quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
God I pray we can stop this lunacy that is coming down from Washington!

Frisco

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
God I pray we can stop this lunacy that is coming down from Washington!

Frisco

Push come to shove the States, at least those that are not already Socialist will balk at the destruction of Liberty and Freedom in this country. They think they have it wired in Washington...guess again! Anything not expressly covered in the Constitution the feds cannot do without the States going along. Check Mate!

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
God I pray we can stop this lunacy that is coming down from Washington!

Frisco

Push come to shove the States, at least those that are not already Socialist will balk at the destruction of Liberty and Freedom in this country. They think they have it wired in Washington...guess again! Anything not expressly covered in the Constitution the feds cannot do without the States going along. Check Mate!

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
God I pray we can stop this lunacy that is coming down from Washington!

Frisco

Push come to shove the States, at least those that are not already Socialist will balk at the destruction of Liberty and Freedom in this country. They think they have it wired in Washington...guess again! Anything not expressly covered in the Constitution the feds cannot do without the States going along. Check Mate!

Always interesting that the States that are staunchest Republican are also very low on welfare payout - -

Those that get fed by the government ain't gona vote against their sugar daddy - -

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
God I pray we can stop this lunacy that is coming down from Washington!

Frisco

Push come to shove the States, at least those that are not already Socialist will balk at the destruction of Liberty and Freedom in this country. They think they have it wired in Washington...guess again! Anything not expressly covered in the Constitution the feds cannot do without the States going along. Check Mate!

I agree with you, however remember the Feds have the Armed Forces. But remember the Armed Forces have to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies foreign and domestic. Must remember that it is the words on that document not what a group of people wish to do outside of that document. In other words if the people at the fed level violate the Constituion to oppress then you know what I mean. Maybe, this is why POTUS wants a National Security Force just as well armed and just as well equipped and funded.
Just ask KornAdvocate what he would do if the states resist the Feds. He has reminded me on several occasions. Allot of Americans would die if KornAdvocate had his way if a state resisted the criminals in Washington.

I pray that the all the state governments that remember the 9th and 10th amendment do peacefully resist the criminals in Washington.

And again I pray that they can pull it off peacefully.

But with fools advocating armed suppression of peaceful civil disobedience well, it will turn into a revolution pretty quickly. The States will take care of pockets of insurrection within their own boundries with the police and the reserves if necessary.
Either way I do not want to see any American hurt or put into that position. I hope we and the state governments can stop Washington peacefully.

Either way there is no hope for my native California, most here have forgotten what it is to be American. Most here just want to take, take, take from those of us who earned what we have!

Frisco

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:
At any rate I'm sure the States are lookng into peaceful options to stop the feds just by turning their mandates away if and I mean if this comes to fruition. I'm sure the supreme court will get invloved as well. Cooler heads should prevail.

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:
At any rate I'm sure the States are lookng into peaceful options to stop the feds just by turning their mandates away if and I mean if this comes to fruition. I'm sure the supreme court will get invloved as well. Cooler heads should prevail.

quote:

The clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that declares that all laws and treaties made by the federal government shall be the "supreme law of the land."

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."

After the Civil War, the Supreme Court was more supportive of states' rights and used the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, to justify its position. It was not until the 1930s that the Court shifted its position and invoked the Supremacy Clause to give the federal government broad national power. The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws of any state.

The Supremacy Clause also requires state legislatures to take into account policies adopted by the federal government. Two issues arise when state action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. The second issue is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to preempt state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist.

However, some federal legislation preempts state law, usually because Congress believes its law should be supreme for reasons of national uniformity. For example, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act) (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) preempts most state law dealing with labor unions and labor-management relations.

In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S. Ct. 477, 100 L. Ed. 640 (1956), the Supreme Court developed criteria for assessing whether federal law preempts state action when Congress has not specifically stated its intent. These criteria include whether the scheme of federal regulations is "so pervasive as to make the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it," whether the federal interest "is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject," or whether the enforcement of a state law "presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the federal program."
http://www.answers.com/topic/supremacy-clause

quote:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_medical_marijuana

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Even most Goldwater supporters weren't revanchist. They wanted to operate within the structure that existed at the time to end the bloat. Perhaps that's the better course of action...because when you consider the alternative, acting OUTSIDE the establishment, well...the 60's were all about that. Is a revolutionary thought process one you're willing to follow to its logical conclusion?

quote:

Originally posted by 4207233:
I feel sometimes that goverment forgets that states have their rights too just like public.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Even most Goldwater supporters weren't revanchist. They wanted to operate within the structure that existed at the time to end the bloat. Perhaps that's the better course of action...because when you consider the alternative, acting OUTSIDE the establishment, well...the 60's were all about that. Is a revolutionary thought process one you're willing to follow to its logical conclusion?

