It's the old rotten apple in the barrel trick.
People are foreseeing the depth to which the rot will go.
Posted on 02/23/2009 3:12:13 AM PST by Scanian
State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.
In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas -- have passed resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: “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."
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
That would be incorrect. It passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives last week 83Y to 13N. It was discussed Here and can also be found on the Oklahoma House of Representatives website.
A complete list of states who have introduced sovereignty issues or are planning to introduce sovereignty issues can be found Here.
On the other hand, since the states that don’t need help that much are nonetheless fully on the hook to bail out the Idiot States, I can understand their trying to get something out of the deal.
Those last four words are the liberals' weasel words. On the basis of them, they think the Congress has license to do anything (even though, if that was the original intent, it renders the entire amendment meaningless).
State governors — looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan — are saying they will refuse to take the money.
Gov. Perry of Texas has written Obama and stated he will accept the money with reservations about using the portion designed to force states to incur future funding once the stimulus money has been used....
The Gov’s letter: http://blogs.chron.com/newswatch/2009/02/read_gov_perrys_letter_about_e.html
From the Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6268076.html
.......
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, who Tuesday suggested Texas should say “no thanks” to some of its share of stimulus funding if it comes with costly strings, Wednesday notified President Barack Obama that the state will accept the money.
Perry emphasized, however, that he remains opposed to using the estimated $16.9 billion to expand existing government programs, “burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up.”
The Republican governor’s spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said Perry hasn’t changed his view of the stimulus funding but is simply responding to a requirement in the package for states to get money.
“This is the beginning of the process of accepting the money,” Castle said.
She said that Perry’s staff is still going through the package “line by line to determine what is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers.”
If Perry finds there is stimulus funding that only could be spent in a way that would create a burden to the state after the federal money is gone, she said, “He would be opposed to using those funds.”
.....
Washington and Michigan are in that group? Thats difficult to believe.
not the states I’d expected to see .. WA/CA/AZ/NH?
Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s Action
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807
Excerpt:
State governors — looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan — are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.
In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states — Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas — have passed resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: “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.”
FULL article HERE:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807
- - - - - - - -
Ping! Ping! Ping!
These threads seem to be overstating what has actually been passed.
Most of these are either bills that have been merely ‘introduced’ along with UFO bills and impeachment bills that go into committee and go nowhere, or they are ‘resolutions’ which have no effect, no teeth, and no use.
Not to mention that the 9th and 10th Amendments were essentially muted at Appomattox in 1865.
What am I missing here?
I know I am repeating myself. It is my sincere contention that one must first understand Article 1. Section. 1. of the Constitution to appreciate the meaning of the 10th amendment. I also contend that many do not understand why “We the people” established a central government with very limited powers.
Determining what is and what is not constitutional is reasonably simple. Article 1, Section 1. of the United States Constitution provides the answer.
Article. 1. Section. 1. of the United States Constitution :
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Congress can only write legislation concerning issues within their herein granted constitutional powers.
Article. 1. Section. 8. list their herein granted powers.
The important point is that Congress has only these powers and no others. A power not herein granted does not exist. In other words, if the Constitution does not say Congress can then Congress can’t. This is worth reviewing because some citizens and even some representative believe that if the Constitution doesn’t say Congress can’t then they can. They are mistaken.
This mistaken belief may have its roots in the Bill of Rights, which prohibits government legislation in specific areas. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the citizen. The Bill of Rights recognizes certain citizen rights as inherent and protects these inherent rights from government legislative interference. In this instance, the Constitution does tell Congress what they cannot do.
An understanding of Article. 1. Section. 1. provides a proper appreciation for the reason and meaning of the 10th Amendment.
That the blowback needs to start somewhere? How many knock down-drag outs have you ever noticed starting from a dead calm? Rarely I suspect. It almost always starts with an exchange of -- words. Do you think these actions by the states should be encouraged, discouraged, or should the states call up their militias and declare war against the feral government?
Good article. Thanks Meek!
Ok. What do you want to mean by saying "a state?"
For "a state" to "call up their militias*", you'd have to have a legislature with enough popular support to do so. And so Missouri and New Hampshire is listed? Michigan and California? Puhlease!
You must be joking!
I certainly agree with you that " the blowback needs to start somewhere."
That is absolutely true.
And guess what! If there's not even a single popular voice in the political arena leading the revolt, then there's not going to be an armed revolt! See?!
I'm asking where is the Tom Paine? Where's the Sam Adams? Where is Thomas Jefferson rallying public opinion for certain individual liberties!?!
There's NONE. I'm eager to hear! Limbaugh has an audience, and he keeps them satiated daily so that they can listen, and then go about their day feeling like they got something off their chest. Jindal? Barbour? Steele? Hunter? Huckbee? Seriously! There's no Ronald Reagan II anywhere here. And until a leader like that emerges in the political arena and actually does something more than eunuchs burying neutered bills into dead end committees...then there is no such thing as armed rebellion, and furthermore, if you try to do it before the country is really ready, you'll end up roasted like they were at Waco.
We lost our country when North and South accepted the iron fist of the Federal Governt. We aren't trying to save Geo Washington's Republic. We are trying to overturn the Soviet States Bureacracy of FDR and LBJ. And that is not a "torch and pitchfork" affair.
There’s going to be a Civil War here, as sure as I’m typing this post if things keep going the way the have been the past month or so.
Har! Doncha know he would become an immediate media darling and his personal charisma, charm and gravitas would be displayed on and in every media source in the free, and not so free world. His every utterence would cause even the most jaded of journalists to swoon in the aura of his incomparable oratory and transcendent radiance. Their unmitigated delight in the emergence of such a being would create in their realm an inexplicable but intractable case of the vapors. -- Oh wait...
Seriously, think about who you know, hard core fire breathing Constitutionalists with a modicum of national prominence, who don't get dissed mercilessly here on this very forum? And you want a movie star?
This ain't no left/right thing, is it?
Again, are you kidding? I have said since 2006 that even Ronald Reagan could not get elected in today's climate...not least because the "conservative purists" would knife him in the back for signing Amnesty, or cutting and running from Lebanon, or allowing 12 million abortions during his 8 years, or for installing a NWO liberal as his successor, etc etc etc.
My point to you is that when you recognize that we're too fractured to even unite behind a political leader like Reagan today, if one even existed (I don't think one does)...it's obvious that there's not going to be any uniting behind some rebel leader who's going to ask for real blood and sacrifice.
And trying to get it started too early will get a smallish confrontation like Waco which will usher in sentiment to abolish the rest of the BOR for the "public good."
That's all!
Nothing will come of this. This will end up being a civil rights issue.
States refusing these federal funds threaten the rights of minorities’ life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. /s
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.