Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The scope of crap they've created and the things we've allowed to grow and grow and grow is mind boggling. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an honest discussion with my fellow legislators about a 20 trillion dollar deficit. I would not want my name in that congress. It has to be overwhelming. But as long as the sun rises and California doesn't sink into the Ocean, they seem to think they can continue to violate the laws of nature and spend more than they take in. They've done it so long...it has become religion to them.
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.
We all like our congressman. That is a given. It may be a matter of forgetting in some instances, but in others...it is all about the money and power. They control so much and manage to weave themselves in with the wannabe's (who often have cash)...and they also drive off the less partisan, thereby making it a smaller fight to stay in power...it is disgusting. Then they leave the federal government to consult to it for ten times the money, thus staying in the money game. I like Dick Cheney, but I was very frustrated the way he left politics to leverage his connections to make himself and Haliburton wealthy.
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.
Fox,
This is what I asked in the OP. What will it take. I've already shown where the abortion rights folks (who I don't always agree with) have been relentless since Harry Blackmunn shamed himself in 1972. Slowly, they've been using state laws to "chip away" at Roe to the point that both sides feel that Roe is essentially dead. How do we repeat that in other places. The very process you describe above also happens at the state level and even further down. It takes people who say they are interested in local government to get involved and then stuff happens.
[q
What is the difference if the federal government removes a right from you or if the state government does so? I dont 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 dont 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.
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.
The scope of crap they've created and the things we've allowed to grow and grow and grow is mind boggling. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an honest discussion with my fellow legislators about a 20 trillion dollar deficit. I would not want my name in that congress. It has to be overwhelming. But as long as the sun rises and California doesn't sink into the Ocean, they seem to think they can continue to violate the laws of nature and spend more than they take in. They've done it so long...it has become religion to them.
We all like our congressman. That is a given. It may be a matter of forgetting in some instances, but in others...it is all about the money and power. They control so much and manage to weave themselves in with the wannabe's (who often have cash)...and they also drive off the less partisan, thereby making it a smaller fight to stay in power...it is disgusting. Then they leave the federal government to consult to it for ten times the money, thus staying in the money game. I like Dick Cheney, but I was very frustrated the way he left politics to leverage his connections to make himself and Haliburton wealthy.
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.
Fox,
This is what I asked in the OP. What will it take. I've already shown where the abortion rights folks (who I don't always agree with) have been relentless since Harry Blackmunn shamed himself in 1972. Slowly, they've been using state laws to "chip away" at Roe to the point that both sides feel that Roe is essentially dead. How do we repeat that in other places. The very process you describe above also happens at the state level and even further down. It takes people who say they are interested in local government to get involved and then stuff happens.
And that is why I say it will take an ironclad law--probably a Constitutional Amendment--that prohibits Congress or the President or anybody they appoint or hire at the federal level to use the people's money to grant any favor, benefit, or extend charity to any person, entity, group, or demographic unless the same favor is simulataneous granted to every other citizen. And perhaps a second that requres ALL laws and regulation passed by Congress and the President to apply equally to all those in federal government to the same extent they apply to the rest of us.
That takes the corrupting money out of the equation and those who inhabit those federal position for no other reason than to benefit themselves will not be interested in running for federal office. There will be no point in bribing politicians with campaign money. There will be no benefit that government can dispense; no money to use to buy votes or coerce campaign contributions. We will again elect public servants to high office who will have much more incentive to do government honestly, efficiently, and effectively.
And because true public servants will respect the 10th Amendment, they will appoint judges who are constitutionalists instead of social activists. And it will require all of us to realize that some states or communities will vote for wide open abortion while others will all but prohibit it. Ditto all the other sticky wicket thorny social issues that are continually controversial. We have to allow that if we are truly a free people who recognize and respect unalienable rights and value liberty.
[q
What is the difference if the federal government removes a right from you or if the state government does so? I dont 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 dont 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The scope of crap they've created and the things we've allowed to grow and grow and grow is mind boggling. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an honest discussion with my fellow legislators about a 20 trillion dollar deficit. I would not want my name in that congress. It has to be overwhelming. But as long as the sun rises and California doesn't sink into the Ocean, they seem to think they can continue to violate the laws of nature and spend more than they take in. They've done it so long...it has become religion to them.
