but the proceeding does not make any sense to me.  Am I missing something here or getting your message garbled?


Listening said:


> O.K.  But this is not an argument against anything that already exists.  It is an assertion that things should have been different.


No, not really.  It is an argument for what actually exists.  We actually have incorporated rights.  I did argue that the framers should have included this in the original constitution in plain words but my arguments are actually for what we have right now.  


Listening said:


> While I agree with your final statement, there is a point where the tyranny of the minority can come into play.


?
This is only in relation to rights that are explicitly in play in the constitution.  That in no way reflects a tyranny of the minority.  


Listening said:


> If the majority of people in a state (supermajority) want to stupidly give up gun rights...that is their choice.  I am willing to allow that.
> 
> But, again this isn't an argument....just my opinion and what I would chose if it were up to me.


And that is where I differ.  What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one.  That makes exactly zero sense.  I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights?  For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have.  That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state.  Why bother with outlining protections at all then?  They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.

I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights.  Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.  None.  Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> And that is where I differ.  What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one.  That makes exactly zero sense.  I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights?  For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have.  That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state.  Why bother with outlining protections at all then?  They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.
> 
> I believe in freedom and rights and the SOLE purpose of government at any level is to protect those rights.  Beyond that, government has NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.  None.  Under that, I cannot condone any governmental entity infringing on those rights without due cause.



You've appealed to a very basic level of discussion.

I am not sure I am prepared to get into this.  And I am not sure I need to.

We agree on a great many things, but they are not absolute in their existence.

You may not condone it, but it happens.

And it is only through diligence on the part of it's citizens that it can be prevented from happening in a particular country.

Jefferson said: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

The only way to prevent that from happening is for citizens to fight it constantly.

And so, I think I would rather fight those battles at a more local level where my energy and vote are more meaningful.  The close you get to home the less diverse your constitutents (probably) and hence there is a reduced number of compromises (which make nobody happy).

That is the position I was  trying to articulate.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 12, 2013)

Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > And that is where I differ.  What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one.  That makes exactly zero sense.  I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights?  For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have.  That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state.  Why bother with outlining protections at all then?  They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.
> ...



I agree 100% with FA at the federal level for the very reason you defend.  Going back to your social security suggestion, it is specifically the fact that giving the federal government power to administer a social security program will almost certainly introduce a level of tyranny that I oppose the federal government having any such powers.  Indeed the results of allowing that crack in the fabric of charity at the federal level has produced a great deal of tyranny to the point that our basic freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities are slowly being absorbed into a government that the Founders so very much wanted to prevent happening.

I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.


----------



## Listening (Dec 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Let's put Social Security aside.  I will probably start a thread on it.  But, I would say that (and I hope that this at least procedurally brings us into alignment) I would want to see a constitutional amendment.

The founders constantly warned about government and all the insidious ways it can screw us.  I agree.  Most things start out as "good ideas" (Who can argue that an excellent health care/health insurance market isn't desirable), but the government sucks at doing anything for several fundamental reasons (and they certainly showed through on Obummercare).

As to local governments.

There comes a time when it becomes necessary to discuss what government should do and what it should not do.

The constitution was designed to be specific and very limiting.

As you moved down to the states, you might have the same thing (I guess in theory, you would have something in your state constitution that would say if it isn't specific...it belongs to the county....don't know).  The state would have certain functions.  Do you want them handling education ?  Each state gets to decide how that gets laid out.  And as you move down the chain, it is easier to customize or tailor what goes on.  We have two cities side by side where I live.  They have very different approaches to things.  One is more liberal in it's approach than the other.  As you might expect, the liberal city has a higher sales tax.  It also is tougher to get permits to do things to your house because of regulation.  There are other "features" of the city that are the hallmark of a liberal hand.  I don't mind that so much because it is very local (I live in the liberal city).

What pisses me off is that you can't get conservatives to ever discuss a city budget.  I go to meetings and they are always wailing about abortion (grinds my teeth...it's all you hear) or about the state education board....but talk about the city budget ?  Not in a million years.  I've been to city budget meetings where NOBODY was there but me.  

Sorry.

The city is where I'd rather fight might battles on many issues.  I know half my council and I think the mayor knows me by name (and it is not a "small" city).  It isn't very easy (for reasons just listed) to fight the battles...but it SHOULD be.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 13, 2013)

Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > And that is where I differ.  What surprises me is that you are actually willing to accept tyranny as long as it is at the state level rather than the federal one.  That makes exactly zero sense.  I asked before and I will ask again: what is the difference between the state taking your rights and the federal government taking your rights?  For all intents and purposes you just threw natural rights given by god out the window and determined that the state (just not the feds) should have the ability to infringe on whatever rights you have.  That is, by the way, the doctrine that rights are actually bestowed upon you by the state.  Why bother with outlining protections at all then?  They are meaningless if any governmental entity can waltz in and remove them.
> ...



Sure and I can agree with all of that.  None of what you stated has anything to do with the quoted statements though.  I was speaking directly about rights that we have determined important enough to warrant protection from government.  You still have not articulated why those rights should be protected from one government but not from another.

I would also note that size is rather irrelevant also.  The federal government as established by the founders represented fewer people than currently live in California.  IOW, the direct power of the vote in that state is weaker than the power of the vote in federal elections (disregarding the low number of people that were actually allowed to vote in those times).  I know the relation is not completely accurate but I hope that you get what I am trying to get across.

In the end of the day, I want to fight those battles more locally as well.  That does not change the fact that rights should still be protected and that protection should be from government infringement  not just some government infringement.


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 13, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment.  Block granting.  The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then &#8216;gift&#8217; it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal &#8216;charity.&#8217;  Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it.  The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don&#8217;t get the goods.
> 
> Until that practice is halted in its entirety, states will never have any power whatsoever.



*Bingo ... Starting with Helvering vs Davis and then solidified with South Dakota vs Dole  The Federal Government has essentially seized control over States' Rights.*

The first judicial ruling removed the court's ability to review Congressional spending policies.
The second ruling set precedence towards the ability of the Federal Government to coerce States into adopting Federal Standards through withholding or limiting Federal Funding.
Both cases have set precedence towards the judiciary's ability or lack thereof to limit Federal powers ... And most assuredly through the Federal Government's ability to tax and spend.

*The States have no choice but to follow Federal legislation as long as it can be tied to spending.*

For instance ... The legal drinking age was federally mandated, but only through the ability of Congress to withhold Federal Funding for highways and improvements if the States chose not to comply.
The same thing could happen with firearms .. In that the Federal Government could withhold funding in regards to law enforcement or corrections ... If the States choose not to comply.

*The only way the States will ever regain any of their once appropriate power ... Is when Governors accept the responsibility of ensuring the rights of their citizens.*

They will have to just say no the Federal Government ... Such as in the case where several states have refused additional federal funding and not adopted some provisions of the ACA.
Still that is not going to restore any power until the states have the backbone to fight back ... And start limiting the resources the Federal Government is allowed to loot from them.
Consequences suffered during the Civil War for the Rebellion against Federal Powers ... Is not something State Governments or their citizens are prepared to engage in any time soon.
It is a moot argument until the States are willing to do what is necessary  to tell the Federal Government to butt out of their business ... At which point it is not going to go well for them anyway.

*Essentially we are attempting to argue a point that is dead and buried ... Literally.* 

.


----------



## Listening (Dec 13, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



There is the question of scope and there is the question of process.

I only want to cede the minimum amount of liberties necessary to preserve the rest.  A list is not possible.

I think you may be hung up on my comments about gun laws and my willingness to let people screw themselves at the state level.

What I was trying to say was that I would rather see people give up those rights at the state level (voluntarily) than see them taken away at the federal level.  I am, in now way, interested in gun laws at any level and would want that protection written into the state constitution where I live.  But, if people are stupid enough to given them up...I'd rather see it done on a piecmeal basis.  If a state, say New Jersery, did that...it would be much easier for better minds to reverse that 10 years down the road than it would be to try and fight out a constitutional amendment at the federal level.

But, make no mistake about it, I want state government constrained as much as possible.




FA_Q2 said:


> I would also note that size is rather irrelevant also.  The federal government as established by the founders represented fewer people than currently live in California.  IOW, the direct power of the vote in that state is weaker than the power of the vote in federal elections (disregarding the low number of people that were actually allowed to vote in those times).  I know the relation is not completely accurate but I hope that you get what I am trying to get across.



Here we don't agree.

If you are one of a 100 votes, you have 1% of the power.  If you are one of a 1,000,000 votes, you have 0.0001% of the power.  That is why it is better to keep it smaller.  And your point about the dilution of Californias voting base really is an interesting topic of convresation.  I've seen proposals that increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to get back to the original proportional representation.  It would take a small basketball arena to house them all.  While I may not want that many...I'd like to see more.  In fact, in most states, the representation of your state member of the house may be to a larger group than the original founders !  Now, that is not good.

There does come a point where government will provide services.  How those services are provided (and what services are provided) and how they are paid for are much better managed at the local level (or would be).




FA_Q2 said:


> In the end of the day, I want to fight those battles more locally as well.  That does not change the fact that rights should still be protected and that protection should be from government infringement  not just some government infringement.



I think we agree.  We want the most limited government possible at all levels.

My contention is simply that if we need to ask government to do something (i.e. build roads), I want to do it at the lowest level that makes sense. 

I should also add that this also guards against a rough judiciary.  The smaller the scope you can create for them to operate over, the better your chances of not having them impress their will on larges sections of the populace and the easier it is to reverse their mistakes.


----------



## Listening (Dec 13, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment.  Block granting.  The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then &#8216;gift&#8217; it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal &#8216;charity.&#8217;  Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it.  The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don&#8217;t get the goods.
> ...



