What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
482 Comments
- DesScorp, on 04/12/2009, -19/+220In other words, Indiana demands the President and Congress obey that Constitution thing...
- oldskoolpatriot, on 04/11/2009, -33/+226Great post -- Dugg for liberty!
- Renian, on 04/12/2009, -32/+182Dear Indiana,
<3
Sincerely,
Americans who think. - Minarchian, on 04/11/2009, -24/+173N.D. recently passes something similar to this and now Indiana is on it's way.
All 50 States should pass this. - jjvors, on 04/11/2009, -26/+166The Tenth Amendment lives!
- DirtyVicar, on 04/12/2009, -17/+115We're getting excited over what's basically a symbolic gesture? Phone me when they're actually kicking out federal offices and tightening the border.
- LouisCipher777, on 04/11/2009, -20/+96Like wildfire.
- revyn, on 04/12/2009, -9/+79They're about eight years too late.
- dbz253, on 04/12/2009, -11/+79so what does this mean exactly? are they just reminding us of the tenth amendment?
- rubberpipe, on 04/12/2009, -1/+53It's not on TV
- Grazzit, on 04/12/2009, -14/+61How the hell do I live in Indiana and not know this is going on... maybe I should turn on the TV sometime
- fyngyrz, on 04/12/2009, -5/+47Forces prompting this:
1) Federal over-reach. The constitution enumerates a (very) few federal powers; these imply large supporting departments in some cases (defense, for example.) However, there is no authorization for a department of education, for instance.
2) Abuse. The commerce clause allows the feds authority over -- that is, control of -- *interstate* commerce. That literally means commerce *between* the several states. Judicial abuse of the clause has caused it to be used to impose federal authority over *intra* state commerce, literally commerce *within* a state. This is typically done in the following manner. (a) A modem is defined (by the feds) as "an instrument of interstate commerce." Now, you use it to send a pix of your nethers to your underage by one year partner. Who lives next door. Because you used an "instrument of interstate commerce", even though your pic never left the state or crossed a state line, you have now violated federal law based on the inversion of the commerce clause. Another example are the pot raids in California and elsewhere. The feds argue that although the commerce occurs *within* Cali, it "could" go over state lines, so they impose authority. These arguments are sophist and ridiculous; and they are prime examples of a government out of control, forcing itself on the states where it has no LEGAL authority.
3) Coercion. The feds like to say "We can't tell you what (speed limit / drinking age) to impose, BUT, if you don't impose specific (speed limit / drinking age), we won't give you your share of (highway / education) taxes.
4) Egregious violations of the constitution. Home invasions and document takings and property takings and imprisonment without due process. The feds, along with the supreme court, have made an absolute hash out of the relatively plain language of the constitution, and in so doing, have managed to step on the citizens quite harshly. Moronic interpretations of the bill of rights actually take the force of law, with severe consequences to the intended meanings of the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and fourteenth amendments. In addition, article three has been radically interpreted to give effective amendment power to the judiciary, something not stated or implied anywhere in the constitution -- and something that is directly responsible for much of the damage that has been done to date.
As for why right now and not some other time, who can say. Many of these abuses have been in place for some time. The thing is, they *should* be fought. Now is just as good a time as any. - add1802, on 04/12/2009, -4/+44not us, the federal government.
argued: originally, the idea behind the "united states" was for the country made up of individual states. the federal government would serve as the uniting factor, "exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
the concern is that past, and current, administrations are infringing on state rights and leading America in a direction toward loss of state control, to some degree.
There are two basic types of federalism. rather than explain here, follow this link
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_fedr.html
also, on states rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights - epublicus, on 04/11/2009, -11/+50There should be a required "enumeration justification" to accompany all proposed federal legislation, in which the legislation is vetted against a particular constitutional authority granted to the federal government. Amendment 28 sounds about right.
- lendrick, on 04/12/2009, -6/+44Can I ask something really quick?
