Posted on 08/19/2010 4:46:30 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
Endless litigation would obliterate any gains from such action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA
How I'd love to see the same video come across on TV but this time cleverly dealing with the "feral government." The liberal stance is idiotic and easily ridiculed, yet for some reason, since Reagan few have come close to his brilliant capitalization of their stupidity which makes them sitting ducks on the issues.
One reason for Reagan's consistently effective surgical strikes on the liberals is he was not impressed by them and knew exactly what they were about. Sad to say, few have his affability, understanding, and determination to cleverly defeat these "intellectual" ignoramuses.
That money amounts to nothing more than extortion. Again, the best defense, bite the bullet and ignore it.
No argument here. Historically, some of the states and even local jurisdictions were pretty heavy handed when laying down state and local law. As an aside, and I don't know but I can just hear it now, howls from citizens within offending states for the federales to DO something. Maybe not. But in any case enter the federales stage left with the old carrot and stick chicanery and we were off the the races. All made possible by, amongst other devices, the income tax.
Put aside the incessant meddling from the feral government and the theory of course was that the individual states would prosper or flounder depending upon how they handled their citizens' business. Born out to some extent even today, no?
Excellent!
Simple, yes. Likely to happen in our lifetimes; no.
I had not seen that clip before. What’s the word I’m looking for — intriguing, maybe???
According to Fox's judicial analyst, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Ohaha's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments.
Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
=============================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
Of course the difference was that the film was about an external enemy – the Soviet Union. I wish this same film could be redone to deal America’s enemy within starting with the impostor occupying the White House itself.
Whoa - that is a startling statement. Could it be said that America right now is under the occupation of an enemy?
Yeah, I was very much around then; in fact helped put RR in office. He had the uncanny ability to reinstill(if that’s a word) pride in America that few before or after have been able or even willing to attempt. I like your idea BTW. Would that I had the talent to have a go at it. Would a snake work better for the enemy within???
Maybe rogue, even. It's criminal and acting on its own without regard to the Constitution, not make-up. It is, however, feral.
Maybe rogue, even. It's criminal and acting on its own without regard to the Constitution, not make-up. It is, however, feral.
Oh I dunno. Maybe we can make rouge work, that is, since they don't feel constrained by our Constitution, it's government they "make up" as they go along??? Yeah well, it's the best I could do on short notice. ;^)
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.