educate me

2»

Comments

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    The important thing to combat these things is transparency above all. Every and all moves to increase this and to limit the importance of money in elections should thus be applauded.

    Peace
    Dan

    exactly ... like i said ... :thumbup:
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    My problems aren't with "transparency" or "efficiency" or "productivity" of a national government... it has to do with POWER.

    The Tenth Amendment was created with this concern in mind, and I think it might not go far enough. Maybe States should be able to nullify federal law, instead of the other way around? That can never happen however, because the federal government is too powerful to let it happen.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,826
    he still stands wrote:
    My problems aren't with "transparency" or "efficiency" or "productivity" of a national government... it has to do with POWER.

    The Tenth Amendment was created with this concern in mind, and I think it might not go far enough. Maybe States should be able to nullify federal law, instead of the other way around? That can never happen however, because the federal government is too powerful to let it happen.

    They ARE able to nullify Federal Law, Constitutionally speaking. Search "Tom Woods Nullification." He is a Constitutional Scholar and has a book out about it, as well as a number of videos and articles on the subject.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    My problems aren't with "transparency" or "efficiency" or "productivity" of a national government... it has to do with POWER.

    The Tenth Amendment was created with this concern in mind, and I think it might not go far enough. Maybe States should be able to nullify federal law, instead of the other way around? That can never happen however, because the federal government is too powerful to let it happen.

    They ARE able to nullify Federal Law, Constitutionally speaking. Search "Tom Woods Nullification." He is a Constitutional Scholar and has a book out about it, as well as a number of videos and articles on the subject.

    Really? Just as an example, every time I hear an argument for gun legislation by a state (or D.C. because it is fresh in my mind) the reason that it can't happen is because federal law protects the right to own guns. Another example is abortion. That should not be a federal issue, it should be a state issue. I'll look into the Tom Woods thingy later...
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,826
    he still stands wrote:
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    My problems aren't with "transparency" or "efficiency" or "productivity" of a national government... it has to do with POWER.

    The Tenth Amendment was created with this concern in mind, and I think it might not go far enough. Maybe States should be able to nullify federal law, instead of the other way around? That can never happen however, because the federal government is too powerful to let it happen.

    They ARE able to nullify Federal Law, Constitutionally speaking. Search "Tom Woods Nullification." He is a Constitutional Scholar and has a book out about it, as well as a number of videos and articles on the subject.

    Really? Just as an example, every time I hear an argument for gun legislation by a state (or D.C. because it is fresh in my mind) the reason that it can't happen is because federal law protects the right to own guns. Another example is abortion. That should not be a federal issue, it should be a state issue. I'll look into the Tom Woods thingy later...

    Nullification does not apply to laws by written by the states that TAKE AWAY rights already acknowledged by the Federal Government-- it's the opposite. Nullification is used by the states to re-establish and re-affirm rights where the Federal Government has over-stepped its bounds and has taken them away. The Health Care legislation would be an example, where the Federal Government has NO RIGHT over the people to require you to buy a product, unless of course you have a very perverse reading of The Commerce Clause. States can use nullification to call the Federal Law "Unconstitutional" and make its residents NOT participate. Nullification was built into the Constitution for reasons just like this, but is rarely exercised.

    Roe V. Wade made abortion a Federal issue I believe-- whether that is actually Constitutionally "legal," I'm not positive, but I agree with you that it is a matter best left to the states, and legally, that may be the case.

    But your first post makes the key point. The GIANT SLEDGE HAMMER that is the Federal Government makes it nearly impossible for states to stand up to them despite having the legal authority to do so. The sleazier way that they get states to comply is with debt, and handouts-- after all, THEY have the printing press and it's hard for anyone to turn down "free" money. It's never really free though, of course-- there is always debt, obligations, and the withdrawal symptoms felt by the states when the federal government cuts off the cash flow for non-compliance, or simply "austerity." It always comes back to this for me, but it's just another great argument for getting rid of the Federal Reserve, as it is the number one enemy of state (and individual) sovereignty.
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    i don't know but what i don't get is how people try to make it a partisan issue, can anyone name a president of either party in modern times that hasn't expanded the size of government???
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    Pepe Silvia wrote:
    i don't know but what i don't get is how people try to make it a partisan issue, can anyone name a president of either party in modern times that hasn't expanded the size of government???

    What's interesting about this is that Republican presidents are worse than Democratic presidents when it comes to increasing the size and scope of government. You might save a few dollars on April 15th, but they'll ship your kid off to die in any war that can be sold, increase the size of the police-state, lock you up for years for putting substances into your own body, tell women what they can or can't do to their own body, tell you which God you should be praying to, keep the lower class poor and the upper class rich, spend tons of your money to "keep you safe," and all the while they tell you how FREE you are... and that FREEDOM AIN'T FREE! Yeah I AGREE, but whatever happened to getting what you paid for?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.

Categories