Ok so here is my question:
If a program is one that is set up federally, why would a state need to fund it. Say something like unemployment or welfare. Can’t a state just simply say this is your program if you wish to run it, you fund it and you organize it. And then state that the state does not have an unemployment program, or a welfare program.
Nullification
^word!
Ideally, per the US Constitution’s 9th and 10th Amendments all states should have the right to tell the federal government to take a hike.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^word!
Ideally, per the US Constitution’s 9th and 10th Amendments all states should have the right to tell the federal government to take a hike.[/quote]
What’s the U.S. Constitution? I heard it was a stack of imaginary papers that would make this country great, but we can’t seem to find it.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^word!
Ideally, per the US Constitution’s 9th and 10th Amendments all states should have the right to tell the federal government to take a hike.[/quote]
What’s the U.S. Constitution? I heard it was a stack of imaginary papers that would make this country great, but we can’t seem to find it. [/quote]
Then how is the current President an Expert in constitutional Law from HArvard. Is that one of those know your enemy sentiments.
You know like Satan knows every word in the bible, type ideas.
Obama knows every word of the constitution, so he can rip it apart.
Ok back to topic…
So we should start at the state level, to force the changes we want,
maybe even state derived currencies for barter to curtail the federal tax system.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^word!
Ideally, per the US Constitution’s 9th and 10th Amendments all states should have the right to tell the federal government to take a hike.[/quote]
What’s the U.S. Constitution? I heard it was a stack of imaginary papers that would make this country great, but we can’t seem to find it. [/quote]
Then how is the current President an Expert in constitutional Law from HArvard. Is that one of those know your enemy sentiments.
You know like Satan knows every word in the bible, type ideas.
Obama knows every word of the constitution, so he can rip it apart.
Ok back to topic…
So we should start at the state level, to force the changes we want,
maybe even state derived currencies for barter to curtail the federal tax system. [/quote]
Well, as long as you remember that states are only allowed to issue currency in gold and ssilver you should be golden.
Yup, totally went there.
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^word!
Ideally, per the US Constitution’s 9th and 10th Amendments all states should have the right to tell the federal government to take a hike.[/quote]
What’s the U.S. Constitution? I heard it was a stack of imaginary papers that would make this country great, but we can’t seem to find it. [/quote]
Well, lets be honest here, those people writing it were obviously morons.
I mean they took 10 years to write a document outlining the enumerated powers of the federal government, specifically stated that all other powers remained with the states and their people and then included two clauses that allowed the federal government to do pretty much everything.
I think America should rewrite the constitution, I agree forcing some on to buy health care is unconstitutional. but there are so many things that are not , good and bad. I think the new constitution should bare in mind the intent of the framers of the constitution , but also recognize the degree that we have strayed .Maybe in facing all the areas that have been broached we could right some of the wrongs.
You all know i am not one of your let the free market rule , because I think the free mkarket is thriving in Afgahnistan, Somalia and several places on earth
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think America should rewrite the constitution, I agree forcing some on to buy health care is unconstitutional. but there are so many things that are not , good and bad. I think the new constitution should bare in mind the intent of the framers of the constitution , but also recognize the degree that we have strayed.[/quote]
Nonsense. The original constitution embodies the framers intent just fine IMHO. The beauty of the constitution is that it doesn’t seek to grant rights, it simply recognizes the rights given to us by our creator. It’s greatest function is one of aggressive limits on government power; to shackle government which the framers viewed as a necessary evil. The constitution tells the government what it cannot do to you, not what it shall do in your benefit.
One does not gain more freedom with more government.
Care to expound on this thought? The constitution does already allow for alteration with the amendment process. Experience teaches me that most politicians don’t like that process however, and look to circumvent it. The amendment process is difficult for a reason.
Uhhhh…yea…Right, I’m sure the fact that those countries are rife with lawlessness and corruption have nothing to do with their current state. It’s all capitalism and free market’s fault. /sarcasm
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think America should rewrite the constitution, I agree forcing some on to buy health care is unconstitutional. but there are so many things that are not , good and bad. I think the new constitution should bare in mind the intent of the framers of the constitution , but also recognize the degree that we have strayed.[/quote]
Nonsense. The original constitution embodies the framers intent just fine IMHO. The beauty of the constitution is that it doesn’t seek to grant rights, it simply recognizes the rights given to us by our creator. It’s greatest function is one of aggressive limits on government power; to shackle government which the framers viewed as a necessary evil. The constitution tells the government what it cannot do to you, not what it shall do in your benefit.
