What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
409 Comments
- mfc5200, on 02/24/2009, -15/+128You mean the perks...the perks they give you with the money they took from you in the form of taxes?
That's like when a trophy wife doesn't have a job and then goes out and buys her husband a nice present for his birthday...with his money. - dcodrea, on 02/23/2009, -35/+144Dugg and shouted.
- Aldanga, on 02/24/2009, -32/+124I don't know what "perks" you're talking about, but independence from a tyrannical government is a pretty good trade off, I think.
- neo912, on 02/24/2009, -18/+97I love how everybody is just getting used to the handouts from the fed and don't realize that the states could run themselves just fine if its citizens didn't get taxes so much by the fed and that money instead went to the states. If you've got a state that wants socialized medicine you could do that. If you've got a state that would rather invest that money into roads you could do that too. Heck you could have a state that has no programs and less taxes if the citizens wanted it. Point is it would give much greater freedom to Americans because they could pick and choose where they wanted to live depending on what each state decided to do. Really right now it feels like the fed is a shotgun and the country has a tumor.........not a great instrument to solve the problems with. Sometimes you do need a shotgun but most of the time you just need a smaller more focused system that only local governments could provide.....and its more constitutional anyways to give the states more power than the fed. The fed today is not what the Constitution or its writers were trying to frame up.
- PandaOnIce, on 02/24/2009, -31/+95But...they're not sovereign states.
I thought we all understood this after the Civil War ended. - inactive, on 02/24/2009, -23/+77Oh, so they're refusing the bailout money?
- skinnyskittles, on 02/24/2009, -5/+58Except she takes some of the money to put in her pocket because of all the hassle she went through.
- sigmaman2, on 02/24/2009, -17/+69"Federal Law doesn't trump the Constitution."...?
But, isn't The Constitution the highest Federal law? The Supremacy clause is part of The Constitution, so it pretty much puts that argument to rest. - NoLibertarians, on 02/24/2009, -73/+122If you don't want the ties to the government, then be prepared to do without the perks. It's a two way street.
- mfc5200, on 02/24/2009, -2/+50They mean any laws that are passed BY the Federal Government as it now stands.
The Constitution wasn't passed by the Federal Government, but rather by the States. - nickymouse, on 02/24/2009, -2/+47The 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.
- lofispy, on 02/24/2009, -15/+58Tsk tsk tsk....regardless of how you feel about state sovereignty, why is it that people like you have to reduce every complex issue into a black and white debate between your perception of Republicans, which is extremely narrow and misinformed, and your precious Democrats? The truth is an issue such as this transcends your rigid, and ultimately manipulated viewpoint. People from every ideology and walk and life are realizing that personal liberty and more localized governance are more in accord with how they wish to live their lives. Point being....if you're not smart enough to quit reducing a perfectly legitimate debate into simple partisan ideology than please STFU....you're not adding anything...and worse, you're sounding a whole like the same people you purport to be so opposed to. Ironic in a very sad way? I most definitely think so....
- nickymouse, on 02/24/2009, -2/+41The 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.
- gbates31, on 02/24/2009, -6/+39I disagree with the idea that the states have no right to secede from the union. Virginia and two other states signed the constitution on the promise that they would be able to leave the union if they so chose. To say that states can't secede is tantamount to slavery. That somehow they voluntarily entered into an agreement, but their posterity can never leave. No person or group of people can lawfully compel another person or group against their will.
The people are the sovereign body, not the states or federal gov't, and it is their right to alter or abolish their current government. Anything else means they are subject and not sovereign. - factattack, on 02/24/2009, -1/+34The federal government is a servant of the states...
Gotta love the foresight of those who crafted the Constitution... - mozarker, on 02/24/2009, -16/+47@Foofoofoofoobar:
Excuse me, but where did the federal funds come from in the first place. Oh, that's right, they came from the taxpayers in each state. I'd like to see the states decide how their citizens' money should be used, not the federal government. It's time for the federal government to butt out of the business of the states. - Semblance, on 02/24/2009, -51/+82Its funny how conservatives don't talk about this when they control the Federal Government. Remember Terry Schiavo? And remember Bush v. Gore?
If Republicans don't like it, they can get the hell out of my country. - shupy, on 02/24/2009, -25/+56This is especially important now. With Jindal and his Republican buddies talking about turning down stimulous funds, it's important to note that their states have always received more federal dollars then they contribute. We've been supporting their ignorant asses long enough. So I think they should really demonstrate how anti-fed they are by turning all federal dollars in excess of what they pay.
Let their republican governors figure out why their states have higher proverty, unemployment, and lower quality education than the rest of the country. When they talk about having to support those wanting a handout, lets start by ending the federal handouts to Louisiana, Alabama and South Carolina. - Ebacherville, on 02/24/2009, -11/+41Perks? what would they be? Every state has the facilities to build there roads and even there own defence ..national gaurd etc.. what Items of everyday opperations do we get from the feds?