Really, what's prompting all this? Please don't just answer with things like "Facism!" and "Tyrrany!" and "My Democratically Elected Representatives Are Raising Rich Peoples' Taxes By Three Percent And Then Spending The Money On Improving Our Infrastructure!", which frankly are things that have been going on for quite a while now and haven't changed one bit.
Concrete examples, please. Is it the fact that a relatively small number of people with very high incomes are going to be getting the same taxes they had ten years ago? Is it federal bailout spending, because I can see where people who are on the other side of the political spectrum from me may think the money should be spent differently or not at all, I don't see where it equates to any sort of facism or tyrrany.
While I get the 10th amendment in general, what I don't get is why this has suddenly become such a big deal *right now*, as opposed to, say, during Bush's presidency, or Clinton's for that matter. Are people finally just getting around to it, or is Obama doing something that's vastly more egregious than anyone before him?
Please digg me up if you want an answer to this, because I guarantee you that a lot of people who don't like this question will be burying me. - Nerys, on 04/12/2009, -16/+54I disagree first its NOT THEIR FUNDING. its OUR funding. The federal Government has NO MONEY. in fact the very phrase Federal Funding or Federal Money is an oxymoron consider the way most people THINK of those phrases.
its ALL TAX PAYER MONEY. The Federal Government has exactly ZERO dollars.
Second I disagree that the federal government has to RIGHT to "give out" tax payer money for ANY PURPOSE short of the very limited purposes defined for it in the Constitution. - Biggsy, on 04/12/2009, -21/+57For as much as I hate living in Indiana, this is something I can be proud of.
- Grazzit, on 04/12/2009, -3/+34That is possible, but the next logical step if all 50 states pass this is to recall representatives and reform the government and deny the current government funding and power. May you live in interesting times my friend.
- chronically420, on 04/12/2009, -17/+48hopefully more states are soon to follow, especially bigger ones like california and texas.
- jakereilly, on 04/12/2009, -8/+37....we're not really a democracy....
- Striker101, on 04/11/2009, -13/+42Reading SR42, doesn't it seem curious to use "Claim" rather than "Declare"?
- STBAT25, on 04/12/2009, -17/+45My dog and I have just voted to succeed from Illinois and the United States. We're going to grow a bunch of pot and have brothels to pay for a heavily armed group of soldiers to protect us. We probably have enough land for a couple dozen people to join us but you have to pass a citizenship test which basically decides:
1) Whether or not you're a douche.
2) You have any skills we may need.
3) If you are willing to die for your fellow man (or dog).
And finally 4) If you have the cash to get this thing off the ground.
Only the first 500 applicants will be considered. - blippityblop, on 04/12/2009, -2/+30It means that the states that are claiming sovereignty under the 10th amendment , will only obey the federal laws and granted powers to all 3 branches of the government stated in the Constitution.
Basically these states are sick of being bullied around by an over powerful federal government violating the law of the land. Now they are standing up for their right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. - sickyd, on 04/12/2009, -19/+47Regarding Section 3....I believe the federal government can put whatever stipulations on their funding that they want. You don't have to accept the money Indiana...
- inigomntoya, on 04/12/2009, -3/+30Don't get me wrong because I agree and I think this is great.
But, is it really necessary for states to pass something like this when its already in the US constitution? - expatcatalyst, on 04/12/2009, -8/+32Everything requires a first step.............
- JiveRabbit, on 04/12/2009, -8/+32what?
Respecting the constitution is the opposite of treason - donavan, on 04/12/2009, -9/+31Seriously people if you don't know what the amendment is then look it up. For heavens sakes you lazy bastards you have google and wikipedia right in front of you.... READ IT!!!
and for those of you still too lazy....
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
not real hard to understand is it. - Grazzit, on 04/12/2009, -0/+22go figure, the media in indiana went nuts with the swordfight but this won't be mentioned.