One does not gain more freedom with more government.
Care to expound on this thought? The constitution does already allow for alteration with the amendment process. Experience teaches me that most politicians don’t like that process however, and look to circumvent it. The amendment process is difficult for a reason.
Uhhhh…yea…Right, I’m sure the fact that those countries are rife with lawlessness and corruption have nothing to do with their current state. It’s all capitalism and free market’s fault. /sarcasm[/quote]
Just what I like , rather than a pleasant conversation a confrontation, What the hell I got time to kill. Well only an idiot would say the Government is working like the framers intended.
But a few are claiming that these changes were brought on by the antiChrist OBAMA.
There are many thingthat have changed since our constitution has been framed. The big one i site is the Corporation. It has morphed from a limited time charter that gave investors a way to invest and only lose their investment to Super Powers that have human rights with no liabilities
PittBull
Oh you mean like the lunatics who think the following are rights;
The right to housing
The right to food
The right to health care
The right to wages
The right to not be offended
There are many more things people mistakenly think are RIGHTS.
I so wish we could divide the nation into two separate nations to run an experiment.
On one side we could let the progressives do what they want and in the other operate according to original tenants of this country, making amendments based on the mistakes we have seen.
Then see which one prospers.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
PittBull
Oh you mean like the lunatics who think the following are rights;
The right to housing
The right to food
The right to health care
The right to wages
The right to not be offended
There are many more things people mistakenly think are RIGHTS.
I so wish we could divide the nation into two separate nations to run an experiment.
On one side we could let the progressives do what they want and in the other operate according to original tenants of this country, making amendments based on the mistakes we have seen.
Then see which one prospers.[/quote]
California and Texas?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
PittBull
Oh you mean like the lunatics who think the following are rights;
The right to housing
The right to food
The right to health care
The right to wages
The right to not be offended
There are many more things people mistakenly think are RIGHTS.
I so wish we could divide the nation into two separate nations to run an experiment.
On one side we could let the progressives do what they want and in the other operate according to original tenants of this country, making amendments based on the mistakes we have seen.
Then see which one prospers.[/quote]
California and Texas?[/quote]
Ok examples, but I mean really hold them to their guns on it. set it up as a somewhat balanced study.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think America should rewrite the constitution, I agree forcing some on to buy health care is unconstitutional. but there are so many things that are not , good and bad. I think the new constitution should bare in mind the intent of the framers of the constitution , but also recognize the degree that we have strayed.[/quote]
Nonsense. The original constitution embodies the framers intent just fine IMHO. The beauty of the constitution is that it doesn’t seek to grant rights, it simply recognizes the rights given to us by our creator. It’s greatest function is one of aggressive limits on government power; to shackle government which the framers viewed as a necessary evil. The constitution tells the government what it cannot do to you, not what it shall do in your benefit.
One does not gain more freedom with more government.
Care to expound on this thought? The constitution does already allow for alteration with the amendment process. Experience teaches me that most politicians don’t like that process however, and look to circumvent it. The amendment process is difficult for a reason.
Uhhhh…yea…Right, I’m sure the fact that those countries are rife with lawlessness and corruption have nothing to do with their current state. It’s all capitalism and free market’s fault. /sarcasm[/quote]
Just what I like , rather than a pleasant conversation a confrontation, What the hell I got time to kill.[/quote]
Good grief Pit, toughen up. A bit of sarcasm and you seem to get a bunch of sand in your vag.
Indeed
While Bam Bam has certainly been aggressive in his bid to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, he’s hardly the first to be at odds with the constitution. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have viewed to constitution as somewhat of a pseudo enemy. I give you GWB as a prime recent example. It’s natural for the president to view the constitution as a limiting document that constrains the powers of the president, I mean, that’s what it’s supposed to do, and most of the time it pisses them off.