All the money the feds collect could simply be used by the states.. you ever notice how much more the feds get compared to the states?? why when the feds provide next to nothing compared to state government.
the only thing I can think of is the fiat currency they insist we use... and thats in no way a perk - maz2331, on 02/24/2009, -3/+31The USA has always had the concept of dual soveriegnty. It's not whether the Federal or State governments are soveriegn, it's actually both simultaneously.
There's always going to be some argument about where the line is drawn on an issue-by-issue basis. That is by design - it's another level of "separation of powers". - MrMysterious, on 02/24/2009, -4/+30And they will stop giving the Federal gas tax money to them.
- homah, on 02/24/2009, -14/+37ha, federal highway funds, what a perk!
gee, thanks federal government for forcing us to set the drinking age at 21 so that we can get our own highway money back! - duncan202, on 02/24/2009, -12/+32How about the Federal government just stop taking the money in the first place except what it needs for the armed forces and the courts.
- JigoroKano, on 02/24/2009, -23/+42This is a constitutional republic. The states are not their own supreme legislative authority as they are beholden to the constitution. The states have a degree of sovereignty that is often trampled upon, but they are not sovereign.
- sigmaman2, on 02/24/2009, -8/+27That's what I mean. Any laws passed by the Federal government are passed with all states represented in the House and Senate. I think that any Federal law can be said to have been passed by the States collectively.
Now, Executive Orders, that's where I'd have a problem. - Foofoofoofoobar, on 02/24/2009, -25/+43Federal highway funds, education funds, defense, ...
- Diggnabbit, on 02/24/2009, -10/+28No, the federal government gets money from the people. The people are IN the states, but they ARE not the states.
- jfsimard79, on 02/24/2009, -7/+23Well said my friend, well said.
- thejokker, on 02/24/2009, -6/+22the services provided by the federal government do not trump the legality of the 10th amendment.
Want to help build roads for interstate commerce...good
Want to set up a collective military to defend all states...good
Want to micro manage the laws of the states? Nope, unconstitutional.
In response to NoLibertarians, some of us are aware of the services provided by a federal government, but isin't that a red herring in a debate over the 10th amendment? - IADTatami, on 02/24/2009, -9/+25We'll tolerate kidnapping and torture done in our names, retroactively legal domestic spying programs and optional wars waged from a foundation of lies...
...but don't you raise our taxes.
Pathetic. - Brotoi, on 02/24/2009, -2/+18A lot of people seem to think the states moving to assert their sovereignity are reacting to Obama. They are not. They are reacting to a five decade old trend that has been fought on the floor of Congress, in the court rooms, and even in the streets. Did all of you miss the mass demonstrations outside BOTH conventions during the campaign?
There were newspaper editorials, blog posts, local votes, and so on starting the day after Bush's demeaning speech in the still smoking ruins of the Twin Towers after 9/11 and NO ONE listened. Opposition to the Patriot Act and every other excess by the Bush-Cheney tyranny has been loud and vocal but no one in Congress listened. This current secessionist move, with massive grassroots support, was made possible only after local elections removed diehard elitists in State legislatures all across the nation.
This anti-Federal drive on behalf of 11 states (with more resolutions being offered almost daily) is not a reaction to the election of a Democratic President and a Democratically-controlled Congress. It is a reaction to the Federal government's continuing refusal to listen to the voices of those who are supposed to be in charge, the American people themselves.
We want to keep our guns not because we want to revolt, but because we are afraid there will soon be no other choice. - unfairunbalance, on 02/24/2009, -0/+15Federal Government had been hi-jacked by the private banks of the Federal Reserve. These banks are controlled by the World Bank and IMF from Europe. They are now pillaging and looting America. Tell the Feds where to go! Do not tread on me.
- gbates31, on 02/24/2009, -3/+18I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the federal government is the sovereign body?
- dok333, on 02/24/2009, -2/+16Look, the states are not trying to separate from the union, they do not believe in completely absolving the federal government, all they want is for the government to back off a bit on their increasingly totalitarian rule. The government is spending our money like "their ain't no tomorrow", they are trying to get their power ever increasing by creating more and more laws which do not have anything to do the what the government was initially set up for. These states are proclaiming their sovereignty in order to warn the government that we are on to them and we are not alone in our beliefs, it is against these big brother laws the government passes, it is against the looming threat of "Martial Law", the states do not want to destroy the government they just don't want the government to destroy the states. Everyone knows there must be a federal government, how the hell are we to form policies with other nations if their are fifty ***** representatives all with their individual opinion trying to talk to one nations head, we must be united as a country and have our representative (President) but also what we need to realize is what may make sense to one section of the U.S. with laws may not make sense to another section and it should not be forced upon them by the national government.