Hey,

And thanks for joining.

I am not going to cede that last point.

I like the line from Start Wars where Princess Lea (sp?) says to one of the imperial heads (Peter Cushing) "The tighter you squeeze, the more that will slip through your fingers", meaning that as much as you'd like to control everything....you simply can't.

The vietnamese used to have a saying that "The emporers write stops at the entrance to the village".  You can look at that a number of ways....take it for what it is worth.

Earlier, I quoted where Slate said that Roe is essentially dead.  States have been quietly (and not so quietly) hemming in the decision over time.  They will never stop pressing.

Conservatives can do the same thing with other laws.  But, the contention of my OP was that you need to start quietly and work on the low hanging fruit.  Conservatives also need to be organized better to do this.

But I contend we can get back to a lot of things...including slowing down this bullshyt commerce clause approach (again thanks to the traitor FDR for putting in his judges that had their heads up their asses).

It won't happen over night.

But it ain't dead !

This thread was supposed to be as much about activism as anything else.

Rep on the way for hopping in...when I can give you some more.

Again...thanks.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 13, 2013)

Boehner finally grew a pair and started divorce proceedings with conservatives because they were killing his organization's ability to get elected. 

As I've said for a long time,  the GOP's only chance at redemption.  

I wish he and them luck.  I wish you and yours goodbye.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 13, 2013)

Listening said:


> There is the question of scope and there is the question of process.
> 
> I only want to cede the minimum amount of liberties necessary to preserve the rest.  A list is not possible.


Agreed.  A list is obviously not feasible and hence why the tenth exists in the first place.


Listening said:


> I think you may be hung up on my comments about gun laws and my willingness to let people screw themselves at the state level.


The gun law as an example is meaningless.  Pick any right in the constitution be it new or original.  I believe that all of them should be equally protected from all levels of government.  Heck, guns is small in comparison to many other rights that the state government could infringe on.  Would you accept 51% of the people in your state voting that you no longer have the right to trial by jury?


Listening said:


> What I was trying to say was that I would rather see people give up those rights at the state level (voluntarily) than see them taken away at the federal level.  I am, in now way, interested in gun laws at any level and would want that protection written into the state constitution where I live.  But, if people are stupid enough to given them up...I'd rather see it done on a piecmeal basis.  If a state, say New Jersery, did that...it would be much easier for better minds to reverse that 10 years down the road than it would be to try and fight out a constitutional amendment at the federal level.
> 
> But, make no mistake about it, I want state government constrained as much as possible.


And I can agree with that as well.  I guess where I am hung up is the fact that you stated it would be acceptable for the majority to vote to remove a right that is guaranteed protection in the constitution at the state level.  All that you have stated has not answered the first question I asked: 
What is the difference if the federal government removes a right from you or if the state government does so?  I dont see why a majority can remove infringe on my right to free speech in a state but cannot in the federal government.  In both cases a basic guaranteed right is infringed without my consent.  It is wrong no matter what and a majority should not be able to do so in any case as it relates to protected rights.  If we had what you are suggesting then I would just can the entire BoR  it is meaningless if my rights can be infringed upon whenever 51% of my state decides that they dont like the right.


Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I would also note that size is rather irrelevant also.  The federal government as established by the founders represented fewer people than currently live in California.  IOW, the direct power of the vote in that state is weaker than the power of the vote in federal elections (disregarding the low number of people that were actually allowed to vote in those times).  I know the relation is not completely accurate but I hope that you get what I am trying to get across.
> ...


I think that you misunderstand what I was stating.  I agree with the above.  What I meant was that size is irrelevant because it is not STATIC.  IOW, you might be 1 in 1000 votes in your municipality now but you might be 1 in 100,000 votes in ten years.  IOW, declaring that states should have the power to infringe on your rights because you have more voting power there is not a static fact.  A voter in the beginning of this nation had MORE power over the FEDERAL government than one does now over their state government in CA  the population there is larger than the founding population of the entire nation.  Smaller IS better but that does not mean that we should allow state governments the right to infringe on our rights just because they happen to be closer to us than the federal government.  That distance changes and is likely to get larger as time passes.

Voting power is also rather irrelevant to my contention because your protected rights are not subject popular vote no matter how small the particular community is.  *It is akin to stating that it is acceptable for the local municipality to decide that your right to trial by jury is now nullified and they can imprison you without a trial.  Do you think that would be right?  I mean, you might be in a municipality of 100 people and have a powerful vote.  Just because it is local does not mean they should be able to infringe on your rights like that and the same goes for all of government, states included. *


Listening said:


> There does come a point where government will provide services.  How those services are provided (and what services are provided) and how they are paid for are much better managed at the local level (or would be).


Agreed and still has nothing to do with the statements I have been making.

Lets cut a lot of this out  I agree with your contention that local government is the better place to take care of most government functions.  I agree that they should have a grater role in the community than the federal government.  The ONE contention that we have (and the one that I dont think you have been responding to) is that I dont agree that the states should have the ability  through popular vote  to infringe on your rights.

Remember  this entire portion of the conversation is about INCORPORATION  the SCOTUS decision that the constitutionally protected rights apply to the states as well as the federal government.  The fact that states should have more powers and be more involved with running things than the federal government is irrelevant to that contention but it seems to be the place you keep going back to.  Even though we agreed many times.


Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > In the end of the day, I want to fight those battles more locally as well.  That does not change the fact that rights should still be protected and that protection should be from government infringement  not just some government infringement.
> ...


Again, all agreed.  Read the above.  Not one single thing you typed in your response covered my single contention  that the states do not have the right to infringe on constitutionally protected rights.

Other than that, there is not much that we disagree on.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.



Ill give you that fox.  There are things like roads, cops and schools that are functions of society that I have no problem with government involvement.  Perhaps I was being a little too harsh.  

I see most of those as extensions of our rights though so it all ties into the same thing.  I usually disagree with government doing things because it deems it the greater good but dont have a problem with government filling a communal need.  Those are very close to the same thing but I believe that there is some VERY important distinctions between the two.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

Laws establish consequences for actions designed to impose what's best for the criminal on victims.  The fact that we enjoy more freedom than any prior humans is due to our laws.  Everyday potential criminals think of new ways to impose their will on victims.  So,  everyday,  more laws are required to discourage that. 

Our freedom comes from strong government,  not weak.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 14, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with FA that government at ALL levels is purely to protect our rights because I see of necessity that state, county, and local governments will have necessary administrative functions, but at that level the people that are directly affected have the control.
> ...



The difference is the concept of social contract that the Founders supported without reservation.  For citizens to band together to form a volunteer Fire Dept that serves all as well as lowers everybody's insurance premiums is a valid idea of social contract in which the people exercise their liberty to form the society they wish to have.   Ditto when they vote to have police protection that serves all and eventually incorporate as a community to achieve administrative oversight over all the shared functions.  Infrastructure in the way of streets, roads, sewer systems, etc. naturally follows, but in every step of the way, the community votes the bonds to fund whaever they wish to have from museums to libraries to a water treatment plant.  Local elected officials to provide oversight of shared community services are naturally going to be responsive to the demands of the majority.

At the Federal Government level, the idea of elected representatives is also a concept of social contract, but it becomes corrupted when the representatives give in to temptation to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, personal wealth, and longevity.  And because the federal structure is not dependent on the permission of the people, giving the federal government more than its basic constitutional authority is a guarantee that those in government will succumb to destructive temptations.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"giving the federal government more than its basic constitutional authority"

There is,  of course,  no evidence of this ever having happened. 

The Founders have been shown to be much smarter than conservatives today in that they wrote bylaws for Federal government that have stood the test of time and maintained their authority in a world of immense,  continual and ever increasing change.  Thats why conservatives hate our Constitution as written,  and wish that it was different. Change,  to them,  is to be strenuously avoided.  Stasis must be king.  

What's puzzling is that they completely miss the fact that their recent attempts at static government in a dynamic world have been spectacular failures.  An inconvenient reality that is avoided by refusing personal responsibility for that truth and blaming Democrats,  liberals,  workers,  the middle class,  the poor,  gays,  non Christians,  non Caucasians,  women,  government workers,  union members,  educators,  intellectuals,  environmentalists,  regulators,  scientists,  foreigners,  and Santa for all of the damage they did.  

Currently they are stunned to learn that none of those who they've blamed will be voting for their candidates.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 14, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > You reminded me of another thing that is blocking the tenth amendment.  Block granting.  The power for the feds to take all the wealth out of a state and then &#8216;gift&#8217; it back in order to leverage law there is a travesty and at the heart of such things like federal &#8216;charity.&#8217;  Federal government charity is nothing more than a vice on power as those states need that money to be competitive nor do they have the option of not paying it.  The feds raise the general tax rate, steal all the wealth and then demand that the states do as the feds want or they don&#8217;t get the goods.
> ...



After being immersed in American history for a lot of years, and more recently focusing on the government process in some depth, I am now convinced there is one way and one way only to restore the power to the people.

We have to have a Constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for Congress or the President or any bureaucrat in the federal government to authorize any benefit of any kind to any person, entity, group, or demographic that is not extended to all citizens without respect for socioeconomic status or political party.  That would mean no special rules for one group that do not apply to all.  That would mean no tax breaks for one group that do not apply to all.  That would mean no charity or subsidies of any kind to anybody that are not provided to all.

That simple concept would bust government back to its pre-T.R. Roosevelt days and re-establish the intent of the 10th Amendment.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



This is clearly aimed at the wealthy harvesting the 15% of the wealth,  now split among 80% of the people,  that they are dying to get.  

They have reduced the majority of the people who create all wealth,  the middle class,  to poor.  They have elevated themselves to lavish wealth,  but still,  there is that 15% that they have to have before they can declare full aristocracy. 