Personally, I think it’s ridiculous to put a lions share of blame on Obama for the creep of the federal government government. This shit is hardly new. The federal government has been slowly and intentionally increasing it’s power and authority over the states since forever. Federalism is breathing it’s last breath at the hands of a long line of presidents, not just Obama.
I think that the United States is far more corporatist(fascist) than capitalist. The United States hasn’t had real free market capitalism in quite a while. If you want to fix the problems we have with corporations, we need to first fix the problems we have with our federal government.
Was that pleasant enough for you?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
PittBull
Oh you mean like the lunatics who think the following are rights;
The right to housing
The right to food
The right to health care
The right to wages
The right to not be offended
There are many more things people mistakenly think are RIGHTS.
I so wish we could divide the nation into two separate nations to run an experiment.
On one side we could let the progressives do what they want and in the other operate according to original tenants of this country, making amendments based on the mistakes we have seen.
Then see which one prospers.[/quote]
California and Texas?[/quote]
Ok examples, but I mean really hold them to their guns on it. set it up as a somewhat balanced study.
[/quote]
If we had a federal government that was responsible for only the powers enumerated to it by the constitution, we wouldn’t have this problem to begin with. Federalism should already be providing us with this experiment with the states.
You guys ever watch this. In your opinions how accurate/true is it?
I agree
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You guys ever watch this. In your opinions how accurate/true is it?
Spot on Matty, great video. Thanks for posting that.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
PittBull
Oh you mean like the lunatics who think the following are rights;
The right to housing
The right to food
The right to health care
The right to wages
The right to not be offended
There are many more things people mistakenly think are RIGHTS.
I so wish we could divide the nation into two separate nations to run an experiment.
On one side we could let the progressives do what they want and in the other operate according to original tenants of this country, making amendments based on the mistakes we have seen.
Then see which one prospers.[/quote]
I have no cle what you talking about 
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think America should rewrite the constitution, I agree forcing some on to buy health care is unconstitutional. but there are so many things that are not , good and bad. I think the new constitution should bare in mind the intent of the framers of the constitution , but also recognize the degree that we have strayed.[/quote]
Nonsense. The original constitution embodies the framers intent just fine IMHO. The beauty of the constitution is that it doesn’t seek to grant rights, it simply recognizes the rights given to us by our creator. It’s greatest function is one of aggressive limits on government power; to shackle government which the framers viewed as a necessary evil. The constitution tells the government what it cannot do to you, not what it shall do in your benefit.
One does not gain more freedom with more government.
Care to expound on this thought? The constitution does already allow for alteration with the amendment process. Experience teaches me that most politicians don’t like that process however, and look to circumvent it. The amendment process is difficult for a reason.
Uhhhh…yea…Right, I’m sure the fact that those countries are rife with lawlessness and corruption have nothing to do with their current state. It’s all capitalism and free market’s fault. /sarcasm[/quote]
Just what I like , rather than a pleasant conversation a confrontation, What the hell I got time to kill.[/quote]
Good grief Pit, toughen up. A bit of sarcasm and you seem to get a bunch of sand in your vag.
Indeed
While Bam Bam has certainly been aggressive in his bid to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, he’s hardly the first to be at odds with the constitution. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have viewed to constitution as somewhat of a pseudo enemy. I give you GWB as a prime recent example. It’s natural for the president to view the constitution as a limiting document that constrains the powers of the president, I mean, that’s what it’s supposed to do, and most of the time it pisses them off.
Personally, I think it’s ridiculous to put a lions share of blame on Obama for the creep of the federal government government. This shit is hardly new. The federal government has been slowly and intentionally increasing it’s power and authority over the states since forever. Federalism is breathing it’s last breath at the hands of a long line of presidents, not just Obama.
I think that the United States is far more corporatist(fascist) than capitalist. The United States hasn’t had real free market capitalism in quite a while. If you want to fix the problems we have with corporations, we need to first fix the problems we have with our federal government.
Was that pleasant enough for you?
[/quote]
That was very nice and we agree , You or no one hurt my little feelings , I just think communication would be better when people are more concerned on communicating rather than apearing to win some mythical argument