|
Posted by Hawke on March 31, 2010, 1:43 am
Please log in for more thread options
> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the United
> States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that power, it is
> reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a limitation on
> government.
>
>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and Hamilton
>> are describing the failings of weak government, the need for strength
>> in the federal government, and even the need for its powers to
>> supercede those of the states.
>
> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem. However, I can
> also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of Rights that
> were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an overreach by that
> central government.
You'll notice that all the hullabaloo about the federal government over
reaching is coming strictly from the right wing. These are the same
folks who were defending the federal government when Bush was running
things and it was being accused of over reaching by the Democrats. You
didn't see all the republicans out there complaining about the
government being too intrusive back then. Historically too, it's always
been the former confederate states making all the noises about "states
rights" and a few western states. Those states have never wanted the
federal government to meddle in their affairs. So all this commotion and
angst is about conservatives' fear of the federal government. But if you
look at the past you see that we have a history of the states violating
the rights of citizens right and left. You also have a history of state
corruption all over the country, and boy do they resent it when the
federal government sticks its nose in their corruption. Personally, I'll
take my chances with the federal government going too far over the
states any day. I can not think of any cases where the federal
government murdered and imprisoned people unjustly and on purpose. The
states' record on that kind of thing stinks, especially in the south. If
the 10th amendment allows states more power all that would happen is you
would have fifty individual states having the ability to violate your
rights. I'd rather take my chances with the one in Washington. The local
yokels are always worse than the folks from Washington. Give them more
authority and you'll regret it.
Hawke
|
|
Posted by RD (The Sandman) on March 31, 2010, 1:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the United
>> States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that power, it
>> is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a limitation
>> on government.
>>
>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>
>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem. However, I
>> can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>> overreach by that central government.
>
>
> You'll notice that all the hullabaloo about the federal government
> over reaching is coming strictly from the right wing.
No, it isn't. I am one discussing it here and I am not right wing.
These are the
> same folks who were defending the federal government when Bush was
> running things and it was being accused of over reaching by the
> Democrats. You didn't see all the republicans out there complaining
> about the government being too intrusive back then.
True, but a lot of people did complain and they weren't all left wing.
Historically too,
> it's always been the former confederate states making all the noises
> about "states rights" and a few western states. Those states have
> never wanted the federal government to meddle in their affairs. So all
> this commotion and angst is about conservatives' fear of the federal
> government. But if you look at the past you see that we have a history
> of the states violating the rights of citizens right and left.
The federal government is also guilty of that. Look at the modern plight
of the Indians and look to WWII for the internment of the Japanese.
You
> also have a history of state corruption all over the country, and boy
> do they resent it when the federal government sticks its nose in their
> corruption. Personally, I'll take my chances with the federal
> government going too far over the states any day.
Your choice......not necessarily mine. I tend to feel that, in general,
a government governs best that intervenes least.
I can not think of
> any cases where the federal government murdered and imprisoned people
> unjustly and on purpose.
Hmmmm. what do you think Hirabayashi v US and Korematsu v US were about?
The states' record on that kind of thing
> stinks, especially in the south. If the 10th amendment allows states
> more power all that would happen is you would have fifty individual
> states having the ability to violate your rights.
The 10th amendment does not allow states more power.....that would depend
on state constitutions. The Tenth limits the power of the feds.
I'd rather take my
> chances with the one in Washington. The local yokels are always worse
> than the folks from Washington. Give them more authority and you'll
> regret it.
I would never accuse you of being biased, Hawke. There is no need to,
you did it yourself above.
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
|
|
Posted by Hawke on March 31, 2010, 3:18 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On 3/31/2010 10:45 AM, RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>>
>>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the United
>>> States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that power, it
>>> is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a limitation
>>> on government.
>>>
>>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>>
>>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem. However, I
>>> can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>>> overreach by that central government.
>>
>>
>> You'll notice that all the hullabaloo about the federal government
>> over reaching is coming strictly from the right wing.
>
> No, it isn't. I am one discussing it here and I am not right wing.
>
> These are the
>> same folks who were defending the federal government when Bush was
>> running things and it was being accused of over reaching by the
>> Democrats. You didn't see all the republicans out there complaining
>> about the government being too intrusive back then.
>
> True, but a lot of people did complain and they weren't all left wing.