What they are too dumb to see,  is that they are carving up everyone's golden goose. 

Unless we keep all Republicans out of government,  until the Party has thoroughly cleansed themselves of all vestiges of conservatism,  they will relentlessly pursue the only wealth that they can't claim today. 

The 15%.


----------



## Listening (Dec 15, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> The gun law as an example is meaningless.  Pick any right in the constitution be it new or original.  I believe that all of them should be equally protected from all levels of government.  Heck, guns is small in comparison to many other rights that the state government could infringe on.  Would you accept 51% of the people in your state voting that you no longer have the right to trial by jury?



I don't agree.  Would I accept it...I would have no choice.

Would I like it...?  Certainly not.


----------



## Listening (Dec 15, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> [q
> What is the difference if the federal government removes a right from you or if the state government does so?  I dont see why a majority can remove infringe on my right to free speech in a state but cannot in the federal government.  In both cases a basic guaranteed right is infringed without my consent.  It is wrong no matter what and a majority should not be able to do so in any case as it relates to protected rights.  If we had what you are suggesting then I would just can the entire BoR  it is meaningless if my rights can be infringed upon whenever 51% of my state decides that they dont like the right.



While I understand the theoretical context of your argument, I am less concerned about losing my right to a trial by jury than I am to having the SCOTUS clearly overstep it's constitutional authority.  The first hasn't happened.  The second happens all the time.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > [q
> ...



Only if the standard is what you wish that our Constitution said.  

That's not the case.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I accept the Constitution for what it says,  not what I wish it said. The fact that you are out of step with most experts doesn't mean that they are wrong. 

You can quote the floor sweepings from the Constitutional Convention all that you want,  but there is only one set of words that were agreed to and ratified,  the ones that we follow.


----------



## Listening (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> This article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
> 
> ...



I'll bring this forward in order to refocus the discussion.

Clearly the 10th amendment severely restricts the federal government.  This has been demonstrated time and time again, both in the original writings of the Founding Fathers and in the behavior of the federal government and (most importantly) the SCOUTS up until the time FDR.  

The GOP has been utilizing somewhat successfully a hedging strategy to pin in what they don't like.

What will it take for the GOP to step on the accelerator in that regard ?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2013)

The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.

Take the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
This does not say the states shall make no law.  In fact at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, there were a number of little theocracies that existed among the various colonies and they were not at all tolerant of any religion but their own that all citizens were expected to respect and obey.  Congress was not allowed to interfere with that in any way.  Such religious convictions extended to the press and the right of assembly and petition to the local government.  

The First Amendment was to restrict the FEDERAL government only.   The Founders in their wisdom expected a free people to make mistakes, to get it wrong, to screw up, to mess things up, but eventually, through trial and error, through experiment and process, they would arrive at a moral and just society.  So without any interference of any kind from the feds, all those little theocracies dissolved themselves and ceased to exist.  And no new theocracies developed.

Ditto the Second Amendment.  It does not suppose that there cannot be weapon free zones in schools, court houses, bars, or even cities, counties, or whole states if that is what the people wish to vote.  The Second Amendment prohibits the FEDERAL government from restricting the people's right to bear arms.  Again the Founders expected the people to need some trial and error to get it right, but ultimately most places settled on reasonable regulation and restrictions on the use of firearms and an orderly society was achieved.  The feds needed to do nothing at all to achieve that.

And so forth. . . .

The Tenth Amendment was intended to cover everything that was not specified in the existing Constitution and Bill of Rights so that the people in the various colonies/states would retain the power and the Federal Government would be restricted from seizing power it was never intended to have.

The Founders intended that we the people, a free people with unalienable rights secured, would use that liberty to form the sorts of societies they wished to have.

That concept is derailed every time somebody thinks it should be the Federal Government that orders what society should be.  And each time it does whether it be what sorts of firearms we are allowed to own or what constitutes a 'hate crime' or whether insurance companies have to include contraceptives in their coverage, we lose a little more of our liberty, and become something less than the great nation the Founders intend that we be.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This article sums it up pretty well.
> ...



"Clearly the 10th amendment severely restricts the federal government."

You are wrong.  The people who have the expertise and responsibility to interpret it absolutely disagree.  

You are welcome to any interpretation opinion that you want, but not welcome to try to sell it as anything more.


----------



## Listening (Dec 16, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
> 
> Take the First Amendment:
> 
> ...



Agreed.

Now, the question is....what are we going to do about it.

As I've pointed out, there has been a stealth campaign to reverse the wrongs of Roe.  There is one already starting (in addition to the all out frontal assault) on Obamacare.

However, far to many local governments are not being attended to by Republicans.

I know places "out in the country" that ignore regulation after regulation in the things they do.  They are under the radar (and they are county seats in some instances).

We just need to start doing this more and more and more.  They can say whatever they like......but it don't mean it's going to happen.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
> ...




*CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: RE-THINK, RE-TOOL, RE-WRITE.*

If you take Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe and their writings seriously, then the logical conclusion is that it is time to re-write the Constitution.

In 200 years, we will be signing interplanetary charters.  The magna carta did not stay in effect forever, either. Time to rediscuss, re-write, re-define, and above all else, to clarify many things.


----------



## Listening (Dec 16, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



While I might not agree with that in it's entirety...I do think an open discussion of works and what does not is in order.

Have you ever read the book Constitution Cafe by Christopher Phillips.

There are some suggested changes I'd never go for.  And that might be why it would never change.  But, again, well worth the discussion.  Maybe we should start a similar thread !

I'd recommend the book as being O.K.   There are some pieces I found useful...others that seemed to be less so.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 16, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



In truth, in today's gimme, instant gratification, and dependent society, with 50% of Americans dependent on the Federal government in some capacity, and with the American left's firm domination of the media, education, the courts, and scientific research, the idea of a Constitutional Convention really scares me.  We have a huge percentage of our population that would completely dismantle what few checks and balances and protections that we have left and who would write a new Constituiton in the Marxist/socialist traditions.  And they likely have the numbers to do that.

Much better to somehow manage to work an Amendment into the Constitution that take all ability from the Federal government to grant charity or benefits to ANYBODY unless they grant such to EVERYBODY.  That would help us begin to regain our sanity and restore perspective in the upcoming generation so that we could then approach a Constitutional convention with a fine scalpel to update just what needs updating while leaving most intact.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So,  in order to stay true to the Constitution,  we have to re-write it?  This passes for rational thought in some circles?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution. 

A completely un-American concept. 

Feel free.  Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Our,  you could build on Romney's idea of having a government that only serves the wealthy half of the country.


----------



## Listening (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



States have their own constitutions.

50 un-American entities.

This is too easy.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I will check out the book. But you gotta admit, I added some kindling wood to the thread!



Foxfyre said:


> In truth, in today's gimme, instant gratification, and dependent society, with 50% of Americans dependent on the Federal government in some capacity, and with the American left's firm domination of the media, education, the courts, and scientific research, the idea of a Constitutional Convention really scares me.  We have a huge percentage of our population that would completely dismantle what few checks and balances and protections that we have left and who would write a new Constituiton in the Marxist/socialist traditions.  And they likely have the numbers to do that.
> 
> Much better to somehow manage to work an Amendment into the Constitution that take all ability from the Federal government to grant charity or benefits to ANYBODY unless they grant such to EVERYBODY.  That would help us begin to regain our sanity and restore perspective in the upcoming generation so that we could then approach a Constitutional convention with a fine scalpel to update just what needs updating while leaving most intact.



Your opinion. I am of another.



PMZ said:


> So,  in order to stay true to the Constitution,  we have to re-write it?  This passes for rational thought in some circles?



It passed for rational thought among the forefathers of the nation, above all else, by Thomas Jefferson himself. In fact, Jefferson himself assigned an EXACT number of years for a Constitution, it's use-date, so to speak:



> On similar ground it may be proved that *no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.* They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. *The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.* If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only.



Source:

Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

In a letter to James Madison from Paris, Sept. 6, 1789

Why 19 years? Well, a generation was essentially 19 years. This shows clearly that the founding fathers well considered that not only was the Constitution an imperfect document, it had, for all intents and purposes, an expiration date.




PMZ said:


> *Sounds like you want your own personal Constitution.*
> 
> A completely un-American concept.
> 
> Feel free.  Most Americans and government will stick to what we've sworn allegiance to.



*Not at all.* If it sounds like that to you, then only because you want it to sound that way. See the quote above from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of these United States, who penned the Declaration of Independence and the vast majority of the Virginia Constitution, which was the main basis for our national Constitution. If what I wrote was "un-American", then you must also accuse Thomas Jefferson of being un-american as well.

*Gotcha!!!*


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



None of the state Constitutions conflict with the American Constitution.  What you wish that our Constitution  said,  does.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 16, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



So you are saying that the founders thought our Constitution to be a temporary expedient to be replaced later by another? 

Where do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## Listening (Dec 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



It's right there in his post.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



That is* exactly* what they thought. The expected that the majority of the ideas within would be pretty much immutable, but the parchment upon which they were written was never considered holy or completely unchangeable.

Alone the fact that they were forced to tack on 10 amendments immediately to the original document should tell you right away that they knew that that document was not to be forever. The very arguments that strict constitutionalists use for the absolute preservation of our Constitution (which I mostly revere, but not completely) are the arguments that speak even more strongly for it's complete renewal.


----------



## Listening (Dec 17, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



While I don't agree with how you arrived at this, I do think the fact that they included an amendment process says they expected things to change.  

To claim the Constitution is just fine the way it is....has to be defined.  Does that mean it should never be amended ?