As I look around the country today and see all the new federal agencies put in place since Goldwaters time I would have to say HE FAILED and that perhaps it wasn't the best course of action if your objective is success anyway.

As for the later. Well why not. Isn't that how this country was formed in the first place?

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:
What will straighten out this mess will be a turn-over in Congress and the WH when the time comes for elections.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
Even most Goldwater supporters weren't revanchist. They wanted to operate within the structure that existed at the time to end the bloat. Perhaps that's the better course of action...because when you consider the alternative, acting OUTSIDE the establishment, well...the 60's were all about that. Is a revolutionary thought process one you're willing to follow to its logical conclusion?

As I look around the country today and see all the new federal agencies put in place since Goldwaters time I would have to say HE FAILED and that perhaps it wasn't the best course of action if your objective is success anyway.

As for the later. Well why not. Isn't that how this country was formed in the first place?

Revolt has always been the tool of liberals. After all, it's hard to get people to rise up and revolt against progress.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

Better answer. You have no more chance at things getting straightened out with any one partiular party than you do with the other. Only the agenda changes - government keeps on growing.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:
I was referring to American history, but that is an interesting point. Do you see a violent (or otherwise) revolution in our nation magically bucking the trend you noted, or will the people cave to their fascist or communist impulses once the charismatic conservatives who seize illegitimate power fade out of favor?

Even the major non-violent revolutions in our history, the civil rights movement, sufferage, the New Deal, etc. have been liberal.

quote:

Those things were the conservative thing to do (the civil rights movement, suffrage, except the New Deal was liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

quote:

Those things were the conservative thing to do (the civil rights movement, suffrage, except the New Deal was liberal.

Wow. Historical revisionism at its most absurd. Two words give lie to this assertion, "southern strategy." You're not prepared to call Nixon a lib'ruhl are you?

You probably think Adams was a liberal and Jefferson was a conservative, too. Man, the schools in this country really suck.

As to the rest of your post, I will allow my track record of advocating personal freedoms in these forums to speak for itself. I couldn't believe more fervently in personal freedom. In fact, that is why I find it hilarious that many of you "freedom" folks are against gay rights - at least I'm consistent in my views. You want freedom for everyone who shares your name and birthday.

I recognize that the fight for freedom should be undertaken within the context of our current political system. I respect majorites, and all the whining in the world about the number of people who chose not to vote will not change the fact that the democrats massively swept local, state and federal elections, including a clear majority for Obama - something very few recent presidents have managed. Work within the system, because you will not change it. In fact, I disagree that it should be changed. I kind of like our proven system of government. I just want more choices is all.

quote:

I agree with you, however remember the Feds have the Armed Forces.

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:

Always interesting that the States that are staunchest Republican are also very low on welfare payout - -

Those that get fed by the government ain't gona vote against their sugar daddy - -

quote:

Originally posted by SullyinCinci:

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:

Always interesting that the States that are staunchest Republican are also very low on welfare payout - -

Those that get fed by the government ain't gona vote against their sugar daddy - -

According to the 2008 Census, the States that are staunchest Republican, also received the greatest amount of Federal Aid to State and Local Government. Wyoming came in first, receiving 3 times the national average, with Alaska a close second.

But how can that be? Easy, all these stats are per capita.

quote:

Originally posted by SullyinCinci:

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:

Always interesting that the States that are staunchest Republican are also very low on welfare payout - -

Those that get fed by the government ain't gona vote against their sugar daddy - -

According to the 2008 Census, the States that are staunchest Republican, also received the greatest amount of Federal Aid to State and Local Government. Wyoming came in first, receiving 3 times the national average, with Alaska a close second.

But how can that be? Easy, all these stats are per capita.

quote:

Originally posted by greywolfghost:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by FriscoLady01:
God I pray we can stop this lunacy that is coming down from Washington!

Frisco

Push come to shove the States, at least those that are not already Socialist will balk at the destruction of Liberty and Freedom in this country. They think they have it wired in Washington...guess again! Anything not expressly covered in the Constitution the feds cannot do without the States going along. Check Mate!

Always interesting that the States that are staunchest Republican are also very low on welfare payout - -

Those that get fed by the government ain't gona vote against their sugar daddy - -

quote:

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):


States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.