- Lockhart1, on 02/24/2009, -5/+19My friend has a trophy wife. Apparently it wasn't first place.
- govsucks, on 02/24/2009, -3/+16AH yes, coercion, the foundation of liberty. /s
- BlacklabelSAR, on 02/24/2009, -2/+15So many people hypnotized by authority worship that cannot fathom that the fed gets it's funds from the states...
- bugsy187, on 02/24/2009, -15/+28It's interesting how the "militia movement" largely disappeared under Bush. They scaled back their theater of gun waving and "the constitution" even when the PATRIOT Act was passed. Stepping up their rhetoric and theater today, their real problem seems to be a (half) black man in power and fear of losing wealth to non-white races.
Generally speaking, the militia movement is one of hypocrites or they compromise their core beliefs when a white "conservative" man is in power.
"...Bush seized and used all of the powers which that movement claimed in the 1990s to find so tyrannical and unconstitutional -- limitless, unchecked surveillance activities, detention powers with no oversight, expanding federal police powers, secret prison camps, even massively exploding and debt-financed domestic spending -- they meekly submitted to all of it, even enthusiastically cheered it all on."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/ ... - inactive, on 02/24/2009, -7/+20the federal govt has illegaly, unconstitutionally increased its power for decades... by forcing states to accept policies by dangling money in front of them... a constitutional loop hole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_th ...
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.
*** ***** !!! ***
OBAMA is dangling money in front of these states w/ massive strings attached.. and the money runs out in 2-3 years but theyr forced to remain the policies... THIS IS WHY GOVERNORS are considering refusing the money... for instance a state if they wanted to could have a drinking age of 5.... but they wouldnt receive federal money... theres no federal law for a drinking age.. obama is now rolling back welfare to pre 1996 levels with these strings attached and essentially giving states money TO PUT people on welfare
CHANGE!!!! / HOPE!!!! - Binto, on 02/24/2009, -6/+19Perks?
You must be referring to the mail distribution and the protection of our boarders. Because thats all the federal government SHOULD be doing. - mdmanic, on 02/24/2009, -13/+26This article does not make a point. What is the point that the author is trying to make, and why doesn't he make it? All he does is say states rights over and over.
- fuzzmeister, on 02/24/2009, -13/+25States have to keep in mind that the federal government would be perfectly justified in denying certain benefits (such as highway funds) to states that do not cooperate with it's policies.
- realunderdog, on 02/24/2009, -0/+12sigmaman2........"To me, the 10th amendment sets up the hierarchy: Federal, then State, then Local or personal. Laws can come and go on each level at any time. But each level is subject to the laws above it. It doesn't matter if a right was left to the States or not. Once there is a Federal law governing it, the States no longer have that right"
That is exactly the opposite of what the 10th amendment means. - Njon, on 02/24/2009, -9/+21The Civil War 'put this question to rest' by an illegitimate invasion of the southern states that killed 600,000 Americans. That's the statist authoritarian's motto: "If you can't win using the law, just launch a mass murder and call it 'saving the Union.'"
- maz2331, on 02/24/2009, -0/+12The 10th Amendment modifies that a bit - since all laws (otherwise equal) are judged chronologically.
For example, the original text allowed slavery, and the 13th Amendment abolished it. The 14th changed some of the soveriegenty to the extent that (in theory) the Bill of Rights was also binding upon the states. - ZenMojo, on 02/24/2009, -12/+23You mean the taxes that Arizona gets more of in handouts than it actually provides in revenue?
Let's not ***** ourselves into thinking that the ones whining the most are the ones shouldering most of the burden. - slickmick, on 02/24/2009, -4/+15Rizmaster --
You're forced to give the DC crooks $100. They offer you $20 of it back. It doesn't mean you're happy with the system if you accept your $20 over getting $0 back. - Grazzit, on 02/24/2009, -3/+14Somehow history has managed to make the civil war into a war on slavery rather then the ultimate trampling of state rights that it was. It's a bad sign that when states are so unhappy they are willing to go it alone they get a gun pointed to their head.
But heck we sure kicked johnny reb's butt, teach those guys to say they want out of our union, we'll just go down there and kick butt. - LogicalWisdom, on 02/24/2009, -18/+29It's times like these that give me hope that all is not lost in the United States of America. The democrats think it's a free for all, and that they can finally ram socialism down our throats. What they haven't anticipated is how quickly and possibly violently this will backfire on them. Big change is coming, however it's not the wealth redistributed utopia they've been reaching for.
- silentboom, on 02/24/2009, -2/+13This has nothing to do with Republicon \ Democrap. This is about restoring a Constitutional Republic. Is everyone this dumb?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 413 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is