Or does it mean that the amendment process is adequate for what we need to "renew" it ?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




I will be much clearer about my thoughts on this when I open my thread on electioneering here in the CDZ, I will do that probably by Saturday.

Off to work now, will be on later. Good to hear from you.


----------



## Listening (Dec 17, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Hope you have a good day.

When you mentioned electioneering, I think (again) of process.

I have to wonder if the Constitution needs to be changed (rewritten) or if we just need an honest discussion about what we want government to do. 

That is really at the heart of the 10th amendment.  The left has figured out how to use the courts to push an agenda most of the country does not like.  Look at the environmentalist movement.  They do this constantly.

The right is guilty (and it is much more egregious IME) of not watching the store.  They've let stuff go or have openly participated in an extraction of power from the states.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I certainly agree that the Ammendment process is what has kept the Constitution up with the times. A necessary feature.  I would however strongly resist tossing it and starting over to accommodate anyone's special interests.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



An honest discussion about what the people expect from government occurs every election day.  The beauty of democracy.  The true source of American greatness.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 17, 2013)

What discussion do the vast majority of Americans take part in on Election Day? Many Americans can't name policies they support of the candidates they have chosen. Ask how much dresses their wives wore or how many dogs they carried on a car roof and they'll know the answer to that (or think they do). 

Every election brings with it vast amounts of misinformation (lies) thrown to the people in order to skew the vision of candidates in the public eye. If real honest discussions were happening you would see people asking why a widow worth $50 million is legislated $174,000 in benefits by congress. Or why Americans are being detained without trial indefinitely. Or why warrant less wire tapping is legal and common practice. Or why the Office of Special Counsel (who is that btw?) is given $20 million in legislation written by congress.

There hasn't been an honest discussion on Election Day for decades.


----------



## Listening (Dec 17, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> What discussion do the vast majority of Americans take part in on Election Day? Many Americans can't name policies they support of the candidates they have chosen. Ask how much dresses their wives wore or how many dogs they carried on a car roof and they'll know the answer to that (or think they do).
> 
> Every election brings with it vast amounts of misinformation (lies) thrown to the people in order to skew the vision of candidates in the public eye. If real honest discussions were happening you would see people asking why a widow worth $50 million is legislated $174,000 in benefits by congress. Or why Americans are being detained without trial indefinitely. Or why warrant less wire tapping is legal and common practice. Or why the Office of Special Counsel (who is that btw?) is given $20 million in legislation written by congress.
> 
> There hasn't been an honest discussion on Election Day for decades.



I would contend that this is why local elections are so important (and that putting more in the hands of local pols is important).

The stakes are so high at the federal level  that  there are very sophisticated efforts to feed us the bullshyt on both sides.

At the local level, we can watch  things closer..and shame on us if we don't.

Great point...great post...thanks for joining in.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > What discussion do the vast majority of Americans take part in on Election Day? Many Americans can't name policies they support of the candidates they have chosen. Ask how much dresses their wives wore or how many dogs they carried on a car roof and they'll know the answer to that (or think they do).
> ...



You nailed the problem.  Those we elect to federal office and those they appoint, even if they are hopeful visionaries going in, almost always succumb to the Washington culture.   If they do not they are marginalized and/or demonized until they leave.  Their number one goal is to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, personal wealth accumulated by longevity and they accomplish it by throwing enough bones or making enough empty promises to the people so those people will keep voting them into office.  

They lose their moral center.  Just like this current budget deal that will shave a whopping $85 billion off the deficit.  But that $85 billion won't be this year or next year.  It will be spread over 10 years meaning it is no cut at all.  Future congresses won't even remember it much less respect it or will give it lip service while they add mega billions in new spending, all targeted to keep that campaign money flowing in and bribing people to vote for them.  $85 billion over 10 years is the equivalent to us cancelling our Reader's Digest subscription to wipe out a 10 thousand dollar deficit in our home budget.

And we keep right on voting back in our own guys because they manage to make us believe the problem isn't them but it is with those guys elected in other states.  And they manage to dismiss all conscience about saddling future generations with the folly of their ways.  They figure the American public has short memories and will forget any negatives by the next election and they'll have their fortunes secure and be long gone before the house of cards they build collapses completely.  This all happens much less predictably at the state and local level.

And that is why we no longer really have a 10th Amendment.  The only fix is to take away their ability to use our money for ANY form of charity or benefit to anybody that is not given to everybody regardless of their socioeconomic status or personal circumstances or political affliliation.


----------



## Listening (Dec 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > [q
> ...



It's not theoretical.  It happens all the time.  States infringed on rights of speech, guns, religion and others.  What do you think McDonald was about?  The first happens A LOT.  many of those landmark devotions by the SCOTUS deal directly with states attempting to remove your constitutional rights.  If you are focusing on the feds then you are missing just as large a portion of the picture as those you point out who don't go to local town halls.

Freedom must be protected at all levels.  Where do you think the precedent for ignoring the constitution comes from?  It does not start with the feds just ends there with the most stark examples because they are the most far reaching without recourse.  The states have been trying to ignore your rights for a long time.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


----------



## Listening (Dec 17, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Sure.

But it is easier to get at my state legislators than my federal legislators.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
> 
> Take the First Amendment:
> 
> ...



This is incorrect though.  The second amendment DOES NOT specify the feds.  It states directly "shall not be infringed."  Further, the constitution allows for change because the founders were not so arrogant as to think they got everything correct or that the constitution could brook no change.  Incorporation does not use the founders original intent to justify such a ruling.  It is clear that was not the original intent for the reasons that you specified.  The fourteenth amendment, however, was ratified and is as much a part of the constitution as the BoR.  That has been the justification for incorporation.

If you want to frame an argument against incorporation, you cannot use the founders original intent because such intent has been changed legally and s the founders laid out in the constitution.

As I stated before, I believe in protected rights and think that we did right in the fourteenth amendment.  Do you disagree with the change made?

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 17, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes.  We need to re-address the constitution and place within it better and more encompassing restrictions while protecting individual freedoms.  Things have changed quite a bit since it's inception.  I am not sure that we really want to do this now though.  It is a bad time considering the popularity of government freebies and the current problems we face with capitalism and an economy moving from the industrial age to the intonation age.  While there are universal truths, I would like to see such a measure instituted after we undergo such changes rather than during but that is for another thread.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 17, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Federal Government has been given so many powers that the Founders intended the Federal Government to never have, I think we get even the Bill of Rights all muddled.
> ...



We can concede that the Second Amendment is worded differently than the First, but if we take it that this refers to ANYBODY infringing rights rather than the federal government, then how do you justify laws that prohibit taking a firearm into a bar, a school, a courthuse, or on an airplane?  Some common sense has to prevail here as well as original intent.  But it is crystal clear that they intended that the FEDERAL government would make no law infringing our right to carry firearms and/or defend ourselves against whomever, including our own government should it come to that.

As for the Founders knowing we would get it wrong, screw it up, make mistakes, yes, you are right.  And they knew that an evolving and growing society would need to change or amend the Constitution which is why they wrote a process into the Constitution to do that.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Most citizens consider first,  they're Americans.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > What discussion do the vast majority of Americans take part in on Election Day? Many Americans can't name policies they support of the candidates they have chosen. Ask how much dresses their wives wore or how many dogs they carried on a car roof and they'll know the answer to that (or think they do).
> ...



I've never met anyone who disagreed that local issues should be addressed locally.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 17, 2013)

Listening said:


> This article sums it up pretty well.
> My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.


You forget....   the GOP mainstream is a center/center-left party; as such, their adherece to the principles of federalism is far from absolute.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 17, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> We can concede that the Second Amendment is worded differently than the First, but if we take it that this refers to ANYBODY infringing rights rather than the federal government, then how do you justify laws that prohibit taking a firearm into a bar, a school, a courthuse, or on an airplane?  Some common sense has to prevail here as well as original intent.  But it is crystal clear that they intended that the FEDERAL government would make no law infringing our right to carry firearms and/or defend ourselves against whomever, including our own government should it come to that.


True - the bill of rights originally applied only to actions by the federal government.
The 14th amendment changed this.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Really.
Cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This article sums it up pretty well.
> ...



fed·er·al·ism   (fdr--lzm, fdr-)
n.
1.
a. A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.
b. Advocacy of such a system of government.
2. Federalism The doctrine of the Federalist Party.

Add "federalism" to "democracy" and "republic" as words that the lunatic fringe want to redefine.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Thank you, Captain Obvious - for your effort, you get a cookie.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



After you cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with transmission frequency allotment.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You're welcome Private Parts.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Thank you for admitting you cannot cite any such clause from the constitution, thusly voiding your claim to that effect.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



*XXXXXXX*

There are an infinite number of things going on today that were not anticipated by the founders because they didn't exist in their times. Fortunately for America they wrote a Constitution flexible enough to accommodate progress.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Are you suggesting that the government is forcing everyone to buy frequencies in order to transmit? Or is that something regulated alongside military and commercial use? Is everyone going to receive military medical care? 

Or is health insurance not even close to the same as regulating air waves? No one is forced to purchase a product they don't want with everything the government regulates, except now healthcare. It's not a necessity and the only ones who benefit are the insurance companies and related medical fields. Your argument is invalid.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The original point was healthcare insurance regulation was not specifically permitted by the Constitution. My point was neither was transmission frequency allocation.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Health insurance started during the civil war. Yet never before has the government forced people to buy it. Nor any other product. Quit dodging every point I throw at you.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 17, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



You are dodging the problem. We pay 2X every other country for mediocre health care results. Why mediocre? We're the only country in the world that doesn't treat all residents the same in regards to their health. Here it's been a privilege of wealth. At a time when business is making more and more people poor. 

