- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 109,461
- Reaction score
- 27,376
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I'm a libertarian, I am against states rights. No state should have rights over individuals.
Are liberals afraid of states rights?? and WHY?? ; liberal states cn make their own laws as well as conservative states..... why would they be afraid?? are they scared that this would stop liberals from taking from conservatives?
I'm a libertarian, I am against states rights. No state should have rights over individuals.
uhhhhh, okay. If you say so. :thinking:
how many amendment have increased federal power?....not many in comparison to what they are doing
I know what state's rights are. It is the majority forcing the minority to obey. If 51% of the state votes to make a law that you can't sell alcohol on Sunday, they just restricted the liberty of 49% of the population. To me that isn't conservative in the least, it's just liberalism on a smaller scale.States rights is about people voting to make their own laws in a state.
Some won't, so See what I mean? States rights are just an effort to take liberties away from the people. Again is just liberalism on a smaller scalesome will vote to make weed legal
I suggest you look up "Implied Powers" and do a bit of reading.
And to directly answer your question: the 12th, 16th, 18th, 21st, for starters AND the fact that ironically even the Bill of Rights (written in to limit government) requires enforcement. This gives the Federal Government the power of "enforcement" through the concept of "Implied Powers". This has allowed them to amass of bureaucracy filled with agencies and departments to more closely govern us. Do you deny any of this???
Mike Pence is a conservative Evangelical T-Partier who is turning his state into the theocratic economic failure that Kansas & Louisiana are.
Devastate the economy, social enslave the populace, and get bailed-out by the federal dollars deposited by the liberal states, only to hear them decry the "federal government" as they shout "states rights" while they hold their greedy hands out, as they continue with their local 'tyranny of the majority' upon the few liberal citizens that are unlucky enough to remain in their dystopian hell holes.
an implied power means the federal laws the government is able to write off of the [article 1 section 8 general powers] of the constitution.
example, the constitution states the federal government can create a navy, however they are incapable of creating a navy, using just the delegated general power of the constitution.
so they write federal law from the general power, ...that is an implied power.
is education in the constitution?...no, there they have no power to write any law concerning education
So, I'm really having a hard time grasping your point here? Are you opposed to this or not? Are you truly a strict constructionist as you claim to be? What is it specifically that you are trying to prove? Get focused and I'll be more than happy to try and give you a rational reply.
Ah, finally! Yes I can completely agree with you on this. Most are a result of the Implied Powers of Congress and I don't necessarily like it either.that most of the things the federal government does is not a delegated general power of the constitution.
Exactly. The problem is that American people, in general, are spoiled, selfish, and greedy.....regardless of socioeconomic status. Excuse the cliché, but they want to have their proverbial "cake and want to eat it too."complain the government is wasting money , too big, outside of the constitution, yet when it comes to following constitutional law they don't care to do that, if it goes against their ideology.
that most of the things the federal government does is not a delegated general power of the constitution.
people complain the government is wasting money , too big, outside of the constitution, yet when it comes to following constitutional law they don't care to do that, if it goes against their ideology.
Ah, finally! Yes I can completely agree with you on this. Most are a result of the Implied Powers of Congress and I don't necessarily like it either.
Exactly. The problem is that American people, in general, are spoiled, selfish, and greedy.....regardless of socioeconomic status. Excuse the cliché, but they want to have their proverbial "cake and want to eat it too."
Incidentally, if you want to know where I truly stand on our current system, allow me to share this thought with you; If I had the power to wave a wand and change the Fed govt any way I saw fit......I'd abolish the Presidential system entirely and replace it with something parliamentary in nature. We don't need a chief administrator who is elected by the masses. Our Presidential election process has become a sham and an embarrassment.
he is not elected by the masses, but by the EC of delegates in the second week of December.... chosen by the parties.
the founders wanted:
the house elected by the people
the senate chosen by the state governments, who are elected by the people
the president elected by the EC of delegates, who are chosen by the people.....this is a "mixed government" which no longer exist because of politicians, and the uneducated population
Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.
to be an implied power it must down from the general powers of article 1 section 8.
Maybe that is why a wise man once said
Go back and read the opinion of the Court in McCulloch v Maryland - 1819. The "list" you refer to in Article 1, Sect 8 is not "All Inclusive".....Clause 18, the "Necessary and Proper" clause is the essentially the only one that really matters. That's how Congress interpreted it, that's how SCOTUS interpreted it, and that's what we're stuck with.
I really don't need the history and civics lessons, thanks. I'm not trying to be condescending at all , but I have advanced degrees in this stuff, I teach it, and have read and written research out the wazoo on it. I know who elects the president, I'm not obtuse.he is not elected by the masses, but by the EC of delegates in the second week of December.... chosen by the parties.
the founders wanted:
the house elected by the people
the senate chosen by the state governments, who are elected by the people
the president elected by the EC of delegates, who are chosen by the people.....this is a "mixed government" which no longer exist because of politicians, and the uneducated population
I really don't need the history and civics lessons, thanks. I'm not trying to be condescending at all , but I have advanced degrees in this stuff, I teach it, and have read and written research out the wazoo on it. I know who elects the president, I'm not obtuse.
My point was that under the presidential system, the chief administrator is elected in NATIONAL ELECTIONS. Its this very system which has bred the 2-party system and left us with this fiasco we now refer to as "election season."
NO,....no, no, no, no, NO! Have you read the McCulloch v Maryland Opinion? Take some advice and do it. It DOES NOT limit Congress to that specific list.again Necessary and proper means the federal government can write federal laws, from the general powers of article 1 section 8.
And you think they haven't done this???? That they don't do this ALL OF THE TIME?? What Congress have you been watching?? Got C-Span?according to your logic, then if congress wanted to write laws because they thought they were Necessary and Proper, then they could write any law, and that would make them unlimited and not a federal government but a national government.
Hah!That might be considered news to us hoosiers. It must be that balanced budget that is doing us in.
On no. Help me. I'm enslaved. Why hasn't the federal government bailed me out? How did the "few liberals" manage to cause Obama to win Indiana in the last presidential election. I really do hate politics.
then you should be for returning to a "mixed government" of the founders, which ended over 100 years ago.
NO,....no, no, no, no, NO! Have you read the McCulloch v Maryland Opinion? Take some advice and do it. It DOES NOT limit Congress too that specific list.
And you think they haven't done this???? That they don't do this ALL OF THE TIME?? What Congress have you been watching?? Got C-Span?
SCOTUS rarely uses judicial review to strike down their proposals these days.
Fluffy, this guy's acknowledgement of history seems to have stopped around at 1810
NO,....no, no, no, no, NO! Have you read the McCulloch v Maryland Opinion? Take some advice and do it. It DOES NOT limit Congress too that specific list.
And you think they haven't done this???? That they don't do this ALL OF THE TIME?? What Congress have you been watching?? Got C-Span?
SCOTUS rarely uses judicial review to strike down their proposals these days.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?