>
> Historically too,
>> it's always been the former confederate states making all the noises
>> about "states rights" and a few western states. Those states have
>> never wanted the federal government to meddle in their affairs. So all
>> this commotion and angst is about conservatives' fear of the federal
>> government. But if you look at the past you see that we have a history
>> of the states violating the rights of citizens right and left.
>
> The federal government is also guilty of that. Look at the modern plight
> of the Indians and look to WWII for the internment of the Japanese.
>
> You
>> also have a history of state corruption all over the country, and boy
>> do they resent it when the federal government sticks its nose in their
>> corruption. Personally, I'll take my chances with the federal
>> government going too far over the states any day.
>
> Your choice......not necessarily mine. I tend to feel that, in general,
> a government governs best that intervenes least.
>
> I can not think of
>> any cases where the federal government murdered and imprisoned people
>> unjustly and on purpose.
>
> Hmmmm. what do you think Hirabayashi v US and Korematsu v US were about?
>
> The states' record on that kind of thing
>> stinks, especially in the south. If the 10th amendment allows states
>> more power all that would happen is you would have fifty individual
>> states having the ability to violate your rights.
>
> The 10th amendment does not allow states more power.....that would depend
> on state constitutions. The Tenth limits the power of the feds.
>
> I'd rather take my
>> chances with the one in Washington. The local yokels are always worse
>> than the folks from Washington. Give them more authority and you'll
>> regret it.
>
> I would never accuse you of being biased, Hawke. There is no need to,
> you did it yourself above.
>
You call it bias. I call it history. The federal government isn't
without its sins but you can't compare what it has done with what the
states have done, especially the southern states. The way they
systematically denied rights to people because of race is only one
thing. The states have a horrible record of allowing police to kill
people unjustly, imprisoning people who committed no crimes, deprived
citizens or their property or lives, and many other equally heinous
crimes against the people. The federal government just isn't in that
league despite what it did to the natives and during WWII, which was a
bit of a unique situation. So call it bias all you want. The facts say
something else. But then, when do you have facts on your side anyway?
Not very often. If the states had more power through the 10th amendment
to run more things themselves all you would see is a lot more abuse of
the people, just like they did in the past.
Hawke
|
|
Posted by Lookout on March 31, 2010, 4:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:18:25 -0700, Hawke
>On 3/31/2010 10:45 AM, RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the United
>>>> States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that power, it
>>>> is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a limitation
>>>> on government.
>>>>
>>>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>>>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem. However, I
>>>> can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>>>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>>>> overreach by that central government.
>>>
>>>
>>> You'll notice that all the hullabaloo about the federal government
>>> over reaching is coming strictly from the right wing.
>>
>> No, it isn't. I am one discussing it here and I am not right wing.
>>
>> These are the
>>> same folks who were defending the federal government when Bush was
>>> running things and it was being accused of over reaching by the
>>> Democrats. You didn't see all the republicans out there complaining
>>> about the government being too intrusive back then.
>>
>> True, but a lot of people did complain and they weren't all left wing.
>>
>> Historically too,
>>> it's always been the former confederate states making all the noises
>>> about "states rights" and a few western states. Those states have
>>> never wanted the federal government to meddle in their affairs. So all
>>> this commotion and angst is about conservatives' fear of the federal
>>> government. But if you look at the past you see that we have a history
>>> of the states violating the rights of citizens right and left.
>>
>> The federal government is also guilty of that. Look at the modern plight
>> of the Indians and look to WWII for the internment of the Japanese.
>>
>> You
>>> also have a history of state corruption all over the country, and boy
>>> do they resent it when the federal government sticks its nose in their
>>> corruption. Personally, I'll take my chances with the federal
>>> government going too far over the states any day.
>>
>> Your choice......not necessarily mine. I tend to feel that, in general,
>> a government governs best that intervenes least.
>>
>> I can not think of
>>> any cases where the federal government murdered and imprisoned people
>>> unjustly and on purpose.
>>
>> Hmmmm. what do you think Hirabayashi v US and Korematsu v US were about?
>>
>> The states' record on that kind of thing
>>> stinks, especially in the south. If the 10th amendment allows states
>>> more power all that would happen is you would have fifty individual
>>> states having the ability to violate your rights.
>>
>> The 10th amendment does not allow states more power.....that would depend
>> on state constitutions. The Tenth limits the power of the feds.
>>
>> I'd rather take my
>>> chances with the one in Washington. The local yokels are always worse
>>> than the folks from Washington. Give them more authority and you'll
>>> regret it.