Your objection to ACA is that, like the powder puffs at Versailles, you feel uniquely entitled to health. How is that going to be as special as you deserve if everyone has access to it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive, and how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



I have. It's above your pay grade apparently. 

Personal responsibility sucks, right?

You'll receive your share of health care, don't worry.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Really?   Copy and paste.  
Soundly show how I have a "personal responsibility" to provide goods and services to others at my own cost, and that the state should force me to live up to that responsibility.
Else, you're running away from a position you know you cannot soundly support.  Again.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Tell us your plan to make it through life without health care.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Tell us why I should pay for your health care just because you are irresponsible about what you spend your money on.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Tell us who benefits from poor health. Employers? Friends? Family, Neighbors? Communities? Countries?


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Tell us why I should pay for your health care just because you are irresponsible about what you spend your money on.




Depending on your beliefs, humans have gone without health insurance for 6,000- several hundreds of thousands of years. Yet somehow in our politically correct country where we dance on egg shells and fake smiles at people we hate, we suddenly need Heath insurance? No.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us why I should pay for your health care just because you are irresponsible about what you spend your money on.
> ...



You weren't alive for many of those years so you may be surprised to learn that they were different from now.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




You mean we currently live in a healthier environment where people naturally live longer due to the basic inexpensive medicines available at the supermarket? If your argument is that we currently live in healthier times requiring less insurance than the more dangerous times of years past then I completely agree with you. Times certainly are different.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



When you get older you too will get to visit hospitals where every room is a technological wonder and every pill rivals the finest caviar in price. We just can't help our inclination to stay alive as long as possible. 

Or, maybe you won't have to wait that long. The big C or some drunk going the wrong way at 75mph may well be your ticket to wonderland. 

Isn't it good to know though that whatever gets you to the point of needing your life saved, at least you won't be dumping your bills on others?


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




When a person is charged for care, they receive the bill. When that person doesn't pay, it goes to a collection agency. When seven years passes that negative inquiry is removed from that person's credit history. If they file bankruptcy the debt is lost and their score goes down.

At what point do they send the bill to someone else? Never.

Another deflection PMZ.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



About 6% of every hospital bill is for uncollected bills. Your hope that the effort that goes into saving sick poor people comes as a miracle is almost childlike in naïveté.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




6% of every bill is for uncollected payments!? How much of it is for malpractice lawsuits(which cost infinitely more than unpaid treatment)!? How much of that bill is taxes!? (Probably around 10% huh, but don't complain about that) how much of it is for research and development!? (Another cost to all this great medicine, yet no one is passing laws to reduce that cost, or is that because many of them receive government grants in the first place?) how much of that bill is for profit!?

Unless you can break down those bills into those categories, and more, 6% doesn't mean one. Single. Thing. Period. (I kinda stole that phrase from somebody ;p )


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



The world is neither as you want it to be, or as you've been told that it is.

http://www.acainternational.org/products-health-care-collection-statistics-5434.aspx


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Another deflection toon in which you repeat your previous posts, while at the same time giving me a web site that says the same thing you said. If you wanted to say 'I don't know' that's really all you needed to say. Instead of trying to sound wise and worldly. 

Did you expect me to say "please explain to me the mysteries of the universe which you clearly understand!" after that post or was that just for your benefit?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Apparently you believe that there are infinite realities that you are entitled to pick among. 

There's one. The one that we all exist in. It must be inconvenient for you vis a vis health care.

That is, in no way, my problem. 

I can only portray reality to you. Whether you accept or resist it is your choice. Neither reality nor I care a whit.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




More conjecture based on nothing that I've said. Please, PMZ explain to me the mysteries of the universe that I don't understand. Happy? 

Now just understand that you are only arguing what the left has given you as points to throw out. Reality is much deeper than CNN. There are consequences to ill advised laws and we are suffering them while government reaps the benefits.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



There are consequences to every action as well as inaction. 

Government is all of us. It's ours to use or misuse. That's the glory of democracy. 

Of all of the dumb things that Reagan said, the prize winner was that government is not the solution. It's the problem. He should have been fired on the spot for shirking his sworn duty to find solutions. 

There is much to improve in our health care non system. ACA is only a start. But that's the beginning of all journeys. 

Conservatives here are whining a crescendo, "the sky is falling" exactly in tune to Republican political propaganda. 

Everybody else is going about their business and thinking, this must be another Benghazi thing that was all smoke and no fire. 

There is not a revealing secret to the universe. Life is solving problems. Sometimes they are your problems, sometimes the problems of others. Some we have solutions for, some we have to try some things to see what works best. 

I am, frankly, a little fed up at the moment with conservative drama queens. 

It's a lead, follow, or get out of the way world. There is little political future in staying in the way.


----------



## BillyZane (Dec 18, 2013)

Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.

Let's just look at one phrase

"the General welfare"

what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.

There is no one, and certainly not on this board, who can legitimately tell us whether the founding fathers would approve of using tax money to care for the poor.

Truthfully, I believe the founding fathers would lynch people who refuse to work, but I equally believe that they would have drawn and quartered a person who making tens of millions of dollars a year while telling his employees to go sign up for that welfare. I believe that 100%

So the question remains, where would the founding fathers have stood up and said "no the government MUST do this?"

I think that actually what many Americans need to start accepting is that our COTUS is nearing the end of its natural shelf life.

That doesn't mean just dissolve the nation and go our separate ways, but some changes need to be made or that choice will be removed from our hands. Those choices MUST be made in a way where no one side gets every thing, or nothing, that they want.

Given that both parties routinely ignore the COTUS as they fit any way, I don't know why anyone would object to my proposal.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

BillyZane said:


> Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> 
> Let's just look at one phrase
> 
> ...



The founders made their contribution and died a long time ago. They left behind for us to do, the day to day running of what they envisioned. We've done that with remarkable success. Through big and small issues. 

One thing that they realized is that every issue would be viewed from multiple perspectives and the only way to make decisions, given that, is by majority rule, as they did. 

That means that for every decision, slightly more than half would be pleased, slightly less, displeased. 

The outgoing conservative movement was media raised to be unhappy with no more than half of the pie. They were taught that they were entitled to more. 

I'm not sorry to see them go. Now we can get back to the work that the founders left for us to do.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 18, 2013)

BillyZane said:


> Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> 
> Let's just look at one phrase
> 
> ...



The Founding Fathers would not have forced anybody to work nor taken any action if somebody refused to do so.  They were of one mind that liberty allowed people to choose what course in life they would take.   They were of one mind that liberty meant we chose and nobody chose for us.  But liberty includes accepting the consequences of the choices we make.  And they were almost all very wealthy men who did not consider it in any way immoral to be prosperous.  Nor did they have any right to take away a person's liberty to pay his employees whatever he offered to pay or to profit however he was able to profit from his enterprises.

As for the general welfare, a careful reading of the writings, transcripts of speeches, letters, and other documents they left us makes it very clear that the general welfare was  policy that would allow society as a whole to benefit and the federal government would be given no power of any kind to benefit an individual, entity, or any special interest.



> The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to &#8220;promote the general welfare.&#8221; What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored.  Rather, the Constitution would promote the &#8220;general welfare&#8221; by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy &#8220;life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,&#8221; rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: &#8220;I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That &#8216;all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.&#8217; To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.&#8221;
> 
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> ...



What the founding fathers all agreed to is in the Constitution. What they couldn't agree to was in advertising for various positions, the Federalist Papers as an example, but not in the Constitution. 

People have spent their lives studying the Constitution as the bylaws for government, and the best of the best ended up as Federal Court Justices. 

They've made a ton of decisions, popular and unpopular, but through the process defined in great detail what the founders only broad brushed. 

Today we have special interests attempting to hijack that process to get more from government of what they believe that they are entitled to.

This, tyranny was, as you'd expect, anticipated in the Constitution and that's why they protected the Constitution with the bulwarks that they did. 

The good news is that the system is working as designed, resisting arbitrary changes. The bad news is that there are forces in society trying to co-opt  it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 18, 2013)

BillyZane said:


> Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> 
> Let's just look at one phrase
> 
> ...



You do realize that if we followed the constitution, it would be easier to do this.  You would not do it at the federal level where you have to try and figure out how to compromise all the permutations that 320,000,000 people can create when looking out for "number one" (and don't let the left kid you....that's all they care about too).

At a state level you could make these changes more readily and tailor things to a smaller group of people whose interests could be more focused.

That is why claims that "things are woking" are bullshyt.  We've put everthing at the federal level (and to your point General Welfare was attached to the idea that the Congress needed to do whatever was needed to fullfill the *VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WERE GIVEN UNDER THE COTUS*.

Join us on the thread about would you change.

The Constitution was designed to changes (via an amendment process), not via the courts.  There are those who would argue that Marburry v. Madison has been grossly overstepped.  And they would be right.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Listening said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> ...



You must be anxiously awaiting your Federal Court Justice appointment, when your whining will be elevated to relevant.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...




All your arguments must mean that you're the final authority on the law. You keep saying people are whining when they disagree with policy and show the unconstitutionality of laws being passed today. When you can not continue with logic, you claim others are whining.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I am absolutely not an expert or authority on the law. That's why I rely on those who are for legal advice. I don't pretend that what I wish for is true. 

Reality rules.


----------



## BillyZane (Dec 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> ...



Actually, no it doesn't become clear.

Jefferson's writing after the fact are irrelevant to the document itself. 

We are ONLY talking about the actual COTUS here. Not ancillary documents. A clause that relies on the interpretation of other writings to make its meaning clear is a poorly written clause.

You WANT it to mean something, and so it does. To you. 

Now personally, I agree with you. So called entitlement benefits are far and beyond the scope of the federal government. But unlike you, I recognize that that is my OPINION.


