Posted on 10/15/2013 3:01:57 AM PDT by IbJensen
We suffer from unlimited power consolidated in Wash, DC.
The 17th amendment enabled the consolidation.
From a vanity post last February:
The 17th Amendment did not simply mean the people vote for members to both houses of Congress. It meant member State republics no longer shared in the larger government. The States lost the single structural weapon to limit the national government to enumerated powers and keep it out of their local matters. For practical purposes the 10th Amendment no longer exists. As feared by the Federalists over two hundred years ago, without State participation, a national government would inevitably expand, become despotic, oppressive and soon snuff out our freedoms.
Consider this warning from James Madison. At the Virginia ratification convention on June 6th 1788, he responded to Patrick Henry’s charge that the Constitution’s enumerated powers would be usurped and our freedoms destroyed by a national government that would quickly seize all power.
Madison: “If the general government were wholly independent of the governments of the particular states, then, indeed, usurpation might be expected to the fullest extent. But, sir, on whom does this general government depend? It derives its authority from these governments, and from the same sources from which their authority is derived.”
Until the 17th is repealed and federalism is restored, everything else we can do is a waste of time.
Impeachment but never convicted. The senate will never vote for it no matter what he does.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3079399/posts
> Having hammered out a deal to shoot back to the Senate tonight — with most Republicans reportedly on board... Then the medical device tax delay was stripped out, and the “full Vitter Amendment” (no special treatment under Obamacare for Congress, staffers, and White House officials) was inserted in... opposed to stalling or repealing the tax as part of this deal... The delay would look like another favor to big business rather than the little guy... would take the issue off the table as a Democrat-dividing maneuver for future negotiations...
“He’s been pretty clear: He wants the House to defund Obamacare.”
What I thought. But I disagree with refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless Obamacare is defunded. Why?
Because first, the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling could be a real blow to the economy. Obamacare is a terrible idea, but the people haven’t fully realized it yet, because it is just now going into effect. In a year or two, people will know all too well what a disaster it is, and we can repeal it, and the Dems will be buried as the party that brought the disaster called Obamacare. But if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, and there is an economic disaster, people are going to forget about Obamacare and could well blame the economic disaster on the Tea Party. This could lead to a solid congressional majority for the Dems in 2014 and give Obama everything he wants.
What I thought. But I disagree with refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless Obamacare is defunded. Why?
Because he’s playing the game the Dems normally play. Hold the government up until he gets what he wants. He wants Obamacare defunded and will do anything in his power - use the debt ceiling for example - to accomplish that goal.
You can disagree with his reasons and methods but what he’s been aiming to do has been crystal clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.