>>
>> I would never accuse you of being biased, Hawke. There is no need to,
>> you did it yourself above.
>>
>
>
>You call it bias. I call it history. The federal government isn't
>without its sins but you can't compare what it has done with what the
>states have done, especially the southern states. The way they
>systematically denied rights to people because of race is only one
>thing. The states have a horrible record of allowing police to kill
>people unjustly, imprisoning people who committed no crimes, deprived
>citizens or their property or lives, and many other equally heinous
>crimes against the people. The federal government just isn't in that
>league despite what it did to the natives and during WWII, which was a
>bit of a unique situation. So call it bias all you want. The facts say
>something else. But then, when do you have facts on your side anyway?
>Not very often. If the states had more power through the 10th amendment
>to run more things themselves all you would see is a lot more abuse of
>the people, just like they did in the past.
>
>Hawke
I live in Alabama. Trust me, it's still happening.
|
|
Posted by Gray Ghost on March 31, 2010, 9:52 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>>
>>> IOW, if it ain't there in the Constitution as delegated to the United
>>> States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that power, it
>>> is reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a limitation
>>> on government.
>>>
>>>> See the first 10 or 15 of the Federalist Papers. Madison and
>>>> Hamilton are describing the failings of weak government, the need
>>>> for strength in the federal government, and even the need for its
>>>> powers to supercede those of the states.
>>>
>>> I agree that the Constitutional Convention was to fix the inherent
>>> weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. No problem. However, I
>>> can also read the Tenth Amendment which is a part of the Bill of
>>> Rights that were pushed for by the anti-federalists to limit an
>>> overreach by that central government.
>>
>>
>> You'll notice that all the hullabaloo about the federal government
>> over reaching is coming strictly from the right wing.
>
> No, it isn't. I am one discussing it here and I am not right wing.
>
> These are the
>> same folks who were defending the federal government when Bush was
>> running things and it was being accused of over reaching by the
>> Democrats. You didn't see all the republicans out there complaining
>> about the government being too intrusive back then.
>
> True, but a lot of people did complain and they weren't all left wing.
>
> Historically too,
>> it's always been the former confederate states making all the noises
>> about "states rights" and a few western states. Those states have
>> never wanted the federal government to meddle in their affairs. So all
>> this commotion and angst is about conservatives' fear of the federal
>> government. But if you look at the past you see that we have a history
>> of the states violating the rights of citizens right and left.
>
> The federal government is also guilty of that. Look at the modern plight
> of the Indians and look to WWII for the internment of the Japanese.
>
> You
>> also have a history of state corruption all over the country, and boy
>> do they resent it when the federal government sticks its nose in their
>> corruption. Personally, I'll take my chances with the federal
>> government going too far over the states any day.
>
> Your choice......not necessarily mine. I tend to feel that, in general,
> a government governs best that intervenes least.
>
> I can not think of
>> any cases where the federal government murdered and imprisoned people
>> unjustly and on purpose.
>
> Hmmmm. what do you think Hirabayashi v US and Korematsu v US were about?
>
> The states' record on that kind of thing
>> stinks, especially in the south. If the 10th amendment allows states
>> more power all that would happen is you would have fifty individual
>> states having the ability to violate your rights.
>
> The 10th amendment does not allow states more power.....that would depend
> on state constitutions. The Tenth limits the power of the feds.
>
> I'd rather take my
>> chances with the one in Washington. The local yokels are always worse
>> than the folks from Washington. Give them more authority and you'll
>> regret it.
>
> I would never accuse you of being biased, Hawke. There is no need to,
> you did it yourself above.
>
If people want to beleive this crap or simply profess it for thier masters the
time to care is almost past. Dieing in ignorance is no way to go, but if
that's all you've got...
--
God, guns and guts made America great.
And Janet Napolitano nervous.
Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: A new "constitutional right" | January 29, 2010, 4:53 pm |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | January 30, 2010, 9:39 am |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | January 30, 2010, 12:59 pm |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | January 30, 2010, 1:00 pm |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | January 31, 2010, 6:51 am |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | January 31, 2010, 12:09 pm |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | February 1, 2010, 12:35 am |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | February 3, 2010, 2:20 pm |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | February 3, 2010, 2:42 pm |
| Re: A new "constitutional right" | March 29, 2010, 10:44 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> States (Read Federal government) the feds don't have that power, it is
> reserved either to the states or the people. Ergo, a limitation on
> government.
>