We all like our congressman. That is a given. It may be a matter of forgetting in some instances, but in others...it is all about the money and power. They control so much and manage to weave themselves in with the wannabe's (who often have cash)...and they also drive off the less partisan, thereby making it a smaller fight to stay in power...it is disgusting. Then they leave the federal government to consult to it for ten times the money, thus staying in the money game. I like Dick Cheney, but I was very frustrated the way he left politics to leverage his connections to make himself and Haliburton wealthy.
Fox,
This is what I asked in the OP. What will it take. I've already shown where the abortion rights folks (who I don't always agree with) have been relentless since Harry Blackmunn shamed himself in 1972. Slowly, they've been using state laws to "chip away" at Roe to the point that both sides feel that Roe is essentially dead. How do we repeat that in other places. The very process you describe above also happens at the state level and even further down. It takes people who say they are interested in local government to get involved and then stuff happens.
And that is why I say it will take an ironclad law--probably a Constitutional Amendment--that prohibits Congress or the President or anybody they appoint or hire at the federal level to use the people's money to grant any favor, benefit, or extend charity to any person, entity, group, or demographic unless the same favor is simulataneous granted to every other citizen. And perhaps a second that requres ALL laws and regulation passed by Congress and the President to apply equally to all those in federal government to the same extent they apply to the rest of us.
That takes the corrupting money out of the equation and those who inhabit those federal position for no other reason than to benefit themselves will not be interested in running for federal office. There will be no point in bribing politicians with campaign money. There will be no benefit that government can dispense; no money to use to buy votes or coerce campaign contributions. We will again elect public servants to high office who will have much more incentive to do government honestly, efficiently, and effectively.
And because true public servants will respect the 10th Amendment, they will appoint judges who are constitutionalists instead of social activists. And it will require all of us to realize that some states or communities will vote for wide open abortion while others will all but prohibit it. Ditto all the other sticky wicket thorny social issues that are continually controversial. We have to allow that if we are truly a free people who recognize and respect unalienable rights and value liberty.
You are among the most free people to ever inhabit the earth. Why? Because our Constitution prevents government from legislating within specified areas of life that are sacrosanct to conducting your life freely, and because in all other areas of life, strong government imposes consequences on those who would impose their will on others against their wishes.
So the government can't impose on you in the areas specified by the Bill of Rights, and individuals can't impose on you against your will in all other areas.
Freedom never meant freedom from government in all areas of life.
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.
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
Sure.
But it is easier to get at my state legislators than my federal legislators.
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.
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.
The scope of crap they've created and the things we've allowed to grow and grow and grow is mind boggling. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an honest discussion with my fellow legislators about a 20 trillion dollar deficit. I would not want my name in that congress. It has to be overwhelming. But as long as the sun rises and California doesn't sink into the Ocean, they seem to think they can continue to violate the laws of nature and spend more than they take in. They've done it so long...it has become religion to them.
We all like our congressman. That is a given. It may be a matter of forgetting in some instances, but in others...it is all about the money and power. They control so much and manage to weave themselves in with the wannabe's (who often have cash)...and they also drive off the less partisan, thereby making it a smaller fight to stay in power...it is disgusting. Then they leave the federal government to consult to it for ten times the money, thus staying in the money game. I like Dick Cheney, but I was very frustrated the way he left politics to leverage his connections to make himself and Haliburton wealthy.
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.
Fox,
This is what I asked in the OP. What will it take. I've already shown where the abortion rights folks (who I don't always agree with) have been relentless since Harry Blackmunn shamed himself in 1972. Slowly, they've been using state laws to "chip away" at Roe to the point that both sides feel that Roe is essentially dead. How do we repeat that in other places. The very process you describe above also happens at the state level and even further down. It takes people who say they are interested in local government to get involved and then stuff happens.
Perhaps declaring holy wars, cutting taxes, and creating an artificial economic boom was a bad idea.
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.
The scope of crap they've created and the things we've allowed to grow and grow and grow is mind boggling. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an honest discussion with my fellow legislators about a 20 trillion dollar deficit. I would not want my name in that congress. It has to be overwhelming. But as long as the sun rises and California doesn't sink into the Ocean, they seem to think they can continue to violate the laws of nature and spend more than they take in. They've done it so long...it has become religion to them.
