Posted on 09/19/2003 10:05:29 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
Perhaps you could inform us who stated that?
Under this system, the federal government would act as the agent of the States and its powers would relate to mutual relations between the States and external or foreign affairs.
That was the original intent. Contrary to the Hamiltonians and other king worshippers around here, the union was voluntary
No. It doesn't. Our right to keep a bear arms, among other rights, is inalienable. No government has the "right" to violate them.
That, however, does not mean that the protections included in the BORs applies to state governments as the U.S. Constitution did not form the state governments. The proper location for BOR-like protections which apply to the states would be within the various constitutions of the states.
That is how the Founding Fathers intended things to be. That is NOT how things are practiced today.
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
The National Government has enumerated powers that extend as Federal over the States as well as NATIONAL over the individual. Those powers are enumerated and few, but just the same plenary and supreme with regard to the States & the individual.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Your point is?
Under this system, the federal government would act as the agent of the States and its powers would relate to mutual relations between the States and external or foreign affairs.
Merely the invalid conclusion of the Author.
That was the original intent.
Of the anti Constitionalists, i.e. those supporting the Articles of Confederation as their target. Not the Constitution of Madison.
Contrary to the Hamiltonians and other king worshippers around here,
Intersting how some devolve to name calling when presented with evidence contrary to their fantasies. Tell us how you ever expect to make changes when you refuse to recognize you true current condition.
You can't even propose amendment to the Constitution to change that which you do not like, for you fail to recognize the authority of the Constitution and it's Articles to achieve that.
the union was voluntary
Right up until the people of the United States ratified the Constitution making it the Supreme Law of the Land replacing the Articles of Confederation you would like in place.
You want the Union to be voluntary? Enact & ratify an amendment to achieve that end. That is the method provided for by the People of the United States in the Constitution to make such changes.
You don't like the tax system in the Country, amend the Constitution to remove the powers of Congress you object to.
You don't like the Commerce Clause?, amend the Constitution to repeal that enumerated power of Congress.
You don't like the power to borrow, and create fiat dollars, amend the Constitution to repeal the enumerated power of Congress.
You don't like ... ??
It's all up to you the voter/juror and potential candidate for office and the 1st, 9th, & 10th Amendments and Article V of the Constitution.
Get busy you're falling further behind each day you fail to address the real problem; that of the majority of American people who don't care enough about liberty and want their security instead.
The parts of the 14th amendment that refer to "persons" - that is, the due-process and equal-protection clauses - protect everyone who comes within the reach of any state, even illegal immigrants.
No, again, it doesn't. As I completely, 100%, unashamedly, wholeheartedly, and angrily disagree with the way things are being practiced today. The Constitution has been shredded and trampled underfoot for so long that it is nearly unrecognizable. Additionally, our inalienable rights are being violated without hesitation, at every turn by federal, state, and county governments. Sigh...
Few residents of the 50 states are aware of, let alone understand this fundamental Constitutional principle. Most Americans today consider themselves RESIDENTS of a state, but CITIZENS of the United States — and neither the states nor the feds do anything to disabuse the people of this false notion. This, of course, is due to a long-standing failure to responsibly and accurately teach the Constitution and Constitutional history in our schools. I don't know the remedy for it at this stage in our history.
Not true, Congress was obligated to be involved.
The Florida legislature had those rights, but it had made it's choice on how the electors were to be selected. That failed, and there is nothing that automatically gives them the right to change their minds afterwards, unless they had clarified the matter before hand that if the election was a failure, they reserved the right to select delegates by some other means. If they did, then they should have. As for the Florida courts, they had a role to play, but it was only as an umpire to legitimately count readable votes, or as a judge to disqualify votes that could be proved to be gotten under some illegal circumstance. They had no legal option to recreate the counting system, or to tamper with the election results. Since merely recounting those lame chad things tampers with the count, they actually had no right to even consider doing that. The election failed. Period. Now, the ball had to go to the House, and the House, by meams of the Constitition, had the right to do what it wanted to do. It could have called the election for either party, it could have accepted a panel of delegates from the Florida legislature even if the legislature had been dumb enough to give away that right. But no one else had that right, either implicitly or constructively.
unless, again, the Florida legislature had given itself the right before the election in the case that the election failed. But that would be a situation that could be challenged in the courts anyways, as it is the responsibility of the government to see that the elections are valid, fair and interpretable. Florida's results were not, and any state that uses a voting system with a 2 or 3 percent margin error is in the same boat. I note that the new touch screen systems have a higher degree of error than those crappy chad systems, yet many states are switching over to them in a hurry. Something stinks, and we both assuredly know what it is, even if only one of us would ever admit it. It laid down the rules as to how votes were to be counted and the FSC UNconstitutionally stuck its snout into the mess which the USSC removed by returning the authority to the rules constitutionally laid down by the Florida legislature.
Utter crap. there is only one way to count votes, and a first grader could tell you. Where the elections results are tighter then the mechanical margins of error, there is no election, only a fraud, a sham of one, and a disgrace to our way of life. That we can send a man to the moon and yet not get a countable and accurate vote is a joke of the worst sort.
re NEVER was a problem in the first place until the RATS ginned up one. The same EXACT method of voting has been used FOR YEARS up here in RAT central, Cook County. Funny that OUR error rate was HIGHER than that of Florida yet no challenges were ever raised. WONDER WHY? </>
Good point. As a nation we have come to accept bullshit as a standard.
There is no question who won the state. EVERY SINGLE COUNT SHOWED BUSH THE WINNER. Only the terminally gullible, corrupt RATS or the utterly uninformed thought there was a problem there.
A patent falsehood. The machines can't produce an accurate result close enough to determine who won that election, and never will be able to. Floridians should be out with tar and feathers, but they don't care, and so one of our greatest traditions and principles sinks into the mud to never be seen again.
In no way did the government of Florida abrogate its responsibility. In fact, the controversy resulted from the RAT'S desire to PREVENT the governments rules from being followed.
NO, the govenrment of Florida had the responsibility ot hold a valid election. It did not, and the voters and the nation were ripped off, whether or not the winner was bush or gore. It's like marrying a virgin and having every guy in town come to give her a Fremch kiss at the wedding.
It is true that Congress could have gotten involved had the USSC not properly settled it but that was not necessary since the STATE had already certified the results as it was bound to do BY LAW.
If htat legal obligaition was valid, then so was the legal obligation to insure a clear and valid election process. You can't call it just for the things you want and not for the thinks you don't like, or we live in farce.
On the contrary, the election proved that the were no authorities in Tallahassee competent to handle an election that close. Period. History will mark this as a truth.
That means no electors have been chosed from Florida. What would have been Congress' option then? Nothing in the Constitution gives them the power to substitute their own electors.
There are the legal precedents from Hayes/Tilden wherin Congress sattled the matter by appointing a committee.
Nothing in the Constitution gives them the power to substitute their own electors. The bottom line to me is that the Florida legislature had a procedure in place to determine how to choose the electors, and Florida's supreme court appeared to substitute their own rules as to how to proceed.
FLorida did have a procedure, but it clearly failed. Florida did not hold a determinable election, hence it will never be known who won the election in the state of Florida. Congress though had legal precedents to settle the matter, the courts did not. The concept of a fair and determinable election far outweighs any party nonsense from either side.
SOmeday, parhaps the people of Florida should look into what it takes to run a legitimate election. I won't hold my breath until then though.
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.