- duewydo, on 04/12/2009, -1/+23Even though "it's just a piece of paper."
*rolls eyes - inactive, on 04/12/2009, -1/+22Indiana getsa ***** more money FROM the Federal Government than they give in taxes.
- offrdbandit, on 04/12/2009, -4/+24There's a reason senators were originally representatives of the state (i.e. the state government) - to balance power between the federal and state governments. Senators' "constituents" were the state-level elected officials that put them in office, therefore they would necessarily pursue the interests of their respective state governments. Under such a scheme, federal "power grabs" would require at least tacit approval of the states.
The 17th Amendment removed this power balance, turning the Congress into the federal government's rubber stamp. - kahlessreborn, on 04/12/2009, -5/+24Explain how this violates the 14th amendment, and yes we aren't a democracy we are a Democratic Republic, there is a HUGE difference.
- RudeTurnip, on 04/12/2009, -1/+18The revolution will not be televised.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/12/2009, -3/+20A lot of red states do. They're in for a VERY rude awakening if they follow through with all this entails. They may hate "lib'rull Hollywood" and just about everything else in California, but their trailer parks will miss the welfare checks.
- azimir, on 04/12/2009, -0/+16What kind of dog is it?
Does the cash have to be in US Dollars, or do you accept Zimbabwe currency? - ChildeRoland420, on 04/12/2009, -2/+18They're about *eighty* years too late.
- thegrantman, on 04/12/2009, -1/+17Dugg for asking an articulate question.
- DesScorp, on 04/12/2009, -2/+18Someone in Congress is proposing something just like that... every piece of legislation passed must have a reference to the Constitutional authority in question.
- WorldLeader, on 04/12/2009, -13/+28Necessary and Proper
- AndrewDB, on 04/12/2009, -7/+22Could it be my state is actually doing something correct for a change?
Now can we move past our bigoted selves and allow gay marriage in this state and alcohol to be purchased on Sundays... please? - bigbangbuddha, on 04/12/2009, -17/+32Now, that's change we can believe in!
- whiledo, on 04/12/2009, -1/+16You realize that amendments are part of "the Constitution", right? It doesn't just mean the document that was originally ratified. Otherwise there's going to be a whole lot more fun stuff than just not paying income taxes.
- lendrick, on 04/12/2009, -1/+16"That is possible, but the next logical step if all 50 states pass this is to recall representatives and reform the government and deny the current government funding and power. May you live in interesting times my friend."
Interesting thoughts there. Honestly, my solution would be this: If a state wants to stop paying federal tax money, let them stop. Then they stop receiving federal money. Since it seems to me like the states that *receive* more federal money than they *pay* in taxes are the ones more likely to complain about taxes to begin with, then everyone gets what they want. The crazy blue liberal states get more money to spend on their infrastructure, and the red states get less taxes and less big government. Seems like a win-win to me. - powatom, on 04/12/2009, -1/+16*Secede.
Learn stuff. - offrdbandit, on 04/12/2009, -1/+16You should always have ammo and ramen. If not both, at least ramen.
- gbates31, on 04/12/2009, -5/+20This has nothing to do with the false left/right divide. This has everything to do with a federal government that acts as if it is the sovereign body, when this is not how our political system was setup to be. The states are simply telling the federal gov't to back off.
- blippityblop, on 04/12/2009, -1/+15The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. The state is asking for it's rights' given to them via the 10th amendment and is also a protest of the federal government that they are ignoring the law of the land. Your argument is moot.
- fyngyrz, on 04/12/2009, -0/+14It is also toothless because violations of the constitution carry no penalty of any kind. Legislators and judges who declare black is white and interstate is intrastate and confiscation w/o due process is ok are subject to exactly zero control. As "the highest law in the land", the constitution is complete failure. It's no wonder they've made such a *****-up out of obeying their oaths.
- theone3, on 04/12/2009, -0/+14Don't turn on the idiot box, geez - what are you thinking?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 498 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is