We all like our congressman. That is a given. It may be a matter of forgetting in some instances, but in others...it is all about the money and power. They control so much and manage to weave themselves in with the wannabe's (who often have cash)...and they also drive off the less partisan, thereby making it a smaller fight to stay in power...it is disgusting. Then they leave the federal government to consult to it for ten times the money, thus staying in the money game. I like Dick Cheney, but I was very frustrated the way he left politics to leverage his connections to make himself and Haliburton wealthy.
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.
Fox,
This is what I asked in the OP. What will it take. I've already shown where the abortion rights folks (who I don't always agree with) have been relentless since Harry Blackmunn shamed himself in 1972. Slowly, they've been using state laws to "chip away" at Roe to the point that both sides feel that Roe is essentially dead. How do we repeat that in other places. The very process you describe above also happens at the state level and even further down. It takes people who say they are interested in local government to get involved and then stuff happens.
Clearly the number of abortions performed is near zero.
The scope of crap they've created and the things we've allowed to grow and grow and grow is mind boggling. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an honest discussion with my fellow legislators about a 20 trillion dollar deficit. I would not want my name in that congress. It has to be overwhelming. But as long as the sun rises and California doesn't sink into the Ocean, they seem to think they can continue to violate the laws of nature and spend more than they take in. They've done it so long...it has become religion to them.
We all like our congressman. That is a given. It may be a matter of forgetting in some instances, but in others...it is all about the money and power. They control so much and manage to weave themselves in with the wannabe's (who often have cash)...and they also drive off the less partisan, thereby making it a smaller fight to stay in power...it is disgusting. Then they leave the federal government to consult to it for ten times the money, thus staying in the money game. I like Dick Cheney, but I was very frustrated the way he left politics to leverage his connections to make himself and Haliburton wealthy.
Fox,
This is what I asked in the OP. What will it take. I've already shown where the abortion rights folks (who I don't always agree with) have been relentless since Harry Blackmunn shamed himself in 1972. Slowly, they've been using state laws to "chip away" at Roe to the point that both sides feel that Roe is essentially dead. How do we repeat that in other places. The very process you describe above also happens at the state level and even further down. It takes people who say they are interested in local government to get involved and then stuff happens.
And that is why I say it will take an ironclad law--probably a Constitutional Amendment--that prohibits Congress or the President or anybody they appoint or hire at the federal level to use the people's money to grant any favor, benefit, or extend charity to any person, entity, group, or demographic unless the same favor is simulataneous granted to every other citizen. And perhaps a second that requres ALL laws and regulation passed by Congress and the President to apply equally to all those in federal government to the same extent they apply to the rest of us.
That takes the corrupting money out of the equation and those who inhabit those federal position for no other reason than to benefit themselves will not be interested in running for federal office. There will be no point in bribing politicians with campaign money. There will be no benefit that government can dispense; no money to use to buy votes or coerce campaign contributions. We will again elect public servants to high office who will have much more incentive to do government honestly, efficiently, and effectively.
And because true public servants will respect the 10th Amendment, they will appoint judges who are constitutionalists instead of social activists. And it will require all of us to realize that some states or communities will vote for wide open abortion while others will all but prohibit it. Ditto all the other sticky wicket thorny social issues that are continually controversial. We have to allow that if we are truly a free people who recognize and respect unalienable rights and value liberty.
There is a prescribed path to follow for you to bring this about.
You forget.... the GOP mainstream is a center/center-left party; as such, their adherece to the principles of federalism is far from absolute.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.
True - the bill of rights originally applied only to actions by the federal government.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.
Really.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.
Then why do you even consider that the constitution allows the federal government to enact health care legislation.
Because it does.
You forget.... the GOP mainstream is a center/center-left party; as such, their adherece to the principles of federalism is far from absolute.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.
Thank you, Captain Obvious - for your effort, you get a cookie.fed·er·al·ism (fdr--lzm, fdr-)You forget.... the GOP mainstream is a center/center-left party; as such, their adherece to the principles of federalism is far from absolute.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.
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.