----------



## BillyZane (Dec 18, 2013)

Listening said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> ...



Sir, I agree with you 100%. The federal government , as a result of BOTH major parties, oversteps every day. It's disgusting.

Here I am merely pointing out that in many places the COTUS is vague.


----------



## Listening (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



With the GOP holding something like 30 state houses and poised to grab a few more, it is going to be easier to get the states to start pushing back on the Federal Government.

The question is: Is the tribal GOP (of which I am a member) going to coalesce to really make some good things happen.

I look forward to a discussion of health care within my state.  I could let a fifth grader write the law and get something better than Obamacare.


----------



## Listening (Dec 18, 2013)

BillyZane said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



Thanks.

Join us over here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/329899-if-we-rewrote-the-constitution.html


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 18, 2013)

Listening said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> ...



The Tenth Amendment was negated by TR Roosevelt when he, via executive fiat, declared that the government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly PROHIBIT rather than be restricted only to that which the Constitution allowed.  And he had successfully packed the courts with like minded individuals and was so personally popular, nobody had the balls at the time to challenge this concept.  It turned the Constitution on its head and started a snowball rolling.  

Such power was too addictive and exhilarating for future Congresses and Presidents to challenge, and FDR gave that snowball a huge push with his New Deal, and LBJ escalated it to warp speed with his Great Society initiatives.  As a result that snowball has grown to the enormous, ever more authoritarian, ever more intrusive, and ever more costly and ineffective and inefficient monstrosity of a federal government that we now have.  And the Tenth Amendment has been emptied of any meaning whatsoever.

I do believe it will take another amendment to correct this and restore the Tenth Amendment.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The discussion part is over. The doing part is here.


----------



## Listening (Dec 18, 2013)

BillyZane said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



I will agree with you partially.....

That it isn't clear is a problem.

That these ancillary documents are not meaningful is not altogether true.  It would have been good to have more clarity on the 14th amendment as there continues to be fracturing over the doctrine of incorporation.

Stephen O. Douglas (the gambler) is reported to have said the COTUS can mean whatever you want it to mean (or whatever he wanted it to mean given he was a justice).  That is not possible in a historical context moving forward from the fact that the COTUS was our second attempt.  Historical behavior generally favors those who take the POV that this document was to limit the federal government.

I think it was Douglas who would eventually "find"  the right to "privacy" in the COTUS.  I only wish he found his ass....cause then he'd know where his head was.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Listening said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"Historical behavior generally favors those who take the POV that this document was to limit the federal government."

Clearly what Listening (who chose that nickname?) wishes was true. 

Of course there's no evidence that it is, but one can wish, no?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I accept your concession of the points that: 
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care;
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive; 
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude;
- you know all of thse things to be true.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You cannot cite a single example throughout history of a government without laws.  All of which provide consequences for behavior deemed socially unacceptable.  All involuntary servitude.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

BillyZane said:


> Unfortunately , the 10th is hampered by the ambiguity of the COTUS as a whole.
> Let's just look at one phrase
> "the General welfare"
> what the hell does than mean? Truth be told, learned men have tried and failed for 200 plus years to define that.


This is not at all difficult to define - one only read the words of James Madison, the man who wrote it:

_Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter._
The Federalist #41

_&#8220;Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers."_
James Madison said that 'general welfare' not prescription for unlimited government

_"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." _
James Madison Quote - Liberty Quotes Blog

Thus, anyone that argues the "general welfare clause" gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care, et al, has not a leg to stand on.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.


----------



## Listening (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nowhere in any of his arguments is he saying that there would be government without laws.

Hence your statement is a Strawman.

Or maybe you could point to where he suggested we have a government without laws.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


A red herring as well - an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I enjoy watching him embarass himself and am happy to help him do so in any way I can.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

Listening said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No country has ever been run on voluntary laws.  So what is a strawman is his assertion that ACA is unique in involuntary servitude  when,  in fact,  all laws in every country are the same. 

Like  all laws,  ACA  is an involuntary standard for responsibility.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You say that ACA,  the law of the land,  isn't,  then claim that I don't have a leg to stand on. 

Very bizarre.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You applying this rubber stamp to everything that I post proves nothing at all.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...




Every time I hear 'law of the land' I ask myself what that really means. Every Democrat since the inception of liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights. Now why is it that we can't just say the 2nd and 4th amendments are the 'law of the land' and quit trying to force gun control and warrant less spying? How come your argument 'law of the land' is only used when it suits your argument?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I don't know what it means to you.  What it means to me is pretty simple.  All of the Federal laws that have been enacted from the Constitution to the the last one passed by Congress and signed by the President this year. 

"Every Democrat since the inception of liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights. "

I think that this is the essential lie of conservatism.  The interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution has been done throughout our history with a very rigorous,  reliable process that has led to a strong capable active functional Union. 

Conservatives are inwardly focused and therefore favor States if not even more local pre-eminence. Their only real argument in favor of what they want is to try to resurrect what the Constitutional Convention couldn't and didn't agree on.  The argument against States rights was won at the Convention.  They would have preferred a different outcome. 

So,  they try to sell that liberalism has been trying to infringe the bill of rights when in fact our liberal history has been devoted to following what the CC agreed to. 

Conservatives want to change that to what the CC didn't agree to.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Yep . Gun control doesn't infringe on the bill of rights at all! Are freking serious PMZ? I'm sorry if I laid out a conservative argument. Conservatives are just as guilty of infringing on the bill of rights. Not everything is simply an interpretation of the constitution. Shall not be infringed! How is that supposed to be 'interpreted' by anybody!? It's plain English!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


The fact that you confinue to refuse to present a sound argument in support of your positions says all that needs to be said.

- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive 
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude
- you know all of thse things to be true.

And so, I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



"- You cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care"

That's the job of SCOTUS.  Not me and not you.  Read their decision 


"- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive"

It's the nature of insurance that you pay for risk.  If you are lucky,  you won't need it.  If you are unlucky,  you'll save a ton. 

"- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude"

All laws can be construed as involuntary servitude.  There is no other way to get people who feel entitled to impose on others to reconsider. 

- you know all of thse things to be true.

You can't present a sound argument.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.


----------



## Listening (Dec 18, 2013)

Here is from Federalist 46.

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Listening said:


> Here is from Federalist 46.
> 
> RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.



Listening would not have done well as a founder.  She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go. 

Methinks she would have been forcefully ejected by the founders passion for debate and democratic decision making.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Pretty confident words* XXXX*.


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Listening would not have done well as a founder.  She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
> 
> Methinks she would have been forcefully ejected by the founders passion for debate and democratic decision making.



Are you under the impression that the founders agreed with each other concerning every aspect of the Constitution?

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 19, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening would not have done well as a founder.  She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
> ...



The Founders not only did not all agree on every point but once the British surrendered all claim to the land that became the core of the USA, they took six long years from 1781 to 1787 to discuss it, debate it, work out compromises, and agree on wording that all would eventually agree to sign and/or promote.  They did their damndest to get it right and they did it without a single one of them expecting to profit from it in any way other than to enjoy the blessings of liberty that the Constitution was intended to give to the people.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Listening would not have done well as a founder.  She would have come to the Convention armed with the advertising of that day and told the rest that she had carefully studied the ads for each position and decided for the rest of the founders which way to go.
> ...



Not at all.  They debated then decided democratically.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



That's why we need to stay with the founders decisions rather than what you wish for.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 19, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Not at all.  They debated then decided democratically.



What democratic process did they use to settle their differences in desires regarding the writing of the Constitution?
Do you have the impression the founders voted on what was going in the Constitution?

.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  They debated then decided democratically.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Yes.



So you are saying that the differences and debates they had were settled by votes on each issue?

.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



Here's history for you. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)


----------



## BlackSand (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I know what it says ... But do you?
So you are saying that the differences and debates they had were settled by votes on each issue?

.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



You said that.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 19, 2013)

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  They debated then decided democratically.
> ...




The main draft was written by the so-called "Committee of Five" (John Rutledge is probably the best known of those five) - but only after the Committee of the Whole, as it called itself, had hashed out most of the things in general and then sent it to the five to organize it into specifics. Essentially, the Constitution was mostly based on the Virginia constitution, which WAS written by Jefferson (mostly) and itself was a more refined revision of the Articles of Confederation, but Jefferson was not present when our current constitution was drafted. He was in Paris at that time. Instead, he exchanged letters often with both Madison and Monroe over the document itself. The most famous compromise was probably the Connecticut compromise, which saw for the election of representatives but the selection of senators by state committees.

11 state delegations were there, plus one lone representative from New York (Alexander Hamilton). In the end, as our 1st President, George Washington, recorded in his personal diary, the Constitution was passed unanimously, although virtually every one there was dissatisfied with one or more parts of it.

The main flaw of the original articles of Confederation was the lack of laws concerning currency. As Washington said, very curtly: "No money". That was actually the engine that drove the need for a new constitutional convention.

There are no exact logs as to how the committee of five may or may not have voted on each provision that was written, but as it was presented to the convention, the committee of 5 was then unanimous.

Most don't know, but the Convention officially closed on the first day of the 1st congress, in March of 1789.

A constitutional convention of the 21st century would surely be held under other auspices, and other voting rules.

Hope that information helped.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Your version is quite a bit different than Wikipedia.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...




I didn't use wiki- I still have ithe basic details memorized since 1977, required for 7th graders in my school system.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I use multiple resources,  but I've never found one as unbiased and concisely written and edited as Wiki. 

At a time when formal education is falling behind the need,  it has become the home of the curious.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




I will check it out.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



You have a curious nickname.  What does it mean?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Says he who continues to prove that he knows he has no sound argument to back his positions.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



My position is what exists in the real world.  Thats as sound an argument as there is.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



German:

Statistik = Statistics

Hengst = Stud.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

Statistikhengst said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Cool.  Profession or hobby? 

I've always thought that the average American's shortage of statistical insight to be the biggest cause of our susceptibility to advertising. We fall all of the time for invalid inferences.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...





Call it a second line of work.  But unrelated to my main field.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The rubber stamp is back demonstrating that conservatives are conservative because they are incapable of original thought.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Says he who does not understand the fact that he continues to prove that he knows he has no sound argument to back his positions.

To wit:
- you cannot cite the clause that gives the federal government the power to enact legislation dealing with health care
- you cannot present a sount argument as to how/why people should be forced by the state to pay for goods and services they do not receive
- you cannot present a sound argument as to how forcing those people to pay for those goods and services does not constitute involuntary servitude
- you know all of thse things to be true


----------



## PMZ (Dec 19, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The Shooter likes to pretend that Republicans, who have spent millions of dollars, and five years, trying to obscure their inability to contribute anything to fixing our grossly expensive, mediocre results health care system, got something for their efforts. In fact he claims that they won the battle.

The truth? They lost every skirmish. The law is in place and working as planned. So now they've accomplished nothing, and in addition, added the embarrassment of more failure to all of the other failures.

The Shooter wants to do his part by never stopping asking all of the questions that they have, even though they've all been answered, none in favor of the Republican plan to do nothing.

Perhaps failing has become their trademark. The one thing that they, and he, can claim near perfect performance at. Bragging about their skill at failing. 

America wishes for the return of the two party system that was fundamental to our success. In politics, your future is based on your past success. To have a future the GOP must purge the elements that created their trajectory of failure and return to what succeeds.

Time is running short. Leadership is required. Action is necessary. 

Will they find it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 20, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Just reality.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I again thank you for continuiing to prove my point, that you know you have no sound argument to back your positions.


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I would hihgly recommend you quit encouraging the constant posting of material that adds nothing to the discussion.  If we ignore such tripe, we might see it go away.  Claiming that a position exists in the "real world" is akin to admitting a totally closed mind.  I would think leaving such individuals to the realities of their real worlds while we continue to lap up state houses and hem in poor legislation should be our goal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

Listening said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I am perfectly happy to assist PMZ in his continued - and highly successful - effort to embarass himself.


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Which, of course, is your right.

It simply clogs the thread with drivel.  You really don't think you will ever get a direct answer to your questions...do you ?


----------



## PMZ (Dec 20, 2013)

And I am perfectly happy to let conservatives live their delusions because it keeps them out of government.  The one place where they are completely unaffordable. 

Talking among themselves is mindless entertainment for them.  And,  for us.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> And I am perfectly happy to let conservatives live their *delusions*...


Says he who contunues to prove that he knows he cannot present a sound argument to back up his positions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

Listening said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


We all -  and by that, I mean, you, him and me - know that he cannot provide any such direct answer.


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



My point is that this is the CDZ.  I'd really like to see more posts related to the topic.  You are not the only one to get locked with her.  It isn't worth the effort.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 20, 2013)

I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.

Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed. 

After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 20, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> 
> Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.
> 
> After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.



Hopefully posts like this will prevent other conservatives from claiming to be Constitutionalists when in fact they want to throw out what the founders agreed to and replace it with what they did not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> ...


You know you have no way of proving any of your statement, above, to be true.
Ironic, given your constant claim that conservatives deal in falsehoods and propaganda.


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> 
> Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.
> 
> After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.



Thanks Shawn.

While I agree, let me ask you what you think is a place where the courts have overstepped (just to get things going) ?

Rep on the way.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

Listening said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


I, for one, would like the points that I brought up addressed in a meaninful manner, maybe even  with a sound response.
Looks like we're both waiting for a train that will never arrive.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 20, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



You don't believe conservatives have ever claimed Constitutionalism? 

Thats bizarre.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


I accept your concession of the point, that you know you cannot show where conservatives want to throw out what the founders agreed to and replace it with what they did not.


----------



## PMZ (Dec 20, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> 
> Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.
> 
> After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.



" Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. "

The original intent was the Constitution.  It has been amended by the legitimate process that it specifies. So it is different by the founders design. 

We either live by it or throw it away.  

I think that it would be good for conservatives to publically propose throwing it away as you suggest.  I'm pretty sure that I know how America will react and that's why I don't let people to claim one thing yet believe another.


----------



## Listening (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



We know that the left certainly never did claim to care about the COTUS.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 20, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Laws?  For the most part we cannot.  The vast majority of those laws are wrong.  The real rub here is that common sense _should_ come into the picture with simple amendments in the constitution.  Amendments that outline the fact that the government has certain powers in public spaces and addressed the fact that there are more than simple muskets in peoples arms today.

Instead  we have opted for the easy way out and had the courts decide how to change the constitution, a function that they are not designed to do.  

Also, I would point out that stating that ANYBODY is not what I stated.  This is specifically addressed to government (in all its forms to include the states) and not to people in general.  That gun free bar can just as easily be gun free because the owner demands it.



Foxfyre said:


> As for the Founders knowing we would get it wrong, screw it up, make mistakes, yes, you are right.  And they knew that an evolving and growing society would need to change or amend the Constitution which is why they wrote a process into the Constitution to do that.


And that was my point along with the fact that one such correction was embodied in the fourteenth amendment.  The entire reasoning behind incorporation and why the founders original intent in relation to protected rights is irrelevant  that original intent was CHANGED.

I was gathering from your posts that you disagreed with incorporation and the protections it provides to rights outlined in the constitution from overbearing state governments.  If that is not your stance, then what were you trying to get across in the last few posts that we were debating?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The lunatic fringe?
YOU are the one attempting to redefine federalism.  Your arguments all over this board (not to mention this very thread) have completely thrown federalism out the window.  Todays liberals see the states as mere extensions of the federal government, subservient to its demands.  It is why you blow the tenths real purpose off.  You completely ignored this part:
A system of government in which *power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units*.
Currently, power IS NOT divided.  The central government retains ultimate power over the states.  The supremacy clause is constantly used by the left to obliterate this concept without addressing the fact that the federal government is supposed to only have that supremacy in areas that it actually has powers over as outlined in the constitution.  Instead, the nation has been marched away from that idea into a system where the federal government makes the rules and leaves things to the states until it changes its mind.  That is NOT division of power.  If that were the case then a feudal system would be an example of a federal system.  We know that it is not.


When you speak of redefining of terms, you are completely misrepresenting reality.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 20, 2013)

Listening said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> ...




The most recent example is the ACA. Am I glad that SCOTUS hinted at the unconstitutionality if it? Yes. But then Roberts AMENDED the law by defining the mandate as a tax. I see that as an important point only because the MSM has cited SCOTUS as upholding the ACA. 

Yet even if I agree or disagree with SCOTUS, it is not the job not the original purpose of SCOTUS to alter or justify laws. Merely enforce them. It is the purpose if congress to define laws that can be followed without 'interpretation'.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> ...




It seems that you contradict yourself in the post. The original intent was the constitution. Yet only recently has SCOTUS begin to interpret laws. So the design was changed by SCOTUS, long after the founders design.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> ...



Still waiting for you to cite the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact legislation involving health care.


----------



## Listening (Dec 21, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Agreed.

But that means that the SCOTUS could have also said there was nothing for them to rule against and just leave it alone.  At that point, each state could have essentially killed it with other laws and the SCOTUS again would have left it alone.

Roe is certainly a place where the SCOTUS stepped into something it had no place in.  Abortion had been the purview of the states for over a century.

And let's not get started with the MoFo's that FDR appointed so his precious depression extending "New Screw (of the people)" could be kept in statue.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



I was just reading some stuff on the Supremacy Clause.  I was wondering if the left utilized this gem as justification ?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 30, 2013)

Listening said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Um...  how so?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 31, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



You won't get it because he has already provided it MANY pages ago.  The core problem is not that he does not have the clause but that he reads the constitution in a warped and incorrect manner.  The left in general views the constitution as a document outlining what the government cannot do - a correct reading of the BoR but NOT the articles -rather than what the government CAN do.  IOW, the left bellies the government can do anything that it wants as long as it is not specifically denied that power.  Unfortunately, that earnestly means that the constitution is meanings as that interpretation gives the government ultimate power.  

The moss of thing about it is that the one area where that is a valid concept (the BoR), that thought process is abandoned.

It is the problem that most of these debates have - we are speaking two different languages.
Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> 
> Over the years the constitution has been 'interpreted' (judicially altered), be it by conservatives or liberals, into such a fashion that our current system is unrecognizable from the original intent of our republic. It cannot be logically argued that SCOTUS was created with the power to alter laws, but it was created to ultimately enforce the laws that are passed.
> 
> After time the courts have granted powers that were never theirs to grant in order to allow the Federal government the control they ultimately desired. This is why we see laws such as NDAA being passed.



Okay maybe without professional derail the train trolls less active, we can refocus on an interesting topic?

It is a fact that both TR Roosevelt and FDR packed the courts with administration friendly judges who would reward those appointments by giving the President what he wanted from them.  And of course what both wanted was to change the most important thing the Constitution and the 10th Amendment were intended to do:  limit the size and scope of the federal goverment.

TRR stood the Constitution on his head when, with the assistance of those judges, he declared that the federal government was not restricted by what the Constitution allowed it to do, but was restricted only by what the Constitution specifically forbade it to do.  That in effect did away with the 10th Amendment.  And TRR was so personally popular, that even those who were frightened by this power grab were afraid to strongly oppose him.

That is what started the snowball rolling, small and unalarming at first.  It got a huge shove with FDR's new deal and has been picking up size and speed ever since until it has become this enormous, ever expanding, unfathomable, and unmanageable, and apparently unstoppable monstrosity of a government that we now have.


----------



## Listening (Dec 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > I've tried, and no straight answers are forthwith.
> ...



I guess that was the point of the OP, Fox.  Will Republicans start acting like the 10th means anything.  If they do, it will have to be at a local level.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2013)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



The Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats so far as looking to their own self interest--their power, prestige, influence, longevity that produces massive wealth, etc.--as are the Democrats.  This is not a partisan issue and I lose respect for anybody who tries to make it a partisan issue.  This is an American issue.  A freedom issue.  And if the 10th is to mean anything, it has to be we the people using what very little power is left to us who demands that it be restored as intended.   As long as we try to blame the other guy and make excuses while demonizing this group or that group and don't assume the responsibility the Constitution tried to give us, we are screwed.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 31, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



This.  It is what I was stating way earlier - the Republican party as a whole simply is no better.  They have defended big government cronyism almost as fervently as the democrats.  There is where change needs to start, within the party or with a new one.  Yes, the local level is also where you stay this but the running theme grip the OP has been how republicans change this and I think that unfortunately the republicans are part of the problem.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 31, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Well I won't go so far as to say they are no better.  I only said they aren't less corrupt.  

They do have better ideas and they do by accident probably leave more to the states and local communities as the Founders intended.  It isn't because they are more moral or ethical.  They just happen to represent a constituency that demands things that produce better government than what the Democrats demand.


----------



## Listening (Jan 1, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



O.K.

O.K.

Let's take the term Republican out of it.  Let's just say people who believe in small government.  Not a conservative.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 1, 2014)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment.  I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 1, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment.  I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.



*The way you make it mean more &#8230; Is by making it mean something in the first place.*

We cannot expect people to to uniformly negotiate what they believe as the separation between Federal Rights and States Right without substantial leadership in  organization.
Any number of citizens could choose to test the ability of the Federal Government to overstep its bounds &#8230; And several have done so with some success.
This just doesn't translate into mass movement on popular issue because more individuals don't want to take the time, effort and money necessary to fight the government.

*What it means is that States are going to have to start putting their citizens above what they are unwilling to fight for.*

Take for instance the State of South Carolina and H.3101 (still sitting in their Senate, but has passed 28-16).
H.3101 is the _South Carolina Freedom of Healthcare Protection Act_ &#8230; And essentially disregards parts of the ACA that it views as Unconstitutional.



> *TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF HEALTH CARE PROTECTION ACT" BY ADDING ARTICLE 21 TO CHAPTER 71, TITLE 38 SO AS TO RENDER NULL AND VOID CERTAIN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TAKING CONTROL OVER THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND MANDATING THAT INDIVIDUALS PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE UNDER THREAT OF PENALTY; TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM ENFORCING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS; AND TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATING THIS ARTICLE. *



2013-2014 Bill 3101: Freedom of Health Care Protection Act - South Carolina Legislature Online

*Only when State Legislatures and Governors step up and start taking responsibility for the protection of their own rights ... And the rights of their citizens ... Will there ever be a difference.*

Governor Nikki Haley wants to help the people in her state.
The Governor wants to be in South Carolina and take care of South Carolina's business ... Doesn't so much care about approval from Washington or getting elected on the national scene.

*If the states aren't willing to support the efforts of the people they represent ... Then each citizen within that state is obligated to replace their own representatives with someone who will do the job that needs to be done.*

We have far more influence within our own state governments and our communities than we do on the national level.
You have a greater chance of shaking the tree in your own backyard than trying to chop one down in Washington ... Get together with your neighbors and you can start making short work of that tree.

*Why should we as individuals have to worry about fighting the Federal Government over States Rights ... If the States won't stand up for themselves to start with?*

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 1, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment.  I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.
> ...



That too happened back the TRR and FDR era.  Once the federal government turned the Constitution on its head, it was able to start taking the power from the states and manipulating the money.  But because it was so gradual, it was the proverbial frog lulled into complacency in the pot until it was finally boiled alive.

Now the states are in a tough spot.  They HAVE to have federal money to fulfill their obligations and if they openly defy the federal government, the federal government now has the power to punish them in unpleasant ways.

It is the same way with the people.  Most of us are conservatives at heart.  Most of us long for a return to small, effective, efficient government and the liberties that we have lost, one by one, over time.  But 50% or more of us now depend in some way on government benefits.  And even if those benefits are small, it takes huge cajones to gather the gumption to voluntarily give them up in favor of a return to constitutional government.  The federal government has bribed and blugeoned and manipulated and lied its way into total control over us.  And those in government are not about to give up their power, prestige, influence, and rapidly expanding personal fortunes in order to do anything about it.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 1, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > 2013-2014 Bill 3101: Freedom of Health Care Protection Act - South Carolina Legislature Online
> ...



I think that is where the Bill in South Carolina is a little different in application.
It would be the same old-same old with the exception that it doesn't stop at the simple refusal of government funding.

*It simply states that the State Exchanges are what they would consider to be not only unconstitutional but illegal.*

Note that it also establishes the ability to prosecute individuals and entities that attempt to enforce what they see as " Unconstitutional Legislation" passed by the US Congress.
They are not saying that they will opt out of the system ... But stating that the legislation and State Run Exchange is illegal and open to prosecution under the law.

As a State ... South Carolina is not telling the Federal Government that they won't play ball ... They are telling the Federal Government that they will take them to court or throw their agents in jail if they try to enforce the Unconstitutional Legislation.
The Legislation is what limits funding should a state choose not to comply ... And to limit funding would be attempts to enforce the Legislation.

*Could be interesting ...*

.


----------



## Listening (Jan 1, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I would suggest getting involved in local government.  This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery.  In that way you can influence what goes up the chain.  We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes.  My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office.  Then they have "servants"  We need to get away from that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 1, 2014)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I've been doing that since I was 18.  But we will not turn it around until the people themselves demand that the government stop giving them free stuff and take away the power of those in government to use our money to give free stuff.  Until we do that, the 10th Amendment will be essentially meaningless.


----------



## Listening (Jan 2, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So, let me ask you.

Do your local republicans (or so called republicans) demand free stuff too ?

How organized are the conservatives in your area ?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 2, 2014)

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I think Republicans are less likely to demand free stuff, but Republicans alas are humans with feet of clay and it is as difficult for them to resist taking free stuff they are given as it is anybody else.   And once you are receiving a government benefit, it is asking a lot of most people to expect them to insist that the government take away the benefit.

The government, media, and leftist talking heads have been sufficiently successful in marginalizing and demonizing the Tea Party movement which was, at least for awhile, our best shot at turning all that around.  And now with 50% of the population being beneficiary in some way on government generosity, I think we may have lost a brief window of opportunity that we had.

This has nothing to do with Republicans or partisanship.  This has everything to do with federal government manipulation of the vote and its insatiable appetite for more power, prestige, influence, and ability of those in government to massively increase their personal wealth.  That takes precedence over everything else.


----------



## Steven_R (Jan 2, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Which begs the question how do we get people to vote to end their free ride? It isn't just turning off the DC money tap, but the state capitals, county commissions, and city hall is buying votes via pork and programs the same way DC does it. How do we get enough people to say "no" to "free" money?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 2, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The only way out I see now is a Constitutional Amendment that requires the Federal government to slowly and carefully transfer all entitlements to the states where they belonged in the first place and that denies those in the White House, Congress, or any government agency from dispensing ANY benefit or imposing any requirement to anybody that isn't dispensed to everybody regardless of socioeconomic status or political afflialtion without exception, including themselves.


----------



## SayMyName (Jan 15, 2014)

Listening said:


> This article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
> 
> ...



Good points. I have been a member of the GOP for over 30 years. The last few years made me scratch my head in absolute wonder. Now, I simply realize many of us have to no longer go along to get along. It is time to say what was wrong and demand better, and not just blame the Democrats. Goodness, I might not agree with a lot about the Democrats and their policies, but I would rather hang with them for awhile rather than those that called me their own and stabbed us all in the back for the 8 years of the Bush presidency. The waste, the utter chaos he left not only our party, but the nation. Such lost opportunity. More than anything else, if there is a Dante's Inferno, losing opportunity to do good has to be one of the lowest pits. With the money we spent on those concocted wars and the bailout of the banks, the potential to totally remake this country would have been enormous.

I hope he is enjoying himself hiding down there in Crawford.


----------



## hunarcy (Jan 15, 2014)

Listening said:


> In most of what I've read regarding the 10th amendment, I rarely see anyone try to utilize the 10th amendment as a basis for nullification.  I do know that such sentiments exist, but they seem to be in the minority and rare.
> 
> So, I'll just clarify by saying that is not what I meant in bringing this up.
> 
> ...



What is TRULY amazing to me is that these people who clutch their petticoats and bemoan nullification, are the same who are cheering and hugging over the medical marijuana/Colorado recreational marijuana laws which essentially nullifies the federal government's ban on marijuana.

It is to laugh!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jan 15, 2014)

SayMyName said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This article sums it up pretty well.
> ...



But how much do the admiinistrators of Dante's Inferno rub their hands in glee and anticipation when those who condemn the sins of some then hang with those who do even worse sins?   ?  Hang with those Who have had the opportunity to do good for far more years than wthe Bush Administration and instead have not done good but have accomplished, intentionally or unintentionally, much evil?  Hang with those who not only consistently ignore and trample on the 10th Amendment, but would do away with it in a heartbeat given the opportunity?

Our resentment and impulse to lash out and punish those who disappoint us, or who we have been taught to hate, creates some very strange and insidious bed fellows at times.


----------

